# AvP getting ripped to pieces



## Krug (Aug 12, 2004)

The early reviews are in.. and they're good. 'Crap', 'hands down terrible', 'avoid like plague' are just some of the descriptions so far. Note: Heavy spoilers!

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18140


----------



## Sorren (Aug 12, 2004)

I'm sure I'll still see it anyway. It can't be as bad as the D&D movie.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 12, 2004)

Sorren said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'll still see it anyway. It can't be as bad as the D&D movie.




That would be nearly impossible.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 12, 2004)

Does this mean I can scratch the movie off my Oscar list for the office pool?

Damn, more paperwork to refigure now.


----------



## buzzard (Aug 12, 2004)

You know I wasn't very optimistic about this flick, but I was thinking of seeing it anyway. However after those reviews I will likely pass on spending money on it. Maybe Netflix in a few months or so. 

buzzard


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Aug 12, 2004)

The best thing I can do is to go into this movie having no expectations whatsoever.  Then, feasibly, I could enjoy it.

I think that this, possibly, may help me go into the movie & see if it's entertaining or not.  Drop the baggage of the previous stuff in the franchise, & just go with what's given.  Sounds like there's some changes to canon from earlier films, but then again, there may be reasons behind them (which could or could not be on the cutting-room floor).


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

I'll be more interested in seeing what the "real" reviewers say tomorrow.  Ain't it Cool News is infamous for belabored rants more than reviews anyway.


----------



## Kesh (Aug 12, 2004)

I don't trust AICN any further than I could throw Harry.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 12, 2004)

Yeah, if there's actually a relationship between a movie and its reviews on AICN, it's too subtle for me to perceive. RottenTomatoes has a better chance of guiding my expectations than Harry's Horde. At least the reviewers on RT appear to have grasped the English language and its use.


----------



## Krug (Aug 13, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'll be more interested in seeing what the "real" reviewers say tomorrow.  Ain't it Cool News is infamous for belabored rants more than reviews anyway.



Maybe, but after watching the AvP clip on Yahoo! and what a crap job Resident Evil is, I really don't have high hopes for the movie. I'll watch it anyway, of course, but Paul WS Anderson... sheesh.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Aug 13, 2004)

I plan on seeing it to make up my own mind tomorrow.

I look at it this way, with no hope, there's no dissappointment.

...and if it's really bad, then I'll just think of it as a comedy.


----------



## Chaos Drake (Aug 13, 2004)

Well a friend who works as a critic for a local newspaper has seen it, and also says it's abysmal. 

Sad thing is... I'll see it anyway.


----------



## 2d6 (Aug 13, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> I don't trust AICN any further than I could throw Harry.




I hate AICN, aside from drek reviews and opinions, reading that site is like reading a HOL "rulebook" without teh funny. 


That aside, I think I'll catch this on video, the trailer and premise aren't doing much for me.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 13, 2004)

I'll be going to it anyways, of course.

And yes, AICN is not a good site to go to for movie opinions.  The only reviewer there whom I actually respect is Moriarty, the rest of them (Harry in particular) almost never give reviews that I agree with.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 13, 2004)

When did we geeks decide that we are owed nothing by the creators of entertainment?

Actually, to hell with that.  When did we, the modern Humanity, decide that it's best to have no expectations?  That not only is it safer to avoid disappointment, but that it is better not to court hope?  Why do we reward those who have failed us in the past by accepting their mediocre talents as all we deserve.

If the best you can muster is to go into Aliens Vs. Predator with no expectations, I say, you should not go.  If you look at a movie that you thought would have potential, but your heart has sunken such that your only consolation is that you don't expect anything from it, I say, you should not go.

You owe it to yourself, and to the grand tradition of art that Humanity has nurtured throughout history, to abide not the ill-crafted offerings that film-makers, television producers, actors, and executives ask us to scavenge from.  There are too many wonders in this world, too many dreams well-realized by struggling artists and hopeful writers, that you should feel any interest in seeing something that cannot elicit an expectant breath, that cannot stir your imagination with possibilities.

When did you decide that film-makers owe you nothing?  There are things you love, things we all love.  Family, friends, movies, shows, food, drink, and dance that we adore, and that we continue to hope will make our world better.

When did you convince yourself that dreams lead only to disappointment?  Cradle your dreams, cherish them, and find a way to give them life.  You will not let yourself down.

Do not waste your time on something you aren't willing to place a stake in.  When did you stop wanting to be entertained?  I know I never did.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 13, 2004)

That's one tall horse you're on, RangerWickett.  Can I ride?


----------



## MulhorandSage (Aug 13, 2004)

I loved the first two Alien movies. I don't want to see them sullied.

Unless I hear good word of mouth from people I trust, I'm staying home.


----------



## ddvmor (Aug 13, 2004)

Orange Wednesday.  2 tickets for the price of one.  Doesn't really matter if it's crap at that price!  Anyway, it's character building to see a crappy movie once in a while.  It makes you appreciate the good stuff even more!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 13, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> When did we geeks decide that we are owed nothing by the creators of entertainment?



When we became so opinionated that even if Star Wars: A New Hope were to be released in the modern day as a movie we had never seen, it would fail. When the fans started taking themselves so seriously that they expected that their ideas would be the ones made into the sequels and then they had the audacity to be offended when the moviemakers made something different. When unrealistic expectations collide with the reality of script writing, acting ability, and the limitations of special effects. Maybe it was when the realization finally hit us that as moviegoers, we aren't really entitled to anything but the right to watch what is put on the screen for us. But for many of us, that is enough for an enjoyable evening.


----------



## Zulithe (Aug 13, 2004)

Generally I've been in agreenace with the reviews at AICN so I believe it will be crap. I already figured it would be, but this pretty much etched it in stone.

 I'll see it when it hits Netflix, but not in theatres (though me and some friends discussed going to see it; time to change plans!)

 I'm sick of being fed sh*t, especially poorly-done sci-fi sh*t, and refuse to pay ANY MORE MONEY to see these kind of films! The only reason I see some of these movies is simply so noone can tell me "how do you know it's sh*t if you haven't seen it yet?" And you never know when the next episode of Jeapordy will feature movie trivia, so ...


