Connect with us

Editorials

“Whoever Wins… We Lose!” – Reevaluating ‘Alien vs. Predator’ 18 Years Later [The Silver Lining]

Published

on

Alien vs Predator

In this edition of The Silver Lining, we’ll be discussing Paul W.S. Anderson’s ambitious crossover, Alien vs Predator.

At first glance, Alien vs Predator sounds like an incredibly obvious idea. After all, both intellectual properties are conveniently owned by the same parent company and occupy equally iconic spaces in popular culture (they’re also simultaneously aliens and predators, adding to the similarities). Of course, the deeper you dig, the more you’ll realize that these franchises are fundamentally different in ways that really make you appreciate how writers had to creatively bend and twist decades of lore in order to combine the cosmic horror of Xenomorphs with the ritualistic bloodshed of the Yautja.

That’s why it’s not surprising that it took so long for this crossover to hit theaters. While AVP comics have been published since the late 80s, a cinematic adaptation was originally teased back in 1990, when a Xenomorph skull showed up at the end of the underrated Predator 2. This simple easter egg sparked years of rumors that we’d finally see a version of this epic confrontation on the big screen.

Unfortunately, despite the crossover franchise finding massive success in the world of comics and videogames, a proposed film would become trapped in development hell for over a decade, with Fox unsure of what direction to take the story. During this time, AVP passed through the hands of several accomplished writers and filmmakers like Peter Briggs and Roland Emmerich.

It was only when Paul W.S. Anderson showed up with a pitch powered by concept art by famed creature designer Patrick Tatopoulos that 20th Century Fox finally decided to greenlight production. This led the director to abandon Resident Evil: Apocalypse in order to focus on what he thought was the bigger project, recruiting Shane Salerno to cowrite the script.

Like several other Alien-affiliated spin-offs, the plot borrowed elements from H.P. Lovecraft and Erich von Däniken, following a group of explorers funded by Charles Bishop Weyland (played by the legendary Lance Henriksen) as they venture into a long-forgotten pyramid buried under Antarctic ice. Unfortunately, their expedition unwittingly leads them right into the middle of a centuries-long battle between the titular Aliens and Predators. And like the tagline says: “whoever wins… we lose!”.

When the first trailer dropped, audiences were genuinely stoked to finally see these intergalactic titans face each other in a proper cinematic showdown combining the best elements of each franchise.


 SO WHAT WENT WRONG?

Alien vs Predator review

AVP raked in a solid $177 million on a $70 million budget, but the flick’s dismal 21% score on Rotten Tomatoes tells you everything you need to know about its critical response. Back in 2004, the film was actually considered the worst entry in either franchise (which I think was wrong even then), with reviewers lamenting its cartoonish script and general lack of tension.

Even the holy trinity of James Cameron, Ridley Scott and Sigourney Weaver were famously opposed to the movie, thinking that the crossover sounded like an awful attempt to milk both franchises to death. Curiously, Arnold Schwarzenegger offered to show up for a brief cameo in the picture if he failed to be elected as the Governor of California, though we all know how that turned out.

Of course, the most common complaint about the film was about how tame it felt when compared to previous entries in both franchises. It’s strange that a studio would decide to greenlight a project about creatures known for brutally skinning their victims alive and forcefully impregnating them with flesh-eating parasites only to refrain from showing these things in the finished picture. At one point, there was a rumor that the studio had forced Anderson to cut the film down to PG-13, but the director and screenwriter have since revealed that the theatrical cut was always the movie that they had intended to make.

There are other issues as well, such as the controversial decision to depict the Predators as somewhat sympathetic figures, with even their reptilian designs being toned down in order to help audiences to bond with the lead hunter when he ends up partnering with Sanaa Lathan’s final girl, Alexa Woods. It’s also a shame that the Predalien was relegated to sequel bait rather than being used for a unique final battle.

It may have been better received than its 2006 sequel (though the messy production of Requiem could be an article in and of itself), but Alien vs Predator ultimately devolves into a sci-fi themed wrestling match that doesn’t quite capture the eldritch horror of Alien or the balls-to-the-wall action of Predator.


THE SILVER LINING

Alien vs Predator movie

The Silver Lining is usually reserved for finding the worthwhile elements in less-than-stellar movies, but in this case, I’m thoroughly convinced that Alien vs Predator is a legitimately fun sci-fi romp that just had the bad luck of releasing during the wrong age of blockbusters. It’s still a shame that the film is so mild when compared to its predecessors, but the PG-13 rating is also responsible for allowing the filmmakers to go all-out on this big-budget adventure.

The scope of this story was unlike anything we’d seen from either franchise before, and it even touched on some of the same fringe ideas that would make Prometheus such an interesting Alien prequel 8 years later. And while many critics compared the picture to sci-fi-themed wrestling, I don’t see that as a bad thing. Anderson knew exactly what audiences expected from this clash of extraterrestrial titans, and he did his best to craft a crowd-pleasing shlock-fest.

Time has also been very kind to AVP’s effects work and production design, with the film relying on impressive sets and costumes that still hold up nearly two decades later. This was actually the last time that we would see believable Xenomorphs on film (though I’m happy to say that the Predator franchise still mostly rely on practical monsters), and the flick also featured a life-sized Alien Queen that was the most advanced animatronic monster of the early 2000s.

With the creative dilution of modern blockbusters, I’m certain that Alien vs Predator would have been a much bigger hit had it been released today. In fact, even James Cameron eventually changed his mind about the movie and placed it third on his ranking of the Alien films, accepting it as a big-budget B-movie.

To be honest, I kind of wish that Alien vs Predator had spawned a long-running franchise like other big 2000s action/horror hybrids in the vein of Resident Evil and Underworld, especially if the filmmakers could have gotten away with more blood and guts. The way I see it, the flick’s PG-13 rating is the only thing holding it back from being a classic midnight movie, but the experience is still charming enough to be worth revisiting as is. At the very least, it should keep fans entertained until Disney decides that it’s time to bring these heavy hitters back for another round of extraterrestrial bloodshed.


Watching a bad movie doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad experience. Even the worst films can boast a good idea or two, and that’s why we’re trying to look on the bright side with The Silver Lining, where we shine a light on the best parts of traditionally maligned horror flicks.

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading