Underrated as its own film

Rating: Null/10 (20 July 2008)

People tend to give this movie quite a bit of negative attention, whether it was the writing, how it correlated to the overall plot, or David Fincher's work. To be honest, this seems to be fairly close-minded. People have to accept that each movie is its own entity, like a collection of short films. Scott made a claustrophobic horror movie. Cameron made an action military film. Fincher made a chase movie, with stakes even more depressing than the first film. Simply put, none of them are the same, quality-wise and story-wise.
As its own film, this movie is quite good. The writing (though not necessarily the premise) falls short of the masterful directing, and the acting overshoots it. The effects are, sadly, 1992 (you can't expect much) and there are quite a few small mistakes here and there. Still, Fincher's choices were, for what he was given, well thought out, even at that stage in his career. People on IMDb have a tendency to pin every bad aspect of a movie on the director, when at times others are at fault. Fincher got all of the flak for a script he tried to polish and a few actors over-acting.
Fincher's choices surpass those of even Scott. Unfortunately, the choices of many others shadowed his in what could have been an incredible movie.