AvP getting ripped to pieces

[Mark Chance]

I've not seen AvP. I might go see it. If I have the time and money. But, I might not. It's not a movie I care to take either of my children to, and my wife doesn't want to see it, and I'm not often fond of going to movies alone.

But, all of that aside, since when does every movie have to be a "good" movie? Isn't enough that a movie simply be entertaining? This is AvP, after all. It's not some independent film written by a "deep thinker" who took one or two philosophy classes at film school, and has now decided to teach us all of an important "lesson" about the way life really is.

And I thank God for that.

Consider, for example, Thunderbirds. According to "real" movie reviewer Ebert, this movie is so bad that its principals owe the world an apology. What folks like Ebert, who sniff arrogantly while typing at their keyboards, forget is that not every movie has to be a "good" movie, and this is especially true with genre schlock like AvP and Thunderbirds.

Back to my kids. I took them to see Thunderbirds. Both of my children enjoyed the movie. Consequently, so did I. Rather than sitting in my seat, wondering "in the h-e-double-hockey-stick [Bill Paxton and Ben Kingsley] were thinking of when they signed up for Thunderbirds," and why couldn't it be more like A Simple Plan or House of Sand and Fog, I just watched the movie with my children.

And, amazingly enough, I was able to do something that it seems most movie reviewers - "real" or otherwise - cannot do. I was able to forgot for 94 minutes that I'm supposedly a well-educated adult with a serious job in a serious world, and I actually watched the movie as if I were still a child myself, full of wonder and awe with a deep respect for simple heroes fighting unambiguously villainous villains.

And I thank God for that, too.

 

[Chain Lightning]

I just came back from seeing a midnight showing of AVP and I must say I was a bit disappointed.

According to credits at the end, I believe Anderson wrote this one himself. Oh man does it show. The entire script is very amateurish. It has the ear marks of someone who learned writing not through writing classes, seminars, writing groups, apprenticeships, etc....but rather learned by just watching other movies. Canned cookie cutter dialogue we've heard uttered a zillion times as well as exposition dialogue (which every sci-fi/fantasy movie can't avoid - but good writers work in well) that had no effort at all in disguising itself.

I'm usually pretty easy going on plot holes. Unless they're HUGE, I'm kinda forgiving. But "AVP" has a quite a few. As a die-hard fanboy, you may perhaps be able to overlook them, but their presence did hurt the film in my opinion.

Spoiler

Here's an example of bad writing to me . . . the previous films in the franchise already set the standard as to how the Aliens work. To not keep continuity with that is bad. In "AVP", it seems that the face huggers only need like maybe 15-30 minutes to impregnate you (even though it was on Cane for like a day), at least about a day to grow to full size (they do so in "AVP" in what seems like no longer than 30 minutes). There's a lot more example but I don't think there's a need to go through each one.

I think "AVP" is quite possibly Anderson's worst film. In which I thought "Soldier" was original, but I've changed my mind. At least "Soldier" had a sense of solid grounding that his newest film lacked.

possible spoiler as I talk about fight scenes:

Spoiler

A few industry insider friends of mine had clued me on some rumors escaping from the set. Most of them had to do with things like: The suits were made wrong and the actors' movements are very contrained. Thus, they can't move/fight as graceful as the predators in the first two movies. Knowing that, it totally shows. A lot of the filming of the fight scenes was done in such a way that you don't get a wide shot of the predator fighting so you won't be able to criticize how clunky it moves in its suit. The shots are done close , quick, and shakey so to give a sense of speed and stuff. But we all know that trick and it just comes off as confusing cuts that don't give us a sense of what's going on in the fight.

About the setting (little spoiler):

Spoiler

Here's another thing that bugs me: It seems that they might've decided to not make the setting a futuristic colony somewhere on the fringes of human space settlements because it could maybe cost too much to make a big full size colony for the actors to move around on. Okay, I accept budget constraints I suppose. It was probably easier to do wide shots of the temple in miniature. But the thing is this: because the concept of this taking place in modern day needs a ton of shoe horning and explanation . . . the movie practically spends its entire first act doing just that. Trying to convince you why the premise works. Its because the ancient relationships of this, and because it used to be this, and this room is for this, and this is this, and that was because this....blah, blah. To me, it would've been much easier to just put it in a setting that we all 'buy' and thus it will take less set-up and we can move faster into the meat of what we wanna see. Which is Predators and Aliens fighting. Which there isn't enough of.

Okay, there were some cool moments I admit. Very brief moments of "okay...that's pretty cool looking". But they are not enough to make this a better movie. The movie is a 'versus' movie, so one would think that schlock aside, story smory whatever, what needs to be cool is the fights right? Well, they're not all that cool.

