Good start, but then it gets ruined

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

ALIEN HUNTER turns out to be nothing more than a low budget, TV-movie-style version of THE THING, with a bunch of no-name scientists (and James Spader, repeating his geek-guy STARGATE role) recovering a crashed UFO in the Antarctic and coming upon something decidedly unpleasant within.The problem with this production is its look, which is completely unappealing throughout. The whole film is dark and dismal-looking, which makes for a pretty depressing watch. Combine this with the unoriginal plotting, clichéd script and by rote performances (aside from the reliable Spader) and you have an entirely disappointing movie. The low budget CGI effects also scupper whatever good intentions were buried here somewhere.The ending offers something a little bit different to the norm, albeit in the form of something silly and entirely over the top. Never mind; with such a generic title as ALIEN HUNTER, what else was I expecting from this?

Alien Hunter could've been much worse than it was. It is far from a perfect movie, with a terrible, misleading title, an unoriginal and derivative story, clichéd and poorly developed characters(in general) and a very cheesy script. However, it is edited quite nicely, and the special effects are well above average, sometimes even spectacular. The locations are great too, as is the stirring music score and the charismatic lead performance of James Spader. The rest of the performances aren't on the same level, but save for John Lynch they're not what I call non-descript either.In a nutshell, flawed but reasonably entertaining film. 6/10 Bethany Cox

"Hey everybody! I've got an idea, we found this egg-shaped thingie from outer space so why don't we thaw it out and open it up?" "Yes, I know that would be the dumbest thing a scientist could do, and it could be filled with contaminating bacteria or viruses unknown to earth and could potentially wipe out the human race, but hey, I want to know what's in it". "And nobody tell NASA, they might take it away from us". "Wow this thingie gives off vibes!" "Yes,really strong ones on contact so don't touch it but it's okay to cut it open". "Hi there handsome, check out my nips". (Later that day); "DO NOT OPEN"!!!!! Uh oh, we have to run all the way to the lab and tell them not to open it because we don't have phones or radios or intercoms even though we have a gazillion dollars worth of other equipment here. "I've never seen such organic technology!" "Yeah, lemme take this stick and stab it.". "I'm getting out of here, I don't care if I do kill the other 6 billion people on Earth, nobody's nukkin' me!" "Look! it's the friendly aliens from "The Abyss"! They want us to come with them". THE END

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