DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Alien vs. Predator - Unrated (1 Viewer)

[Kain_C]

I do, although I am weary of their inaccuracies which is a result of readership contributions, not the site itself necessarily.

And I didn't quote it; I merely provided USER rating data. If you look at their top 250 list, for the most part it's pretty decent.

If you enjoyed it, that's fine. But you shouldn't assume "many" enjoyed it when you cannot possibly know that for a fact, which is apparent that you do NOT. In fact, it appears that many more did NOT enjoy it.

 

[Tino]

If you didn't enjoy it, that's fine too, but you shouldn't assume many didn't enjoy it when you cannot possibly know that for a fact, which is apparent that you do not. In fact, none of your facts are facts.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Just another shot against "anecdotal evidence."

Big Box Office isn't a proper indicator of quality of film OR viewer enjoyment: Something as high concept (and loudly marketed) as Alien vs Predator means it could have gotten a high number of ticket sales out of sheer curiosity and genre loyalty. See "Batman and Robin" which made a LOT of money and was pretty universally reviled by almost everyone who saw it.

But you do gotta admit, with over 100 million dollars in reciepts worldwide, it's gotta be safe to say at least somewhere around 500,000 people on this planet thought it was a good movie. And that definitely qualifies as "many."

 

[Tino]

My point exactly Robert.

 

[GuruAskew]

When you're dealing with anything like a movie that has a wide release, even a marginal portion of the people exposed to it will constitute the use of the word "many". You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who actually preferred "AvP" to "Alien", "Aliens" or "Predator" but if you actually rounded up every person that shared that opinion you'd still be dealing with a large group of people. There were many people who loved "AvP", just like there were many people that loved "Batman & Robin", just like there were many people that loved "Ishtar", etc. The thing you have to look at is where these "many" people fit into the big picture. If many people loved "AvP", many, many more hated it. Every time you see a sampling of how people actually reacted to the film, it routinely earns the lowest rating of any film in either franchise. Sure, people went to see it, *I* went to see it, and even though I didn't pay myself because of the Predator SE ticket, it was a check that counted towards the movie's gross. If my $7 (courtesy of Fox) out of that $171,183,863 says nothing about my enjoyment of the film, then the entire number is completely invalidated as a gauge of enjoyment. The fact that I sat there in the theater proves that the film was marketed well (you can't get people into theaters any better than by giving them a free ticket) and that I was loyal to both franchises but it doesn't prove that I liked it. As a matter of fact, the film's rapid second-week dropoff proves that most people didn't. Look, everyone has the right to be entertained by this movie and I'm sure you could find a movie that you despise in my DVD collection (and AvP isn't even the first movie that *I* despise in my DVD collection), but I'm here as an owner of the DVD, and I'm offering up my thoughts. The movie itself was an attempt at crapping out a subpar product to make a quick buck from loyal fans and the overwhelming majority of them recognized that, and this DVD is just more of the same.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Why? I don't 'gotta' admit any kind of pure speculation based upon numbers pulled out of thin air...

DJ

 

[Robert Anthony]

Jesus you're anal sometimes, D. I'm fuckin ballparking a figure, that's about it. Thought it was a safe enough figure. 500,000 people, worldwide, at say an average ticket price of like 4 dollars per ticket (figuring in matinees and dollar theaters) still equals a pretty SMALL percentage of the overall gross. Pretty much what Bill said when he stated Get my head out of the guillotine.

I don't think it's a good movie, either. And I don't think a lot of the people who saw it thought so, either. But being as vague as the word "many" is, it's pretty easy to say "many" people probably DID like it and consider themselves fans.

 

[GuruAskew]

Relax, I was agreeing with the assessment that "many" fans dug the flick but I was ultimately pointing out that the use of the word "many" is pretty much meaningless when you're dealing with something that is exposed to such a large audience.

 

[Robert Anthony]

LOL. You're not "D" you're Bill. I wasn't addressing you with that, which is why I quoted you, since I was pretty much agreeing with you. And I wasn't being all that serious, either

 

[Tino]

And for the record I agree that many more people probably didn't enjoy the film than did.

My point was that not every "fan" hated it or was expecting a "revelation" which was assumed in this quote:



But I get your point Bill as to why you own it and are watching it. I have a few films myself that I dislike but own for the sake of completion.

 

[Jordan_E]

So much over a movie that...well, sucked!

 

[Frank@N]

As a HTF regular, I'm probably in the minority with regards to my enjoyment of AVP. That's not to say that HTF regulars are normal people as far as J6P is concerned.

Anyway, I thought AVP was the second best Predator movie with P2 taking up the rear. I can't even watch P2 till the slaughter house (last half-hour, I think).

Having said that, I'm sticking with the original AVP DVD (no DD).

 

[Sam Davatchi]

I also enjoyed this movie the first and only time that I saw it.

