New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HTF REVIEW: Alien vs. Predator - Unrated

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 



ALIEN vs PREDATOR
UNRATED







Studio: 20th Century Fox
Film Year: 2004
Film Length: 109 minutes (Unrated)
Film Length: 101 minutes (Theatrical)
Genre: Science Fiction

Aspect Ratio:[*] 2.35:1 enhanced widescreen


Colour/B&W: Colour

Audio:[*] English 5.1 Surround
[*] English 5.1 Surround
[*]Spanish & French 2.0 Surround

Subtitles: English & Spanish
Film Rating: PG-13 & Unrated






Release Date: November 22, 2005.


Film Rating: /
Entertainment Rating: /

Starring: Sanaa Lathan (Alexa Woods), Raoul Bova (Sebastian de Rosa), Lance Henriksen (Charles Bishop Weyland), Ewen Bremner (Graeme Miller), Colin Salmon (Maxwell Stafford)

Directed by: Paul W.S. Anderson



Whoever wins... We lose.[/i]


After over 10 years of discussing the idea of this film and trying to get it cleared for reasons of so many levels, Fox delivered Alien vs. Predator to thirsty fans with an alien appetite. Unfortunately, the response for this film wasn’t good at all. Compared to the first two films in the Alien series as well as the first Predator film, Aliens vs. Predator falls well behind in terms of story and character development.

…and what a disappointment the movie is. When I was just a young kid in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s I was scooping up the Dark Horse Comics of both Aliens and Predator. I never knew how popular these actually were because as an 11-year old I was just enjoying them for what they were. Then Dark Horse came up with the terrific idea of merging both of the franchises into Aliens vs. Predator. The four issues modeled like a Hollywood film was a hit among fans as well as for me. I’d sit and read them and my mind would be wondering what it would be like to have this as an awesome kick alien-ass Hollywood film. It was a great idea. Then I waited. …and waited. …and waited. There were a few rumours kicking around in the early ‘90s that we could expect it as a film, as read in some cinema magazines like Fangoria. But dammit, the movie never came.

Well it appears the director Paul W.S. Anderson was also kicking the idea around in his head and writing a script for it. He believes he’s the biggest fan of both series but I really don’t know that…if that was the case I think he could have crafted a better film. Heck, I could have done better – but then, his record is full of mediocre films regardless of his passion for them. Apparently Anderson’s script was the best even after teams of professional scriptwriters were hired. I wonder where those scriptwriters graduated from or were they even fans of either film?

Anderson’s script contains story elements of the original comic series as well as new material, so this isn’t a movie about the first series of AvP comics. The movie centers around a rushed present-day investigation of heat on one of the little islands off of Antarctica by Weyland Corporation, the same company that played a huge role into wanting to bring Aliens to Earth in the Aliens films. Speaking of Weyland, not only has their logo not changed over 200 years, but it seems they can’t get enough of being around these Aliens. Even the top man at the company hasn’t changed much – Charles Bishop Weyland, played by an aged Lance Henriksen and long before androids were being made, still looks the same.

As it turns out, 2000 feet under this abandoned whaling post the Aliens are awakened. The teenage Predators from space have “turned on” their pyramid to come to hunt these creatures as their right of passage and the people of Weyland and their team of drillers, scientists, and archaeologists are caught in a maze in the middle of the battle. As it turns out, what these people thought was the first civilization on Earth was actually built by Predators. They also discover that all of man’s ancient civilizations’ architecture was influenced by these Predators. Long ago, Predators brought Aliens to Earth to destroy. When things didn’t go quite right they were destroyed. That is this film’s explanation to why ancient civilizations disappeared overnight.

I know that this is somewhat the story of the comic, but really much of this idea doesn’t translate very well to film. Not only are there logistical errors (like why some Aliens long ago didn’t wander off from the pyramids on earth), but this story that takes place in 2004, in theory, disrupts the whole Alien series because now present day Earth knows about the aliens whereas they didn’t seem to know much about it in Alien.

But I couldn’t help to think about how the Predator is more like man, but just far more stronger and advanced. Predators survive because of cultural adaptations; they use technology to fight and to survive in foreign environments against their enemies. The Aliens are a lot like carnivorous animals on Earth. Their structural adaptations such as brute strength, a second set of extendable teeth, and acid for blood make them fierce predators as well. Their naked bodies are armoured and agile. In this film we see both species battle, but not on a large scale as one would think it would be. There are far more aliens in Aliens. Contrast these two creatures with the lowly human being whose body is frail, weak, and defenceless in a world of man against nature. Our bodies cannot take the same beating as the Predator’s, but like him we need technology to survive. In this case, our technology is always inferior and exposes us as the perfect prey for anything stronger than us.

