Alien Hunter (2003)

Just woke up on a Saturday morning and this movie was just beginning on SciFi... I'd seen the name before, but honestly did not expect much, specifically because of the name, it's terrible and does not describe this movie at all. So not expecting much, I was more than pleasantly surprised! I had no idea James Spader was in it and he played the role well, mainly because he didn't need to act much. The plot was similar to a number of other films as folks have mentioned, but sufficiently different enough to keep you guessing. For a made for TV movie, I thought it was well done and would recommend it to anybody who is looking for some decent scifi. While it would have been much better broadcast in HD (the channel was, the movie wasn't), it was good entertainment with which to start the weekend. Now if they'd just change that frackin' name...

This was an OK movie for sci-fi buffs looking to kill an hour and a half, but check your brain at the door, enjoy the ride and the SFX. The visuals of the alien spaceship are spectacular and some of the best I've seen.Numerous plot holes left a lot to be desired however, and ultimately a sense of dissatisfaction. Wasn't whatever was inside the alien shell supposed to facilitate the destruction of the whole Earth? So how come the survivors (those who weren't immediately killed by contact with it) were "beamed-up" into the alien ship into who-knows-where? The threatening looking alien in the shell turns out to be rather helpless and looking for support, and is quickly dispatched by a bullet or two. Staff at the base do briefly turn on one another but not in any really convincing way. The movie seems to be a hodge-podge of ET, Alien, Cocoon, The Thing...Not entirely hopeless and quite engaging at a superficial level, but not standing up to any serious inspection. 6/10

SPOILERS AHEAD!!Someone once said something like "there are only ten basic plot lines". Now you notice I don't know who said it, why, when. etc. I don't even know if the correct number was 10. This piece of vaguely remembered trivia did come to mind after reading some of the reviews of "Alien Hunter". Yes, I would agree, there are more that a couple of similarities with such films as "Alien", "The Thing (1982 version), "Coccoon" and others. Does the use of proved and successful elements from great Sci-Fi make this well written, atmospherically haunting, and intelligent film a poor quality rip-off? I think not. Let me share with you why I believe "borrowing" elements of previous Sci-Fi winners makes "Alien Hunter" a very good film of this genre.First, I do admit that the title of this film does not bring about confidence in an aficionado of what I like to call "Speculative" Science/Horror films. A little imagination could have been used here.....maybe something upfront like "Alien Warning", or something sly and esoteric like "Prime Directive!". Even something as recycled and trite as "We Came in Peace" would have certainly brought more interest from the film's target audience than"Alien Hunter" That sounds like a stupid computer game title. Oh well, back to why I liked this film regardless of it's meaningless title.I love this genre of film and have since seeing at the age of six, "It Came From Beneath the Sea". at the Rialto Theater in Loveland, Colorado in 1951. I have made it one of my life's not so secret "guilty pleasures" to see not all ( I wish), but hundreds of films of this general type. From the excellent "Them" in 1954 to the recently seen DVD mess of a film, "Absolute Zero", a film so bad it never got a theatrical release. My point is......whether it's trips to mars by NASA, DNA sucking androids in Seattle, aliens in deep space or Wyoming, viral insanity from defense labs, volcanoes in New York, mind eating parasites in Toronto, plagues in London, giant leeches in Louisiana, mad scientists in the desert, killer bees in LA or computer viruses that kill you by getting into your brain synapses while your writing a review on IMDb.....IF THE FILM DOESN'T HAVE A GOOD STORY AND IF THAT STORY IS POORLY WRITTEN THE FILM WILL BE DOA! That said, it's fine that the writers place the story in the depths of an underground NASA lab in Antarctica in a howling days long blizzard. Sure it's been used before. But it works because of the interesting story line and believable dialog. They find an object under the ice. Done before? Of course. Yet this object means something different than past films in the "WHY" it's there. That comes from an intelligent and NOT USED before story line that hooks together "Roswell" and the contemporary story. Yes, the object contains an alien. Done so many times now you would think there wasn't another direction for this element to move towards. Yet there is a unique and haunting difference between this "coccoon" which contains the alien and past films where there is an object that falls from the skies and contains an alien.Why? It's called good writing. I could go on. People are infected. People fight each other. The big, bad U.S. Government knows all and must act to save the world. All done before, but many times.... done poorly. In this oddly named film all these elements come together differently because of a good back story, good, realistic dialog, reasonably good acting, effective editing and, for the most part, excellent CG.What I really LIKED......The disturbing and hauntingly claustrophobic underground station, with its endless round and darkly lit corridors and Star Trek "sliding entryways". Theunderground genetically altered and hydroponically grown corn fields, that through the magic of CG and the terror of a fleeing "infected"scientist, start turning black with infection and curl up in steaming black rot before your eyes. The opening sequence in Roswell primes you with an interesting and ultimately satisfying explanation for that curious and still mystifying event. I liked the Russian officers on the submarine. Although it;s hard to believe that submarine officers are always in "Dress Parade" uniforms. I liked the way they began to SWEATbefore the launch of the missile. I liked the suspense and terror of being underground with IT!, the alien. I liked the characters and the subplots Well done all around. All in all this is an excellent representative addition to the Sci-Fi genre. The writing makes this film. It does use many clichéd concepts, but it uses them WELL, with good dialog, acting CG and, to me, a satisfying ending. I know some reviewers felt there should have been more of an explanation of the future of the four survivors, but they want TOO much. Speculative Fiction shouldn't spell out EVERYTHING. Use your Imagination.7 stars out of 10 Recommended! Clive 13 in Denver, Colorado

Cheers! Surprisingly decent. A lot better than I expected from the title. Familiar science fiction themes from other movies rehashed, but handled well. I like the twists. I won't ruin the movie for you by discussing them. Decent performances from most of the actors and some good cgi. If your a science fiction fan than it is entertaining enough to sit through unlike a lot of stuff out there. Note - check out the appearance by Kier Dullea (2001 Space Odyssey) - Interesting choice. Bravo. J. Spader is good in it as expected. His character is similar to his Stargate character. If you are a fan of that then you should check this out as well. This film has a much darker tone to it reminiscent to The Thing.