 

[AlexCremers]

22% tomatometer readings, huh?! That's pretty bad. This film simply has to suck big time! The only excuse fans may have is that it sucks in a good way. I have no other explanation for it. The first time I saw 'Hannibal' I thought it just plain sucked. The second time I discovered it sucked in an almost brilliant way and I had a very good time. Is this perhaps what we're talking about? Does AvP suck in a good way?


Alex

 

[GuruAskew]

I don't think so but then again, I don't think "Hannibal" "sucks in a good way", it just plain sucks, though not nearly as bad as "AvP". I think watching "AvP" is a thoroughly unpleasant experience, whereas with "Hannibal", you have a great director leading a great cast with a screenplay by a talented screenwriter that just happens to be based on a crappy book. There's still a lot of positivity there with "Hannibal", but "AvP" disappoints on every level.

 

[Tino]

Right...many others!

 

[Michael Reuben]

Thread reopened.

Everyone can stop debating the validity of others' opinions. Either talk about the disc that's being reviewed, or move on. Thanks!

M.

 

[GuruAskew]

I actually did finally get around to watching the extras disc and while it was pretty substantial and well put together in regards to the technical aspects, I think it definitely suffered from EPK syndrome where everyone is embarassingly optimistic. I wasn't expecting Fox to address the reaction the film received like on the "Alien Quadrilogy" or Warner Bros. "Batman Anthology" but the DVD extras were clearly in the works during the film's production or only shortly thereafter (they even have a 2004 copyright because these extras were already released on Disc 2 of the 2-disc set other countries got when we only got the initial single-disc edition, though the "unrated" cut is new to this edition) and I think that's why a lot of recent movies don't have very compelling extras. I had to be an advocate for the double-dip but I can definitely see the logic in releasing a bare-bones edition then releasing a packed edition somewhere down the line when everyone involved can look back on the film with a better perspective. Worse than that was Paul WS Anderson's arrogance, he regularly bashes "Alien3", "Alien Resurrection" and "Predator 2", sometimes blatantly, sometimes passively, but it's pretty insulting considering how his film was even more flawed than any of them. He also makes several references to Cameron, and I couldn't tell if he was just a pathetic fanboy with no vision for himself or if he was trying to appeal to the "Aliens" fans. He even criticizes beloved aspects of the films in the series that he deems successful, the most notable example is his criticsm of Stan Winston's amazing work on "Predator". He calls it "dated" and says it looks like a guy in a rubber suit, which all comes across pretty absurd in hindsight when you look at how bad the ADI Predators were. I was shocked to learn that the guy that played all the Predators was over seven feet tall, because the Predator suit ADI made for him was so bulky that it messed up the established Predator proportions and made him look midget-like. In any case, the best extras were the two that didn't deal with the film itself: the one on the Dark Horse Comics and the one on the McFarlane Toys.

 

[Tino]

I don't blame him. Alien Vs Predator IS better and more entertaining than all three of those films.....imo (btw, I'm not debating...just expressing my opinion).

HAven't gotten around to the extras yet of this great DVD set. I just keep watching this great film. And the transfer does indeed look better than the previous version to my eyes.

 

[GuruAskew]

"AvP" is indeed the worst movie in either saga. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone that prefers "AvP" to "Alien", "Aliens" or "Predator", but their less-successful sequels all have positive aspects, which I absolutely wouldn't say about "AvP". Basically, it comes down to this: "Alien3" (which I find to be vastly underrated) is a disappointing movie that's very well-directed. David Fincher is ten times the director that Paul WS Anderson is and even though Fox gave him a hard time on the movie, his talent still shines through. I don't think anyone agrees with the decision to kill Newt and Hicks (which was made long before Fincher was involved), and most of the other characters are forgettable, but at the absolute least, there is a great visual style there. "Alien Resurrection" is flat-out bad but it's a bad movie from a great director. It doesn't satisfy me as an "Alien" fan on any level but it's an ambitious failure, and like Fincher, Jeunet delivered in the visual department. Both of these films have their massive flaws but they also have their massively-redeeming qualities. The same goes for "Predator 2", but for entirely different reasons. Stephen Hopkins was no Fincher or Jeunet, he doesn't really have a style as much as he's a competent technical director, which is why he also works alot in television (his Peter Sellers biopic on HBO was excellent, by the way) and while that unfortunately means that you aren't sitting there marveling at the visual palette, you ARE entertained by his proficiency in regards to other aspects of filmmaking and storytelling such as pacing, action, etc. The most common defense for "AvP" I see is "just watch it like it's a dumb action movie and it's entertaining". Sadly, that's not the case. "Predator 2" works as a "dumb action movie" and while it certainly doesn't excell in the action department like the first "Predator", it still manages to succeed. "AvP", on the other hand, literally fails on EVERY POSSIBLE LEVEL. Paul WS Anderson cannot direct action, he has no visual style, he is almost completely incapable of getting a decent performance out of an actor, and when they do (like Lance Henriksen in "AvP") it's because they use their own talents to make up for Anderson's lack of talent.