Battle LA

Yes, I actually saw a movie in the theater!  It happens about once or twice a year.  Actually, this year I’ hoping for a total of four.  In order, Battle LA (check), Thor (likely), Cars 2 (take the kids, almost certain) and Captain America (take my brother, very likely).  All in all, a banner year.  Enough of that though, on the review.

First and foremost, Battle LA is not really an alien invasion movie.  Sure, there are aliens running around trying to exterminate the human race, but that isn’t really the focus.  The focus is entirely on how the platoon of Marines headed by Aaron Eckhart’s Staff Sargaent Nantz deals with the situation.  Nantz, is of course the real focus of the story as we discover quickly when we are introduced to him running on the beach and getting passed by a bunch of younger, faster marines.  As the story moves forward we learn that he is planning on retiring, apparently unable to deal with the guilt and stigma of a tour in Iraq in which most (if not all) of his platoon died.  This of course makes the platoon he gets put in charge of more than a little nervous.  He does eventually win them over, first with a John Wayne moment in the middle of the movie and later with a speech about how the loss of his men in Iraq and the loss of his men that day eats at him constantly. 

I want to return to the John Wayne moment as it highlights some of the movie’s strongest points.  These points come together in the way Nantz behaves after he gets back from blowing up the drone that could have obliterated the platoon.  He isn’t high fiving and saying things like “No problem,” or “yippy-ki-ay!”  John McClain, he isn’t.  Not that I have a problem with Mr. McClain, this just isn’t that kind of movie.  Instead Nantz makes is way to the back of the bus, sits down and shakes.  He may be a hero but he knows he isn’t invulnerable either.  This realism and the way Eckhart pulls it off so convincingly are my favorite parts of the movie.  The rest of the performances area solid, from the father-son relationship of a couple of the civilians they rescue to Michelle Rodriguez doing her typical tough-chick routine, no one really disappoints.

In conclusion, the movie has been called Black Hawk Down with aliens.  Having seen Black Hawk Down just a couple of weeks before seeing Battle LA, I completely agree.  Both are war movies that are more about the people getting shot at than they are about the shooting.  My only complaint about Battle LA is that the ending is too…easy.  Since, this one hasn’t made to video yet, I won’t ruin it but if you are like me, you’ll be willing to overlook the ending in light of how awesome the rest of the movie is.  So, if you haven’t seen it yet, get yourself to a cheap theater or save it on your Netflix cue as soon as you can.  You won’t regret it.

Next:  Thor!

Under the Red Hood

This is easily the most mature of the three movies we’re reviewing as it deals heavily with the death of Jason Todd, the second Robin, Batman’s feelings of guilt, and the difference between revenge and justice.

As before, the animation is very good, this time slightly influenced by the old series but for the most part is something all its own.  The voice actors are largely unfamiliar to the world of animated Batman movies but everyone does a good job, especially Jensen Ackles, who plays the Red Hood.  There are also small parts by Neil Patrick Harris as Nightwing, and Jason Isaacs as Ra’s al Ghul.  John Di Maggio plays the Joker particularly well, showing influence of both Mark Hamill’s definitive animated portrayal and Heath Ledgers equally definitive live action rendition of the character.

Fair warning, it is pretty much impossible to talk about this without spoiling anything so I won’t bother trying.  Of course the movie doesn’t really try to hide anything either.  This isn’t about the mystery, it’s about the character conflict.

The movie gets going with the famous beating to near death of Jason Todd by the Joker and the subsequent explosion that finishes him off, an event that haunts Batman for the rest of his life.  We then jump to Gotham where we meet the Red Hood, an outsider who comes in and rapidly starts to take control of the criminal underworld in Gotham, igniting a war with Black Mask and attracting the attention of Batman, which of course is part of the plan.  You see, the Red Hood is none other than Jason Todd, back from the dead courtesy of Ra’s al Ghul and his handy-dandy Lazarus Pit.  Incidentally, this is just about the only thing that really bothers me about this story; it continues the long established comic book trend of brining people back from the dead.  Until recently, DC didn’t do it very often, but they have definitely jumped on that bandwagon with Marvel by now. 

