Predators

(Antal, 2010)

Let me preface this review by saying that the original Predator is one of my most-watched films of all time. This is in part because of its kingly status atop a mountain of otherwise middling 80s action flicks, that it is one of the more reliable Arnie films before his reputation as a cartoonish dispenser of one-liners overtook him, and the simple fact that it is always on the bloody telly late at night when those of us who should know better are still up watching Sky Movies. In a time when machine-gun and muscle films dominated the cinema, Predator had a winning formula of wise-cracking heroes, big firearms and a classic, seemingly unkillable bad guy capable of taking them all on, laughing.

Predator already has a sequel, one that traded the unforgiving jungle for violence-ridden city streets. The alien was much the same, but instead of a team of crack commandos the only thing keeping our dreadlocked villain from indulging in hunting season was Danny Glover’s jaded lawman. While I don’t consider Predator 2 to be a terrible movie, it didn’t go over well with most critics. Trading in the claustrophobia and menace of the original film, this was a cruder, louder and more explicitly gruesome affair.

With the latest outing, the premise shifts marginally from a team of hardened marines to a rag-tag group of deadly criminals, government agents and ruthless mercenaries. They’ve been dropped into the jungle and will need to work together to figure out why. They soon come to realise they are a long way from home, being hunted by creatures unlike anything they have ever encountered. Maybe they haven’t been here before, but we certainly have.

Robert Rodriguez and the rest of the production team seem to have ignored everything that came after the first Predator film, especially as the events of that film are discussed explicitly in Predators, whereas nothing is mentioned of any further encounters. Given the name of this film, you might think the director wanted to do for the franchise what Aliens did for the first Alien by cranking the action and terror up to eleven. Instead we get a film that offers little we haven’t already seen, going beyond merely wearing its inspiration on its sleeve. Rather than a sly nod to its spiritual origin, what Predators gives us is an exaggerated nod and a wink a la Monty Python’s Eric Idle. Know what I mean? Eh? You remember that bit in Predator where such-and-such happened? Well, check this out!

Certain characters in this film are conspicuously similar to those in Predator, it adopts a near identical soundtrack, and there are a couple of occasions where lines from the original are repeated verbatim. I get that this isn’t meant to be an entirely serious film, but there are limits to how far this reviewer can suspend his disbelief.

As tributes go, Predators is fairly comprehensive. Beyond aping the original, however, we’re barely given anything new to appreciate. The film expands on its setting by introducing a couple of new concepts that are interesting enough, but insufficient to set Predators apart from its distant prequel. The disparate cast are given brief moments in which to discuss their past and hint at their true nature, before they are stalked and dismembered in a familiar, by-the-numbers fashion.

If you liked the first Predator, you’ll appreciate the level of fan service here. The cast do a reasonable enough job with what they’re given, and many of the action scenes are satisfyingly visceral. However, if you’re expecting a ‘proper’ sequel, you’re likely to leave disappointed.

Oh well, at least it’s better than Alien vs. Predator.

---

tl;dr: Lacking tension and bloated with hero worship, this doesn’t come close to being a worthy successor to the excellent original. It offers a goodly amount of action and gore, and if it didn’t borrow so heavily from the source it might have been a good movie in its own right. As such, it’s entertaining but ultimately unremarkable.

---

Inception

(Nolan, 2010)

The trick to reviewing films like Inception is that while the viewer should be made aware of the film’s strengths and complexities, this is the kind of cinematic event where going in blind greatly enriches the viewer’s experience. To the studio’s credit, even with the many months of pre-release hype they still made the effort to keep as much of the film’s premise under wraps as they could.

In brief, then: Inception revolves around a plot to infiltrate the dreams of the heir to an energy conglomerate, plant an idea in his subconscious and manipulate him in the real world. The task falls to a man named Cobb, who has been living in exile from his family and home due to a tragic event in his past. Cobb is a veteran of this kind of work, although it is generally accepted that stealing an idea from someone in this fashion is far easier than planting one, so much so that the process – known as inception – has only ever been carried out once before, by Cobb himself. To this end, he recruits a team of specialists to help him create a convincing dream world in order to fool the victim into going along with Cobb’s intentions.

Leonardo DiCaprio, as Cobb, heads up an absolutely staggering cast, every one of whom gives a superb performance here. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has been one of my favourite actors since I saw him in Brick, and only continues to rise in my estimation with this compelling performance. Ellen Page is solid as the dream architect, and the striking Tom Hardy – last seen as the title character in Bronson – is another one to watch out for. The supporting cast is wonderfully fleshed-out, including Ken Watanabe as Cobb’s calculating employer and a subtly unnerving performance by the excellent Marion Cotillard.

The story twists, flips and turns on its head in the course of the film, juggling multiple narratives which interweave flawlessly as the virtual heist progresses. Given that the premise here is the rooted in the depth of dreams and complex nature of human subconscious, Nolan should be commended for managing to pull off a truly stunning, dare I say epic tale without having to resort to tired clichés or borrow too heavily from the films that clearly influenced it (Dark City and Eternal Sunshine… spring to mind). The film keeps the viewer guessing right until the very end, layering the tension while dazzling its audience with cinematic sleight-of-hand before reeling everyone in and asking them if they can tell how it was done.

It’s not all high-brow, mind you. Given Nolan’s recent pedigree, you’d be right to expect ample explosions, sweeping panoramas and mind-blowing special effects, and Inception does not disappoint. The gun-fights on display here effortlessly set the bar for future action films of any genre, and they didn’t even feel the need to tack on sloppy 3-D effects. It’s an unquestionably beautiful film and, while it clocks in at two and a half hours, I didn’t feel like they wasted a single moment. It would be remiss of me not to mention Hans Zimmer’s typically outstanding score, which expertly accentuates both the dramatic and the ethereal with equal panache.

A number of the reviews I’ve read since watching Inception have criticised the film for being confusing. Granted, the plot is by no means straightforward, but Inception is a rare example of a film with a genuinely good story that manages to tie up all its loose ends and STILL remain ambiguous enough to invite audience debate after the credits roll. It’s not confusing if you pay attention; it’s merely open to interpretation. The balance is struck perfectly, and the film-making world might sit up and take notes if it wants a masterclass in how to fix what is wrong with modern cinema. It doesn’t take a remake, a sequel or a complete re-hash to deliver the most intelligent and compelling summer film in years.

---

tl;dr: Nolan brings us an action blockbuster wrapped within a metaphor-laden arthouse film. It’s Bay meets Bergman, but in a really, really good way. Beautiful, thought-provoking, exceptionally well-acted and hands-down my favourite new film this year.

---