Editorial
Front Page - Friday, July 30, 2010
The Critic's Corner
David Laprad
In 1987, Arnold Schwarz-enegger starred in one of the best action movies of that decade: “Predator.” Directed by John McTiernan (“Die Hard”), “Predator” dropped a team of well-oiled commandos in a steamy Central American jungle and pitted them against a merciless hunter from another world. Suspenseful, gory, technically brilliant, masterfully scored, and cheesy in the way most ‘80s action movies were, “Predator” was superbly executed on every level and deserves its standing as a science fiction classic.
Then something unfortunate happened: “Predator 2.” While not a terrible movie, the sequel paled in comparison to the original, and audiences lost interest. Fox tried to revive the series by crossbreeding it with the “Alien” franchise, but “Aliens vs. Predator” and its follow-up were terrible movies.
Recently, Fox decided to bring the franchise back to the big screen. Instead of another sequel, though, the studio went the reboot route, taking the series back to its roots by dropping another group of accomplished killers in a jungle and having them fight not one, but multiple, Predators.
The creative team Fox assembled for “Predators” gave me high hopes the film. While I’m not a fan of writer and producer Robert Rodriguez, the man behind the “Spy Kids” trilogy, I did admire director Nimrod Antal’s work in “Armored.” In my mind, “Predators” was going to feature well-developed characters and nicely choreographed, no-holds-barred action.
Antal didn’t even come close to delivering another classic.
The first 20 minutes of “Predators” are terrific. Audiences are dropped into the jungle with an unconscious Royce, who comes to as he’s careening toward the surface of the jungle. His parachute activates at the last second, and as he’s gathering his bearings, more bodies drop from the sky.
Once the confusion wears off and everyone gets acquainted, the seven men and one woman realize most of them have one thing in common: they are all killers. None of them can account for how they arrived in the jungle, though, nor can they figure out why someone would abandon an assortment of mercenaries, soldiers, assassins, convicted killers, and a doctor in the middle of all that vegetation.
So, with Royce as the de facto leader, everyone starts walking. When they emerge into a clearing, they look at the horizon and their jaws drop. Instead of the sun, several large planets fill the sky. It’s a fantastic shot, and great way of letting the audience know these unwilling travelers are a long way from home.
As these humans are staring slack-jawed at the heavens, a high-pitched sound pierces the silence, and things they never imagined existed dart out of the jungle behind them, with intent to kill. Following an intense battle, Royce, who seems to have read the movie’s screenplay ahead of time, announces that the creatures were the extraterrestrial equivalent of dogs, and that an alien species has dropped him and the others in the heart of a game preserve.
The moment “Predators” spells everything out for viewers, it loses steam. From that point on, the movie proceeds almost lockstep through one predictable encounter after another. Also, as in the ’87 version, Antal doesn’t show the “Predators” right away, but reveals them slowly, and inserts shots from their point of view as they cycle through their various vision modes. He was probably trying to pay tribute to the original film, but these moments feel uninspired and compulsory.
Fox reportedly limited the budget on “Predators” to the mid-$30 million range, and it shows. In a way, this works to the film’s advantage because it forced Antal to rely on practical effects more than CGI. The Predators have a weight and a presence, which makes them more of a threat. At the same time, the action is forgettable. There isn’t a single shot with any wow factor.
I also question the casting. Back in the day, Schwarzenegger was the epitome of the muscle-bound action hero. Antal went in a completely different direction with Royce, played by the wiry Adrien Brody. Perhaps he thought Brody would look more vulnerable, but I think someone closer to Arnold’s physique would have worked better.
While Antal could probably defend the casting of Brody, I’d like to hear him explain away the embarrassing performance of Lawrence Fishburne, who plays a loon who’s survived on the planet for several years. Now, Fishburne was all kinds of cool in the “Matrix” trilogy, but here, his acting is so bad, I almost looked away.
“Predators” starts out great, sputters, picks up steam occasionally, and ends in a wholly unsatisfying, and absurd, way. However, it’s not a disaster, so perhaps Fox will bring these creatures back to the big screen someday. If they do, I hope the film delves more into the background of the Predators, and that the studio gives their director a few more dollars to beef up the action.
Email David Laprad at dlaprad@hamiltoncountyherald.com.
|
|