Predators

It's a return to the Eighties with a sequel that is worthy of the first Predator, instead of the inner-city Predator 2, and let's not even get started on Aliens Vs Predator ...

Predators starts a little bit like a hardcore Lost. A bunch of strangers wind up in a jungle and there's something in the trees ... you can guess it's a bunch of Predators, well, and other things. Adrien Brody plays the main lead as a more lithe Schwarzenegger role whilst other human 'predators', soldiers, gangsters etc. come along with him. The idea is that they are game for Predators to hunt and each set piece is them trying to survive. It is a definite homage to the original Predator with quite an identical set up (especially the end), but like how Aliens did with Alien, there's just a whole bunch more of them.

I went into this movie with pretty low hopes, I love the original Predator but felt like it would take a lot to do this justice but I actually was quite impressed. It might not be original, scary or particularly well-made, but for an action film it's a fair cop.

Directed by Vacancy's Nimrod Antal, this is a good step forward into a more illustrious Hollywood career, he clearly enjoys building up tension with the added satisfying touch of some good pay-offs. The settings look lush and rich, with a vibrant palette that gives it that European feel Antal is used to, the monsters look good and it's pretty much action from start to finish. They've also tried to give the Predators a bit more character by giving them unique 'tribal' looks and forcing them into two groups. They've also thrown in some weird predator dogs, some strange creatures which I imagine are also being hunted and a very crazy Laurence Fishburne as a survivor who has been there a little too long.

As you can imagine, one by one they get killed off, but each character has been thought about and there is often some good group dynamics. Adrien Brody steals the show for me, which is strange seeing as I don't rate him as an actor, but his soulless dead eyes and gruff voice make him perfectly cast in his lone wolf persona. The others I could give or take, except Walton Goggins whom I love anyway and is perfect as the crazy prisoner.

There's not much of a story apart from the fact that they have to survive. For some reason, one of the predators is tied up and there is a predator vs predator match which is pretty cool, there's also a secret within one of the group which was a bit predictable but generally speaking I had a good time watching this film. Though it was a bit confusing at times such as why the predators were in groups, why one was tied up, what the other creatures were, I'm sure they did explain all this but it felt a little bit like trying to overcomplicate something for no reason but to make the audience think. But then, maybe that's a good thing?

Seeing as Predator hasn't had a fair cop since his 80s heyday, this returning to the roots of the beast is something that has enough action to keep you happy, a simple enough plot to keep you sustained and is a good first step to recreating what Aliens Vs Predator has ruined. This isn't a film at the top of it's game, but instead is running with the same blood as the original Predator, a monster movie in a jungle.

Don't expect anything that will take your breath away, but I've seen a lot worse.

Rating: 6/10

Splice

Produced by Guillermo del Toro, directed by the guy who did Cube, this B-Movie monster horror is a bit deeper than others, but should it even exist?

I've got a lot of time for movies like this, a high-concept, no bullshit horror film that plays out slowly and dramatically until a final burst at the end. Unfortunately, this movie feels like it should be so much more than what it has become.

This is mainly due to the director - the shots often feel standard and uninspiring yet there are odd moments where some glimmer of creativity comes through. You only have to look at what he's done since Cube to get a feeling that this is his last big shot, and it is in something that his art department background can justify, the monster horror theme.

But what makes this different, and kudos to Natali for co-writing the thing, is that you're never sure who the real monster is. The set-up is that Brody and Polley (who I don't think I've seen since Dawn of the Dead) are doctors playing with genetics to create animal medicines etc., but when they want to combine human DNA for medicines for us lot, they are quickly turned down. So what else to do but do it themselves? I think you can get the rest of it.

The problem is Adrien Brody just can't really hold a film together, his passiveness in The Pianist was either great acting or non-acting and this proves the latter. Polley I feel sorry for, she always seems to be left behind and doesn't seem to ever age, her acting is mediocre at the best of times and she's a strange choice for the role. It's really Delphine Chaneac as the creature Dren that shines through. Her animal-like behaviour and visual confusion is impressive, the brilliant CG and make-up helps, but Chaneac really makes Dren a complete character.

So what of the 'monster' Dren? From the minute she's born, she's an object of disgust so initially we seem to side with the idea of killing it. However, she starts growing at an alarming pace (not evolving - species evolve not individuals) and soon that disgusting thing with a tail is a little girl. The fact that she's mute and relatively sweet makes it harder and harder to consider her a threat as she turns more and more human. The plot moves nicely so that you're never at ease when she's around, there's a nasty streak in Dren and she tends to lash out with ferocity.

You start to realise that this all one big metaphor for how Polley's character Elsa wants to not let Dren down like her mother did her and soon, after a medical incident in a barn screaming metaphors (Freud would enjoy this film), you start to sympathise more and more with Dren. Is she being kept alive for the sake of Elsa? Is she actually just as bad a mother as her own? It's only about two thirds through the film that things start getting a bit weird, Brody's character Clive soon breaks loose from being the audience's grounding force to start messing with things he shouldn't - and for what reason I have no idea. Then when all hell breaks loose and Dren develops again, it gets really incestuous to the point of sickening. Dren's suddenly changed completely (in more ways that one) and has become a true monster. Was this from the result of her 'upbringing'? Or was this because of her genetics? See what they've done here? Because, to be honest, Dren goes through a lot in a short space of time that would mess anyone up, let alone a creature that doesn't know if it's even human.

So what's wrong with this picture? Firstly, the acting is pretty atrocious from everyone concerned, there's not enough tension as I would have liked there to have been and why the characters are doing what they are doing isn't explained fully enough, or there's not enough reference to any subtext to justify it. The effects, CG, make-up and everything in creating Dren is pretty damn good and looks authentic and it's the disturbing plot that wins it over from being some weird farce.

Overall, this is a great original story that takes a few chances that pay off. But ultimately, there's not enough method in the madness and it all seemed to happen so quickly that we couldn't get close enough to Dren to fully engage with the character. I enjoyed the idea, the story and the film itself but I was left feeling disappointed.

And also Brody's nose kept drawing my attention away.

Great film to kill some time and get you thinking about the morals of messing about with God's work, but ultimately more forgettable than it should have been.

Rating: 7/10