No, the outstanding photography, the subdued mix of practical and chemical FX do make it a visually outstanding movie.
Sigh, seriously dude, keep up, again: It's not bad looking, some parts of the Alien running look outdated, they didn't age well, true. But the rest effects are not bad looking at all, they're gorgeous, cleverly executed with limited tools, in fact, the death scene of the Xeno in Alien 3 is hands down the best Xeno death scene in the entire franchise.
You really can't read can you?
Yet you keep ignoring my questions, so no, google the ****ing thing, it's not difficult.
Yes I have, I have explicitly said what makes Alien 3 a good movie and in fact started with that, this whole stupid debate has been about that.
your quote "Sigh, seriously dude, keep up, again: It's not bad looking, some parts of the Alien running look outdated, they didn't age well, true.
But the rest effects are not bad looking at all, they're gorgeous, cleverly executed with limited tools, in fact, the death scene of the Xeno in Alien 3 is hands down the best Xeno death scene in the entire franchise.
Every movie before and after alien 3 had gorgeous cleverly executed visual effects, with even more limited tools (and budget) (alien, aliens)
The death scene had a poor cg and looked like a video game. Or were you talking about Ripley's death scene because that looked even worse. (poor composition)
your quote "You really can't read can you?"
You want me to answer your question?
Here is your question
"Wtf are you talking about? Who made the autopsy again? Not move the plot? Seriously? "
And here was my answer
" You keep going back to the plot before he died. He did nothing to the plot after he was killed by the alien 3. "
He did do a lot of things before he died (it's a pity because he should have lived at least till the end because he as a character had a great potential) . I was asking you what he did to the plot after he was killed.
your quote "Yet you keep ignoring my questions, so no, google the ****ing thing, it's not difficult. "
Say if you are a lawyer would you ask the defendant to google the ****ing thing by themselves because it is not difficult and you will find evidence there?
This was your quote "I'm agreeing that the critics say it's awful, not saying I agree with the critics themselves, dear lord you're really struggling aren't you? Besides, I have done more to back up the redeeming qualities of the movie, which are not few at all than you trying to highlight the supposedly "bad" parts about it."
Most movies have redeeming qualities.
However because in a lot of places the movie has terrible visual effects,
major plot holes,
killing off a potential solid supporting character and spending most of the time in the first act and than just killing him off with absolutely no further plot device to back his character to go on,
people just disappearing for no reason,
and only having one mood unlike other good movies where people make you laugh cry and be happy,
and having a very flat 1 dimensional character that you could care less about or even be able to identify because of the way they look makes it a average movie.