Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
The Good, The Bad and the Unforgivable
27 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
So, to start off, I'll admit that I'm a major fan of the originals... Alien/Aliens/Alien 3 and Predator/Predator 2. Those have been some of my favourite movies since I was a wee thing, and like many other fans, they will always be. That's why I'm going to spend the next 20 minutes typing up something that most of you would consider a waste of time... but I just would like to put my opinion out there... cause I can.

Alien: Resurrection was the first real misstep for the series. While it was still entertaining, there were major problems with it - it's story took away from the films that came before it, and in the end, became a silly, self-parody rather than a moody, gritty science-fiction/horror/action/thriller that made the first outings in both series so memorable.

AvP, on the other hand, was simply a turd. It broke so many rules established in the previous entries. It was watered down and turned into a kiddie flick. The script was ridiculous and share no continuity with the other films. The effects, while occasionally interesting, were on the whole uninspiring. The pace was weak, and the creatures were treated disrespectfully... It was just a major disappointment after waiting for so many years. Better stories existed in both the games and the comics, yet for some reason Fox felt it wasn't worth the effort to make something amazing and just churned out any old thing to get kid's asses in the seats.

As for AvP:R, I had zero expectations, yet still walked out disappointed. Although it fixed a few of the problems with the first entry in the AvP series, it created a whole bunch of it's own. To narrow them down into categories.

THE GREAT: - Finally, back to an R-Rating with gore - Not so much reliance on CGI - No Paul WS Anderson

THE GOOD: - The Predator looked much better, slimmer and more graceful this time around, although the mouth still was kinda messed up - No fear of being nasty, and maybe even controversial - as evidenced by the baby/pregnant woman scenes - Some nice music that reminds you of the original films - Good sound design - The double head-shot

THE BAD - The Predalien looked dorky and top-heavy. The way it was filmed gave it no presence or menace whatsoever - Too dark, the film needed to be lit more tactfully - Direction was bland - there were no real "wow" moments - The action, while better than what we got in the first AvP, is still filmed in that awful shaky cam with fast cutting techniques that take away the impact of what is happening - The shot of the Predator home planet, while it looked kind of cool, was completely unnecessary, removing more of the mystery that made the Predators so interesting in the first place - Not enough gore - The Predalien's ability to "reproduce" is vague and makes very little sense when taken into consideration with the alien life cycle - Bad dialogue - Too much posing by the Predator - The Predator's new equipment was uninteresting to say the least - The Predator skins a guy and hangs him from a tree while trying to cover up evidence of strange goings on? - Still no space marines - Too many ideas re-used under the guise of "homage" and executed in a much weaker fashion than they were originally - The fact that the creatures looked better in their 80's incarnations is strange and indicates this movie needed a bigger budget - A definite "direct-to-video" feel about the whole affair

THE UNFORGIVABLE - Terrible script, boring setting - No continuity with the previous entries in the series - Totally destroys the point that the original "Alien" film made about the Nostromo crew being the first humans to ever come in contact with the Alien species - The Aliens in this film are pathetic, and are a far cry from what we learned about them from the previous films - The fact that it's set on Earth, while it can be blamed on the first AvP, takes away so much from "Alien" and Ripley's quest to prevent the species ever making it's way to human civilisation - the whole thing just diminishes the menace and threat posed by these creatures, thus making them less interesting and terrifying - No characters, just a bunch of clichés that walked on screen and then promptly died - The awful "teen-movie" scenes - they embarrassed me to even be sitting there watching them - The alien life-cycle is still too fast - Stupid cliffhanger ending that makes as much sense as Bishop being alive in 2004, which is... not at all. - They showed everything good in the film in the red-band trailer, resulting in no tension.

All in all... Watch it if you must, but don't expect it to reach the potential AvP really has.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sahara (2005)
2/10
Unoriginal, unspectacular, uninteresting.
9 April 2005
Man, I'm glad I didn't pay a cent to see this film. Free tickets... thanks for small mercies.

Shamelessly unoriginal, boring, unfocused. Not a surprise, considering who was at the helm. I pretty much predicted every scene this film had to offer as soon as I saw the TV spots. This brand of story has been done to death! Why bother putting such a redundant tale to celluloid. All one needs to do is watch Indiana Jones and you've already seen this film before you've watched a minute of it. I hope they don't make back their budget for this one...

Matthew McConaughey and Steve Zahn were just filling in the old "hard-bitten hero adventurer" and "goofy sidekick" roles... Penélope Cruz, while often nice to look at is just a stock standard damsel in distress. Both the bad guys are totally forgettable.

One thing I like to do while watching this kind of brain dead film is to guess whether it will all end with a big explosion. And yes, this one does. But was it worth 130 million dollars? Hell no. The effects weren't even worth the effort to drag myself to the cinema.

Congratulations Breck, I hope this piece of crap you made puts a smile on daddy's face. Now, can I have my 2 hours back?
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A flat, uninspired and formulaic comedy
22 March 2005
Except for a couple of amusing scenes featuring James Woods and Jason Alexander, this "comedy" is bereft of any originality or laughs. I had to rub my eyes in disbelief when I saw that it was filmed in the mid 90's! The only evidence that this wasn't an 80's movie was the presence of a young Hayley Joel Osment. Even George Costanza's love interest was sporting a massive 80's hairstyle.

The cheesy romantic plot just floats past like a bloated, rotting corpse. By '96 we'd already seen just about every variation on this style of comedy about a million times. Jason Alexander is simply playing a toned down version of George Costanza... Blah, I wasted my time watching this and now I'm wasting more by typing about it. Awful film.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed