I was half-kidding (obviously) but there is something to be said for the mindset of the people who made the film. They thought if they just showed us things from the old films it would make their's good.

"Look, the Predator did that thing it did in the first movie!"

"Look, the alien go really close to some chick's head like in Alien 3!"

"Look, he said 'get to the chopper'!"

To me, this proves they honestly don't 'get it'. Say what you will about Paul Anderson, but at least he tried to be original...

Yeah, if the forum had a 'Greatest quotes of all time" DD just took the whole biscuit.

I think were all pretty much in agreement as regards the topic

No one really cares about Aliens and Predators anymore. Soon Aliens: Colonial Marines will be released, and no one will realize that Aliens is the thing that set the stage for science-fiction works to come. Halo, Dead Space, Gears of War, and other ignorant video game fanboys will be complaining about how unoriginal ACM will be, when in fact, the newer titles all borrowed from the fathers of the modern idea of sci-fi.

Fox doesn't care, either. They just want to milk this franchise for all its worth and leave it for dead. It's ridiculous.

We need something to reimagine sci-fi/horror like Alien did. We don't want another five Saw movies. You want to see blood and gore? Cut your arm off for free. That's not entertainment, that's just some sick shit.

My Bloody Valentine looks like a 3D porno with half-decent nekkidness and some guys wreaking havoc for no reason.

What my advice is, stop with this nonsense. You don't put action in a movie just for the sake of having some action in it. You have suspense scenes that require action to resolve. That's a crucial law that movies these days have been ignoring.

People in the entertainment business need to have some sense knocked into them. You make a movie because you want to do something right for the benefit of others, not because it'll get you money. It's called entertainment, it's not a god damned get-rich-quick scheme.

I don't find AVP Requiem "unwatchable". It's nowhere near as good as the earlier films, but for entertainment value, it does its job. The movie obviously could have been much better with an experienced director at the helm, but it also had the potential to be much worse.

Looking at the movie from the alien side of things though, it was a complete failure. The creatures were dumbed down to be mindless puppets for the slaughter. I haven't listened to the commentary myself, but apparently the Strause Bros. also make alot of shabby comments aimed at alien fans, which I find to be a low blow.

The pacing was quite bad as well, with the human characters being so completely unlikable that the urge to fast-forward scenes becomes unbearable at times.

In the end, I thought it was a decent entertainment flick, purely because the action scenes were intense & the predator was good. The rest was a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

Did you honestly expect quality from a Vs. film sequel. seriously? really....and im gonna say something alittle odd, the concept doesnt work. the whole flaw with both films is the mashing up of two really different franchises.

And really both alien and predator rely on the human characters to maintain the story, y'know real drama.

But this is a Vs. movie, its cheap pulp that really is only trying to excite the fanboy in people by showing you two things fight...like a snake fighting a mongoose.

i gotta say even in the comics the idea doesnt go that well, it works but really the story is pretty dull.

It only really works in a video game where you are the creature or you are the human feeling the terror the characters go through.

Anyway back to the point, there will never be an AvP film that is great, solid C+ but never an A+, because it is in its nature, a cheap idea.

AvPR suffers because of this flaw, sure the directors arnt great but neither was Paul WS Anderson, we hung him from a tree too when AvP came. give em a break, maybe throw some hatred at the producers who thought it was a good idea to put inexpierenced directors in the drivers seat of a multi million dollar franchise.

to conclude, I do like AvP-R. it is what it is, and doesnt pretend to be anything different.

you can now tell me how wrong I am. :P

As an avid fan of the Godzilla flicks, I'm not about to harass you for liking a crappy movie. I'd be more than a little hypocritical.

But in my mind, AvPR even fails on the level of dumb fun. It takes itself too seriously to really have fun with itself, and there was a cheap, mean-spirited quality to it.

Let me put it this way: If you're going to combine two sci-fi/horror/action franchises, why not go all out?

I agree with you as far as the producers are concerned. Fox knew what they were getting when they signed on the BS, and deserve just as much (perhaps more) of the blame.

Speaking of "dumb fun", I read on AvPgalaxy that there's a fanedit of AvPR that removes all the humans and embryo vomiting to make essentially a short "predator hunting aliens" movie.

Yeah some great points. I actually really enjoy bitching about this peace of piss movie.

I remain that the movie fails instantly because its produced and edited by idiots. Its simply to dark. School boy error. In fact its not even a school boy error. I could have edited this movie much better myself.

If a horse cant walk, am not even going to waste my time seeing if it can run. Others will but i demand more when i pay to go see a movie. Everything after the first essential failure reminds me it dosent really matter, the movie was still made by idiots.

