Predators

Predators would like to appear as an enriching tribute to the original, but they turn out to be a weaker and oddly strange remake. Unfortunately, what worked twenty years ago as an uncompromising rampage now occasionally seems amusing and tiresome in a more psychological sense. The disappointment is even greater because the introduction, full of confused tough guys and tension, promised a lot. However, when the script decides to involve the strategic side of things in the finale and clumsily adds complications and twists involving the characters themselves, everything goes downhill. Not even the good acting duo of Brody-Grace can save it. 50% (08/01/2011)

Although Adrien Brody is just fine, Liam Neeson would have been better :-) Sniper Alice Braga is the best member of the team. The identification of Alan Silvestri’s soundtrack classic comes within the first few seconds and the musical themes characterizing the world of the original movie are preserved and used reasonably well. The screenwriters also remain faithful to the key storyline and principles on which the original movie was built. That’s not a matter of stealing, but rather quoting guided by the creators’ own reason with respect to the original movie and, above all, by their undisguised fannish love for it. Robert Rodriguez’s crew managed a small miracle even with a low budget. That is true at least of the first, for me five-star half of the film, which really took me back to the time when I was fond of such moving pictures. In its attempt to be “cool & in”, the second half, beginning with the arrival of Laurence Fishburne’s character, relies on (unnecessary) unexpected twists and plays more with the original elements. I might have a bigger problem with that than the new (Morpheus) generation would have, because this generation doesn’t know the original movie and was raised with more sophisticated scripts even within this genre. The purity of the original movie disappears, but what can we do? The upgrade was necessary and the damage is not that bad, because we are still far from the butchery and frivolity committed by parasitic crossovers such as Alien vs. Predator, the poor reputation of which will certainly affect the box office earnings of this opus. Which Predators doesn’t deserve, because although it doesn’t end as spectacularly as it begins and though it changes some things from the original, it shouldn’t and doesn’t change some other things it could, it will remain the only solid and successful sequel of the 1980s phenomenon. Thanks, Roberto! (02/07/2010)

Two stars. Predators is a B-movie, a bad B-movie. I was really looking forward to the film and I expected many things, but not blandness of this caliber. That’s a big shame, because this was a big missed opportunity. What bothered me: There were very few Predators in the film (I don't know about others, but I expected a lot more of them based on the title and the sighting scene in the trailer), they appeared after maybe twenty-five minutes (admittedly, in a nice shootout in the camp) and they didn't stay on the screen for the rest of the film. They always just peeked out somewhere, killed somebody, and that was it. Plus, there's only one classic Predator - the rest are "new species" with not very nice "designs" (I don't understand why Stan Winston studio didn't work on them). Adrien Brody in the lead role didn't impress me either, but he didn't get on my nerves - the others were worse. I formed virtually no relationship with the characters (they were either poorly written or given woefully little space), their badass catchphrases sounded more or less cheesy (including Danny Trejo, sadly), and the atmosphere was probably mostly brought down by the fact that, while the whole group of characters were still searching for what they were hunting in the jungle and wondering about it all, the viewer already knew, and so wasn't too interested by their vigilant looking behind every tree. Tension = 0. Pros: A couple of fairly decently shot scenes (the opening, the camp scene, the fiery ending) and the music, which of course was 90% Silvestri's and John Debney actually "only" tweaked and innovated it. Said at the beginning, confirmed at the end - two stars. The first movie is unattainable, Predator 2 is more than decent, AvP (both of them) suck, and this is only slightly better. It was misery. (09/07/2010)

If I wanted to use a strong word, I’d probably use "disappointment" first, but "wasted potential" seems more appropriate with hindsight. Antal is talented, there’s no denying it because for two hours I felt like I was watching unadulterated 1980s carnage. It’s aided by good cinematography, and Debney’s brilliant soundtrack (those native drums just work even twenty-three years later). The present bunch is worse. True, I can't expect psychological miniatures, but... damn, couldn't it have been stretched for a few more minutes so we could learn a little more about them? There are all sorts of excuses for this, such as the fact that action movies were made this way when the first film was made. But what do you do with one random survivor and a nutcase with a scalpel? It’s also hard to love a film where I have to hit my head a lot to shake the memory of any significant action out of it. In that regard, I'll be eagerly awaiting the Director's Cut on DVD. Until then, it gets a hesitant 3 ½ stars. PS: The first half earns five stars. (09/07/2010)

Antal has an incredible sensitivity for getting that eighties feeling right, in the end Brody surprisingly doesn’t seem like Arnie’s androgynous embryo (in the ending sequence his muscle-bound body was particularly impressive... or else CGI technology is much more advanced that I thought) and so only the more expensive half away from the jungle is the only thing that spoils it; not that it’s outright bad, but it lags far behind the first half in terms of quality. In the better half, it’s so good that it is better than the original. (09/07/2010)