After his great period of the 1980s and a passage to empty, Shane Black knows a Hollywood revival mixing blockbusters (Iron Man 3) and more independent films (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Nice Guys). With his talent for dialogues and characterizing characters, there was reason to have great hope for this new opus of the famous alien with mandibles. Especially since Shane Black was in the cast of the first opus! So this The Predator, we approve? Focus.
Where the film perfectly keeps its promises is in violence. Shane Black does not skimp on gore effects (without being too shocking because we must not mess around either we are not at Tarantino's here) and it remains fun to see. It is actually quite enjoyable to see the blood flow, the limbs torn off as well as the characters methodically massacred one after the other as in a good old Alien (It was necessary to pay its tribute to the Alien vs Predator). Successful bet? Well, not really…
First of all, if Shane Black is an excellent screenwriter, and very good dialoguist, he is a less good director. It is highly lacking in visual style. Which, if it is not a bad thing, does not allow this Predator to detach itself from the coming at all. Not to mention that there are a large number of misdirections, bad cuts and strange framing. What can pass for a small independent film, which can play on dialogues and story, works much less well with a blockbuster that has had a large number of reshoots. Because the film knows a lot of clumsiness of writing.
The Predator is dotted with a number of clumsiness and an ambient je-m'en-foutisme. If the mercenary characters are quite endearing and funny (humor is one of the successes of the film), seeing them being massacred one after the other does not cause a lot of emotions. While the characters are rather well introduced (which, given their number, is a real success), the obstacles they face are not intense and painful enough to really get attached to them. Another clumsiness of writing: the attempt to represent categories of the population that we do not often see in blockbusters: namely gays and autistics. The representation of gays is done in an intelligent way and destroys all the clichés (the two characters in couples are both, mercenaries who embody virility and brutality), which is quite cheerful. As for autism, even if it starts from a good intention, it is not very successful. This representation clearly lacks realism and will essentially serve to attract parents with autistic children (the number of autistics is skyrocketing in the United States). Despite some interesting ideas, this is unfortunately only one of the many problems with the film.
The fact of not being able to attach oneself to the suffering of the characters has several consequences: first, to create an indigent and very long climax. Then to provoke unnecessary violence that has no consequences except to provoke spectacle. Although pleasant, and profitable since now at Fox, the R-17 films are well seen (the successes of Deadpool and Logan helping).Which is becoming more and more commonplace, with scenes of mass destruction in Marvel, and other films of this ilk. Which, mine of nothing
, raises the question of whether Shane Black has understood what Predator is.
Far, far away from John McTiernan's masterpiece, Shane Black struggles to deliver a semblance of honest B series (the film is made for 80 million dollars). Perfect to make your popcorn profitable, but not enough to have a film that manages to restore its nobility to one of the most mythical monsters in the history of cinema…
