S is for Saturday
Aug. 14th, 2004 11:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greygirlbeastWhat do you get when you combine four Alien films, two Predator films, a Dark Horse comic, H. P. Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness," Cube, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Lance Henrikson? Wait. Let me rephrase the question. If Mighty Mouse and Superman had a fight, who would win?
Since we didn't go to Birmingham, Spooky and I went to a matinee of Alien Vs. Predator. Going in, my hopes were high, but my expectations were zero. (NOTE: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS AHEAD) So I was pleasantly surprised when this film that probably never should have been made was actually a lot of fun. As Spooky said during the closing credits, "Big, dumb, and gorgeous." That sums it up nicely. Could it have been something more? Could it at least have been as good as the fourth Alien film? I don't know. Maybe. But the very concept always seemed a juvenile, fanboy gimmick to me, one below the standards of the Alien films (though we know this all began with that shot in Predator II when we see the "alien" skull trophy in the hunter's space ship). I figured it would stink and that, at best, it'd offer up some nice eye-candy. But Alien Vs. Predator is a little better than that. Not a lot. Just a little. Just enough better that I didn't feel cheated. In fact, I found the experience quite satisfactory.
Cons: Really, really dumb science. A human cast that is not only expendible, but annoying and superfluous. Terrible acting. A script that I could have written with my ass (for example, the plot turns on the line, uttered like a great revelation, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."). Thirty minutes of set-up that would have been better spent just getting to the point. Raoul Bova. An unwillingness on the part of the filmmakers to risk losing the summer blockbuster this won't be anyway and take the chances that would have made this a much better, less formulaic film. A final scene that should have been left on the cutting-room floor. The PG-13 rating. Bullet-time. And did I mention Raoul Bova?
Pros: Truthfully, Giger's aliens have never looked this good. The creature effects alone justify matinee price. The aliens have a grace and fluidity they entirely lacked in Alien, wanted to have in Aliens, and almost achieved in Alien 3 and Alien: Ressurection. Lots of fun nods to the earlier films. Some decent suspense. Agathe De La Boulaye ("Adele Rousseau"), who's the best and cutest thing in humans this film has going for it, so naturally she's the first (or maybe the second) to die. A few (too few) exciting scenes where the aliens and predators actually fight. A moderately awesome climax (though a much more awesome climax wouldn't have simply repeated Ripley blowing the queen out of one of the Sulaco's airlocks). Lance Henrikson. Great SFX and art direction.
So, yes, Big, dumb, and gorgeous. Which is more than I thought I'd get. Yes, it could have been a lot better, but that may not be the point here. The very premise of the film is a rather lame marketing gimmick. Whatever this film was to become, it had to fight that gimmick all the way. I'd have done something very different. I'd have kept the whole thing away from Earth and kept humans out of the picture entirely. How about this: The film is set many thousands of years before the first Alien film. A war has been raging between two intergalactic civilizations. For centuries, the two sides have been locked in stalemate. Then one side genetically engineers the ultimate bioweapon: the aliens. The other side, in a desperate bid to save itself as its empire falls before the quickly spreading bioweapon, hires an army of hunters (the predators), though the hunters are greatly feared and generally avoided at all costs. A terrible deal is struck. On the homeworld of the losing civilization, the predators battle and narrowly defeat the alien menace. Meanwhile, however, there's been an accident, and the aliens have turned on their creators. The film ends with an extraterrestrial starship (the one found by the crew of the Nostromo) being overrun by the aliens and crashing on LV4 26.
No one would make an sf film without humans, of course. My Hollywood agent has told me this repeatedly.
It is interesting that in Alien Vs. Predator some of the concepts intended for the original Alien are ressurected. In the first draft of O'Bannon's script for Alien, the eggs were to have been discovered inside an ancient pryramid-like structure on a desolate alien world, not on a derelict starship. Also, despite the films PG-13 rating, I think Alien Vs. Predator realized Giger's overtly sexual penis-within-a-vagina image of the facehuggers better than any of the Alien films have done.
