The Film Strain: Predators
by Andrew E. Konietzky
What happened to the days of great summer films? Where have they gone, and when can we get them back? The film Predators, tries to give us a brief glimpse back to days of summer blockbusters. Too bad it is a fuzzy and empty look back.
Predators tries very hard to be the sequel that the 1987 Predator[IMG|1x1]http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=suicblog-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B000244EMO[/IMG] deserved, and while it is better than Predator 2[IMG|1x1]http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=suicblog-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B0006BGWR8[/IMG] and the AvP films[IMG|1x1]http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=suicblog-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B001DDBD54[/IMG], the bar is set pretty low from the start. Director Nimrod Antal’s take on the franchise tries to bring it back in an awesome way… it really does. That’s more than you can say for any of the previous sequels that have been released.
The plot, the dialog, the things the characters did to stay alive, all of this has already been done in the original film. There is not much “new” material in this film other than the black Predators, which is a new version to the original Predator, and there is an inter-species warring faction now. Not that it is ever further explained, or that anyone cares about it. There isn’t even a single classic Predator “roar” to be found in this entire film, and that is very disappointing.
The film starts with an unconscious Adrien Brody, freefalling to the ground. He awakens in mid-air and starts screaming. It’s a really cool way to start a movie, or it would be, if this scene were even remotely scary. Part of the reason the original Predator is so good is that it’s scary. The original is a horror movie more than an action movie and even though you never really know the characters in it intimately, you’re rooting for them to survive. It’s a brutal film, full of gore and violence which only serves to heighten the gritty reality. Predators tries desperately to duplicate all of that and just can’t. There’s not a single edge of your seat moment anywhere in Predators.
Maybe we’ve simply seen too many Predator movies. It’s obvious from the beginning what’s going to happen and who is going to do what. We have a group of killers, kidnapped and dropped on an alien planet where they’re hunted for sport. Aside from a single scene in which we see a bunch of weird moons, the alien planet looks exactly like that same old jungle we saw Arnold running around in back in 1987. The film contains more than one Predator, and that should be different and exciting, except you never really see more than two of them on screen at any time. Almost all of the film’s battles still take place between a single Predator and a single human.
The best part of the movie was the use of the original score from the first Predator movie.
Basically the movie is all jungle and no interesting action… literally. The film sets out to pay homage to the original movie by completely xeroxing it. It’s a well made film, and a bit fun, but you won’t be thrilled, excited, or scared by it in the least.
Maybe it’s time we put the Predator to bed, grab a seat on the next spaceship, and head off to newer galaxy.
The Film Strain: Predators
by Andrew E. Konietzky
What happened to the days of great summer films? Where have they gone, and when can we get them back? The film Predators, tries to give us a brief glimpse back to days of summer blockbusters. Too bad it is a fuzzy and empty look back.
Predators tries very hard to be the sequel that the 1987 Predator[IMG|550x290]http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=suicblog-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B000244EMO[/IMG]
Maybe we’ve simply seen too many Predator movies. It’s obvious from the beginning what’s going to happen and who is going to do what. We have a group of killers, kidnapped and dropped on an alien planet where they’re hunted for sport. Aside from a single scene in which we see a bunch of weird moons, the alien planet looks exactly like that same old jungle we saw Arnold running around in back in 1987. The film contains more than one Predator, and that should be different and exciting, except you never really see more than two of them on screen at any time. Almost all of the film’s battles still take place between a single Predator and a single human.
The best part of the movie was the use of the original score from the first Predator movie.
Basically the movie is all jungle and no interesting action… literally. The film sets out to pay homage to the original movie by completely xeroxing it. It’s a well made film, and a bit fun, but you won’t be thrilled, excited, or scared by it in the least.
Maybe it’s time we put the Predator to bed, grab a seat on the next spaceship, and head off to newer galaxy.
Family Research Council Blames Predatorgate on "Diversity"
The Family Research Council, the same organization that brought you the "war on porn" and pushed hard for the Clinton impeachment debacle, is now blaming the folly of Mark Foley on - what else? - the cutlural influences of liberals. When you can't blame a Clinton, it's the old conservative standby.
Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement:
"We are all shocked by this spectacle of aberrant sexual behavior, but we shouldn't be. This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity. When a 16-year-old boy is not safe from sexual solicitation from an elected representative of the people, we should question the moral direction of our nation. If our children aren't safe in the halls of Congress, where are they safe? Maybe it's time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness?
"Both political parties need to be more serious about protecting children from sexual predators. We need public policy in our country that protects marriage, respects parental authority and aggressively polices boundaries around our children."
Who exactly, besides NAMBLA, hardly an organization with much political clout, is pushing for a rejection of sexual restraints in the name of diversity? What does it even have to do with diversity? The landmark Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which is the best I can decipher Perkins' words to imply, had nothing at all to do with diversity, but was about privacy and the what the scope of government can be in people's personal lives. Which, by the way, has been a staple cause of libertarian-influenced conservatives since time immemorial.
Crooks and Liars has a different take on what the real problem is with the entire Foley scandal, however:
Many on the right are starting to turn this into a gay issue. This is a gay issue. What is at issue here is the fact that a gay man in the United States of America can not be open about his sexuality in the year 2006. Having to hide his chosen life style is what causes someone to sink to the low and possibly criminal levels that Foley did. If Foley could have been openly gay and possibly even had a companion in life then we very well may not be having this discussion today.
Tough to say - being gay does not equate with pedophilia, which is a fallacy that Christian conservative groups have been pushing for decades. So even if Foley had been out of the closet the result may have been the same - repressed pedophilia manifesting itself in creepy IM conversations. However, the fact that so many conservatives have been fixating on the gay aspect of this rather than the pedophilia aspect suggests that homosexual advocates still have a long way to go before openly gay politicians can expect to be accepted. Will and Grace can only accomplish so much.