So what is the purpose of this new DVD anyway? This is the first time the unrated version is seen on this side of the world. The unrated version is not an R-rated equivalent nor does it have much extra violence, action, or gore. Most of these scenes are discussions between people and only one of them is a death scene. It also results in having the same camera pan (of the skulls in the chamber) appear twice. Disappointed? I can’t say that these scenes make the film better. I’ve never seen the theatrical cut so I walked right into this film hoping for a cool unrated flick as I’m led to believe. We are able to view these scenes separately but I’ll talk about that later. I don’t understand it anyways; why was a PG-13 rating given to this film to begin with? Why would anyone follow up 6 R-rated films with PG-13? I’m not saying an R rating would make this film better, but maybe as ideas flew around in pre-production they were limited to what can be done within PG-13 guidelines.


VIDEO QUALITY /


The video quality is generally well defined but the biggest problem is black level detail. This movie was shot in dark environments and it seems that those in charge behind the camera weren’t satisfied with the resulting darkness of the movie. Tinkering with the black levels is obvious because it has higher black levels in almost every scene in the attempt to “see into” the dark parts of the picture. Just imagine turning the brightness control up on your television – it’s the same effect and it’s on both the theatrical and unrated cut of the film. Check out the sloppy tinkering that is obvious at 20.33-20.36 in the film. See the green spot over the person’s face in order to show his face a little more? Bad…bad…bad. There are many instances of this such as in hallway shots, etc. Colour looks good throughout and grain is kept low but is not absent. A slight amount of compression artefacts can be seen around letters and some edges. The aspect ratio is 2.35:1.


AUDIO QUALITY /

This is a very good 5.1 soundtrack that has an aggressive front soundstage. Surrounds channels, surprisingly, are used sparingly. But when they are engaged they really rumble. The LFE channel has some great kick and there is some bass up in the front soundstage too. The music and sound effects all come across as neutral sounding. The Dolby Digital encoding seems to emphasise the “core” sounds a little more than the DTS option – which seems to deliver these sounds more recessed into the mix. Both soundtrack options are available on both cuts of the film.


SPECIAL FEATURES /

First of all, the ability to select both the unrated and the theatrical version of this film is great just in case you hate the added scenes. These scenes are also available to be viewed on their own.

Depending on which version of the film you choose you’ll be taken to a different animated menu. The theatrical cut’s special features have the same two audio commentaries that were on the previous release. One is from director Paul W.S. Anderson and actors Lance Henrikson and Sanaa Lathan. Theirs is more “fun” compared to the second commentary; it’s more technical and features Alec Gillis, Tom Woodruff Jr. and John Bruno.

Disc 2 is where all of the new features are loaded onto:
[*] Pre-production: - AVP the Beginning - this 26-minute feature has branching video to the ADI Workshop (7m) and four storyboard galleries from Brent Boates, Phil Norwood, and Richard Bennett. The main feature is with Anderson and Producer John Davis. They discuss how this film came to be…
[*] Production – AVP Production also includes branching video on this 59-minute feature. You can dig in deeper to see how the miniature whaling station (7m), facehugger and eggs (14.51) and another scene was done (3.45). It’s fairly extensive and you won’t want to miss it. Compression artefacts are quite apparent on this feature.
[*] Post Production – Visual Effects Breakdown (33.10) discusses about the use of CG vs. real physical objects of any form. You’d be surprised about how much was NOT CG in this movie. That’s a good thing. Deleted Scenes are also in this section. They are enhanced for widescreen sets and are also in 5.1. They include The Sister, Miller gets Caught (alternate death scene), and Love Scene. It seems that the deleted scenes that were included on the previous release aren’t anywhere on this disc nor do they seem like they are in the film (based on their titles and running length). All of these scenes together only equal another 2 minutes to the cut. Optional commentary is also available here.
[*] Licensing the Franchise features two selections; Aliens vs. Predator the Comic Book (12m) has the guys from Dark Horse Comics discuss the film and Monsters of Miniature by Todd McFarlane (14m) has Todd himself talking about his company and the details going into each toy. He seems like a different fellow…and certainly likes his work.
[*] Marketing is the last submenu that takes you to an HBO Special (13m), a theatrical teaser and two theatrical trailers (all widescreen but not enhanced for widescreen displays). The ad for the Alien Quadrilogy set as well as Planet of the Apes 35th Anniversary is also here.