----------



## Mark Chance (Aug 13, 2004)

I've not seen _AvP_. I might go see it. If I have the time and money. But, I might not. It's not a movie I care to take either of my children to, and my wife doesn't want to see it, and I'm not often fond of going to movies alone.

But, all of that aside, since when does every movie have to be a "good" movie? Isn't enough that a movie simply be entertaining? This is _AvP_, after all. It's not some independent film written by a "deep thinker" who took one or two philosophy classes at film school, and has now decided to teach us all of an important "lesson" about the way life really is.

And I thank God for that.

Consider, for example, _Thunderbirds_. According to "real" movie reviewer Ebert, this movie is so bad that its principals owe the world an apology. What folks like Ebert, who sniff arrogantly while typing at their keyboards, forget is that not every movie has to be a "good" movie, and this is especially true with genre schlock like _AvP_ and _Thunderbirds_.

Back to my kids. I took them to see _Thunderbirds_. Both of my children enjoyed the movie. Consequently, so did I. Rather than sitting in my seat, wondering "in the h-e-double-hockey-stick [Bill Paxton and Ben Kingsley] were thinking of when they signed up for _Thunderbirds_," and why couldn't it be more like _A Simple Plan_ or _House of Sand and Fog_, I just watched the movie with my children.

And, amazingly enough, I was able to do something that it seems most movie reviewers - "real" or otherwise - cannot do. I was able to forgot for 94 minutes that I'm supposedly a well-educated adult with a serious job in a serious world, and I actually watched the movie as if I were still a child myself, full of wonder and awe with a deep respect for simple heroes fighting unambiguously villainous villains.

And I thank God for that, too.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Aug 13, 2004)

I just came back from seeing a midnight showing of *AVP* and I must say I was a bit disappointed.

According to credits at the end, I believe Anderson wrote this one himself. Oh man does it show. The entire script is very amateurish. It has the ear marks of someone who learned writing not through writing classes, seminars, writing groups, apprenticeships, etc....but rather learned by just watching other movies.  Canned cookie cutter dialogue we've heard uttered a zillion times as well as exposition dialogue (which every sci-fi/fantasy movie can't avoid - but good writers work in well) that had no effort at all in disguising itself.

I'm usually pretty easy going on plot holes. Unless they're HUGE, I'm kinda forgiving. But "AVP" has a quite a few. As a die-hard fanboy, you may perhaps be able to overlook them, but their presence did hurt the film in my opinion.



Spoiler



Here's an example of bad writing to me . . . the previous films in the franchise already set the standard as to how the Aliens work. To not keep continuity with that is bad. In "AVP", it seems that the face huggers only need like maybe 15-30 minutes to impregnate you (even though it was on Cane for like a day), at least about a day to grow to full size (they do so in "AVP" in what seems like no longer than 30 minutes). There's a lot more example but I don't think there's a need to go through each one.



I think "AVP" is quite possibly Anderson's worst film. In which I thought "Soldier" was original, but I've changed my mind. At least "Soldier" had a sense of solid grounding that his newest film lacked. 

possible spoiler as I talk about fight scenes: 



Spoiler



A few industry insider friends of mine had clued me on some rumors escaping from the set. Most of them had to do with things like:  The suits were made wrong and the actors' movements are very contrained. Thus, they can't move/fight as graceful as the predators in the first two movies. Knowing that, it totally shows. A lot of the filming of the fight scenes was done in such a way that you don't get a wide shot of the predator fighting so you won't be able to criticize how clunky it moves in its suit. The shots are done close , quick, and shakey so to give a sense of speed and stuff. But we all know that trick and it just comes off as confusing cuts that don't give us a sense of what's going on in the fight.




About the setting (little spoiler):



Spoiler



Here's another thing that bugs me: It seems that they might've decided to not make the setting a futuristic colony somewhere on the fringes of human space settlements because it could maybe cost too much to make a big full size colony for the actors to move around on. Okay, I accept budget constraints I suppose. It was probably easier to do wide shots of the temple in miniature. But the thing is this: because the concept of this taking place in modern day needs a ton of shoe horning and explanation . . . the movie practically spends its entire first act doing just that. Trying to convince you why the premise works. Its because the ancient relationships of this, and because it used to be this, and this room is for this, and this is this, and that was because this....blah, blah. To me, it would've been much easier to just put it in a setting that we all 'buy' and thus it will take less set-up and we can move faster into the meat of what we wanna see. Which is Predators and Aliens fighting. Which there isn't enough of.



Okay, there were some cool moments I admit. Very brief moments of "okay...that's pretty cool looking". But they are not enough to make this a better movie. The movie is a 'versus' movie, so one would think that schlock aside, story smory whatever, what needs to be cool is the fights right? Well, they're not all that cool. 

"AVP": not as bad as D&D movie, slightly better than Alien 4, but not as good as Alien 3. Not as entertaining as "Freddie vs. Jason" (even those are two different styles of properties . . . I thought that as bad as "AVP" might end up, I felt deep down that it would be at least funner to watch than "Freddie vs. Jason".  To me, it wasn't really. And I love anything Predator. Even Predator 2.


----------



## JediSoth (Aug 13, 2004)

Darn tootin' RangerWickett and Zulithe. Hollyweird DOES owe us decent movies. After all, were it not for us, the movie-going public, plunking down our hard earned money, NONE of them would have careers, or all the finery the parade in front of us when the try to show us how much better they are than us. It's shame that more of them aren't humbled by the fact that WE are responsible for their success.

 *falls off soapbox*

 Whew, I'm glad I fell off of that. I could go on and on about the money that's paid to vapid actors and barely literate athletes.

 JediSoth


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 13, 2004)

Still haven't seen any "real" critics reviews yet.  For what it's worth, at movies.yahoo.com, where 196 viewers have rated the movie, it's coming in at a solid B-.  So word on the street is hardly the mass panning of the movie that this thread would seem to indicate.

Oh, and Mark Chance, seems you missed the point of Ebert's review, in that there won't be a market for this movie, not that it's so bad it owes anyone an apology.

