View Full Version : The Official AVP Review Thread
headbussa
08-13-2004, 01:29 PM
I know a whole bunch of you are gonna go out and see the movie so plz use this thread to post all your reviews of the movie to help some of the others that are unsure on whether they should go out and see it or not, to make up their mind.
kirkg
08-13-2004, 02:37 PM
I think it's retarded as hell they made this movie PG-13 so that they could make money on that precious demo when the movie is violent as hell. This is the first time an Alien OR Predator movie hasn't been rated R... I fucking hate the movie industry!!!!!!!!
Gene Starwind
08-13-2004, 02:41 PM
I think it's retarded as hell they made this movie PG-13 so that they could make money on that precious demo when the movie is violent as hell. This is the first time an Alien OR Predator movie hasn't been rated R... I fucking hate the movie industry!!!!!!!!
Ok? So it's going to be a bad movie because people aren't spouting out fuck everywhere? There's plenty of blood from what I've seen, just not human blood, since there's only a limited amout of humans.
Predator better win, that's all I'm saying.
All-Night John
08-13-2004, 03:22 PM
Reviews are bad: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/alien_vs_predator/. Read one review in which the guy simply bashed the PG-13 rating, saying it completely kills the flick.
Wondering why there's only 12 reviews? They didn't do a media screening, claiming that Anderson was going to be working on the film up until the last minute. Of course, everyone knows the only time media screenings aren't done is when the movie is simply terrible.
I'll be off to see the movie in a couple of hours. I'll let you know what I think. And hopefully I won't have to duck out early for work.
kirbyguy
08-13-2004, 09:40 PM
I was thinking about seeing it just for the heck of it, but I probably won't be anymore, due to the many bad reviews it's been getting.
I am still shocked at the PG-13 rating. Along with AVP receiving it, another horror/action movie that you would think would get an R rating, has gotten it. "Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid" also got the PG-13 rating. I guess the movie industry gave up on making stupid horror movies R, and went with the PG-13 rating to attract the younger, more easily-entertained crowd.
MusicFan
08-13-2004, 09:46 PM
Violence does not make a movie, that's why the last two Aliens sucked. I really could care less about the violence, just as long as the film is good.
Let's see what the critics are saying about AVP.
"Who is the big winner in Alien Vs. Predator? Everyone who avoids going to see the film."
-- Willie Waffle, WAFFLEMOVIES.COM
"Alien Vs. Predator isn’t the worst movie of 2004, but it is the most blatant exploit of a franchise, and that maybe that is worse."
-- Joshua Tyler, CINEMABLEND.COM
"'Whoever Wins...We Lose!' Thank you, Fox, for the truth in your advertising."
-- Collin Souter, EFILMCRITIC.COM
"Boring vs. Stupid might have been a better name, because I’m not sure which adjective is the more fitting to this nonsense."
-- Mervius, FANTASTICA DAILY
All-Night John
08-14-2004, 07:40 AM
Well, it wasn't pretty. First off, yes, the PG-13 rating really held the movie down. Really. Far too many cut-aways before kills. And you know the signature Alien chest burst? You only get a split second of one. Sad. It really just made the film weak, and wattered down the whole experience. And does anyone know the actual limit for swears to garner a PG-13 rating? I know "shit" can be said quite a few times (it's only said a couple times here), but I don't know about "fuck". The say "fuck" once, but later the cut away/edit out with noise someone saying it. Just seemed bizarre. Then again, it's not that bizarre.
Of course, as expected, there's far too much emphasis on the humans. The film takes a good 40 minutes to actually get to the Aliens and Predators. And the humans are intensely cheap and useless characters, too. If only the writers had realized what the movie should have been about. The least they could've done was offed them gruesemly, but, of course, the rating wouldn't allow that.
Really, the blame goes to the writers. Lots of plot holes, useless characters, and, simply put, the movie gets rather silly towards the end. They really bitch-out the Predators, which is sad.
The brief shining moments are the fights. Anderson did a great job. If you forget all the crap that is the rest of the movie, it's fun to get lost in the coolness of a Predator fighting an Alien. Of course, there should've been more fighting between the baddies and less humans, but I've already griped about that. They're good fights, and I suppose I didn't expect much more from the flick.
MalcolmBrass
08-14-2004, 10:24 AM
For a movie that is less than 90 minutes long, it takes 40 minutes to get to the aliens?!