IN THE END…

While this didn’t become the smash hit I wished it was, Alien vs. Predator can still be an exciting film to watch – logistics aside. I’m happy that the creatures of the two films finally have some screen time together even though Sigourney Weaver thought it was a stupid idea. She obviously isn’t a Predator fan. Despite your take on this film, this is a feature-packed release that is worthy of a first purchase.

Michael Osadciw
November 16, 2005.
post #2 of 67
The first release was enough for me on this title. I liked it well enough for what it was but not enough to double-dip.
post #3 of 67
I was planning on doubledipping. Thanks for the review. I'll keep the original. Sure doesn't sound worth a repurchase. I was happy with the PG-13 version.
post #4 of 67
A completely entertaining film from beginning to end and I am gladly double dipping.

(.......look out...here come the pissed off fanboys!.....just kidding...sort of. )
post #5 of 67
Quote:
...why was a PG-13 rating given to this film to begin with? Why would anyone follow up 6 R-rated films with PG-13?

I swear everything is PG-13 these days. Why? Studios obviously figure they can increase theater attendance this way. What is the end result? Generally, a movie that satisfies no one, not the parents that would prefer to take their children to a PG movie, or the adults or children, in some cases, that would prefer to see the R version. I'm generally of the opinion that the PG-13 rating is a bane of moviegoers existance and a good reason why films of the 70s, for example, are so much superior than their counterparts today, special effects not withstanding.

As for the review, nice job. I had already pretty much decided to pass on this release, as I thought the movie was rather dull after I watched the original DVD. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
post #6 of 67
Quote:
I’ve never seen the theatrical cut

Then how do you know this?

Quote:
The unrated version is not an R-rated equivalent nor does it have much extra violence, action, or gore

Are the additional/extended scenes identified in some way?

Btw, thanks for the review.
post #7 of 67
Tino, if the unrated version has no real blood or guts, then it's pretty clear that the theatrical version didn't either. He's just confirming what we really knew all along...this version is literally unrated, but has no reason to be so.
post #8 of 67
Quote:
Whoever wins... We loose


It's not written that way on the packaging is it!?! I assume that is just Michael's typo...? :b
post #9 of 67
Thread Starter 
Tino
Quote:
I’ve never seen the theatrical cut so I walked right into this film hoping for a cool unrated flick as I’m led to believe. We are able to view these scenes separately but I’ll talk about that later.

I just didn't explain that further into the review. Corrected.


Robert!

Ha hah! The English language is such an oddball...at times I do make mistakes...choose & loose vs. chose & lose. I can think of a billion other examples of similar spellings but different pronunciations. Plus, it doesn't help that I evaluate the work of Grade 4 students every day...words are spelt wrong all of the time; I begin to believe they are correct!

Corrected!

Mike
post #10 of 67
Quote:
He's just confirming what we really knew all along...this version is literally unrated, but has no reason to be so

All "Unrated" ever means is that additional footage was added to the theatrical version and was not submitted to the MPAA for a new rating.

Unrated doesn't always mean that additional footage contains more nudity, gore or violence even though that is what most people think it means.


Quote:
words are spelt wrong all of the time

Don't you mean spelled, Michael?
post #11 of 67
So is there anything that was on the original release that has been dropped here?
post #12 of 67
The three deleted scenes on the single disc release are included in the unrated version (but you can't view them separately from the film).

the only major material (from the single disc) that doesn't make it to the two disc is the DVD-ROM content stuff on the AVP comics. Basically The Making Of AVP featurette on the single disc is a shortened version of the major featurettes on disc two of the unrated edition.
post #13 of 67
Thread Starter 
Tino

Quote:
Don't you mean spelled, Michael?

Ha ha...you must remember that I am Canadian! I knew I'd catch you on that one!

Canadian English is much closer to British English. Spelt is the British past tense of "spell" - just as colour is to color, centre is to center, organise is to organize and "z(ed)" is to "z(ee)" ...and on and on...

..."spelled" is actually improper here.

I'm very aware of American spelling...but I'll stick with Canadian English.

L8R
Mike
post #14 of 67
post #15 of 67
Anyone else find the slipcase to be of incredibly poor quality? The artwork is fine, yada yada yada, but the slipcase it self is atrocious. The artwork is actually peeling off. When I took the clear safety stick off, to protect the slipcase from being ripped when remove the price sticker, a huge chunk of the artwork went with it!
post #16 of 67
Oh YES Jim Harvey...