I like critics, especially Ebert.  I certainly don't always agree with him, but I _know_ him and his taste by now, so I can usually gauge if I will like a movie or not from his review regardless of whether or not he does.  That's the markings of a good review, after all.

EDIT:  Update: now it's 288 ratings with a solid B.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 13, 2004)

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=5956


Someone somewhere mentioned they thought Kramer vs. Kramer was scarier than AVP.  Although I really hope that's not true, that's a damn funny line.


----------



## buzzard (Aug 13, 2004)

The only case in which Hollywood doesn't owe use a good movie, is if the movie is offered for free. Since I tend to be shelling out around $7+ to sit through a film, they damn well owe me something. They owe me $7 worth of entertainment. If they fail to give me satisfaction, I will fail to plunk down my money for their dreck in the future. Any other opinion is either masochistic or delusional. 

buzzard


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 13, 2004)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> What folks like Ebert, who sniff arrogantly while typing at their keyboards, forget is that not every movie has to be a "good" movie, and this is especially true with genre schlock like _AvP_ and _Thunderbirds_.




The attitude that Sci-Fi or fantasy doesn't have to be good becuase it's just "genre schlock" is the reason for crap like Catwoman, the last three Batman films, or the Dungeons & Dragons movie.  Movies that fall into the "schlock" catagory suck by definition and shouldn't be awarded with money.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 13, 2004)

The problem isn't that they are habitually making bad movies. The problem is that movies that are average are being panned throughout the our overly opinionated geekdome. What kind of message does that send Hollywood? It tells them that even if they do their best to make us happy, we'll dis their efforts and not spend any money (In my opinion there's something wrong if a movie like Chronicles of Riddick can't make any money). That in turn leads to what could potentially be extremely cool and original movies not being made, or made on the cheap, because the execs are afraid they'll get panned and we won't spend our money to see them. So what's their solution? Continue to make formulaic "safe" scifi movies that they believe will make money. And of course we're too smart for formulaic scripts to remain interesting, so science fiction in general starts making less money overall. 

Other than Spiderman, have we seen a successful scifi on the big screen this summer? The bottom line for me is that not every science fiction movie is going to be a masterpiece, and that's OK. Some of them will be downright awful (Soldier anyone?) I can spend the $7 promoting the kind of movies I want to be made or I can spend the $7 on a trip to a fast food joint. The price of a ticket really is pretty cheap, so I've made the decision to promote the kind of movies that I want to see rather than let the jaded whining of a bunch of self righteous reviewers who take themselves and their opinions way too seriously kill the genre.

If AVP really is a solid B, I'll consider $7 well spent and I might even buy it on DVD. If it comes in at a C or a D, I'll just consider it two hours of my life I'll never get back and I won't touch the DVD. In either case, I'm seeing this one. Aliens, predators and Lance Henriksen in one movie is all it takes to convince me to open up my wallet.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 13, 2004)

I'll be buying the DVD.  I just got back from the theater, and thought this was a pretty fun movie.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 13, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> The only case in which Hollywood doesn't owe use a good movie, is if the movie is offered for free. Since I tend to be shelling out around $7+ to sit through a film, they damn well owe me something.



They don't owe you much for $7.  I can barely feed myself at Taco Bell for $7.


----------



## Mythtify (Aug 13, 2004)

I recall buying the first dark horse "alien vs predator" comic books back in highschool.  This had to be somewhere in 87'-89'.  Anyway, the comic series was fantastic.  Set on an earth colony.  The predators "seeded" the planet with alien eggs.   The main character was, as usual for an alien sotry, a gal.  She was different from ripley, but still kicked butt.  

The comic was great. I had been waiting for this to become a movie for over a decade.  What a sad fact that they missed there chance for a great movie and settled for AVP.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 13, 2004)

Mythtify said:
			
		

> The comic was great. I had been waiting for this to become a movie for over a decade.  What a sad fact that they missed there chance for a great movie and settled for AVP.



You sure that's not nostalgia talkin'?  I haven't read the comic, but I did read the novelization by Steve Perry (not of Journey fame.)  It's pretty mediocre, at best.  Meanwhile, the movie is actually a lot of fun.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 13, 2004)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> But, all of that aside, since when does every movie have to be a "good" movie? Isn't enough that a movie simply be entertaining? This is _AvP_, after all. It's not some independent film written by a "deep thinker" who took one or two philosophy classes at film school, and has now decided to teach us all of an important "lesson" about the way life really is.
> 
> And I thank God for that.




Mark, you misinterpreted my little rant from last night.  I wasn't saying that movies need to be good.  I was accusing movie-goers of being foolish.  If you think a movie looks so bad that the only way you can bring yourself to go is if you don't have any expectations of quality, then don't go.  If you really do think something will not entertain you, don't subject yourself to seeing it.

What I said doesn't apply to you, probably.  Most of the time, I'm sure, you enjoy movies that you go see.  Hell, I'm not a movie snob thinking that everything has to be a 'film,' or that movies must be Oscar quality.  I like entertainment.  If a person thinks AVP will entertain him, he should go see it.

The mistake that I feel many movie-goers are making is in passively accepting something they're dissatisfied with.  The specific opinion a person has is not what I'm arguing about.  I'm simply saying that going to see a movie that you cannot muster up some excitement over is like voting for a candidate you don't want in office.  You're better of voting for someone else, or even just not voting at all.  It's better than supporting something you don't believe in.

I do, coincidentally, also think that some movies are just bad, for no good reason.  Once Upon a Time in Mexico (billed in the credits as "a Robert Roderiguez Flick") was a great fun movie.  It was not serious or deeply meaningful.  It was just cool.  Shanghai Noon wasn't a 'film,' it was a comedy, and an entertaining one.  Big Trouble in Little China was just pure pulpy fun.  I loved them all.  But then there are things like the new Star Wars movies, that just fall flat.  You'd think that with as many people working on them as there are, someone would be able to make them have better quality.

Eh, anyway.  Fun movies are fun.  Kids movies are fun.  _Disney_ movies are fun.  Bad movies aren't fun.