EmpyII
08-15-2004, 08:02 AM
Wow nice review All-Night John. Yeah when I heard that they didn't allow reviews before the opening that kinda told me there is no hope here. 40 minutes till you get to the action? sheesh. Well thanks between your review and a few others I think I'll pass on seeing this one in the theatre. Thanks for saving me $10 bro :)
Duality
08-15-2004, 10:41 AM
I've actually been reading surprisingly positive feedback from friends on another forum, so I'm still going to give it a shot, knowing that I may walk out weeping like a hollowed shell of a man.
Digital*Firefly
08-15-2004, 10:45 AM
I'm gonna wait for the DVD.
All-Night John
08-15-2004, 11:39 AM
If the big things don't get you, the little things will. Case in point: The movie takes place in Antarctica. All of the characters stand outside with wind visibly whipping around, and yet none of them have any face protection. Their faces should've been falling off.
And you know that shot from the trailers of the Predators fighting all those Aliens on top of the pyramid? That's about the entire scene in the trailer, right there. Along with that ***minor spoilers***
that scene is a flashback. The Predators set off one of their bombs, killing off all the Aliens and the entire ancient human race. Yet in the movie, the humans discover the entire story written in hieroglyphics in the pyramid. Who the fuck wrote the glyphs? Everyone was killed. It is just inexcusalbe.
At one point in the movie, a Predator makes the surviving human a makeshift shield and spear from a dead Alien? Sounds cool? It sort of is. At least, the spear is. It's made from the Alien's tale. But the shield asks you to forget everything you know about Aliens. You see, they use the Alien's head. Basically, the woman puts it on her arm. The fuck? What happened to all the acid blood we all know about? Why isn't her arm burning to shit at that moment? Pathetic.
Towards the end, there was one moment where, I swear to God, I thought the Predator and the woman were going to kiss. I almost started to cry, it was just that lame. They might've well have just been holding hands for the last half an hour.
***end minor spoilers***
And that's just some of the minor stuff. Even if you check your brain at the door, you can't get past all the crap. Biggest laugh I had during the movie? Well, it had to be we the Alien Queen became the T-Rex from Jurassic Park. I shit you not. I expected Jeff Goldblum to shout out, "Drive faster!".
zell58
08-15-2004, 11:42 AM
i might just have to waste $10 to see how bad this movie really is :( such a shame
DarkKnightCecil
08-16-2004, 02:11 AM
And anybody that complains about the PG-13 rating needs to fucking die. It reminds me of mainstream gaming. Yea, it was stupid to have a PG-13 rating, but seriously, the rating doesnt make the movie, dumbasses.
The rating doesn't make the movie eh? Yes it does. Prove it? Please allow me to.
The main problems were the fact that it had atleast 5 or 6 huge plotholes, the movie was WAY TOO FUCKING SHORT, which left little room for character development, and had about only 15 FUCKING MINUTES OF AVP ACTION.
The reason why the movie was so short? Because after they shot it they had to trim it to get the PG-13 rating. Hence, all the blood and AVP action is trimmed short to achieve this precious rating.
You want character devolpment? This doesn't fall under the rating but rather the studio. Plotholes as well. With them speeding up the pace of the movie, they wanted to cut out all the "unneccessary" character development to focus more on the action. Therefore, with everything happening so fast no one realizes that none of it makes sense. Its a trick studios do quite often. Sometimes it works, or in cases like this, it doesn't.
The writers and the length of the movie killed it. They should have had professionals direct it. After all, Anderson did direct the Resident Evil movies and Mortal Kombat. Need I say more?
I happen to like MK and was a huge fan of Resident Evil. Paul WS Anderson had less creative control over this that he did with those two products...you want to blame someone, blame the editors. As for the length, well, you read my comments on that above.
When the unrated DVD comes out, it is supposed to be 36 minutes longer. This should fill in (hopefully) all the plot holes and be the version that was intended. I'm not saying this was a bad movie, its just not the finished product. The real version has yet to be seen.
The PG-13 rating also prevented fans from seeing a moment that would have gone down in cinematic history...when the alien grabs a predator, looks him right in the face and uses his secondary jaw set to bust through the predator's head. Instead all we see if the mouth come out and a splash of blood on the ground...the same as we did with 90% of the deaths in the movie.
Because of the rating this was every death scene:
Human screaming
Predator or Alien attacking
Crunching, slicing, or gugling sound
Slight splash of blood off to the side
Even the chestburter sequences were so fast, if you never saw an Alien movie before you would have no idea what just happened.
