nastiayeleniuk I know that the AvP aren't canon to either franchise, but there's so many things that don't make sense in regards to the Alien universe, like the movie takes place in 2004 and Mr. Weyland is played by the same actor who played Bishop in Aliens. It doesn't help that he's called "Charles Bishop Weyland" in the movie.That's not the only things that don't make sense. 1) When we first see our main character she's climbing up a frozen cliff on a mountain. There's a wide shot where we clearly see that there's nothing but snow on the plateau above. By the time she gets there there's a helicopter and its pilot up there who... flew there without her noticing!? 2) Mr. Weyland gives his speech at the briefing while standing on a bridge inside the ship's hangar BEHIND the characters 3) Our main character and I will just call her by her name Alexa Woods (*great name*) from now on is taking a helicopter to fly to the icebreaker where the team is located. Why not land the helicopter on the ship while it's still in a harbor and save gas? 4) It's never explained why Alexa decides to stay on the ship.The story of this movie is really not that special. Who thought it would be a good idea to make this a archeology movie? In the beginning we go from one place to another over and over again within minutes. "Rogue One" did the same, but in that movie it worked because the things that happened in those different places were actually relevant to the story. Here they're not.All of the actresses and actors except Lance Henriksen are really bad in both their line delivery and facial expressions. The acting is better than the "acting" in "Alien: Resurrection" though.Let's talk about the "characters". We're supposed to care about Alexa the most, yet we don't know anything about her. Oh well we do, there's a ludicrous ATTEMPT of an emotional scene where we find out about the story with her dad. We're supposed to care about Graeme, yet all we know about him is that he's OBSESSED with taking photos to the point where it gets really annoying. This is my first Predator movie. In this movie they do nothing but kill humans and xenomorphs. The xenomorph queen looks amazing of course, but why is there visible electricity all around her? And she's tied up, laying spores/eggs, whatever you want to call them but I'd rather call them spores because that's what it says in the menu of my Alien Blu-ray, similar to "Alien: Resurrection", where the xenomorphs are caged. This movie takes so long to get to the point which makes it really boring. Aliens did that, too, but it worked because the team we spent our time with was interesting and they were good characters. The human characters in this movie are hollow, boring and uninteresting and they suck at acting. They are really dumb as well. Once they're trapped in the pyramid they decide to enter its even lower levels.Once we get the facehuggers they jump out of the spores in slow motion for some reason. That was absolutely pointless. There's a lot of overuse of slow motion in this movie.In the original "Alien" there was quite some time between the facehugger leaving the host's face, the host waking up and the xenomorph bursting out of the person's chest. In this movie it's taking minutes or even seconds. The moments we've all been waiting for, the xenomorph and predator fighting look like garbage. It's just shaky cam, which is a shame because they have really good xenomorph props and the predators look really cool, too. And why can xenomorphs fall through the floors of the pyramid? I don't think they're THAT heavy. By the way, why can't the xenomorph queen outrun a human?And there's no way I can review this movie without mentioning the jumpscares. For example there's a scene where we're made to think a xenomorph is about to show up but it's a penguin. SECONDS earlier Alexa touches Graeme from behind with the most clichéd loud music.This was my first Paul W. S. Anderson movie and everyone says his movies are terrible and he's a terrible director and this movie was written by him as well, so I was very concerned about what I was going to see. And here's my opinion: He's a bad director, but he's even worse as a screenplay writer. What I hate most about his writing is that there's so many exposition scenes. Or maybe it's the stupid twist that the character have to team up with the predators. It's ridiculous when they say "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".I think Pepsi and National Geographic regret their product placements.Oh and the credits go on for TWELVE MINUTES.

loudog-69437 If you're going to watch this film you cant walk in expecting a serious film. Well maybe serious is the wrong word, but you have to be in on the joke and open minded.The sole purpose of this film is to watch the alien and the predator just go at it. If you are expecting that, you won't be disappointed. While the lack of gore does take away from some of the scenes it's all in all a fun flick. Especially if you're an alien and/or predator fan.