Unless they're atrocious.  Then they're _great!_


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 13, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You sure that's not nostalgia talkin'? I haven't read the comic, but I did read the novelization by Steve Perry (not of Journey fame.) It's pretty mediocre, at best. Meanwhile, the movie is actually a lot of fun.



I read the comics back in the day. They were actually some of the best for their time. We're talking high production values - excellent art, glossy pages, etc. The story was pretty good too. Nevertheless, its a story I'm familiar with. I don't fault them at all for wanting to do something new with it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 16, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'll be buying the DVD. I just got back from the theater, and thought this was a pretty fun movie.



My wife and I watched it Saturday night and quite enjoyed it. My expectations going in were simple - a fun action flick with two of my favorite movie monsters. I was not disappointed in the least and I too will be purchasing the DVD.


----------



## buzzard (Aug 16, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> They don't owe you much for $7.  I can barely feed myself at Taco Bell for $7.




OK let's clarify, $7 for the movie (matinee), drink and popcorn take me into the realm more close to $15. Sure, it's not a hell of a lot of money, but I can buy a DVD for that and watch a movie many times. Actually, if I watch prices, I can certainly get a DVD, soda (2 liters if I like) and a bag of nukable popcorn for that $15. If I didn't do matinee, I would be more in the realm of $17, and a couple of bucks realy opens up the DVD market. My home system may not be a threatre, but I do have a very good surround system and a HD monitor.

To accept that someone can produce shlock, because you don't think it's much money seems odd to me. It's not like they charge less for crappy movies.

I have become careful about movie selection owing the the profusion of bad movies out there. I'll save my dollars. They do, after all, add up after a while. 

buzzard


----------



## Corinth (Aug 16, 2004)

I do hold that if a movie isn't equal in caliber to the LOTR trilogy, then it might as well not be made at all.  There is no excuse for crap filmmaking.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 16, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> I do hold that if a movie isn't equal in caliber to the LOTR trilogy, then it might as well not be made at all.  There is no excuse for crap filmmaking.



 Now _that_ is the exact attitude that Whisperfoot was talking about in his posts.

Back to the subject of this thread, I'll probably be buying AvP when it comes out on DVD.  I enjoyed it enough that I consider it worth purchasing.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Aug 16, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> They don't owe you much for $7.  I can barely feed myself at Taco Bell for $7.





We can't think of it as our measley $7.  Actually, if my wife and I go to a movie during peak hours we almost spend $30.  Anywho, we have to think of it as the millions of dollars the actors, writers and directors take home.  They supposedly earn that money for their great talent at entertaining the masses.  I just don't see that many great films that really demand that kind of pay.  There are some, but not the majority.


----------



## Krug (Aug 17, 2004)

Saw it and didn't take it was that bad. Not enough Alien vs Predator action though, and the PG-13 rating means no gore.


Spoiler



I liked the fight b/w the Alien Queen and the Predator at the remnants of the whaling station, amongst the remainder of whalebone. Surreal.



Other than that, I agree that the setup is horribly contrived and takes up too much time. I want my Alien on Predator action NOWWWWWW!


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 17, 2004)

> The problem is that movies that are average are being panned throughout the our overly opinionated geekdome.



But the majority are not average movies - they're below average. I Robot was average, AVP wasn't much more than a saturday afternoon creature feature with better effects.



> What kind of message does that send Hollywood? It tells them that even if they do their best to make us happy, we'll dis their efforts and not spend any money (In my opinion there's something wrong if a movie like Chronicles of Riddick can't make any money). That in turn leads to what could potentially be extremely cool and original movies not being made, or made on the cheap, because the execs are afraid they'll get panned and we won't spend our money to see them. So what's their solution? Continue to make formulaic "safe" scifi movies that they believe will make money. And of course we're too smart for formulaic scripts to remain interesting, so science fiction in general starts making less money overall.



I don't think they're doing their best.  If CoR is an example of their best the scifi movie biz is in sad shape already (IMO).  AVP is Aliens and Predators in name only - its not cool or original.  Its two monsters bashing each other for all of 10 minutes screen time - a souped up godzilla movie with smaller critters and less time spent kicking each other's asses.

Previously all the alien movies are far away from earth, in a future setting, with a people trapped in a bad situation, a corporation trying to keep the alien alive and bring it to earth, and 



Spoiler



a set incubation period of longer than a half hour.


  Previously all the predator movies are in areas of sweltering heat, one predator vs a small number of humans, and 



Spoiler



the predators don't forget to bring their shoulder cannons.


   This movie ignored all that and just used the costumes.

Hardcore Scifi Movies are a niche market - if they can't come up with a way to appeal to the masses they will never make money.  As for extremely cool and original movies not being made - thats happening in all genres - its only a rare gem that gets out of the formulaic mold.

This movie was like watching someone else play AVP.  Playing AVP is fun, watching someone else play it is boring. (And playing Alien tag against all your friends at a LAN party is lots of fun   )


----------



## Sakzilla (Aug 17, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> I do hold that if a movie isn't equal in caliber to the LOTR trilogy, then it might as well not be made at all.  There is no excuse for crap filmmaking.




I find this interesting, as well.  I really liked the LOTR trilogy.  Granted I have a job and friends and was not terribly partial to the very dull books, but I really liked the trilogy.  One thing I liked was the level of detail - how 'cinematic' the movies were.  I got this grandiose sense that impacted me - I can't wait for the EE of the DVD to see how much neater it might be with more time.  Having said that, I was quite dismayed at the horrendous treatment the movies got on this board.  People were OUTRAGED that Tom Bombadil did not sing for hours - what was PJ thinking when he took the trilogy and made it less than 200 hours?  he couldn't _possibly_ have made it decent in just 12.  And that was LOTR - one of the most influential items in our hobby's field.  To hold everything to that standard is problematic.

People make these out to be life or death situations, and if it is not their vision of what the movie could have been, it fails utterly completely without mercy.  If every situation is a life or death one, you will die alot of times.  Same thing with movies - if they were all so cinematically LARGE, they would then all be the same and we would complain about that!

I enjoyed the flick, liked the back story, got a kick out of Lance Henrikson's involvement, and I will buy the DVD the day it comes out.  Plus it was PG-13 for SLIME - it was actually rated for SLIME!!!  What other movies can say that!

