Alien versus Predator versus boredom

Alien vs. Predator (2004)
20th Century Fox presents a Paul W.S. Anderson film, starring Lance Henriksen and Sanaa Lathan. Written by Paul W.S. Anderson, Dan O’Bannon, Ronald Shusett, Jim Thomas and John Thomas. 107m. Rated PG-13 for violence, language, horror images, slime and gore.

0.5 stars

In a move that smacks of desperation by a studio hungry for a quick buck, America has been assaulted with a movie that features once-popular franchises.

Long have we wearied of increasingly diminished returns in the “Alien” series, yet that hasn’t stopped 20th Century Fox from spinning off a video game/comic book into a dreadful prequel that’s currently staining theaters. The “Predator” series has been dormant for 14 years.

Yet that hasn’t stopped the studio from ending years of speculation and assembling a C-list of actors and a director whose previous films have been video game offshoots as well.

In this cockeyed script, environmental technician Alexa Woods (Sanaa Lathan) leads a group of money-hungry scientists into the ruins of an ancient pyramid constructed in Antarctica. The group has been assembled by Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen), the co-founder of the Weyland-Yutani Corporation - a reference to the now-later “Alien” movies.

Blinded by greed, Alexa is treated as a regular Cassandra by the group when her plaintive cries they are woefully unprepared are ignored. Thus the crew - buoyed by translator Sebastian deRosa (Raoul Bova) and chemical engineer Graeme Miller (Ewen Bremner) - embark on the underground expedition, armed only with flares and digging equipment.

The central conflict in the movie is enticing: aliens and predators, it seems, are engaged in an “once a century” battle for dominance of the ice shelf, with humans caught in the middle.

However, the execution is at best flim-flam. From the stilted dialogue to schmaltzy direction, audiences have come to associate with video game inspired action films, “Alien vs. Predator” is mired from the start. Perhaps most frustrating is the rapid action that is performed in a medium close-up, making it impossible for someone lacking lightning eyes to see which beast is actually prevailing. Director Paul W.S. Anderson - no, not a clever pseudonym for either the more-accomplished Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes Anderson - and cinematographer David Johnson are most at fault. They bathe their set palettes in heavy blacks, which would have been ideal if not for the two predominately black species at war within the frame.

Other times, the action is just horrifically bad, such as when a predator cripples an alien in a toss more apropos to a hammer throw. Meanwhile, the scientists do everything within their power to stand in the way of the “epic” battle and are summarily executed. Those who violate Alexa’s three obvious rules - don’t go alone, maintain constant communication and don’t be a hero - are usually first to die.

Armed with a pad of paper and not willing to succumb to feelings of ennui, I jotted little notes about the body counts for this battle, which is said to take place Oct. 10, 2004. In the end, predator - dubbed “human’s enemy’s enemy” - eradicates 10 humans. Aliens only account for six human deaths. I suppose the predators won the overall competition as well, even though we all know the aliens must have survived for the four “Alien” films to exist.

“Alien vs. Predator” is caught in the same sort of quagmire that the second film of most trilogies encounter. Audiences know where the movie will conclude because they know what will occur after the credits roll in order for the whole dynamic to make sense. In order to make this movie more viable, I would have suggested a plot that existed outside the realm of what audiences know. Comic books often suggest alternate dimensions with entrenched characters; why can’t films perform the same function?