Sunday, July 11, 2010

Predators - movie review

Overall, Predators was a good attempt at matching the atmosphere of the original 1987 Predator starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. The movie begins solidly enough by following a mixed group of individuals who specialize in killing, in one form or another. The only person who does not seem to fit in with this group is a young physician. His reasons for being included are revealed later in the movie. Apparently, these individuals were deposited (along with some other particularly nasty creatures) on an alien planet designed to be hunting preserve for the Predators. The movie starts off well, introducing us to the characters, providing us with just enough information to know who they are and where they come from, without becoming bogged down by spending too much time on character exposition. The atmosphere is similarly set up to mimic the original in 1987, with the group being stalked by some unknown creature. Action sequences are fairly well done but fight scenes could have been a little longer. Regarding acting, Adrian Brody, who seems to usually play softer, more conventional roles, does a fantastic job making his role as a cold-hearted but experienced mercenary believable.
Like the predators, the soldiers and killers deposited on the planet also hunt people, and we also see Predators hunting other predators for dominance. From a psychological standpoint, the movie asks the audience what the difference is between those who are being hunted and the predators. Where does the line become drawn between predator and prey?
My one criticism of this movie is that in the film industry's attempts to make things bigger, better, and louder, something seems to be lost in the process. There was something that the original 1987 Predator had that really made it stand out and endure the test of time. This movie, while it includes those memorable characters, misses some of that magic. Bottom line: Predators is worth checking out, but if you are a sci-fi/horror aficionado, like myself, then this is a "must see." The casual movie goer can probably wait for the "rental".

3 out of 4 stars

2 comments:

  1. Interesting. Do you think the 4 star system gives you enough room to rate or do you think a 5 would be easier? I know ebert uses the 4. I will be seeing this movie.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the review, Dan. I definitely will be saving it for a rental opportunity. My better half may disagree, however! :)

    ReplyDelete