I'm still not sure how I feel about seeing the beginnings of what would become The Company in Alien, et. al. If that was Charles Bishop Weyland (and obviously the inspiration for the Bishop android), then who was the man who comes for Ripley at the end of Alien 3? A droid? A clone of the original Charles Bishop Weyland? Personally, I prefer to keep this film apart from the continuity of the first four Alien films.
The film also sabotages its own tagline, as, clearly, it's better for humans if the predators win this match.
My frelling gods. Shut up, you damned geek. Go do something that needs doing.
Since we didn't go to Birmingham, Spooky and I went to a matinee of Alien Vs. Predator. Going in, my hopes were high, but my expectations were zero. (NOTE: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS AHEAD) So I was pleasantly surprised when this film that probably never should have been made was actually a lot of fun. As Spooky said during the closing credits, "Big, dumb, and gorgeous." That sums it up nicely. Could it have been something more? Could it at least have been as good as the fourth Alien film? I don't know. Maybe. But the very concept always seemed a juvenile, fanboy gimmick to me, one below the standards of the Alien films (though we know this all began with that shot in Predator II when we see the "alien" skull trophy in the hunter's space ship). I figured it would stink and that, at best, it'd offer up some nice eye-candy. But Alien Vs. Predator is a little better than that. Not a lot. Just a little. Just enough better that I didn't feel cheated. In fact, I found the experience quite satisfactory.
Cons: Really, really dumb science. A human cast that is not only expendible, but annoying and superfluous. Terrible acting. A script that I could have written with my ass (for example, the plot turns on the line, uttered like a great revelation, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."). Thirty minutes of set-up that would have been better spent just getting to the point. Raoul Bova. An unwillingness on the part of the filmmakers to risk losing the summer blockbuster this won't be anyway and take the chances that would have made this a much better, less formulaic film. A final scene that should have been left on the cutting-room floor. The PG-13 rating. Bullet-time. And did I mention Raoul Bova?
Pros: Truthfully, Giger's aliens have never looked this good. The creature effects alone justify matinee price. The aliens have a grace and fluidity they entirely lacked in Alien, wanted to have in Aliens, and almost achieved in Alien 3 and Alien: Ressurection. Lots of fun nods to the earlier films. Some decent suspense. Agathe De La Boulaye ("Adele Rousseau"), who's the best and cutest thing in humans this film has going for it, so naturally she's the first (or maybe the second) to die. A few (too few) exciting scenes where the aliens and predators actually fight. A moderately awesome climax (though a much more awesome climax wouldn't have simply repeated Ripley blowing the queen out of one of the Sulaco's airlocks). Lance Henrikson. Great SFX and art direction.
So, yes, Big, dumb, and gorgeous. Which is more than I thought I'd get. Yes, it could have been a lot better, but that may not be the point here. The very premise of the film is a rather lame marketing gimmick. Whatever this film was to become, it had to fight that gimmick all the way. I'd have done something very different. I'd have kept the whole thing away from Earth and kept humans out of the picture entirely. How about this: The film is set many thousands of years before the first Alien film. A war has been raging between two intergalactic civilizations. For centuries, the two sides have been locked in stalemate. Then one side genetically engineers the ultimate bioweapon: the aliens. The other side, in a desperate bid to save itself as its empire falls before the quickly spreading bioweapon, hires an army of hunters (the predators), though the hunters are greatly feared and generally avoided at all costs. A terrible deal is struck. On the homeworld of the losing civilization, the predators battle and narrowly defeat the alien menace. Meanwhile, however, there's been an accident, and the aliens have turned on their creators. The film ends with an extraterrestrial starship (the one found by the crew of the Nostromo) being overrun by the aliens and crashing on LV4 26.
No one would make an sf film without humans, of course. My Hollywood agent has told me this repeatedly.