I removed a little part of the back cover on the slip case... Very beautifull, but terribly poor quality...
post #17 of 67
Quote:
organise is to organize

Actually, we can use both forms; -se is a recent evolution (and probably the reason why Americans only use -ze). My old Oxford dictionary doesn't list the -se forms.
post #18 of 67
Quote:
I removed a little part of the back cover on the slip case... Very beautifull, but terribly poor quality...
I may have to ditch my slip cover becuase I just keep on finding more and more damage the more I look it over. Chips here and there are gone. Just poor quality on Fox's part.
post #19 of 67
I did not buy this the first time around, so I picked up the new version last night. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet (going through the extras on WotW)...
post #20 of 67
I watched it last night. I did not notice the additional eight minutes in the film; however, I did notice that a fair amount of CG human blood was added to most of the death scenes. Unfortunately, it looks very fake and obvious....
post #21 of 67
Is there any reason to hold on to the first release (in terms of extras that were not carried over)?

Edit: never mind....:b Missed David_Blackwell's post.
post #22 of 67
I did not buy the original release but since I had a $7.50 off coupon I went ahead and purchased this edition. Too good of a deal. I saw it at the theater and was not too impressed but hope this edition will be a little better. Thanks for the review.
post #23 of 67
Quote:
Is there any reason to hold on to the first release (in terms of extras that were not carried over)?

Edit: never mind....:b Missed David_Blackwell's post.
The new edition might not have the DVD-ROM content, but it does include the first issue of the "Alien vs. Predator" comic book!
post #24 of 67
I watched the original cut recently on HBO and actually enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. But I did notice that the violence and language appeared to be hastily edited out, choppy editting around violence scenes, off screen kill shots, one f-bomb was dubbed out. I was hoping that these scenes would be editted as originally intended. If the unrated version is just as bloodless and choppy, I don't see the point at all.
post #25 of 67
OK, just watched the unrated cut...

I still really enjoyed it, more than the theatrical version. While most will agree it does not do the franchises from which it spawned justice, to anyone who has played the PC video games "Aliens vs Predator I & II" (notice that 'Aliens' is plural... slight gaffe on Anderson's part), it is consistant with those. The added scenes, while a masterpiece does not make, does serve to round out the characters a bit, and the editing does not seem so choppy....

....now a bit of confusion... the end credits rolled at 96 minutes, and yet the runnuning time is 108 minutes...?!? Even if the end credits are part of that (I didn't watch them all the way through), are there 12 minutes worth of end credits (maybe the names of all the AvP Fan Club members )?
post #26 of 67
Anyone else experiencing any glitches with this title? While watching the Unrated Version the picture began to pixelate and the sound drops out at around minute 58 all through the first Alien Vs. Predator battle. The sound dropouts are on both the DTS and DD tracks. I thought this may be attributed to the seamless branching but it happens during the theatrical version as well (though on that version it happens at around 53 minutes). I thought it was my player (Technics DVD-A10) but after trying it on my other players, the glitches were still there.

A bad copy maybe? Anyone else care to chime in about this issue?

Cheers!
Harry
post #27 of 67
I watched it last night. I'm quite happy with the extra scenes...there's slightly more build-up to the action than before, which the film sorely needs.

HOWEVER! Earlier in this thread, Ed Speir IV mentioned the crummy CG blood added to the film...and yet I was not prepared for just how badly done it is.

With the exception of a few shots, the CG blood not only looks added, but it often does not 'stick' to the object or person that it is on.

A pathetic attempt to make a PG-13 film (and it's clear it was always intended to be, no matter what Anderson claims) a little more 'naughty' after the fact.

I would have been more happy with an extended cut without all the tinkering.
post #28 of 67
Quote:
....now a bit of confusion... the end credits rolled at 96 minutes, and yet the runnuning time is 108 minutes...?!? Even if the end credits are part of that (I didn't watch them all the way through), are there 12 minutes worth of end credits (maybe the names of all the AvP Fan Club members )?

I just watched/suffered through the theatrical cut (for the first time since I saw it theatrically) and the end credits sequence IS 12 minutes long. It's really amazing that such a massive amount of people worked on something so completely awful.
post #29 of 67
Quote:
I just watched/suffered through the theatrical cut (for the first time since I saw it theatrically) and the end credits sequence IS 12 minutes long. It's really amazing that such a massive amount of people worked on something so completely awful


Bill

You have made it clear countless times how much you despise this film, it's director and everyone associated with it.

Why on earth would you watch it again???
post #30 of 67
Quote:
thought this may be attributed to the seamless branching

I don't have your player or this particular disc, but my current player has alot of trouble with newer branching discs (Identity, Kate & Leopold).

My playback is sprinkled with audio dropouts, even though the discs are mint and play fine elsewhere.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Official HTF DVD Reviews