I got my entertainment, and I will enjoy it again.  That's just my opinion.  And opinions are like half-elf rangers - everyone has them!

Ron


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 17, 2004)

We have lost Sci-fi, what we have entered is the world of pulp; it is a visual world of image and color of sound and fast action.  It is not a world of facts or established dogma.  Woe is me, woe is me.    

We caused this, we really did.  We went to movies for years, then they were know more as action-adventure flicks but we went and the success of those films have lead us down this road.  We expect the same level but things have changed, we are older, our taste have changed and Hollywood has changed, the biggest money makers are movies that target the 13-17 year olds, then the 18-23, if you are older you MAY get 1 sci-fi, pulp, action-adventure, horror movie a year that you drool over.  

I say this because I am an old fart (44), I have seen the change and every year I get older the less I like what I see on the big screen for fantasy and sci-fi.  Good thing I like stupid comedies.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 17, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> But the majority are not average movies - they're below average.



And which movies are you comparing these to exactly? These are average in comparison to the average action movie. 



> I don't think they're doing their best. If CoR is an example of their best the scifi movie biz is in sad shape already (IMO).



It holds up well enough as an action movie. It definitely isn't hard scifi, neither was Pitch Black, but its entertaining.



> Previously all the alien movies are far away from earth, in a future setting, with a people trapped in a bad situation, a corporation trying to keep the alien alive and bring it to earth, and
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None of which matters. 



Spoiler



There is absolutely nothing in any of the alien movies that says that the aliens couldn't have been brought to earth for a specific purpose during a previous time period and then frozen. What they did say was that aliens had never _overrun_ the Earth. At any rate, since the aliens are destroyed at the end of this movie, this doesn't contradict the continuity as we know it. The corpses are buried under so much ice that its unlikely they would be found by Ripley's time anyway. There is no contradiction here.

There is nothing stating that predators only hunt in extreme heat. It may suggest that they prefer to hunt in warm areas, but nowhere is it defined that they can _only_ hunt in such areas. In fact, it is made clear that in this movie, the temple serves as a right of passage for young predators. This is an especially brutal test that they must pass to be considered a fully matured predator. As such, it makes sense that they would be sent into an environment that they do not prefer without their primary weapons.


 


> Hardcore Scifi Movies are a niche market - if they can't come up with a way to appeal to the masses they will never make money. As for extremely cool and original movies not being made - thats happening in all genres - its only a rare gem that gets out of the formulaic mold.



This isn't a hardcore scifi movie. Alien was a horror movie. Aliens was an action/horror movie. Predator was an action movie. The only thing that these have in common with hardcore science fiction is that they feature aliens, advanced technology, and spaceships. Hardcore science fiction works take technology and address the way that it affects society. These movies have never done that. I haven't seen hardcore science fiction on the big screen since the movie 2010.

I'm sorry, but if you expected this to be a perfect movie then you shouldn't be surprised that you went home disappointed.


----------



## KenM (Aug 17, 2004)

Saw it today, good action movie. My one main problem with it was 



Spoiler



How come the female lead is not freezing her butt off when she gets to the surface, its Anartica.


----------



## Krug (Aug 17, 2004)

I'm just wondering what a Alien-Penguin hybrid will look like..


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 17, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> How come the female lead is not freezing her butt off when she gets to the surface, its Anartica.





Spoiler



Yeah, I kind of wondered about that too. I was equally concerned about how she was going to get back to the ship. It looked to me like she had a ways to go, and nothing to wear to protect her from the elements. Oh well, fodder for the inevitable sequel.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 17, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I kind of wondered about that too. I was equally concerned about how she was going to get back to the ship. It looked to me like she had a ways to go, and nothing to wear to protect her from the elements. Oh well, fodder for the inevitable sequel.





Spoiler



I thought that too, until I saw the truck right next to her when the shot widened.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 17, 2004)

> And which movies are you comparing these to exactly? These are average in comparison to the average action movie.



Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Predator and even Predator 2 (which was pretty average) Actually I think AVP and CoR are below average for average action flicks - True Lies or Eraser.  An average episode of Stargate SG-1 is better than AVP and CoR.



> It holds up well enough as an action movie. It definitely isn't hard scifi, neither was Pitch Black, but its entertaining.



To-mae-to / To-mah-to.  I don't agree.  CoR wasn't a very good action flick (I liked Pitch Black much more than CoR).  My own personal bias comes into play here.  I can forgive a lot more in the average action flick, fantasy movie, horror shocker, high adventure story than I can in a scifi/anything movie.  Once they use futuristic scifi type settings they automatically have a higher bar to jump.  To many inconsistencies just jar me out of the experience.  But thats just me.



> None of which matters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None of which matters to you. 



Spoiler



We have to accept that every alien born the first time the predators lost control (and the movie shows thousands of them) all stayed close enough to the central pyramid to be destroyed in the blast when the pred's blew themselves up.  And then we have to accept that the predator's stopped returning to earth every hundred years to set up the ultimate hunt after the 2004 debacle (even though they showed something that looked much worse occuring thousands of years earlier). They didn't stop the first time they were overrun so why would they stop after the 2004 incident?  If the alien hunt was such an important right of passage why didn't they just rebuild again and start over thousands of years ago?  The predators controlled the planet - they could have kept control.  Why didn't they?


   Are these contradictions? No, but they make the premise seem pretty stupid.



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing stating that predators only hunt in extreme heat. It may suggest that they prefer to hunt in warm areas, but nowhere is it defined that they can only hunt in such areas. In fact, it is made clear that in this movie, the temple serves as a right of passage for young predators. This is an especially brutal test that they must pass to be considered a fully matured predator. As such, it makes sense that they would be sent into an environment that they do not prefer without their primary weapons.



Actually, in the first movie there is something that suggests they only hunt in extreme heat - at least as far as humans know.  



Spoiler



As for the especially brutal test.  If the predators value the hunt so highly, why would they always remember their shoulder canons when hunting humans


  - I'm sorry, when you're going gigging for frogs ya don't bring a shotgun  .



