Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Review: Alien vs. Predator (dir. Paul W.S. Anderson, 2004)

Review: Alien vs. Predator (dir. Paul W.S. Anderson, 2004)

Last updated on: February 21, 2014 at 3:59 pm by Peter T. Chattaway

Review: Alien vs. Predator (dir. Paul W.S. Anderson, 2004) 2014-02-21T15:59:53-08:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Homer Simpson once declared that alcohol was the source of, and the solution to, all his problems. 20th Century Fox might have something similar to say about diehard fans of the Alien and Predator franchises, who have waited 15 years to see these sci-fi beasts duke it out onscreen, ever since the two biggest space monsters of the Reagan era were first pitted against each other in a Dark Horse comic book. Frustrated by all the delays, hardcore Alien and Predator fans have stirred up some pretty bad buzz over Alien vs. Predator, yet they are also the most likely to brave the bad buzz and check the film out for themselves.

The reason for all the bad buzz? First, fans were put off by the news that, while earlier films in the Alien series were directed by stylish innovators and technical wizards like Ridley Scott, James Cameron and David Fincher, this new film was assigned to Paul W.S. Anderson, whose best-known films to date, Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil, are little more than cheesy video-game flicks. Then, fans were annoyed to learn that this film would tone down the violence — and presumably dumb down the political, sexual and philosophical subtexts of the earlier films — in order to earn a teen-friendly PG-13 rating, whereas all four Alien films and both Predator movies had been intended for adults and were given hard R ratings. And finally, the studio refused to show the film to critics before it opened last Friday, which is usually a sign that the film in question is going to stink.

Fortunately, entering a movie with low expectations sometimes makes for a better viewing experience. Alien vs. Predator is certainly not the worst movie to come out this summer — I would argue that Thunderbirds and Van Helsing were duller and more exhausting to sit through — and there are times when the new film pays just enough respect to its source material that you can almost taste the good movie that it might have been.

To bring these two franchises together, one has to somehow address the fact that the Alien films have a somewhat female identity and tend to deal primarily with feminine issues — maternal instincts, the fear of rape — while the Predator films reflect a more macho emphasis on killing for sport and being initiated into a warrior culture. The film version of Alien vs. Predator, like the original comic book, unites these sensibilities to some degree by telling the story of a woman who fights to save herself from the Aliens and, in doing so, wins the respect of the Predators.

The woman in question is Alexa Woods (Sanaa Lathan), an intrepid mountaineer who takes satellite phone calls even when she’s dangling from an icy cliff. Alexa is one of several explorers hired by a billionaire named Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen) to explore a vast, ancient pyramid with a huge, modern-style power source that his satellites have discovered under the ice in Antarctica. (“Weyland” is the name of the evil “company” that will make life difficult for Ripley years later in the Alien films, and “Bishop” is the name of the good android that Henriksen played in two of those films.) In this pyramid, the explorers discover a sacrificial chamber, where human victims used to be “impregnated” with Alien embryos every hundred years so that the Predators could begin their ritual hunt (it’s confusing; you’ll have to see the film to fully understand). And amidst the runes, symbols, and artifacts, Weyland’s team finds some rather high-tech weaponry, which prompts one man to exclaim, “This is like finding Moses’ DVD collection!”

Oh, and wouldn’t you know it, it happens to have been a hundred years since the last time the Predators visited Earth, so they must be on their way right now, and they must be preparing to thaw out the Alien Queen so that she can pop out a few more eggs and claim the humans as hosts for her children. Let the hunt resume!

Much of what follows is fairly silly, and the laughability of the film is amplified by Anderson’s video-game sensibility. The Aliens in the original films were dark and scary, always lurking in shadows or attacking their victims with lightning-fast speed, but occasionally, when a creature leaps at someone in this film, Anderson switches to slow-motion in mid-shot, thus killing what should be the terror and mystery of the moment so that he can bask in his special effects. The dialogue is also full of howlers, many of which are delivered by Sebastian de Rosa (Raoul Bova), an Italian archaeologist whose statements tend to be embarrassingly obvious (“He’s marking himself,” he says after we see a Predator mark himself) or drawn out for embarrassingly dramatic effect (“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”); he also gets to explain such cheesy plot points as the fact that the pyramid’s walls and floors reconfigure themselves for no good reason “every ten minutes.”

But there are moments in this film that are pretty cool; there is a fanboy inventiveness to certain fight scenes that is impossible not to admire, such as the one where a Predator cuts off the end of an Alien’s tail and the Alien retaliates by swinging its tail and splashing everything in sight, including the Predator, with its acidic blood. And speaking as a fan of the first two Alien films, I must say that, given that the Alien franchise had become something of a joke by the time Alien Resurrection (1997) came along, and given that the original Predator (1987) was not all that different from the other gung-ho testosterone-pumped B-movies that Arnold Schwarzenegger churned out in the late 1980s, I think it’s too late to complain that a film in either of these franchises cannot be taken all that seriously.

The real problem is that Lathan, as the woman who eventually bonds with the Predators, is pretty boring; she lacks Sigourney Weaver’s strength and emotional complexity, and she lacks Schwarzenegger’s vigorous charisma. She’s easily outshone by Trainspotting’s Ewen Bremner, who plays a bit of Alien bait who’s always talking about his children, and by Henriksen, who is not the heartless jerk that businessmen tend to be in these films but is actually rather human. But the film never knows what to do with these characters, and it lets them go in a disappointing fashion. So in the end, we are left with a dull woman who is surrounded by puppets and voiceless actors covered in prosthetics — and it’s never a good sign when the special effects give more memorable performances than the hero.

1.5 stars (out of 4)

–

Talk About It
Discussion starters

1. Why do you think the Predators treat some humans as prey while treating other humans as potential fellow hunters? How do you think Predators justify their inconsistent approach to what we might call “life issues”? Are there any parallels to this inconsistency in our own culture?

2. Some people would say there is a moral difference between Aliens, who are basically giant insects following their nature, and Predators, who are obviously intelligent creatures with some sort of moral, ethical or cultural code. Do you agree? Why or why not?

3. Is it possible that, if we found life on other planets (or if such life found us), those other species might bear the “image of God”? How would we tell?

The Family Corner
For parents to consider

Alien vs. Predator is rated PG-13 “for violence, language, horror images, slime and gore.” There is a fair bit of shooting and slashing, but most of the onscreen violence is between the space monsters (a Predator slashes an Alien’s head in two, a baby Alien bursts from a Predator’s chest, etc.), while the violence against humans tends to be suggested or kept offscreen. Similarly, most of the blood we see comes not from humans but from Aliens (and is therefore acidic) or Predators (and is therefore phosphorescent green). There is also some profanity, including one use of the F-word.

— A version of this review first appeared at Christianity Today Movies.

Previous Post

July 30, 2004

Review: Thunderbirds (dir. Jonathan Frakes, 2004)

Next Post

August 20, 2004 Review: Exorcist: The Beginning (dir. Renny Harlin, 2004)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Ezekiel was commanded to lie on his left side for 390 days and his right side for 40 days.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE