Skip to main content

This is dread, man. Truly dread.

Predator 2
(1990)

(SPOILERS) 1990 was a banner year for under-achieving sequels, illustrative of the problems that occur when studios decree product must be launched by any and all means possible. Arnie opted out of battling the alien hunter again, the baffling short straw going to Danny Glover. Director John McTiernan had moved onto bigger things, leaving Jamaican-born Stephen Hopkins to attempt to pass muster. Predator 2 duly made about half the amount of the original surprise hit, putting paid to franchise potential for another twelve years, when a whole posse of them squared off (and bulked up) against xenomorphs. Hopkins’ movie is a moderately entertaining one, but where McTiernan lifted B material into the territory of first-rate action, the sequel, with its clunky near-future setting, derivative plotting and leaky cast, is merely costly schlock.


The sheer weight of sequels jostling out of the gate during 1990 would give even the staunchest studio exec pause. There was definitely a sense of anything and everything being played for, unsurprising since three of the biggest hits of ’89 had been Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon and Back to the Future sequels). The most respectable was Back to the Future Part III, designed by its original director to cap the series. Elsewhere, even the reassembled original movers led to unwelcome side effects, whether it was through studio edicts tampering with a director’s vision (The Exorcist III), time and money constraints leading to misjudged execution (The Godfather Part III, and throw in the odd casting disaster too), simply a misjudged premise (Rocky V) or plain lazy rehashing (Another 48 HRS). The most estimable approach was taken by Joe Dante’s Gremlins 2: The New Batch, but taking the piss out of Warner Bros desire for a cash cow wasn’t just biting the hand that fed it, it also turned off audiences who didn’t expect something so wilfully anarchic and unbeholden to its much-loved predecessor.


It didn’t end there, though. The occasional sequel actually exceeded expectations. No one had exactly raved about Brat Pack gunslingers movie Young Guns in 1987, yet Young Guns II: Blaze of Glory, which progressed the story in an effectively downbeat manner, was greeted warmly. Other pictures from ’87 also garnered belated sequels; Three Men and a Little Lady took about $100m less than the original (the similarly tiny tot-themed Look Who’s Talking Too likewise illustrated that once was enough for most people). Action sequel Robocop 2 managed to bludgeon its audience with crude viscera and none of the satirical edge of the original, sadly lacking Paul Verhoeven’s inimitable eye (with Irvin Kershner more in Never Say Never Again than The Empire Strikes Back mode).


Which left Joel Silver, keen to ignite two action franchises, foundations for each having been laid by McTiernan. Without the director (his price tag had gone up, and the producers didn’t want to meet it), the producer was on much less certain ground, and curiously – although perhaps not, given his later role producing low budget horror remakes under the Dark Castle banner – he looked to the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise for inspiration in both cases. Renny Harlin, director of Part IV, was big on muscular slow motion but small on storytelling, leading to Die Hard 2: Die Harder outgrossing its predecessor but otherwise exhibiting all the worst symptoms of sequelitis. Predator 2 plumbed for fifth instalment The Dream Child’s helmer, the less excessive but no-less narratively uncertain Stephen Hopkins (he’d later deliver half the first season of 24 for Fox, so can fairly claim to success in establishing at least one franchise).



The problem was, even more than Die Hard, Predator was formulated with negligible regard for further adventures (perhaps surprisingly, Silver reportedly had to convince Fox of the viability of a follow-up). One might reasonably suggest returning writers Jim and John Thomas had been enamoured by the barbed commentary of Robocop, since they punctuate Predator 2 with clueless reporters and bombastic newscasts, but this is far from satire; it’s as tone deaf as the attempts to offer 1997 fashions (all zoot suits and fedoras) and illustrate the impact of global warming (everyone sweats profusely throughout).



It’s curious that, while they lambasted Predator 2, critics were generally effusive regarding Danny Glover. I thought at the time, and still do, that he was dreadfully miscast. Arnie’s decision to pass took in variously reported reasons: (a) he was making Total Recall, (b) he asked for too much money, and (c) he didn’t favour Hopkins or the screenplay and its city setting. Considered as replacements were Patrick Swizzle (recovering from a Road House injury) and Fox’s favourite, Steven Seagal. Hopkins insisted against Seagal, no doubt emboldened by lofty notions of legitimate, awards-worthy thesps marbling his masterpiece-in-waiting.  Ironically, since – and I’m no fan, despite his status as prolific fabulist with regard to alleged intelligence services activities, his unquestionably unlikely Buddhist tendencies and exquisite culinary skills – he’d have been much more suited to the unalloyed genre clichés stacking Predator 2 wall-to-wall.



No one wants to see Danny Glover as an action hero, probably not even Danny Glover; the whole point of Lethal Weapon is that he’s a bumbling old desk guy, and while he is playing very much his slender 44 years at the time here (he’s the regular Clive Dunn of action cinema), his lanky, wheezing gait and generally shambling disposition speak against anything iconic, confident or stalwart. He acts too much, basically, sticking out like a sore thumb in a movie otherwise populated by impossibly broad performances (Gary Busey, Robert Davi, Bill Paxton, Calvin Lockhart, Morton Downey Jr) or terrible ones (Maria Conchita Alonso). When Glover hares into action, or is cited as a loose cannon, we double take and query, do they mean him?


