Scott Tibbs
blog post
August 14th, 2004

Back to Archived blog posts.

Review of "Aliens vs. Predator"

I saw Aliens vs. Predator last night.

I'm tempted to say that it's a good movie if it's your only exposure to either series. As a fan of both series, it was cool to see the two movie monsters fighting each other, but it should not be set in present day. It would have been better to set it in the future.

This is because it contradicts the first two Predator films. Why would the Predators hunt the Governor of California and then Danny Glover in parts 1 and 2 if they have been hunting the much more challenging Aliens on earth (and using humans to breed the Aliens) for thousands of years?

And, by the time the Alien series started, the more technologically advanced humans would have knowledge of both Predators and Aliens. So the appearance of the first Alien would not be a surprise.

Also, I know the Predators have cloaking devices for their ship and individually, but the laser they fired at the beginning of the movie would up been picked up by someone.

If AvP had been set in the future, it would make more sense. The Predators make a reappearance to hunt an even more dangerous prey than humans, the creature that "The Company" has been attempting to develop as a biological weapon since the first Alien.

Update: I enjoyed the part where the Predator refused to kill Charles Bishop Weyland because he had lung cancer: it would not be "honorable" for this Klingon-like race. (The Predator did kill Weyland after all when Weyland attacked him from behind.) Finally, the ending (where an Alien bursts out of a Predator's chest) screams "sequel".