I digress.  Jason’s primary purpose through the whole movie was simply to stage a showdown with Batman and the Joker.  You see, he isn’t blaming Batman for his death or anything like that, he’s too smart.  But what he does want to know is why, “Why on God’s earth is he (pointing at the Joker) still alive!”  Why wasn’t his death the final straw, the one that finally made the Batman break his one rule and rid the world of “this piece of death worshiping filth?”  A fair question, one that comic nerds have been debating for decades.  Why not kill the Joker?  After all, it seems no prison can really hold him and all he does when he gets out is to kill as many people as he can.  Batman’s answer is simply that it would take him to a place that he wouldn’t come back from.  Once he kills the Joker, why not Two-Face?  The Riddler?  The next random mugger?  I admit, it isn’t really satisfying on a visceral level but the right answer rarely is.  Not that there couldn’t be better answers but a long dissertation on the value of the rule of law and the inherent dignity of even the worst bastards probably would not have fit.  In any case, Todd is also less than satisfied and tries to force Batman to kill either him or the Joker, which of course doesn’t work.  The Joker goes back to Arkham in the end and it looks as though Todd is dead, but we all no better don’t we?

Near the beginning of the movie there is also a great fight scene, featuring Batman and Nightwing vs. Amazo, a super-powered android.  This version possesses a number of the Justice League’s powers, leading to the original Dynamic Duo having to be pretty creative in their tactics.  My personal favorite is when Batman puts some plastic explosives over his eyes, which Amazo obligingly detonates with his heat vision.  That scene alone is worth the entire runtime. 

Anyway, like I said, this is not for the kiddies.  It is awesome and for older teen Bat-fans it is a very worth while viewing experience. 

Batman/Superman - Apocalypse

As you can already see, this one is not only a Batman story.  Nor is it an original tale but is based on the Supergirl storyline of the Superman/Batman comic and functions as a sequel of sorts to Enemies of the State animated feature  (also based on a story from the same comic) of a couple of years ago.  This brings up of  the cooler aspects of this particular series of animated features, the animation.  If you were to watch the movies back to back you would be surprised at how different the animation styles are.  However, if you were to compare the animation to the art in the comics, you would see that they basically chose to adapt the art styles of Ed McGuiness and Michael Turner to an animated format.  Whether this really makes any real difference to the story, I don’t know, but it is kind of a neat thing for nerds like myself. 

As for voice talent, this movie brings back many animated series favorites, Kevin Conroy again, Tim Daly as Superman, even Wonder Woman is done by the same actress who portrayed her in the Justice League series.  Suffice to say that the voice acting is competent to excellent. 

Now for the story.  I won’t belabor differences between the movie and the comic, suffice to say that there are several but all the differences seem to have been based on time considerations more than anything. 

Things kick off with the arrival in Gotham a very powerful young lady who seems to be the long lost cousin of Superman, Kara.  Batman of course is highly suspicious, assuming that she might be part of some elaborate trap.  He’s wrong, at least for a while because many people naturally take notice of her and her talent, including Darkseid who is basically the ultimate physical evil in the DC universe.  To make a long story short, he kidnaps Kara and brainwashes her (doesn’t say how), turning her against Superman when he, Batman, Wonder Woman and Big Barda come to rescue her.  This leads to a confrontation, not just of muscle vs. muscle but of philosophy, how do we know what is right and good?  What is the role of the parent or guardian in guiding the development of those in his care?  I won’t pretend that there is an in depth discussion of these issues in between punches, but it is there.

