I thought one thing as I left "Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem," the sequel to 2004´s atrocious "Alien vs. Predator": if the human storylines had been removed from the screenplay, letting it focus on the titular creatures, this wouldn´t have been a half-bad movie. There´s no way this film can hold a candle to the entries helmed by Ridley Scott ("Alien"), James Cameron ("Aliens") or John McTiernan ("Predator"), nor should it be judged against them. All this movie has to do is let a couple xenomorphs and a hunter duke it out for 90 minutes. Sadly, it can´t even do that right.
Picking up immediately after the events of "Alien vs. Predator," the Predator space ship crashes into a Colorado forest, drawing the attention of a hunter and his son. The ship is brought down by a Alien-Predator hybrid; not only does that creature get away, but face huggers held in stasis are also let loose. As a lone hunter journeys to Earth, we´re introduced to a group of humans who will be caught in the middle of an ongoing hunt.
The problem with these monster team up movies--including "Freddy vs. Jason"--is that the humans are an afterthought for the filmmakers and the audience. We want to see monsters kicking the crap out of each other, as promised in the title. We don´t give two licks about a daughter shunning her military mother or a love triangle between 30-year-olds masquerading as high school students. No matter how many scenes of "24"s Reiko Aylesworth looking lovingly at her daughter is there are, we can´t help but have anything but utter contempt for the flesh and blood actors. Not because they´re bad, per se (though their thought processes are questionable); it´s because they are neither a Predator nor Aliens.
Everything that occurs with the humans breaks any momentum generated by the battle sequences. In all reality, there´s no reason for there to be a human in the entire picture. The sequences where the Predator takes center stage--sans dialogue--turns into a mini silent film, requiring the audience to pay attention to what´s going on, to wait patiently for the answer and to marvel in the simplicity. For instance, the sewer battle between the creatures lasts less then five minutes (and that may be generous) yet is strangely satisfying. There are no forced sarcastic quips between the combatants, no one explaining the tracking devices affixed to the walls . . . just an action sequence in the vein of the original "Alien."
(Those thought processes I mentioned? Naïve sheriff Morales insists an evac in the middle of town is the place to be. Never mind it is acknowledged early on he´s out of his league let alone the common sense of making a stand in an open area with no defenses. Ah well, the "oh shit" look he shares with a fellow townie is worth it.)
It isn´t until the end when the humans finally meet the creatures, allowing the all together insipid juvenile storylines to be jettisoned. Who among us really cares whether Jesse winds up with outcast Ricky or blonde stud Dale? Is Ricky´s brother Dallas, fresh out of jail, compelling enough to be the leading man? And what about Sheriff Morales, a man completely out of his league three minutes in the movie? There´s not a Ripley in the group, though the screenplay wants to make Aylesworth´s Kelly a Ripley clone (no reference to "Alien Resurrection," for the record.) She´s the one who takes control late in the action, the one who comforts her daughter (shades of Ripley and Newt from "Aliens") and the one the men look to for guidance (hmmm…sound like Ripley´s relationship with Hicks in "Aliens"?). She´s a woman of few words…just like-you guessed it-Ripley.
Every human on screen has one word spray painted on their chests: fodder. From waitresses to National Guardsmen to simple townspeople and pregnant women, no one is designed to be anything but a body for the battle to consume. Which is fine. I applaud the screenplay for trying to put something more than bait on the screen. The attempt fails. Miserably. The idea isn´t to make "Aliens vs. Predator: 90210."
One of the major problems with Paul W. S. Anderson´s direction of the previous film was the camera was so close to the action, accompanied by quick cuts in an inappropriately dark environment, it was nearly impossible to figure out what was happening in any of the battle sequences. Here, The Brothers Strause back the camera up enough from the action for it to be clearer, but the kinetic scenes still fall short of the brilliance of Scott, Cameron and even David Fincher of "Alien 3."
Each setting is so dark or doused in extra elements--rain, in the finale--it takes a moment for our eyes to adjust. And by the time they do, we´ve missed three different moves. Slow down the action just a little more, ratchet the lights up a smidge and then we´ll be talking. Otherwise, they don´t commit any major faux pas´s in the direction. They do rely too much on the camera moving up and down over landscapes early on, as well as an inordinate number of hard cuts to black to punctuate scenes. Someone reigns them in a half hour or so into the action.
No, the problem here isn´t the direction; it´s serviceable enough. It´s the screenplay. Put simply, it doesn´t make any sense. We´re told in a scene of exposition in the previous film that the hunt has gone on for thousands of years. If that´s the case, you want fans to believe in those THOUSANDS of years, no Alien has ever laid an egg in a Predator, resulting in a PredAlien…or a hybrid? It´s never explicitly stated, yet the various hunters seem shocked when it comes onto screen. Well, as shocked as a being with a face behind a mask can be. And, come to think of it, the hunters on the ship are dispatched rather quickly, only to let the newest hunter carry on like a trooper, killing and never being killed himself. Is he really that good?
What about the well-established Alien acid blood? Some scenes remember it; others don´t bother. And why is this one ship, one set of hunters, so important? I mean, we watch as a lone hunter travels to Earth for some reason. Is he trying to clean up the mess, in which case a simple nuke should do the trick? Is he taking it as a challenge, logically resulting in mass murder until every Alien is dead? What is the point? He clearly doesn´t care to kill the humans; he comes face to face with several without any damage. So . . . what´s the deal? (Don´t even get me started on the symmetry of humans fighting relatively side-by-side with a Predator this time out as while Alexa earned the respect of a hunter in battle in the last film.)
And let´s talk about the ending for just a minute. Despite being written by different writers, this film and the previous seem to be building to a bigger, more ominous showdown involving Charles Weyland (Lance Henrickson from nearly all the previous "Alien" flicks), Ms. Yutani and recovered Predator technology. Of course, both of the "AVP" films predate the original series, at least in the film chronology. All of which, conceivably, lays the groundwork for MOTHER to wake up…and we know how that ended.
"Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem" uses the naming convention from the first two films in the respective series: "Alien" (as in "Alien vs. Predator") and "Aliens" (as in "Aliens vs. Predator), a plot probably cooked up over a beer and thought of as "cool" by The Brothers Strause and screenwriter Shane Salerno. The "requiem" refers to a song of mourning for a deceased individual, most likely referring to the dead hunters early in the film-but also possibly a reference to the dead humans. No matter, though. When the action stays focused on the creatures, it works on a visceral level. Otherwise, it´s disposable. Somebody stop these bastardizations before we get "Alien Resurrection vs. Predator: Cremation." This film, as is, rates a 4 out of 10.