Showing posts with label Predator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Predator. Show all posts

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Buy Alien vs. Predator (2007)

Alien vs. Predator
Customer Ratings: 3.5 stars
List Price: $16.99
Sale Price: $7.99
Today's Bonus: 53% Off
Buy Now

Blu Ray review:

The Biggest thing about this BD of AVP that is consistently not mentioned is that the BD contains BOTH the PG-13 theatrical cut AND the unrated directors cut of the film. Amazon only lists the disc as the PG-13 version, and even an external BD review site failed to mention the inclusion of the unrated cut. So if you've wanted to get AVP on BD and haven't due to a lack of the unrated cut, fear not, it's on the disc.

Video quality is good. It's not the best picture I've seen, but it's nowhere near the worst. Definitely better than the DVD 4/5 overall

Sound is good as well. Just like video, it's not the best, but it's not the worst. Choices are DTS-HD 5.1 (4-4.6 mbps) in English. French and Spanish in Regular Dolby Digital 5.1 (not HD audio). Overall a 4/5 for the DTS-HD track.

This review isn't about the movie itself, nor is it meant to be all-inclusive. My main reason for writing the review is that the unrated cut isn't advertised by anyone it seems in regards to being on the BD version and that is a big deal to me. Hope this helps.

Click Here For Most Helpful Customer Reviews >>

While most critics have dripped acid on Paul Anderson's "Alien vs. Predator," apparently due to prima facie objections to the very idea of a non-courtroom-drama with the word "versus" in the title, I was pleasantly surprised by AVP.

Is AVP as great as 1986's "Aliens"? Nope. But I think comparing AVP to "Aliens" is to employ the wrong standard. AVP is not competing with that film, in much the same way that "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" was not competing with the sensational "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." No, "Star Trek VI" was competing with the largely reviled "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier." Similarly, AVP is really competing with the oppressively dark, fundamentally unappealing "Alien 3" and strangely goofy, utterly unexciting "Alien Resurrection"; the last Predator movie, 1990's "Predator 2," was released so long ago and did such middling box office that it hardly figures in the popular imagination anymore.

Some have complained about AVP's characters, arguing that they're mere sketches compared to the colorful, indelible personalities that James Cameron provided us in "Aliens," and John McTiernan gave us in "Predator." While true, it's worth pointing out that the original "Alien" "suffers" from the same "problem," so much so that a defensive Ridley Scott once said, "The characters in 'Alien' are as defined as they need to be, no more and no less." Just as the characters in "Alien" were largely, nay, archetypically defined by their professions and their professionalism (or lack thereof), the characters in AVP are defined by their jobs and the proficiency with which they do them.

Some have also complained that many of AVP's characters are dispatched too quickly. However, that's part of what makes AVP interesting. It's a real throwback to horror films of yesteryear, films that weren't afraid to toss virtually everyone to the wolves. Just when you begin to think, "Oh, Anderson's spent too much time developing this character, giving him/her good lines and telling us stuff about his/her past, to just off him/her," that person buys it. It's delightfully perverse, and it's what the horror genre has historically been all about.

Then there are the complaints about the film's storyline, with some asserting that it's too simple (e.g. humans find buried pyramid; humans enter buried pyramid; sh*t hits fan) and others arguing that it overshoots the mark (e.g. humans enter buried pyramid and discover that it's remarkably complex, revealing all manner of information about the origins of human civilizations, namely that the titular Predators, much like the Monolith from "2001: A Space Odyssey," made a marked impact on the future course of homo sapiens long ago). But I had few problems with the film's premise. Even the rather silly, pulpy quality of AVP's grander narrative conceits didn't bother me that much. (Then again, such conceits didn't really bother me in "Stargate" either.) And the simpler aspects of AVP's plot were its strongest suits, for they grounded the movie in a kind of gritty, easily understood "reality," the kind of reality that was very effective in John Carpenter's better actioners, from "Assault on Precinct 13" to "Escape from New York."

Yes, it's true that AVP never achieves the epic heights of "Aliens," the best film from either franchise, a film so complex and dynamic that it required a running time of 137 minutes to tell its tale. But "Aliens" was, and remains, an exceedingly special film. "Aliens" is the like the filmic equivalent of one of those outsized rock songs from the 1970s, such as Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven"; AVP, at approximately 100 minutes in length, is more like a Ramones tune: short but sweet.

In fact, two of AVP's biggest problems seem to be the result of breakneck-speed sloppiness: 1. the Alien lifecycle is inexplicably abbreviated, with chestbursters making their nasty debuts in tens of minutes rather than tens of hours; 2. the Predators' long-range weapons (e.g. spears and throwing stars) are acid-resistant, yet their close-quarters materiel (e.g. wrist blades and body armor) are not.