Another issue worth considering is how Batman keeps Darkseid out of the fight, allowing them all to escape.  Again, keeping the long story short, he rigs the whole planet to go boom unless Darkseid lets them leave and promises to leave Kara alone.  Now, is it morally permissible to threaten to blow up a planet of slaves to rescue one girl?  And not just threaten, but to actually do it?  After all, Darkseid relents because he knows Batman will actually do it.  Altruistic or not, he is also a ruthless bastard.  Now, many of the slaves are no doubt unwilling and wanting to escape, making them innocent victims.  However, many (perhaps a majority) worship Darkseid as a god.  This was seen in an episode of the Superman animated series where Supes kicked the crap out of him, only to see him carried away by his slaves, not to be drawn and quartered but to be nursed back to health.  It is also a military target.  Darkseid, being a comic book villain wants to take over the entire universe.  Actually, he wants to destroy all life.  Really.  For you Marvel fans out there, he is like an amped up version of Thanos.  Darkseid would use Kara, who is arguably more powerful that Superman to further his ends.  In this case, I would say that this is a Death Star scenario; there are innocent prisoners but the entire purpose of everything and everyone else on the planetoid in questions is to spread fear and terror making the action justified, if not still tragic.  \

Conclusion, well animated, acted, and written.  Not suitable for the little ones but perhaps mature pre-teens and above.

Mystery of the Batwoman

This one is pretty old, dating from the heyday of the 1990’s Batman Animated Series (one of the greatest series ever by the way).  In fact, it was produced by the same team, featuring the familiar voice of Kevin Conroy as Batman and the trademark minimalist animation that has become the standard for almost all of DC’s animated projects.  As always, the technical side of the production is handled very well. 

Moving onto the story, it begins with our introduction to the Batwoman, who is decidedly different, at least in appearance from earlier bearers of the same name.  There is no bright yellow spandex and crazy red masque here.  Instead, they went with a light gray spandex and red bat logo, fitting more with the general tone of the series.  As bat-fans will not find surprising, she quickly runs afoul of Batman.  However, it is not just because he doesn’t much care for other vigilantes operating in his city but also because she is a lot more violent than he is, having no regard at all for the lives of the criminals she fights.

We are also introduced to a number of new female characters who are of course potential Batwomen.  We get to walk along with Bruce as he thinks he figures out who the female caped crusader is and then is quickly proven wrong, a couple of times.  They do a good job with the mystery but by the time the pay off comes you aren’t exactly surprised.  Along the way, you find out that there are personal reasons for the Batwoman’s violence, helping to understand the character a bit but I still think that she should have suffered some sort of real consequence for her actions, which is ultimately the biggest problem with the movie.  Still, all in all a fun, entertaining little adventure that I would recommend for the pre-teen and older crowd. 

The Batman Reviews

At last!  I’m going to review those Batman movies I mentioned a long time ago now.  In case you need  a reminder,   those movies were Mystery of the Batwoman, Apocalypse, and Under the Red Hood.  These will be short and sweet since everyone knows the basic Batman story, so I won’t spend a whole lot of time dwelling on that.

One quick note though.  I think I mentioned before how there are numerous interpretations of Batman’s personality and motivations.  These range for arrogant bastard, terrorist, anger-driven sociopath, to altruistic crusader.  I also mentioned that the latter is definitely my preference.  Perhaps sometime I’ll go into the reasons for that and why the other interpretations, often presented as attempts to humanize the character tend to exasperate me.  Actually, the whole trend of making characters more “human” and “identifiable” drives me batty ( no pun intended). Suffice to say (for the moment) that I think it is grounded in a corrupt interpretation of the Calvinistic idea that we area largely defined by our sin married to modern relativism.  Anyway, on with the reviews.