Lame.
So I should die should I?
How about another thought for you? The rating doesn't make the movie? How about a PG-13 Saving Private Ryan? Or maybe you'd like to sit down and watch a PG-13 Exorcist or even Gladiator. Yep, those darn ratings don't mean a thing.
All-Night John
08-16-2004, 06:54 AM
But explain this to me: Why did they rate it PG-13? Was it production costs? Well?
It was PG-13 because they knew it sucked. By lowering the rating, you open the audience range, and up the chance for a better box office take.
Why'd you lower your rating from the 7.5 you gave it in the other forums to 6.5?
Another reason why the movie was terrible: Matrix Facehuggers.
Duality
08-16-2004, 09:04 PM
When the unrated DVD comes out, it is supposed to be 36 minutes longer. This should fill in (hopefully) all the plot holes and be the version that was intended. I'm not saying this was a bad movie, its just not the finished product. The real version has yet to be seen.
Is this a certain release? I really hope so.
Also, AvP netted $38m this weekend. For a sci-fi action film that cost a meager $60m to produce, you can guarantee that there will be a sequel. There's almost certainty that it will make $100m worldwide, and that's not even figuring DVD/rental costs; especially if there is an Unrated version. Hopefully that sequel will take place further in the future (maybe even tying into the comics/games).
Paul WS Anderson's getting unfairly hammered on this one, I'm beginning to see. A lot of the reviews I'm reading are apparently influenced that they didn't get to see a pre-release. They should not be giving negative reviews based on that.
MusicFan
08-16-2004, 09:35 PM
Is this a certain release? I really hope so.
Also, AvP netted $38m this weekend. For a sci-fi action film that cost a meager $60m to produce, you can guarantee that there will be a sequel. There's almost certainty that it will make $100m worldwide, and that's not even figuring DVD/rental costs; especially if there is an Unrated version. Hopefully that sequel will take place further in the future (maybe even tying into the comics/games).
Paul WS Anderson's getting unfairly hammered on this one, I'm beginning to see. A lot of the reviews I'm reading are apparently influenced that they didn't get to see a pre-release. They should not be giving negative reviews based on that.Unfairly hammered? Paul WS Anderson's track record is nothing too great. Now, The Chronicles Of Riddick is an entirely different story, if you don't know pretty much everything about the mythology you are lost when you see that film. I'm guessing pretty much every single reviewer was lost. The director's cut of TCOR is around 67 minutes longer, whilst an AVP one wouldn't be that long. Bottom Line: TCOR>AVP
EDIT: They didn't have to resubmit AVP to get a PG-13 rating, so it is likely that what ended up the screen was how the film was intended to be.
All-Night John
08-17-2004, 08:44 AM
I've yet to see PWSA unfairly hammered. Could you provide some links?
And I wonder how much that box office take was helped by the lack of a critics' screening.
Duality
08-17-2004, 06:24 PM
Unfairly hammered? Paul WS Anderson's track record is nothing too great.
Why not? Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil did exactly what they were set out to do -- to create an entertaining popcorn flick where the audience can just turn their brains off and watch.
I mean, sure, there were problems with Soldier. But a person can make mistakes.
The director's cut of TCOR is around 67 minutes longer, whilst an AVP one wouldn't be that long. Bottom Line: TCOR>AVP
Eh? The Chronicles of Riddick is better because the amount of stuff that was removed is greater?
I fail to see what difference that makes. From what I'm told, there is absolutely no exposition of the Alien and Predator. Not that it was just cut out, but it wasn't put in there to begin with. A person who goes to see AvP is expected to know the history of the Alien and Predator. Which is an inherent problem. Much of the audience coming to see this movie (PG-13 crowd) aren't old enough to really know the Alien or Predator. The last (good) Alien film was in 1986, 1990 for Predator.
MusicFan
08-17-2004, 07:39 PM
Why not? Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil did exactly what they were set out to do -- to create an entertaining popcorn flick where the audience can just turn their brains off and watch.I am unable to enjoy films that aren't intelligent.
Eh? The Chronicles of Riddick is better because the amount of stuff that was removed is greater?I'm just trying to get people to pre-order the dvd, which will come in three versions.
Duality
08-17-2004, 07:48 PM
I am unable to enjoy films that aren't intelligent.