Regarding Issue One: I've read that Anderson accounted for this in the film, explaining that the Predators had injected bizarre hormones into the Alien Queen they'd captured to seed their battlegrounds, causing the eggs she produced to contain embryos that matured far more quickly than usual. This expository material was allegedly ordered cut by Fox because they felt it needlessly slowed the pacing of the film. If true, Anderson must be given a pass by the legions of angry fanboys who've ripped him a new one over this.

Regarding Issue Two: According to fanboys familiar with the AVP comic books, this is explained therein thusly: the Predators must earn every acid-resistant armament they receive. So if the Preds in the AVP movie didn't have acid-resistant wrist blades or body armor, that's on them. But it's also on Anderson to have somehow explained this in his film. However, I'm willing to let Anderson slide here, as the best characters in AVP to have provided this explanation were the Preds themselves, a decidedly taciturn group of individuals.

All in all, AVP did its job. With the exception of a handful of (de rigueur) overly-jittery/super-slow shutter-speed shots in otherwise well-made action sequences, AVP is a polished piece of work. Thanks to Anderson's direction, the ADI FX Workshop was forced to abandon the Mr. Hanky-looking design of the creature from "Alien 3," as well as the beastly, overly slimy appearance of the extraterrestrials from "Alien Resurrection," and provide the silver screen with its best looking xenomorphs since 1986. Moreover, if you can't bring yourself to buy it when Sanaa Lathan's Lex throws in with and throws down alongside the last-standing Big Ugly Motherf*cker, nor get certifiably juiced when the Alien Queen finally extricates herself from Predator-imposed bondage and goes on an angry rampage worthy of a T-Rex in a "Jurassic Park" movie, then I'm afraid AVP simply isn't for you.

Best Deals for Alien vs. Predator (2007)

For those of you who see "AVP Unrated" and think "Blood, Gore, Language, Violence, and Nudity"...THINK AGAIN!

Where there was a few flecks of blood, there is now a gallon. Where there were two "campy" scenes, there is now only one, But this is not even an "R" rating version of the film, evidenced further by the PG-13 rating on the back of the DVD case.

This fild should have stuck with the "Director's Cut" name and cut out the "Unrated" label, since in my opinion it does not deserve it. If you can swallow the plausability of the story even a litte bit, the this version is more serious and bloodier than the theatrical release, but not by much. "Campy" scenes still abound. Extra footage, edited in Deleted scenes from the Theatrical DVD version and a few other scene changes make this version a lot more fun to own than the first, but hard core fans of the original movies may still find this title a little wimpy.

With all that negative feedback out of the way, if you take a more objective, "outside the box" outlook on the film, it is fun and is a good mix of sci-fi and action. I would heartilly recommend this version over the standard AVP Theatrical version, and you will pretty much find all the original Theatrical DVD Extras included in this edition as well. (Commentaries, Making of featurette, etc.)

Honest reviews on Alien vs. Predator (2007)

I just read a report of an interview with director Paul W.S. Anderson (director of AVP). He said quote "that all the best scenes were cut from the film." He also said that the movie was always going to be R-rated until the studio enforced a PG-13 rating 3 WEEKS before releasing the film. In addition to the violence and gore cut from the film, a sub-plot that further explained the plot was cut as well. If it had been in the film, the cut footage would have cleared up many continuity issues. For example, the sped up alien life cycle in this film is not a careless error at all; the machine that holds the alien queen captive also injects horomones and drugs in to her, speeding up the facehugger/chestburster process. The footage that was cut would have explained that and also would have given the characters more screen time. Director Paul W.S. Anderson also mentioned that the explosion at the end took up HALF of the 65 million dollar budget (which is ridiculously low for a film like this).

So when you see this film and end up hating it, dont blame the director. He made a film that, if it had been released in the original cut, would have pleased long time fans of the franchises. But instead, the studio made it PG-13 (so more people could see it) and cut out a lot of footage to make the film way too short (to fit in more screenings per day).

BUT, the changes the studio made are helping. Currently the film is making A LOT of money, mostly because of the PG-13 rating. This means that the studio will be more likely to greenlight AVP 2 or, more importantly, ALIEN 5. But try to realize that if the film had been released in the original uncut version, it probably would've only made half the money the current cut has because not as many people would have been able to see it.