It is interesting that in Alien Vs. Predator some of the concepts intended for the original Alien are ressurected. In the first draft of O'Bannon's script for Alien, the eggs were to have been discovered inside an ancient pryramid-like structure on a desolate alien world, not on a derelict starship. Also, despite the films PG-13 rating, I think Alien Vs. Predator realized Giger's overtly sexual penis-within-a-vagina image of the facehuggers better than any of the Alien films have done.
I'm still not sure how I feel about seeing the beginnings of what would become The Company in Alien, et. al. If that was Charles Bishop Weyland (and obviously the inspiration for the Bishop android), then who was the man who comes for Ripley at the end of Alien 3? A droid? A clone of the original Charles Bishop Weyland? Personally, I prefer to keep this film apart from the continuity of the first four Alien films.
The film also sabotages its own tagline, as, clearly, it's better for humans if the predators win this match.
My frelling gods. Shut up, you damned geek. Go do something that needs doing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 02:01 am (UTC)Well, at least there're some things to look forward to. Although you've done an admirable job of keeping my expectations low, so I ought to have a good time. Why can't there be more R movies? Why aren't adults allowed to have fun anymore?
By the way, I watched The Thing last night. You're right, it was pretty good. The creature effects were great and the film maker seemed to have a perfect sense of timing when it came to them popping out. My only complaints; no female characters (which is probably kind of immature of me), the obviously fake exposition machine that showed the alien cell attacking the dog cells, and I think Wilford Brimley went apeshit a little too quickly. But I love the whole atmosphere of distrust thing.
I rented it on DVD so, er, in case you didn't know . . . it's out on DVD. In widescreen with a feature commentary by John Carpenter and Kurt Russell (I haven't listened to it yet).
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 02:24 am (UTC)Are you kidding? It was the first DVD I bought, back in 2001.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 02:38 am (UTC)Ah. Well, so much for me having my finger on the pulse of the DVD industry. No wonder it had so many special features--I mean, not to disparage the film or anything, but it seemed the sort of thing that'd get a fast and careless release on DVD. It must've been released in the days when people thought all DVDs were supposed to have lots of extra goodies . . .
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 02:52 am (UTC)Are you being sarcastic, garda?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 03:10 am (UTC)No, not at all. I've about given up on sarcasm, actually, it almost always backfires on me, or people play dumb and act like it's backfired on me . . . Anyway, which part did you think I was being sarcastic about, nixar? I guess the "so much for me having my finger on the pulse of the DVD industry" sounded oddly snide. Or did you think it was the part where I said people used to always expect goodies on DVDs? Did you think it was silly for me to refer to the interview, commentary, and something-else-I-don't-remember as being a lot of goodies? Jeez, even this reply sounds a little sarcastic. I'm reminded of the Kids in the Hall sketch where the guy had a disorder that made him say everything in a sarcastic tone . . .
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 02:53 pm (UTC)Ah, never mind. I think I was trying to be funny, which rarely goes well.
But I know what you mean. About sarcasm. I think it's because people really are getting stupider. We have a whole generation that learned the (wrong) meaning of irony from Alanis Morrissette (I hope I misspelled her name).
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 10:37 pm (UTC)I thought, "If Mighty Mouse and Superman had a fight, who would win?" was pretty funny. I read your review to a friend of mine, who's interested in the movie, and we both loved, "A script that I could have written with my ass."
About sarcasm. I think it's because people really are getting stupider.
Aw . . . Maybe if people'd just sit down, shut up, and pay attention to a movie once in a while . . . I seriously believe these things are connected. I suppose the simple answer to my thought process here is, "short attention span". It's weird hearing people say they have a short attention span as though it excuses them, though.
We have a whole generation that learned the (wrong) meaning of irony from Alanis Morrissette (I hope I misspelled her name).
Ah, yes. Atlantis Mollreset . . .