> This isn't a hardcore scifi movie. Alien was a horror movie. Aliens was an action/horror movie. Predator was an action movie. The only thing that these have in common with hardcore science fiction is that they feature aliens, advanced technology, and spaceships. Hardcore science fiction works take technology and address the way that it affects society. These movies have never done that. I haven't seen hardcore science fiction on the big screen since the movie 2010.



Correct - it wasn't hardcore scifi, but it wasn't a very good action flick either.  There wasn't enough action.  It also wasn't a thriller - nothing in it thrilled me. Alien was horror/scifi, Aliens Action/scifi, Predator Action/scifi (it certainly wasn't scary in any sense).  Scifi doesn't have to just address the effects of tech on society (actually most of those type scifi movies bore me to tears)



> I'm sorry, but if you expected this to be a perfect movie then you shouldn't be surprised that you went home disappointed.



I didn't expect a perfect movie - I never do.  I avoid movie trailers like the plague so I don't have any expectations.  They had two of my favorite scifi critters in the same movie.  I really like the AVP games.  It wasn't creepy like the alien movies can be or the AVP games are.  The combat scenes weren't thrilling like the predator movies or aliens or alien 3.    This movie just didn't produce.  It was boring.

I think it was a mediocre/bad movie - and if this is the average that we should be shelling out bucks for then things are in a sorry state.  I really don't see how paying for bad movies is going to make anyone produce better movies.

But hey, to each their own.  I liked Soldier.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 17, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> An average episode of Stargate SG-1 is better than AVP and CoR.



I was taking your post at face value until you said that.  Now I can't take it seriously at all.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 17, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Actually, in the first movie there is something that suggests they only hunt in extreme heat - at least as far as humans know.




As I recollect from my Predator lore, it seems to me that it wasn't so much that they *had* to hunt in hot places, as they *choose* to do so for the simple fact that they seek out places of conflict- and places where there is a lot of heat tend to generate conflict among people (ie, the heat lowers their patience level, etc.) Seems to me that was the theory behind Predator 2- the high heat in Los Angeles combined with an already volatile gangland situation and caused tensions to explode- and gave the Predator plenty of gun happy targets to play with.

Anyway, haven't seen AVP yet- not sure I'm going to, but from what I've read here and elsewhere- it's probably about what I expected of the movie. Think I'll follow Rangerwickett's advice and not go, since I'm not expecting to be entertained. Keep my $9 for something else.


----------



## Acid_crash (Aug 17, 2004)

I think one of the biggest complaints I have see on this thread is that the setup to the fights was too long, and that people wanted their fighting NOW!!!

So, when did all of you get so impatient?  I'm sure all of you liked Alien, Aliens, and Predator, right?  To me, one of the things that made those movies so great is that they did NOT get to the aliens/predators IMMEDIATELY.  They did build up the setting/scenes, let the predator take out one human here, one there...they didn't even show the Alien in the first movie until over half way through the movie... so why aren't you all now complaining about how much of a waste of time that all was.  After all, you wanted immediate action.

I think the director was trying to go back to the way the first Alien and Predator movies were filmed and not show the aliens/predators immediately, but try and slow things down initially, lead us along with a quick shot here and there, and then give us the action.

Some of you need to just take a breath, relax, and realize that you don't need immediate action.  I guess it's just the way this society is...everything has to be faster, sleeker, more expensive, better, immediate.  

I went and saw this movie, I enjoyed it, thought the fights were cool.  If I have a gripe, I think that he handled the beginning too quickly.  It was, satelite sees heat/girl climbing mountain of ice/gets on helicopter/goes to antartica/meets nervous guy/go to temple...and no real connection between the people either with each other and with the audience.  That is probably my only gripe.  Everything else made up for it.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 17, 2004)

Predators come to hunt when it was extremly hot, not that they hunted when it was hot.  This MAY mean it was a space travel thing, location of earth to unknown routes.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 17, 2004)

I haven't seen the flick yet, but I will. I thought the trailer looked okay and I'll basically watch Lance Henriksen in anything.

I like this discussion though, and it's one I've had with myself many times. The problem is this: everyone has to decide what they want out of their money. There is a world of difference between using your money as a bludgeon to force Hollywood to make more so-called 'good' or 'worthy' films (in which case the only movies you see are those that thousands of other people have already taste-tested for you and declared 'good'), and being happy to plonk it down for a minimal level of entertainment. I'm in the latter category. If I think there will be something in the film that I will enjoy, I will usually go to the flicks to enjoy it. AvP is a good example. I will never 'expect' it to live up to 'Alien' (my favourite film ever, as it happens), or 'Aliens' (somewhere in my top ten), because I'm pretty sure from the start that it won't, given the people involved and their track record. This is not to say that I *know* it won't, because that is a smug attitude and I like being surprised ('Terminator 3', for example, was much better than it should have been). However, I am confident that it will have a few aliens in, and predators, and that they'll duke it out. That'll be cool. I'm also reasonably sure that there will be a few competent special effects, and even a thrill or two. Sounds good. Here's my six quid, thank you very much.

Every now and then, something wonderful happens. A couple of years ago, I paid my money (£5.50 then, as I recall) and walked into a film called 'The Fellowship of the Ring'. I walked out of that experience thinking that I would gladly have paid fifty pounds for that film. That I got it so cheaply seems like a wonderful bargain. Same a year later, and the same again a year after that. Less than twenty quid for some of the most mesmerising eight or nine hours of my life. I'll take two thanks.

Personally, I'm positive that, overall, I get good utility out of my cinema budget. There are very few films that I feel cheated out of my money on. But, and this is probably the point of all this rubbish, I do not feel that Hollywood owes me anything whatsoever. This is in the same way that, for example, I don't feel that the Foo Fighters owe me another CD as good as 'One by One', or that id software owe me another game as good as 'Doom 2', or that Margaret Weis owes me another Raistlin book, and so on. The creators put their works on the shelf and offer me the chance to purchase them. Just because I do doesn't make me some kind of silent partner in their endeavours. No-one put a gun to my head, as has been said a gajillion times probably.