Luckily, an R-rated Director's cut WILL be released on DVD sometime in the future. This edition will up all the violence and gore to an R-rated level (all the off screen deaths will now be ON-screen as originally filmed) and add in an additional sub-plot that will clear up continuity issues, give the characters more screen time, and make the plot development clearer. As a long time fan of the original 6 R rated movies, I was ECSTATIC to hear this.

Unfortunately, movies aren't made to be good anymore. They're made to make money, and AVP is doing that right now. So when you see this film, know that you aren't seeing the final version of the film. But PLEASE see it because it needs all the money it can make. And also, PLEASE buy the director's cut DVD when it comes out because its gonna kick a**.

The website that containes the link to the original report can be found here:

Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for Alien vs. Predator (2007)

For the most part I've actually liked most of the stuff that Paul Anderson has done; nothing amazing but still some decent stuff. So I wasn't ready to condemn this movie before I saw it in the theater. I was hoping he would do a lot more with this franchise than what this movie turned out to be but I still found it enjoyable enough to buy the DVD and now the Blu-Ray (I certainly feel it is a better film than the second Predator and the 3rd & 4th Aliens.)

The Blu-Ray includes the unrated/director's cut and the added scenes help explain some more of the story and is definitely the best version to watch.

The acting is pretty blah (with the A & P out-acting most of the humans) though Ewen Bremner is funny. But the action is really what this movie is about and there is plenty of action here and what I thought was a very good ending.

As for the Blu-Ray transfer, it is very good; the picture is very clear and the dark scenes (most of the movie) look very good. The soundtrack is also nice and the trivia extra feature is cool.

Buy Fom Amazon Now

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Reviews of Predator (1987)

Predator
Customer Ratings: 4.5 stars
List Price: $24.99
Sale Price: $12.39
Today's Bonus: 50% Off
Buy Now

My 1-star review is not for the movie, Predator, which I love. I bought it twice on DVD: the first single-disc release with no extras, and then the excellent 2-disc special edition. I am not going to be buying on Blu-Ray, however, until the chowder-heads over at Fox start including all of the ALREADY PRODUCED extras on their Blu-Ray discs. Case in point: Predator.

Predator on Blu-Ray features a higher definition transfer (though on a single layer disc), but carries over none of the special features from the 2-disc DVD. How hard would this have been? Make it a dual layer Blu-Ray, and just throw them all on there in standard definition. That would have guaranteed and instant buy for me. But this habit of dumping the film bare-bones onto Blu-Ray is reminiscent of the early days of DVD, and I thought we were past that. Other studios are doing a fine job of including all the special features, so why is Fox being dumb? And why are they slapping a $40 MSRP on a bare-bones release?

You would have had me with a good release, Fox. I would gladly plonk down the cash for a true upgrade from my DVD version. But you blew it, and you're not getting my money.

Click Here For Most Helpful Customer Reviews >>

This is the worst quality Blu-Ray I have come across so far. $26.95 is outrageous for a DVD to Blu-Ray dub. Your probably better off getting the widescreen DVD than the Blu-Ray and playing the movie on upscaling DVD player, you will get the same quality. The movie is classic, just don't buy the Blu-Ray version unless you find it in a bargin bin somewhere.

Best Deals for Predator (1987)

WOW what a bad looking print. Who the heck was in charge of this Blu-Ray transfer??? Does the 'Ray' stand for Ray Charles? because it looks as if a blind man choose to use this print! All the fuzzies, dots, lines, and blemishes on this print look ever better in hi-def! Why on earth can't the original negative be used? If I'm gonna pay a higher price, then I should get a much better picture. Shame, shame, shame, on them.

Honest reviews on Predator (1987)

I recently tried to watch my Predator DVD, circa 1997 (or thereabouts) and it looked horrible. It was a fullscreen, widescreen disc with black bars on top, bottom, left, and right (which insluts my HD TV). The film was also not cleaned before transfer so it included wonderful hairs and scratches too. That's not to mention the films always horrible fuzzyness.

Don't believe all the whiners, Predator: The Ultimate Hunter Edition is the best this film has ever looked, and probably ever will look. Some people complained about too much Digital Noise Reduction. They said that it doesn't look like its supposed to anymore...don't listen to them. I almost didn't buy this disc because of all the complaining people were doing, but I'm glad I did.

Yes, there are maybe 3 shots where Carl Weathers' face looks a little too smooth in the beginning of the film, but that comprises about 10 seconds of the film. The rest of it looks great. The film still has film grain, it just isn't as offensive as it was in the original release. Filmmakers on a budget and with location constraints chose a film stock that didn't need a lot of light, that meant super grainy film. They fixed that imperfection (which wasn't a design choice).

