Not as good as the best, not as bad as the worst.

Rating: Null/10 (20 August 2004)

ALIEN vs. PREDATOR
Like most sci-fi/action fans, Predator and Alien are some of my favorite movies. I was very excited to hear that Paul Anderson, a self-professed fan, was writing and directing the merger of these two "monster" franchises after the hint of such a creation toward the end of Predator 2.
Style - 8/10
Stylistically the film does well. The FX are well done - we get to see the Aliens do things we never have before and with much more detail. Further, the battles are much more harrowing now that they take place between more equal creatures. While it is violent once the fighting starts, the gore/goo factor was toned down a bit from previous films - more implied than graphically displayed. For those interested, foul language was not over the top, and nudity / sexual situations are non-existent (even the requisite heroine-changing-into-her-underwear scenes are missing!). The acting was acceptable from the non-throw-away characters - nothing special, but not distracting from the story which was my principal interest.
Story - 6.5/10
AvP's back-story is an amalgamation of Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" theory, and Stargate-style mythology. It gives us another glimpse of Predator ethics and values (see below). But from there it follows its basic genre blueprint with little if any character arc and few creative twists (save the interesting sequel possibility thrown in at the end). But hey - we got what we expected right?
Overall the movie is a worthy successor to both lines of its predecessors. I say 'worthy' because while it was not as good as either of the originals or the best of the two franchises' sequels, it was not as bad as their worst. This owed mostly to the story's originality and the inclusion of believable heroes (the absence of which contributed to Predator 2's downfall - I mean, c'mon, Danny Glover beats an alien that Arnold and two special forces teams had trouble with???). Considering how easy it would have been to mess up a potentially great merging of two story lines, Anderson's efforts should be appreciated.
World View / Moral - 8/10
I think the film's biggest strength is in its contrast between the moral status of the Alien and the Predator. Aliens basically represent the nihilistic outcome of a coherent evolutionary world view (i.e. 'survival of the fittest,' or, 'kill or be killed'). They show no remorse, no rationale, and live only to overpower the weak and reproduce themselves regardless of the consequences or suffering they might cause along the way. In other words - they are animals.
The Predators, on the other hand, are persons (creatures possessing emotion, intellect, and will). They are even, in a sense, an honorable race. In contrast to the random Alien killing machines, the Predators seek out warlike societies for their hunting grounds - what they seem to consider morally equal ground. They kill for sport, but rarely unarmed victims. That they value honor, courage, and strength is also made clear in several scenes. Oddly, given their assumptions of species-superiority, they are actually more honorable than many humans who consider it a heroic triumph to shoot a deer from a tree 1,000 feet away with a high powered rifle!
Anderson does not lose sight of this ethical distinction although it is not made as thematically evident which is unfortunate. The more obvious theme (i.e. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") is really brought forth more as a "lesser-of-two-evils" philosophy than a considered moral decision. More attention to this fascinating aspect would have strengthened the film considerably.
Overall Rating: 7 / 10