The silent contract between people who create works like these, and people who consume them, reads: 'I agree to risk this small amount of money on the chance that I might be amazed.' It does not read, as some people seem to think, 'I demand to be amazed, or I want my money back.'


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 17, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> I think one of the biggest complaints I have see on this thread is that the setup to the fights was too long, and that people wanted their fighting NOW!!!
> 
> So, when did all of you get so impatient?  I'm sure all of you liked Alien, Aliens, and Predator, right?  To me, one of the things that made those movies so great is that they did NOT get to the aliens/predators IMMEDIATELY.  They did build up the setting/scenes, let the predator take out one human here, one there...they didn't even show the Alien in the first movie until over half way through the movie... so why aren't you all now complaining about how much of a waste of time that all was.  After all, you wanted immediate action.
> 
> ...




Well I don't think people go to see a movie called Alien VS Predator to see deep conversation or anything more than Aliens fighting Predators, that's that what the title of the movie is about anyway.  If the movie takes over an hour to get to the fighting then I would understand someone being a little dissapointed.  I would have expected it to be like one of the old Hulk vs Thing issues of the FF where the brawl begins on page 2 and ends on page 23.   

But I haven't seen it so maybe it is an action romp.  But it appears that it falls into the schlock catagory from what I've been reading so I'll wait for the cable showing.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 17, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Well I don't think people go to see a movie called Alien VS Predator to see deep conversation or anything more than Aliens fighting Predators, that's that what the title of the movie is about anyway.  If the movie takes over an hour to get to the fighting then I would understand someone being a little dissapointed.  I would have expected it to be like one of the old Hulk vs Thing issues of the FF where the brawl begins on page 2 and ends on page 23.
> 
> But I haven't seen it so maybe it is an action romp.  But it appears that it falls into the schlock catagory from what I've been reading so I'll wait for the cable showing.



Oddly enough the movie you describe would have fallen into the schlock category much more easily than the movie that was actually made.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 17, 2004)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> The silent contract between people who create works like these, and people who consume them, reads: 'I agree to risk this small amount of money on the chance that I might be amazed.' It does not read, as some people seem to think, 'I demand to be amazed, or I want my money back.'



Words of wisdom, and well written to boot.  Can't get any more insightful than that.


----------



## buzzard (Aug 17, 2004)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> The silent contract between people who create works like these, and people who consume them, reads: 'I agree to risk this small amount of money on the chance that I might be amazed.' It does not read, as some people seem to think, 'I demand to be amazed, or I want my money back.'




Maybe some people think like you alledge, but I don't. My opinion is that if I'm going to spend money on a movie, I don't want to have to cringe at bad acting, bad writing, or plot holes that most aircraft carriers could fit through. 

However, I don't demand my money back. I never expect that. I understand that I take a risk of a movie being bad when I spend my money. This makes me more careful about what I spend my money on. 

For example, I was damned close to walking out of Van Helsing. That movie had me cringing through large portions. I never, even once, considered asking for my money back. 

Am I willing to take the risk of major cringing in AvP? Nope. Maybe I'll NetFlix it in a couple of months, but I won't dump real money on it. 

buzzard


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Aug 17, 2004)

I'll just wait for it to hit video and see it for free.  I have a hookup with my friendly local video store.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 17, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> so why aren't you all now complaining about how much of a waste of time that all was.  After all, you wanted immediate action.
> 
> I think the director was trying to go back to the way the first Alien and Predator movies were filmed



I think, then, that _if_ this were the intent, then the director might have failed. I think it might be possible that the related complaints about the action don't have anything to do with the movie-goers' "patience" - I think it might have to do with bad filmmaking.

Just a possibility you might want to consider.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 17, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oddly enough the movie you describe would have fallen into the schlock category much more easily than the movie that was actually made.



  think the only way it could rise above that is by mindblowing action sequences.  Amazing action is enough to justify any action genre flick.  Does it have that?  To be honest I'm not sure any movie that is famous movie monster vs famous movie monster can be anything other than schlock.  It's a creation to get fans of both properties to swarm the theaters to see if thier favorite will win.  But like I said earlier if the action is great enough it can be worthwhile and rise above it's schlock beginnings.  God knows those old Dracula vs Werewolf vs Mummy flicks were horrid.  This is the sucessor to those movies.  Does it deliver on the premise of killer action fights between these famour monsters is the question.   

Hmmm so I suppose the poster who expected schlock, got schlock, and was happy with schlock was right all along.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Aug 17, 2004)

Ive been waiting to see avp for half my life and i didnt care what anyone said prior to the films release. Personally i love the movie...but im also partial to like anything thats a crossover or veruses movies or comic.
AICN always gives movies bad reviews they seem to like film festival crap which in my experience is worse than anything...even the D&D movie.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 17, 2004)

Actually, AICN gave the D&D movie a qualified good review.  If that isn't enough to cast grave doubts on their credibility, I don't know what is...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 17, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Actually, AICN gave the D&D movie a qualified good review.  If that isn't enough to cast grave doubts on their credibility, I don't know what is...



 No way! 

You're kidding right?

Nooooooooo.  It's just not possible.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 18, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> No way!
> 
> You're kidding right?
> 
> Nooooooooo.  It's just not possible.



Yep, Harry's review amounted to more or less, "it's not that great, but it's pretty fun in a beer and pretzels kinda way."  I actually went in half expecting to enjoy the movie based on that drivel.  Beer and pretzels my ass.  More like a cyanide and wrist-razor kinda way.


----------



## jasamcarl (Aug 18, 2004)

The movie was awful, but I'm glad to be greeted by the usual wildy post-modern schlock advocates making the usual crap arguments that "This was move was never intended to be 'good', it's just entertainment, which is completly different. Reviews are irrelevant!" Uh, no, most prof critics working for respected publications are not such pretentiouis middle-brow types that they would only associate a well crafted movie only with high drama or pointed social themes. The reason why the majority of reviews were negative was because it was not entertaining for them. Or for me. Note the more or less positive response the Hellboy, a B-Movie if ever there was one, versus this crap. 

But I doubt those who would mock critics actually read 'real' reviews, as oppossed to the geeky rants of AICN; when it comes to fanboys, i pretty much am never in line with the arguments of either pro or con.