Joan of Arc

As previously stated, this is the made for TV version, not the horrendous The Messenger starring Mila Jovovich as a crazed nut job pretending to be St. Joan.  Anyway, the good version stars Leelee Sobieski as Joan and a number of solid B list actors such as Robert Loggia as her hometown priest, Powers Booth as her father, and Neil Patrick Harris as the Dauphin.
For those who may not know the story, here's the short version.  France's very existence is threatened by the English and has been for sometime.  The king is not even the king as he cannot even make to Reims to claim the crown.  But there is an ancient prophecy attributed to Merlin that in France's darkest hour, a from the region of Loraine would rise up and unite the nation.  Joan of course is the maid and at the age of seventeen and under the guidance of St. Catherine of Alexandria, St. Michael the Archangel, and  St. Margaret leads an army under the authority of the king to raise the siege of Orleans.  She succeeds and has a number of other victories, enabling Charles to claim his crown.  However, after a disastrous attempt to take Paris, she is betrayed by Charles and is taken to England to be burned as a heretic.  Later, her case was retried by the Church and she was exonerated and five hundred later was canonized a saint. 
There is much more to it than that and for a more detailed account I strongly recommend Mark Twain's biography of her published by Ignatius press.
In any case, the movie seems to get it mostly right, taking the miraculous nature of her life at face value.  Such miracles included of course the voices of the saints but also the finding of a sword behind the altar in a church dedicated to St. Catherine and her vast military knowledge (you only get glimpses in the movie though.  Twain's book is again far more detailed).  The movie presents all this faithfully, avoiding both cynicism and sappiness.
The acting is solid all around with my only complaint being what I would consider to be the miscasting of the character Jean Metz (if I remember the name right).  The guy just didn't seem to have the right look, but this is a minor complaint.  As for other minor complaints, the battles and general production values are made for TV and not Hollywood but that is to be expected.  Bottom line is that this is a good and faithful representation of St. Joan's story.  You should get yourself online and buy it now. 

Carriers

Carriers stars Chris Pine and Piper Perabo as two of a group of four twenty somethings traveling back roads in post horrible plague America.  But this is not your typical post plague movie.  That is, there are no zombies.  Not one, despite what the trailer would have you believe.  I remember reading about the movie on screenrant before it came out and they remarked on how the trailer didn't seem very sure if it was a standard zombie flick or character driven piece about what people do in survival situations.  The worry was that the movie would be just as unsure of its direction.  I can tell you this, movie is very sure of its direction.  The studio however seemed unsure of how they wanted to sell it.  So unsure in fact that even though it was done first, it didn't come out until after the Pine starring Star Trek proved to be a resounding success.
Back to the movie.  Like I said, no zombies, so this is a look at how four people deal with survival after most of the country is dead.  There aren't really any big surprises in the movie.  The characters basically look out for themselves and anyone else is just a potential source of gas and other supplies.  What is new in this movie is that there is no big humanizing moment, in fact they get more ruthless as the movie progresses.  They start out by stranding a guy and is infected daughter, after stealing their truck.  The main character (Pine) then abandons his girlfriend (Perabo) in the middle of nowhere after she gets infected (which happened when she was trying to help the little girl.  After that, Pine's character just flat out kills two completely innocent women to stea their gas.  From there, Pine is infected and the other couple, that is, his brother and another girl plan on stranding him.  But things get complicated and Pine gets killed by his little brother.
This leads to another thing I liked about the movie.  It shows how one's decisions establish certain dispositions, or more bluntly, how being a little bastard make it easier to become a bigger bastard down the road.  Our decisions matter and can have major consequences for ourselves and others down the road.  There is also a narration at the end where the little brother realizes that while he have survived, he knows that now he will always be alone, never able to trust or love another person.
The movie also got me thinking about the whole survival movie genre in general.  Normally, the people in them are ruthless and if not ready to just screw over every one they find at least aren't exactly eager to help.  Why is that?  Well, I guess I know why.  But why not a movie where the main characters are motivated by a desire help others?  Why not have a zompocalypse where people are trying to recruit fellow survivors and try to cure the virus or what that is the cause of it?  Basically, what if the primary group of survivors were devout Christians?  You could still have all the typical conversation about what should be done with the infected person, the tension between survival and keeping our humanity, etc.  The only difference would be that the nice guy wins the argrument.    The only movie I can think of like that, even a little is I am Legend where Smith's character is rescued from certain death by Alice Braga's character and he in turn sacrifices himself so that she can survive with the cure that he developed.  And then she makes it to a settlement which features a Church in the center.  But this is the very end of the movie and is very different than the book it is based on.
Anyway, just some thoughts.