"AVP": not as bad as D&D movie, slightly better than Alien 4, but not as good as Alien 3. Not as entertaining as "Freddie vs. Jason" (even those are two different styles of properties . . . I thought that as bad as "AVP" might end up, I felt deep down that it would be at least funner to watch than "Freddie vs. Jason". To me, it wasn't really. And I love anything Predator. Even Predator 2.

 

[JediSoth]

Darn tootin' RangerWickett and Zulithe. Hollyweird DOES owe us decent movies. After all, were it not for us, the movie-going public, plunking down our hard earned money, NONE of them would have careers, or all the finery the parade in front of us when the try to show us how much better they are than us. It's shame that more of them aren't humbled by the fact that WE are responsible for their success.

*falls off soapbox*

Whew, I'm glad I fell off of that. I could go on and on about the money that's paid to vapid actors and barely literate athletes.

JediSoth

 

[Desdichado]

Still haven't seen any "real" critics reviews yet. For what it's worth, at movies.yahoo.com, where 196 viewers have rated the movie, it's coming in at a solid B-. So word on the street is hardly the mass panning of the movie that this thread would seem to indicate.

Oh, and Mark Chance, seems you missed the point of Ebert's review, in that there won't be a market for this movie, not that it's so bad it owes anyone an apology.

I like critics, especially Ebert. I certainly don't always agree with him, but I know him and his taste by now, so I can usually gauge if I will like a movie or not from his review regardless of whether or not he does. That's the markings of a good review, after all.

EDIT: Update: now it's 288 ratings with a solid B.

 

[Desdichado]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=5956


Someone somewhere mentioned they thought Kramer vs. Kramer was scarier than AVP. Although I really hope that's not true, that's a damn funny line.

 

[buzzard]

The only case in which Hollywood doesn't owe use a good movie, is if the movie is offered for free. Since I tend to be shelling out around $7+ to sit through a film, they damn well owe me something. They owe me $7 worth of entertainment. If they fail to give me satisfaction, I will fail to plunk down my money for their dreck in the future. Any other opinion is either masochistic or delusional.

buzzard

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

What folks like Ebert, who sniff arrogantly while typing at their keyboards, forget is that not every movie has to be a "good" movie, and this is especially true with genre schlock like AvP and Thunderbirds.

The attitude that Sci-Fi or fantasy doesn't have to be good becuase it's just "genre schlock" is the reason for crap like Catwoman, the last three Batman films, or the Dungeons & Dragons movie. Movies that fall into the "schlock" catagory suck by definition and shouldn't be awarded with money.

 

[Darrin Drader]

The problem isn't that they are habitually making bad movies. The problem is that movies that are average are being panned throughout the our overly opinionated geekdome. What kind of message does that send Hollywood? It tells them that even if they do their best to make us happy, we'll dis their efforts and not spend any money (In my opinion there's something wrong if a movie like Chronicles of Riddick can't make any money). That in turn leads to what could potentially be extremely cool and original movies not being made, or made on the cheap, because the execs are afraid they'll get panned and we won't spend our money to see them. So what's their solution? Continue to make formulaic "safe" scifi movies that they believe will make money. And of course we're too smart for formulaic scripts to remain interesting, so science fiction in general starts making less money overall.

Other than Spiderman, have we seen a successful scifi on the big screen this summer? The bottom line for me is that not every science fiction movie is going to be a masterpiece, and that's OK. Some of them will be downright awful (Soldier anyone?) I can spend the $7 promoting the kind of movies I want to be made or I can spend the $7 on a trip to a fast food joint. The price of a ticket really is pretty cheap, so I've made the decision to promote the kind of movies that I want to see rather than let the jaded whining of a bunch of self righteous reviewers who take themselves and their opinions way too seriously kill the genre.

If AVP really is a solid B, I'll consider $7 well spent and I might even buy it on DVD. If it comes in at a C or a D, I'll just consider it two hours of my life I'll never get back and I won't touch the DVD. In either case, I'm seeing this one. Aliens, predators and Lance Henriksen in one movie is all it takes to convince me to open up my wallet.

 

[Desdichado]

I'll be buying the DVD. I just got back from the theater, and thought this was a pretty fun movie.

 

[Desdichado]

The only case in which Hollywood doesn't owe use a good movie, is if the movie is offered for free. Since I tend to be shelling out around $7+ to sit through a film, they damn well owe me something.

They don't owe you much for $7. I can barely feed myself at Taco Bell for $7.