Now, I'm not dissing those who genuinly liked the movie, just the idealogues who come out with the same poorly thought out arguments against any type of aescetic criticism that gets in the way of their fannish wish fulfilliment.


----------



## Emirikol (Aug 18, 2004)

Whew that movie blew!

Totally forgettable!

Forgettable characters.  Forgettable actors.  Forgettable action scenes.  Forgettable story.  I've not been to a movie this BLAHHHHH in a long time.  In fact, it may be the DMing in my veins, but it's the first movie I actually sat through and thought, EVERY SCENE SUCKED and I could have written it better.  Even the action scenes were lame-o, copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy.  That story!  My god!  Oooooh, that's never been done before.  It's as cliche' of a movie as it comes.  I think a 5th grade jack-off wrote the screenplay.

We won't even talk about how unceremoniously Bishop is discarded.  Paramount is evidently thinking the same about these two storylines.  This sucker should have either gone right to video, or right to the 11pm Sci-Fi show after "Megladon attacks a beach with no people on it."

I can say, however that the acting and editing at least didn't make me cringe, like the D&D movie.

jh


..


----------



## Sakzilla (Aug 18, 2004)

I just have to say this (in response to some of the earlier posts)...

I liked AVP
I liked Riddick
I liked Van Helsing
I liked Soldier
D and D might have been terrible, but who else is giving you screen time with a Beholder?

Where's the love, baby???


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 18, 2004)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> I could have written it better.



Oh,  where are you in our hour of need?

Anytime anyone says that, their rant loses all credibility.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 18, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Note the more or less positive response the Hellboy, a B-Movie if ever there was one, versus this crap.



Note the more or less positive response to AVP, a B-movie if there ever was one, on movies.yahoo.com where with over 10,000 ratings, it's still doing a good 'B-' grade.  I liked this better than Hellboy, personally.


			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Now, I'm not dissing those who genuinly liked the movie, just the idealogues who come out with the same poorly thought out arguments against any type of aescetic criticism that gets in the way of their fannish wish fulfilliment.



Yeah, there's a big difference there.  Oddly enough, a lot of folks have been pointing at AICN as some kind of authority, when AICN, IMO, is the worst bastion of that type of geek fanboy ideology I know of.


----------



## Pants (Aug 18, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh,  where are you in our hour of need?
> 
> Anytime anyone says that, their rant loses all credibility.



d00d, I so could have written the movie better.  The predators would have been ninjas with katanas and the rock would have played the leader predator who was all like 'you can't stop the rock!' and then he'd get into a cage match with the aliens and t0tally go full-nelson on them


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 18, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> d00d, I so could have written the movie better.  The predators would have been ninjas with katanas and the rock would have played the leader predator who was all like 'you can't stop the rock!' and then he'd get into a cage match with the aliens and t0tally go full-nelson on them








and then there would have been these girl predators, and this big predator sex scene with the main girl, and the predator chicks would have gotten all, like, mad at her for taking their man, and then there would have been naked mud-wrestling hot chixxxs predators!!!!111oneone!!


----------



## Emirikol (Aug 19, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> d00d, I so could have written the movie better.  The predators would have been ninjas with katanas and the rock would have played the leader predator who was all like 'you can't stop the rock!' and then he'd get into a cage match with the aliens and t0tally go full-nelson on them





Ha, ha.  Very funny.  You know what people dug about Van Helsing, and what made it 'special?'  It was the fact that every scene in the movie hadn't been done to death before.  AVP was flat out boring.  There was nothing gripping about any of the scenes.  If somebody doesn't have a job and can beg up the change to go see it again, they should take a good assessment of the story and scenes.  They weren't original or novel by any means.  Yea, so the alien blows some acidic spew out his tail, whoopee.  Like I haven't seen that on 15 videogame ripoffs of the theme too.  Bah!  Each scene could have been decent, but they failed..failed miserably.

jh


..


----------



## Pants (Aug 19, 2004)

You know, I actually haven't seen Van Helsing.  



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> and then there would have been these girl predators, and this big predator sex scene with the main girl, and the predator chicks would have gotten all, like, mad at her for taking their man, and then there would have been naked mud-wrestling hot chixxxs predators!!!!111oneone!!



Your geek-fu is strong indeed, dare I say, stronger than my own.  Mostly because of the multiple exclamation points.


----------



## Trainz (Aug 19, 2004)

I just came back from the movie and it was awesome ! I don't know what you guys don't like, but it's probably the best movie I have seen in years. Sure, Return of the King was good, but AvP totally knocked my socks off. I wish this guy would have made the LOTR trilogy, it would have been even better !

 I went to see it with my girlfriend, and the suspense was so tense that she kept planting her fingers in my arm (I still have some marks ! ! !), and at one point (I won't say which as to not spoil it, but you'll know when you see it) it was so gripping that tears kept rolling down my cheeks. I wasn't crying, it was just so intense that there was water coming out of my eyes. Never before had a movie such an impact on me.

 Well, at least it would be cool if this movie had such an effect on me. I'll see when I rent it (not holding my breath).


_Sorry...


_


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 19, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Your geek-fu is strong indeed, dare I say, stronger than my own.  Mostly because of the multiple exclamation points.



The secret is missing and getting a few 1s in there with all your !'s.  If you really screw up and actually type out one, though, that's pretty impressive stuff.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 20, 2004)

According to Paul WS Anderson, there will be a Director's Cut of AvP.

He said that Fox anticipated the movie in 3 weeks, which hurt the special effects a bit. And much to his chaggrin, Fox also lowered the rating from 17 to PG13, which forced most of the action scenes to be cut out (specially the gory killings... all of them) as well as a parallel storyline.


----------



## Sorren (Aug 27, 2004)

Just saw it last night and I have to say I really enjoyed. Sure the acting wasn't exactly Oscar calliber. There were plot holes. etc.

But it was fun!

Interesting setup for a sequel too. 



Spoiler



Though I wonder if it would have regular aliens or just the pred-alien.

The only complaint I had was at the very end when Alexa and the Predator were running out of the temple. Shouldn't he be running MUCH faster than her?


----------