Good Will Hunting

So, like said a couple of posts ago, I finally watched this movie for the first time a week or so ago.  All I can say is, "Thank you Netflix instant!"  Seriously, I really enjoyed watching this movie.  It has a compelling story and is wonderfully written and acted.
Briefly, for the three other people in the country that haven't seen this movie (that is, living under the same rock I've been living under) the story is as follows:  Insanely smart working class kid solves really hard math problem at MIT, attracting the attention of the brilliant (but still nothing compared to young Will) math professor.  However, Will has lived a hard life in the "economically depressed" parts of Boston and ends up going to jail for hitting a police officer.  The professor persuades the judge to let Will out under his supervision with the promise that he will also see a therapist.  Enter Robin Williams as the brilliant shrink who helps Will (Matt Damon by the way) deal with his past and so learn to connect with people and take chances in life.
Which brings us to what the movie is really about, relationships and the need to allow oneself to be vulnerable in order to build those relationships.  It's not that Will doesn't have friends, he does but he doesn't let himself move beyond that.  We see this in his relationship with a girl (Minnie Driver) he meets a bar (in probably my favorite seen of the whole movie).  They have a great first date but he doesn't call her back.  Why?  Because he sees her as perfect and "doesn't want to ruin that."  As Sean (William's shrink) retorts, "That's a great philosophy.  That way you can go through life without really knowing anybody."
This same difficulty shows up in other ways such as his pushing away of the professor and the fact that he has never done anything with his considerable gifts.  Basically, he is afraid of developing new relationshps with people for fear that they may finally reject him.
The reason for this fear is that his parents had abandoned him and many of the foster parents that he had beat him.  As Sean put it, "the people who were supposed to love him the most abandoned him" or beat him.  That would tend to mess a person up.  Naturally, Sean helps Will realize that what those people did to him was not his fault, that the problem wasn't with him, allowing him finally to take the big chances with his girlfriend and with his gifts.
This got me thinking about myself.  While no Will Hunting, I'm slightly smarter in some ways than the average bear.  Or at least my interests are different.  But I have done very little with that, largly for fear of failure/looking stupid.  You see, I used to think I was a lot smarter than I really am but becoming Catholic helped me see that there are people far more intelligent than I will ever be.  Which is good.  In any case, doing something with my interests and limited gifts has been on my mind a lot anyway (hence this blog) and this movie is making me think about it even more.  And has it turns out, some new opportunities may be cropping up.  So, stay tuned.

Eli and Moses

I was thinking about The Book of Eli again the other day and realized an interesting parallel.  In the movie, Eli (as discussed in the review below) went through a period in which he was really following God's will, concerned only with his task but not the people around him.  It is possible that this is the reason that Eli doesn't actually deliver the Bible he was carrying but instead has to dictate it and then apparently dies right after he is finished.  In a similar way, Moses angers God in the water from the rock episode (scholars debate about exactly how Moses angered God; for myself, I subscribe to the idea that Moses was putting the focus on himself rather than on God), and as a result he never gets to enter the Promised Land, dies as he looks upon it.  Eli, like Moses accomplishes the primary task they were given but neither of them get to witness the fruits of their labors.  It is one final lesson in humility and trust in the Lord. 
It is worth noting one other similarity, both are lawgivers.  Moses transmitted the Ten Commandments and the Torah, whereas Eli carried and transmitted both the Old Law and the New Law.   Both also were required to go on long arduous journeys as well as overcoming certain handicaps (stuttering for Moses and blindness for Eli).  I could possibly go on, but it is already too darn late.