Poor Danny-boy (the name Glover’s Lieutenant Harrigan gives Blades’ character) also has a fear of heights. Perhaps that’s why he can’t move convincingly: being so tall and all. Such afflictions make it that much more unlikely when, aboard the Predator’s ship, he dispatches his alien foe with remarkable ease (remember all the aggro Arnie had to go through?) It’s one thing to be a young, inexperienced Predator, quite another to be taken down by a middle-aged geriatric who can’t even run in a straight line.


The perversely positive side of Glover-s non-heroic posing is you’re much more interested in the Predator itself. It’s evident from the (really great) poster and it’s tag line (“He’s coming to town with a few days to kill”) that the Fox marketing department thought so too. One might, if one was right-leaning, identify him as a nominal hero, cleaning the streets of drug-laden/fuelled immigrants (it probably didn’t escape Fox’s notice); it certainly would have been different, making the movie from the Predator’s point of view. 


There are a few nice touches; we see him engaging in a feat of superior DIY medicare, cauterising a severed limb. Then there’s his warrior code; an encounter with a toy machine gun-wielding child (fortunately, he’s not that kind of predator. “Want some candy?” is also a much more memorable catchphrase than “Shit happens”), deigning not to kill a pregnant woman, and his compatriots presenting Harrigan with a souvenir following his victory (a flintlock pistol).


Generally, though, while there’s a smattering of cool Predator moments, Hopkins doesn’t shoot the beast nearly as well as McTiernan did (although the mandible design is strong, they also look much cooler with their masks on), and even indulges in some abject silliness (the Predator struck by lightning, high atop a building, as some kind of crappy homage to Universal horror movies). And, while the geek-baiting inclusion of a xenomorph skull is massively fangasmic, the Predator ship is resolutely unimaginative, an alien discotheque outfitted with floods of dry ice.


Harrigan: It’s alright, I’m a cop.
Ruth: I don’t think he gives a shit!

Hopkins’ action generally displays sound essentials but a lack of the necessary flair to pull them off. The subway takedown is reasonable enough, but it’s better before the Predator arrives, when the punk gang experiences the embarrassment of a train full of commuters pulling weaponry on them. Likewise, the best part of Harrigan’s rooftop altercation with the alien hunter comes when he pursues it into an old couple’s apartment (“Herb, there’s somebody in the bathroom”).


Keyes: He’s on safari. Lions, tigers, bears… Oh, my!

So too, the character of Keyes (Busey) and his attempts to ensnare the Predator. It seems Keyes was originally earmarked as the Dutch role (which strikes me as plain odd, bringing the Oak back for a supporting role; presumably it went through alterations post- his refusal), and the character’s involvement is as much an obvious imitation as the Robocop riffing, only this time of Aliens. Hopkins wanted John Lithgow, who would pop up in another Silver production the following year, Ricochet, as an over-the-top Aryan racist (is there any other kind?) Keyes’ crack squad (including Gamergate self-stylist Adam Baldwin) arrive armed-to-the-teeth, but the Predator makes short work of them (again, the standout moment here is Keyes’ brief resurgence, rather than the action itself, Busey giving it the full Busey with “Guess who’s back?”)


As if we needed confirmation that this picture is looking everywhere else for inspiration, it even brings in Aliens veteran Paxton as Lambert, goofing off with crude, sexist jokes (“Goddam, that bitch on the rag or what?”) but essentially a solid fellow and partial to a cocky catchphrase (“Public relations/ surveillance/ luck is my specialty”). Generally, Hopkins picture is entirely bereft of self-restraint, awash with blood and naked (mostly female) flesh. It initially received a NC-17 (Henry & June was the first to receive the rating that same year) and Hopkins recut the picture more than twenty times to bring it down to an R.


Lambert: Who the hell is King Willie?

It’s also replete with questionable stereotypes, from Colombian drug dealers who are studiously incapable of shooting straight, probably because they are required to carry an Uzi in each hand, to some incredibly broad (and thus very memorable) rival Jamaicans. Chief among these is Lockhart’s King Willie, given to cryptic utterances such as “You can’t see the eyes of the demon until he come calling” and (best of all) “This is dread, man. Truly dread”.


Predator 2 might be commended for ignoring the call of the jungle, but it only has a string of clichés as a replacement. More problematically, it lacks a guiding hand with an idea of how to make the proceedings stand out. It’s fitfully quite good fun, and unlike the ugly and dull Robocop 2 is at least lively and daft, but miscasting and an inability to truly revel in its potential (ultimately down to a lack of imagination on Hopkins’ part) make it a very expensive bodge. The Thomas brothers had the idea of pitching a third Predator showdown in a pre-technological time (hence the flintlock) and I rather liked that, a kind of Star Trek’s Arena meets Valley of the Gwangi. Whatever Shane Black has in mind, I’m sure that, when it nurses clichés, it will be making capital of them, while displaying of a far more distinctive stylistic sensibility.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).