UofSciFi They have been trying for years to get this film made....so what did you think of it? Is it what you expected? Is this the film you would've'e made if you were in control? If you are like most of us then your answers to the above questions are probably No, No, No and No However it is not all bad ....in fact there were parts of this film that I really enjoyed. My biggest disappointment is that it didn't follow the ALIEN VS PREDATOR story lines that I have learn to enjoy from the paper back novels and comic books.I wanted to see a movie about humans in the future who are at war with the predator race in space and both are using the alien as a weapon against each other (just like in the novels) Needless to say that isn't the film they made.....I'm afraid this film falls under the category of movies that i like to call "what could have been...films" Had they followed the story lines used in the paperback novels this could have been the birth of a new major sci-fi franchise that would rivaled the likes of Star Wars, BattleStar Galactica, and Star Trek.Instead we get to see a gang of twenty somethings go glob trotting in Antartica in a underground pyramid (and most of them are killed off before you even get to know the characters) --and the rest of the movie was just a special effect show At least it was entertaining..and it did have some decent special effects I gave it 5 out of 10 stars

UK Shaun Alien vs. Predator (2004)At the time of writing this review, Alien vs. Predator was released 13 years ago. I knew of it's existence, and admittedly the title Alien vs. Predator, simply didn't sit well with me. Both Alien (1979) and Predator (1987) are classic films, ultimately I gave into temptation and sat through Alien vs. Predator.Others have covered the story here, so I will pass on repeating it. To be honest the story failed to mean much. Compared to either Alien or Predator, Alien vs. Predator fails to compare, although if you were to compare it to the dire Predators (2010) Alien vs. Predator is a slightly better film.95% of Alien vs. Predator takes place underground, in a pyramid structure, located in Antarctica. If you have ever played an Uncharted game, you might recall the levels that see large stone blocks sliding, highly ornate shapes turning, surfaces covered in hieroglyphics. During Alien vs. Predator much of the time the cast are seen exploring, running, jumping, around the stone structure, and it feels Indian Jones, action adventure, never sci-fi Alien or war-zone Predator. No electronic gadgets to detect Aliens, or opportunities to cover ones self in mud and hide. No moments of suspense. Alien vs. Predator lacks what made Alien and Predator so good.Special FX - Alien vs. Predator contains a mixed bag. Some of the SFX are absolutely stunning, such as the snow covered landscape with buildings breaking up. The Predators looked good, but not as good as the Predator that appears in the original from 1987, which looked alive with it's mask off. When it comes to the Aliens, it's CGI overload. For some reason, the Aliens look slimy? The Alien always had a slimy mouth, but I don't recall the whole thing being covered from head to toe? There's a ton of them, they charge about like reptiles. Predators dispatch Aliens with ease, thus aren't portrayed as absolutely bad- ass indestructible creatures like the Alien from 1979, which is a pity. Surprisingly, there is no gore other than Alien acid or green Predator juice. There is chest burst scene, but the camera pans away, not wanting to show the gory moment. Now that's a missed opportunity!Alien vs. Predator contains a mixed bag of ability when it comes to the actors who got the job. I won't run through all of them. The following list might give you some idea.Lance Henriksen - The best actor in the film. He does a good job. Good choice.Ewen Bremner - I know him from Trainspotting. He is a good actor. When he first appears, with his goofy demeanour, I really wasn't sure, and am still not sure he was a good choice. The fact remains, he was one of the best actors to star in Alien vs. Predator. Raoul Bova - His strong Italian accent is the first thing that hit's the viewer. It sounds exaggerated, and ultimately becomes distracting. His performance, mediocre at best. Sanaa Lathan - Plays the lead female. Her acting skills are along way off those of Sigourney Weaver. Sanaa Lathan along many other cast members, acted in much the same way as many of the actors acted during Predators (2010). By this, I mean none of them were remotely convincing conveying the magnitude of the situation they were in - trapped, surrounded by Predators and Aliens. It's laughable.