The Book of Eli

So, I watched The Book of Eli the other night. I had been interested when it was in theaters but given family life and all, I wasn't going to push going to see it. That said, the more I read about it, the more I wanted to see it. And finally, I have.
The basic plot is simple enough, thirty years after a nuclear war (it's never said explicitly but...duh), Eli (Denzel Washington) is heading west, carrying a book, a book that Carnegie (Gary Oldman) has been looking for for quite a while. Naturally enough, they run into each other. Since the movie has been out a while now and it doesn't waste much time revealing it, the book is in fact the Bible, perhaps the last one.
This of course is where it gets interesting. It is the last Bible because people quite consciously sought them out after the war and destroyed them, apparently blaming Christianity for the war. There isn't any detail given beyond that as to how or why the war started. In any case, it is thirty years later and most of the population can't read, making them ripe for manipulation by the evil Carnegie. See, Carnegie is old enough to remember the power the Bible has to inspire and motivate people for good or ill. Carnegie figures that if he can get a hold of one, he can spoon feed the populace whatever he wants from it and so bend them to his will more completely than he will ever be able to accomplish through force alone. Eli is also aware of this power and thus seeks to protect on his journey from people like Carnegie. Thus bullets fly and people fall, a lot.
One of the best things about the movie is that Eli is not perfect. More importantly, his imperfection is not celebrated and in fact he realizes his faults by the end of the movie. Essentially, he is so focused on his specific task of bringing the Bible cross-country (and reading it every night) that he has forgotten to apply what he reads, which he sums up towards the end of the movie as "do unto others." This is particularly relevant as at the beginning he ignores a woman being gang-raped and later on lies to a girl (Solara played by Mila Kunis) to prevent her from following him. It is, in fact his interaction with Solara that leads him to re-evaluate his actions and they way he had been living his life. I think that moral of this part of the story is that even divinely appointed soldiers on a mission from God (literally in this case) are not necessarily perfect and require redemption just like the rest of us.
Eli does actually share his faith during the movie, inviting Solara to a before meal prayer which completely baffles her, especially since she was sent in to seduce him. The fact that he doesn't take advantage of her and also shares his food visibly confused her. Eli certainly is not your typical post-apocalypitc survivor.
My only real complaint with the movie concerns the end. Eli loses the Bible along the way but does eventually reach his destination, a survivor colongy on Alcatraz which is dedicated to preserving the cultural heritage of man and eventually diseminating it through world again. Sort of like the monastaries during the "Dark Ages." The loss is only partial though as after thirty years of reading the Bible every day, he has it memorized and it is quickly transcribed and becomes the first book off their newly operational printing press (a nice homage to Guttenberg, I thought). From there, it is placed on a shelf. Between the Talmud and the Koran. In effect, after Eli receives his task in a kind of vision, is clearly given a supernatural ability to fight and is in fact protected from death until his task is complete, the Bible is treated just like any piece of literature. Sure it is an important piece of our cultural heritage but the entire movie treats it as much more than that, as something that contains answers to our hearts' deepest longings that reveals the hidden purpose of our lives. More to the point, given the aforementioned vision, fighting, etc. it seems to treat the Bible and Christianity as the truth. And then, it's just put on the shelf? A much better ending would have been to have a minister of some sort giving a speech about how long they have waited for this day and then begin reading, probably the parable of the Good Samaratin.
Still, all in all a good movie, with good acting, good action and an overall positive portrayal of faith without being afraid to look at the way people abuse it or to acknowledge the faults of the faithful.

Toy Story 3

Okay, I know the movie has been out a while now and I am unlikely to add anything of substance to great review by Steven Greydanus at www.ncregister.com so this will be short and sweet.
First, let me say that Pixar can virtually do no wrong. Everything they touch is gold so far as I am concerned and this movie is not exception. Once again, Woody, Buzz, Jessie, and some of the others (only some because many, such as Bo-Peep have left over the years) go through the trauma of Andy entering another stage in life. This time, Andy is heading to college and must at last "put away childish things." Naturally, the toys are terrified of what will happen, all except Woody and (to a lesser extent) Buzz who have faith that Andy will simply put them in the attic and perhaps they will be brought out of storage to play with his own kids someday. Suffice to say that isn't quite what happens and through a misunderstanding wind up at a day care center ruled by the tyrannical Lots o'Huggin Bear. Of course it seems like paradise at first and the everyone but Woody plans on staying. Woody however, recognizes a duty to Andy and he leaves. Before long though, he returns to aid in his friends' escape.
Along the way, we are treated to numerous examples of the importance and value of friendship in the standard non-cheesy Pixar way. In particular there is a moment in which all of the toys are literally staring death in the face. There simple gesture of solidarity (I'm blatantly ripping this off from Greydanus by the way) hits you right between the eyes, which just might shed a tear or two. Speaking of tears, if the end of the movie doesn't result in at least a watering of the eyes, you sir are not a human being (I almost ripped off Screenrant's wording there but they're right). I won't tell you what it is save for the fact that the toys and Andy do eventually separate and everyone apparently lives happily ever after.
As for the bad, there is very little here to talk about. Mostly it lies in the fact that there is some repeat material here. From the trailer, you already know that Buzz gets reset, thinking that he is a real Space Ranger again. Of course, this was the major thrust of the first one and we saw it again in the second one when another Buzz toy was unboxed. We also have a parallel between Stinky Pete and Lotso, both angry older toys who were slighted in some way and so rejected the natural order of the toy world and sought to impose their anger on others. They both have different reasons and ways of going about but they're off the same assembly line. Finally, there is the theme of rejection of being left behind as Andy moves on, be it to other toys (Toy Story 1), or simply growing up and moving past toys altogether (Toy Story 2 and 3). However, because the way that Pixar manages to not only add something new but to actually move the theme farther and deeper (except perhaps in the case of Buzz. There it's just something new.) where as lesser studio would simply repeat almost the exact same plot (Major League 2 anyone?) I'm not going to quibble a whole lot on this.
So, should you go see it? My only question is, why haven't you already?

