- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
20This space invaders stuff is, like, so 1981.
-
50This is one schlockfest that may be enjoyed more by casual viewers than by hard-core fans, since writer-director Paul W.S. Anderson breaks with the established mythology of both properties whenever he feels like it. Like it matters.
-
Dumb.
-
38It's a murky, empty-headed dive into the depths of the Antarctic and the heart of monster movie cliches that leaves you praying for most of the cast to get killed off fast, to put them (and us) out of our misery.
-
30Well, Sanaa Lathan's in there somewhere as the smart and sexy ass-kickin' chick, but it's really all about the monster disembowelments, which happen often.
-
40Fans beware - your fave two sci-fi franchises have been stripped of all their guile and maturity.
-
30It will end up frustrating fans of both movie franchises enough to make them wish someone more competent was in charge.
-
40Make sense? No, it doesn't. But if you manage to endure the exposition, you'll get what you paid for: popping chests. Invisible stalkers. Nicely paced chases through corridors that constantly reconfigure in interlocking stone puzzles.
-
Surprisingly free of gore, unlike its predecessors.
-
25The actual fights between the predators and the serpents are too silly to contemplate. Both shiny and metallic, they look like kitchen appliances fighting it out. That's when you can see them. Writer-director Paul W.S. Anderson ("Resident Evil") has created the darkest, if not worst, sci-fi movie since "Battlefield Earth."
-
25It’s often hard to figure out who’s winning, much less care about it. One thing is certain: Nobody is going to be demanding a rematch.
-
Anderson gets style points for the pyramid, though. The building - a combination of Aztec, Egyptian and Cambodian elements loaded with sophisticated gadgetry - totally rocks.
-
38The film is critic-proof and it will find an audience, but it's hard to imagine even the film's target demographic (teenage boys) being overly enthusiastic about the product. It's disposable entertainment of the worst kind.
-
0Take a wretched premise. Imagine the worst picture that could be made from it. Then imagine something even worse. That's Alien vs. Predator.
-
30The first 45 minutes or so is stupefying--flat, disjointed, missing all human connective tissue.
-
40It would take a true visionary not to borrow from Alien Vs. Predator's predecessors, but Anderson lifts more than most will consider polite, borrowing to the point where some viewers may wonder whether he simply edited in footage from the old movies (or even, at one point, "Jurassic Park").
-
40The fifth outing for the slime-dripping, shape-changing creatures, the Aliens are looking a little dogged, perhaps ready for the Alien Retirement Home. Meanwhile, the Predator warriors, who never achieved the artistic heights of their counterpart, look better invisible. When visible, they resemble robotic can openers gone berserk.
-
50Between the Predators' dripping their glow-in-the-dark green blood and the Aliens' getting their rubber cement mucous all over everything, this is certainly a very sticky movie, though not, ultimately, a very frightening or commanding one.
-
40A reductive spook show in which a bunch of puny humans get chased around by scary monsters.
-
40The thing-a-ma-jigs have it out with the whatch-a-ma-call-its -- as several humans scurry and scream between -- in Alien Vs. Predator, the kind of two-for-one dogfight (last repped by "Freddy Vs. Jason") that usually does more to bury a franchise than revive it.
-
With perfunctory battle sequences, cardboard characters, and uncreative scare 'ems, Paul W.S. Anderson's monster mashup isn't quite terrible enough to be so-bad-it's-awesome, but his swift (if forced) plotting and amusingly shoddy costumes mean that there could be worse ways to enjoy air-conditioning.
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 84 out of 164
-
Mixed: 25 out of 164
-
Negative: 55 out of 164
-
Accaris3
-
HerbieH.10This was so well thought out, couldn't of done better.