Bottom line, if you are a fan of this film BUY The Ultimate Hunter Edition, not the 2008 Blu Ray release.

P.S. Amazon, do you think you can stop cross contaminating your reviews. This movie's reviews are confusing because it includes reviews for every version of the film. Star Wars is even worse. Please fix this.

Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for Predator (1987)

So, you have recently upgraded your home theater for blu-ray and want to replace your old Predator DVD. Should you buy the 2008 release or the 2010 (UHE) release? Perhaps I can help you decide.

When the 2008 edition was released, blu-ray disks were purchased primarily by film purists who believed nothing in the original film should be altered. Today, blu-ray is mainstream and the film purists represent only 4% of the market . Fox, in 2010 was intent on providing a release, Ultimate Hunter Edition, that catered to the tastes of the majority of consumers. The film purist minority is unhappy with that release as well.

I saw the movie in the theater when it was released in 1987. The graininess of the image was disturbing. After some research, I found that the film was shot with a film stock that, in low light conditions created an excessively grainy image and that it was not the filmmaker's intent to do that for artistic reasons.

I own both the 2008 and the UHE blu-rays and have compared them exhaustively. In my opinion, The UHE is the superior disk in terms of color accuracy and detail.

The last word from Fox on the Predator UHE blu-ray comes from Vincent Marcais, Sr. V.P. for International Sales in a taped interview. "The film stock (source for the transfer) was poor. The criticism is unfair. The filmmaker's were consulted, which we always do while they are alive. The UHE is how the filmmaker's wanted it to look"

Lets put aside the fact that the UHE has 5 hours of supplemental information and the 2008 version has none; and the fact that the UHE uses a modern video codec (AVC MPEG 4 vs VC-1 for 2008) and has a higher bit rate, resulting in more potential detail.

Your choice if you consider yourself a film purist is the 2008 release. If you want to enjoy the movie as the director and cinematographer intended, your choice is the Ultimate Hunter Edition. If you are still conflicted, buy both.

In conclusion. I own both, but I only watch the Ultimate Hunter Editon.

I would caution you about visiting other forums to help you make a purchasing decision. The people on those forums represent only 4% of those that purchase blu-ray disks today and most are biased in favor of the film purists view.

Edit. 5/19/2012. I thought it might be interesting to some of you to read some technical details about the difficulty with the source used for the BD and the issue of director's intent:

Perhaps this will put to rest any uncertainty about the director's intent regarding grain/grittiness.

"As I think much has been said online seemingly `authoritatively' about the Director's intent and the use of the film "stock" to make Predator intentionally look gritty or grainy. Well, that's pretty much inaccurate speculation according to someone I recently spoke with intimately involved in the production.

The DP chose the Eastman Kodak stocks he did for the simple fact of capturing "usable" images on film under relatively low lighting conditions in the jungle...'grit' or `intentional' graininess was never intended in any artistic sense for `atmosphere'. If anything, it was an undesirable side effect of the acquisition because it caused "murkiness" esp. in the greys and blacks of dark jungle sequences and didn't allow the filmmakers the opportunity to cut the different stocks together in the same scene, which would have been nice to have had that flexibility. To give you an idea of the challenge, they were apparently restricted to shooting at a max. of only T2 in anything but high noon and the middle of the day.

Don McAlpine shot the film with 35mm Kodak 5247 and 5294, depending on the lighting conditions available, with or without the aid of artificial light illumination. The '94 (400T) was used for really low lit conditions (like those night sequences in the ravine at the end which apparently were only getting 7 or 8 footcandles down there, with only 4 or 5 footcandles after the smoke starting flowing during the action) and the '47 (125T) stock was used for the set-ups involving wide clearances which had more natural light and as well, could be more easily illuminated with artificial light, when justified. You see, once you add artificial light in the deep jungle, all it accomplishes is lighting the foreground to such an excessive degree that it looks obvious and fake to audiences. Lighting considerations were where the real photographic `artistry", if you will, of the captured imagery took place, not in any consideration of grain being used for a `gritty' look."

Vincent Marcais Senior V.P. International Marketing, was asked about the policy when remastering catalog titles and specifically about Predator. The Fox executive acknowledges that they got a lot of criticism, "but I don't think it was deserved," he countered, because the movie was shot on a film stock that wasn't good enough, and the Blu-ray version "represents what the filmmaker wanted it to look like." He said that Fox discusses the issue of "removing grain or not" with the filmmakers, "as long as they are alive".

Corporate Execs at this level are very careful about the statements they make for publication. There will be no remaster or new transfer of Predator in the foreseeable future based on his comment.

Buy Fom Amazon Now