Predators

So, I went to go see Predators last night. First of all, I enjoyed the heck out of it. It wasted no time getting right into the thick of things, beginning with our unlikely band of "heroes" literally falling from the sky onto the alien planet. We then spend the next half an hour waiting for them to figure out that they are being hunted by they have no idea what. Naturally, we know exactly what is going on but it is still fun to watch them figure it out. During this phase, there is a rather pretentious scene where several of the band of tough guys tries figure out what is going on, reading their own experience into it. The Russian, thinks it is a military test, the cartel enforcer seems to think they may be hallucinating or have been kidnapped for ransom, the convict thinks it's a drug experiment, you get the idea. Basically, it's the whole "people always force the unknown into their own experience," thing. Not that there isn't some truth to that but given the circumstances in this movie, they're really reaching. A far better application of this idea is how they use there experience to interpret the tactics of the Predators, such has how the mercenary (played by Adrien Brody) is the first to figure out that they are being hunted and the death-squad member figures out that one of them was wounded and turned into a trap for the rest because he's done the same thing.
Speaking of the characters, we never learn much about them except that they are not a nice bunch of people. In fact, the one woman (played by Alice Braga) comes to believe they have been chosen has prey because they themselves are predators, monsters, inhuman. Naturally, some humanity comes out (for most of them anyway) as they need to band together to struggle to survive, with a measure of redemption being achieved for several members who sacrifice themselves for the rest.
What of the Predators themselves? They are every bit as scary and ruthless as you would expect them to be, using maiming traps and stabbing people from behind with their giant writs blades. We get to see some new technology in their hawk-like probe that they can use to track their prey. We also see some "dogs" which are every bit as tough and scary as the alien baddies themselves. We also learn that there at least to races of Predator, the kind we saw in the original (and presumably all the other movies) and the three hunting Brody and company. As it turns out, these to races don't much like each other which leads to Predator versus Predator throw down. Unfortunately, it is also a bit of a let down, with the fight apparently being modeled off of beginner training videos for the WWE.
The final fight between Brody and the lead Predator (the other two have already been killed) is well done, with Brody using a very simple and clever trick to scramble the Predator's infamous infrared vision and then smacking the heck out of the evil bugger. Well, it also got shot through the chest by Braga's sniper rifle...
The next morning, they wake up to the sight of another bunch of parachutes falling from the sky, the whole process apparently starting over. Perhaps, there will be a sequel with them somehow getting off the planet. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
The only other thing worth mentioning is when they meet Noland (played by Laurence Fishbourne, who has been on the alien planet...a long time. Long enough that he's just a little be crazy. In fact, as I type this, it occurs to me that he is almost a warning to Brody's Royce of what he might become since they seem to have the same "do whatever it takes to survive" attitude. In any case, this little interlude doesn't really go anywhere and frankly just breaks up the movie. It would have been better, if a tad predictable to have Noland lead the rest in a real knock-down-drag-out fight with the Predators. Oh well, maybe our survivors will fill that roll in the next one...
At the end of the day, the movie had it's flaws but I would strongly recommend it fans of the original and anyone who want a good sci-fi/action fix.Re