Predator: It Was OK

So, this post is probably going to ruffle a few feathers, and understandably so. This is most definitely a pretty taboo statement to make, especially when you live in the world of movies and movie criticism, a landscape that is dominated and populated by guys who were kids in the 80s. I'd heard many good things about John McTiernan's 1987 action flick "Predator," so I decided to give it a watch after a while. Given the sheer amount of praise this movie had received, I was expecting nothing short of a masterpiece. And so, I think I was rightfully surprised when I walked away thinking that "Predator" was....just OK. "But Man in the Tin Shack," you may say, "this movie is universally praised by audiences and liked by critics! How dare you besmirch this benchmark of cinema, you conceited, prideful, arrogant jerk!" And it may be true that this film was liked by critics and loved by audiences. However, I found myself saying that "Predator" was, and I cringe to say this, overrated. Now, before you grab your obscenely large cache of military weapons and get to the chopper to come lynch me for making a statement like that, allow me to explain myself.

When I say that I found a film to be "overrated," I do not use that word lightly. 99% of people who use it on the internet think of it as a cop-out from having to actually explain why they didn't like a movie that everyone else did, as well as from having to bother to defend their argument. And so, rightfully, that word has come to be known as the movie criticism equivalent of calling someone "stupid" and then running away without bothering to back up their statement. However, I view the word in a literal sense. To me, "overrated" is exactly what it sounds like - it's when something received a better score and/or a better reputation than it deserved. And I want to tell you something: "Predator" is by no means a bad movie. In fact, there are some things it does really, really well. First, it's an incredibly entertaining movie, and you won't be bored for a second while watching it. Secondly, it's an intelligent blend of several different genres: horror, action, and science fiction. And third, it is very good at building suspense until the eventual reveal of the horrifying and horrifyingly intelligent creature that is stalking Dutch and his men through the jungle. However, "Predator" has one crippling flaw to it that I think sets it a level or two below what's generally accepted as the film's quality, and that flaw is its characterization. Fear not. I'm going to explain my position.

Every. Single. Character. In. Predator. Acts. The. Same. Way. I have no problem with men actually acting like men in a movie. In fact, I've grown pretty weary of this trend I've in noticed in recent years, where writers, directors, and studio executives seem to have nothing better to do than degrade, denigrate, and disparage men in their films. That's a habit that needs to change, but like all issues, there is an extreme that exists on the other side that is also somewhat wearisome. And that extreme is the macho man whose entire personality is being macho. And this wouldn't have bothered me if just one of the characters had acted like this. In fact, this would have been an interesting character archetype to contrast some weaker or more complicated characters, perhaps. However, all of the characters sing only one note (or no notes at all), and this frustrated me. Another sci-fi horror IP from this era that I consider to be far superior is the first two "Alien" films, which had a very wide variety of very interesting characters with various strengths and weaknesses that made for very interesting viewing. However, if your choir of characters can only sing one note, that becomes pretty monotonous after a while. And that's not to say that our main player, Dillon, is a horrible character. He works well enough within the confines of this world. However, "Predator" would have benefited from having a Ripley, some kind of inexperienced character that needs to come all the way from the bottom to overcome overwhelming odds. "Predator" would have benefited from a Newt, some kind of younger, more innocent, yet layered character that gives audiences a reason to care for the older, more experienced characters. And you may say that Anna brought that particular archetype to the table in "Predator." However, my problem with Anna is that she acts as more of a passive narrator than an active character, and so my argument still stands.

Now, I want to reiterate some of the things I said earlier. "Predator" does some things very well, most notably capturing this fear of the unknown. I found myself genuinely curious and intimidated by this unstoppable killing machine that even the greatest soldiers in the world couldn't fight. I was wondering how this film was going to end. I was genuinely wondering if any of the characters would still be left alive by the time the film came to a conclusion. However, this suspense is really, truly the only thing that "Predator" excels at. In short, "Predator" is what some might call a one-trick pony. And what hamstrings the pony is weak characterization. In fact, if the characters in "Predator" had been strong, nuanced, distinct characters, I might be more inclined to compare this film to the first two "Alien" movies. However, a lack of variety in characterization ultimately makes "Predator" a somewhat hollow film, even if it may excel in other areas.

Predator - 6/10

Psalm 9:19-20