If i take one of the greatest movie of all time like 'Shawshank Redemption' bring it in to final cut and add a thick layer of blackening suit, almost smoke over the canvas...... the movie becomes shit in my opinion. Everything else is bullshit, story characters, ... dont matter.

Crawl Before you can walk before you can run. I dont like having to look passed a failed essential to find some good, i shouldn't have to.

A day ago i checked out a video on saying how they made it they say that they want to keep the aliens and predtor in te shawdows and they also say that all the crap bits (i thought they were crap)were meant to be good and i checked the top 10 worst movies in 2008 and AVPR was 3rd.

The only 'versus' movies that worked were the Godzilla ones... but to be fair, they weren't even two franchises, it was just Godzilla fighting one of his foes. Those movies could've easily had different titles (but sometimes they actually did).

We just need another standalone movie by someone who isn't a complete jackass.

You know, I won't lie. I actually recall sitting in the theater watching the movie, and how I felt. It was constant action, this is true. But it was actually angering to see it. I remember throughout the whole movie I had that suspenseful feeling, waiting for it all to hit the fan, but then... It never came. It was almost like the movie didn't have an ending. Okay. Everything got blown up. The Xenos and Yautja died. But yet... There didn't seem to be any conclusion to it. It was like it hit its climax and stopped. You couldn't even SEE most of the epic parts of the movie.

It just... Left you feeling like nothing ever happened.

also how is ridley scott in a better league than james cameron?? lol

Ratings on IMDB Higher than 7. I guess this is the statistical way of proving hes better.

But my favorite way of proving hes better is ............ "USE YOUR HEAD MATE"

Ridleys probably the best pound for pound director alive today. (I feel like im comparing boxers) But it sorta makes sense
James Cameron
(8.50) - Aliens (1986)
(8.40) - Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
(8.10) - The Terminator (1984)
(7.50) - The Abyss (1989)
(7.20) - Titanic (1997)

Sir Ridley (the mastermind) Scott
(8.50) - Alien (1979)
(8.30) - Blade Runner (1982)
(8.30) - Gladiator (2000)
(8.00) - American Gangster (2007)
(7.60) - Black Hawk Down (2001)
(7.57) - All the Invisible Children (2005)
(7.50) - Body of Lies (2008)
(7.40) - Matchstick Men (2003)
(7.40) - The Duellists (1977)
(7.30) - Thelma & Louise (1991)
(7.10) - Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

you use imdb as a source for rating films? a place that said the dark knight was the greatest film of all time? popular opinoin does not mean a better film maker. Scott is not a mastermind, cmon seriously in depth and artistic merit Fincher is a better director than Scott.

Fincher

Se7en - 8.6
Fight Club - 8.7
The cruious case of benjamin button - 8.4
The Game - 7.7
Zodiac -8.0

even though i dont think IMDB is an accurate place to gauge a director's league. cameron and scott are at least on par with each other.

i never said it was, but it is a way of capturing the statistics of the great majority on the biggets movie database on the web. Theres my opinions vs yours and theres Millions of opinions and what those millions favour.

Fincher is a fantastic director and i look foward to watching him lift the Oscar for best director (BCOBB). But artistic meritt, David Fincher was lyk 10 years old when ridley was creating the most astetically pleasing movie of all time (Blade Runner).

i never said it was, but it is a way of capturing the statistics of the great majority on the biggets movie database on the web. Theres my opinions vs yours and theres Millions of opinions and what those millions favour.

Fincher is a fantastic director and i look foward to watching him lift the Oscar for best director (BCOBB). But artistic meritt, David Fincher was lyk 10 years old when ridley was creating the most astetically pleasing movie of all time (Blade Runner).

i agree on the point of blade runner, beautiful film in every way possible. ok so i guess with all this we can only really argue opinoin which is pointless. my view is that scott is a great director but not the level that some people think, i find (personally) that alot of his films are overrated (especially gladiator) but i guess its each to his own.

I dont agree but even if Ridley is in your eyes a tad overrated, it dosent at any point thrust David Fincher a-head of Sir Ridley Scott..... In fact i retain that he isnt even in the same league.

so do i

well no it does, if i think ridley is an overrated director and think that fincher is a brilliant director than it does change things. personally when i look at Fincher's films i see a depth that not many directors can bring into a film. Ridley is an great director to me but i dont see anything special in his work.

at the end of the day we're like two kids sitting around with pokemon card debating and whose is better. if only we could get directors into a cage match so they can fight it out....wait didnt Uwe boll already do that...

Yeah, but he chickened out when he found out one of the critics was a skilled fighter...