Go ruin someone else's Christmas, then. :)
DarkKnightCecil
08-19-2004, 12:15 AM
But explain this to me: Why did they rate it PG-13? Was it production costs? Well?
It was PG-13 because they knew it sucked. By lowering the rating, you open the audience range, and up the chance for a better box office take.
Nope. The film was shot with the intention of being R rated but the director of marketing wanted to lower the rating to appeal to all the "kids" that would be seeing this. The imbecile was under the impression that this was based of the video games (also rated Mature, hence deflating his argument)...makes me wonder if he realizes there was 5 movies, countless comic books and novels that the information was pulled from. If it was based on the games, where are the marines?
Preceded by “Alien vs. Predator” video games, the movie drew a largely male audience, most younger than 25. To broaden its appeal, 20th Century Fox brought the movie in at a PG-13 rating, though the previous four “Alien” films and two “Predator” flicks had hard R ratings for violence.
“I don’t think it’s a cop-out at all,” said Bruce Snyder, the studio’s head of distribution. “This is based on a video game that did have a bit of a younger audience. There’s a lot of action and violence, but most of it is creature to creature rather than creature to people.”
Face it, the new hollywood motif is to release everything PG-13 to increase the potential ticket sales and then "fix it" in DVD with the unrated or R version. Also, if they knew they were shooting for a PG13 rating, it isn't impossible to think that the first time they turned the movie into the ratings board they got the rating they wanted.
There was a time when a director made a movie and that was the film that was released in the theater. Now so many hands are in the till its amazing good movies still are able to be made.
You know what else disgusts me about the PG13 rating? Chronicles of Riddick. Now, I love Vin Disel and both Pitch Black and CoR were badass...but here is my problem. Riddick is evil...a villian, a killer, a bad ass son of a bitch. So by making CoR PG13 they want to an evil character appeal to children? Does that not go against everything that the ratings system is there for?
Why not? Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil did exactly what they were set out to do -- to create an entertaining popcorn flick where the audience can just turn their brains off and watch.
I mean, sure, there were problems with Soldier. But a person can make mistakes.
bingo
Eh? The Chronicles of Riddick is better because the amount of stuff that was removed is greater?
I fail to see what difference that makes. From what I'm told, there is absolutely no exposition of the Alien and Predator. Not that it was just cut out, but it wasn't put in there to begin with. A person who goes to see AvP is expected to know the history of the Alien and Predator. Which is an inherent problem. Much of the audience coming to see this movie (PG-13 crowd) aren't old enough to really know the Alien or Predator. The last (good) Alien film was in 1986, 1990 for Predator.
With the 87 minute limit, there was no time for backstory, outside of the short story with the Predators as "gods" and the Aliens as "demons". With the current specs for the DVD being 36 minutes longer, maybe we'll get some more backstory along with the uncut violence...and it wouldn't hurt if they had the Predators string up the humans without their skin for crying out loud!
MusicFan
08-19-2004, 12:18 AM
You know what else disgusts me about the PG13 rating? Chronicles of Riddick. Now, I love Vin Disel and both Pitch Black and CoR were badass...but here is my problem. Riddick is evil...a villian, a killer, a bad ass son of a bitch. So by making CoR PG13 they want to an evil character appeal to children? Does that not go against everything that the ratings system is there for?The director's cut is either R or unrated. TCoR was originally rated R then re-rated PG-13. Diesel said the next two Riddick films will be definite R.
All-Night John
08-19-2004, 07:04 AM
Nope. The film was shot with the intention of being R rated but the director of marketing wanted to lower the rating to appeal to all the "kids" that would be seeing this.
It's nice that you buy that excuse.
Duality
08-26-2004, 08:05 PM
Just saw it today.
Fantastic! I absolutely loved every moment of it (yes, even the part where the lady and the Predator were about to share loving embrace).
The only issues I had with the movie were comparatively very minor things. Really having more to do with specific scenes, rather than composition of the film. There are a couple of moments where the woman (who cares about the people's names, am I right?) relied on her compass to get out of the pyramid. Regardless that the direction they were headed was down and in the opposite direction!
The way the xenomorph queen was taken out was a bit of a let-down, as well. I'm going to bank on the idea that she'll be crushed by the pressure of the ocean depths. If an alien can survive in the vacuum of space, then they can certainly deal with the cold of Antarctic ocean temperatures.
Otherwise, absolutely great. Can't wait for an unrated/R DVD and hoping to hell for a sequel.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.