Predator was originally envisioned as a vehicle for its star, Arnold Schwarzenegger, but has since grown a large fanbase of its own, creating a villain that arguable rivals the Alien of the Ridley Scott/James Cameron films, at least enough for fans to demand a crossover between the two. After the sequel, Predator 2, proved a disappointment for some fans, this popular hunter wouldn't be seen on screen again until the two Alien Vs. Predator films of the new century; the first one played it too safe, the second was more violent but poorly filmed with an uninteresting premise.
Predators, the new film, at least improves on some of these faults. For one, with the premise. The most deadly killers on Earth are kidnapped and brought to the Predator's native planet (basically one large jungle) and are hunted for sport.
When I heard about this film, I knew right away not to expect anything profound or life changing. That's not this film's agenda so I don't see a reason to expect so much out of its story. What Predators aims to do is to give fans of the original film the sequel they never got: action packed, exciting. The film does deliver this, but there are missteps here that prevent this film from becoming the experience you wouldn't mind paying another $10 to see in theaters.
Predators lacks the suspense of of the original film, but that does not mean I was expecting this film to be a horror. The first film is more of a horror, and that's mainly because the audience has no idea what they're dealing with. What is this creature? What is it capable of? Once the audience has an idea of what the Predator is, the horror of what this creature is is gone, but the suspense doesn't have to be. There wasn't really a moment in this film where I was holding my breath, wondering what to expect next, and what we did get wasn't all that surprising either. I thought the use of a jungle, like the first film, could provide some of that fear on the character's part of not knowing exactly where this creature is, but most of the second half of the film takes place inside confind spaces and never truly takes advantage of the space around the characters to create this type of suspense.
I also had a problem with some of the technical aspects of the film, mainly the way it was shot, the score, and the special effects.
There are very dark shots in this film, sometimes too dark to see what's going on. I love the use of low key lighting in a film and think it can be very powerful and striking if used properly, but during sequences in which I'd love to have a more stable look at the action (the camera movement feels hand held, as well), the lighting creates some confusing, and comes across a bit frustrating. Having said that, I'm not exactly a fan of watching films in theaters, mainly because the movement on screen feels unstable and hard to follow. Films that have tons of movement seem to play better, imo, on a home theater system where it comes across more stablized and clear. Perhaps Predators will be easier to follow on dvd, and I'm honestly willing to find out.
The two other aspects, the music and special effects, kind of distanced me from the film. The score has no real dramatic purpose throughout most of the film, often coming across like your generic action movie score. Moments in which no score would've had a better impact were accompanied by blaring horns, which came across as distracting. The moments in which the score did work were the ones that directly channelled first Predator. At these moments the score stops coming across like it could have played in any studio-assembly line action film, playing recognizable pieces from the first film, while the action mirrors that of the first film as wel, and on its own, the score works for Predators in these moments. I just wish there were more of them.
As for the special effects, they're good for the most part, but when they're bad, they're really bad. At one moment in the film there is an explosion inside a giant building that looks so much like a cartoon that it's unavoidable. Moments like this where the effects came across really fake and cheesey, distanced the characters from being threatened by it at all, and took me out of the film. If I cannot believe that the characters can be harmed by an explosion, then where is the suspense in that? Could the production not afford better effects in some of these areas? Could they not afford pyrotechnics? In the end, the effects were inconsistent in quality.
With all that said, though, I did not dislike this film. The characters in this film are probably the most interesting and fun characters to grace this franchise, at least since the first film. Except for the appearence of Laurence Fishburne, who has some fun screentime but is ultimately a wasted character, these characters are really fun. The makeup for the Predators is really well done, and the effects in creating the Predator's home planet are nice to look at.
As well, not all of the fight scenes lack thrill and excitement. There are two fight scenes in the films final half hour that are really well done. They're well edited, well lit, and have a great impact. If the rest of the fights were like this, the experience would've definitely been more enjoyable.
Overall, I like Predators enough to say that if you like films that want to entertain you with lots of action, then this film is at least worth checking out. It drops the ball in a lot of places where some slight alterations and more effort would've helped to make the film more enjoyable, but director Nimrod Antal does a good enough job that I can say I did enjoy myself, even if it was to a certain degree.
Final Grade
Predators (2010): 6/10
Coming soon, the much promised Batman Returns review, as well as a look at Christopher Nolan's new sci-fi original, Inception.
