Editorials
Celebrating the Cartoonish Thrills of Shane Black’s ‘The Predator’ [The Silver Lining]
In this edition of The Silver Lining, we’ll be covering Shane Black’s underappreciated 2018 sequel/reboot, The Predator.
The Predator franchise has always walked the line between action and horror, with most of the films being structured like sci-fi slashers where the victims are just badass enough to have a fighting chance. This is obviously a delicate balance, and I don’t think any of the sequels have quite managed to replicate the legendary thrills of John McTiernan’s 1987 original.
That being said, some entries have come close, and I’d go so far as to say that there’s no such thing as a truly bad Predator film. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks that way, and that’s why I’d like to talk about Shane Black’s The Predator, a controversial sequel that deserves a closer look despite its negative reputation.
Originally announced back in 2017, The Predator became a hotly anticipated blockbuster when it was revealed that Shane Black (who played Rick Hawkins in the original film while also serving as a back-up screenwriter) would be returning to both co-write and direct a high-concept sequel. Fans were even more ecstatic when it was confirmed that the film had earned a hard R from the MPAA, basically guaranteeing a bloody fun romp helmed by someone who helped to kick-start the franchise.
When the trailer dropped, it looked like the hunt was finally on for Predator fans who had been waiting for a proper adult-oriented action flick.
SO WHAT WENT WRONG?
Grossing a fair $160 million at the box office while scoring a mere 33% on Rotten Tomatoes, The Predator didn’t actually lose any money, but it was certainly a critical flop. While the film found an audience in international venues, most viewers seemed to dismiss it as a messy cash-grab with a bloated budget and barely coherent script. The flick also stirred up some controversy due to its misguided depictions of autism, not to mention the hiring (and subsequent firing) of a convicted sex offender.
Long-time fans of the series seemed to be divided by the film’s tone, which was surprisingly lighthearted and comedic despite the hard R rating. Part of this can be explained by Black’s trademark humor, but it was later confirmed that The Predator was intentionally shot in a way that would make it easy to create kid-friendly cuts for overseas audiences. This resulted in lots of easily removable digital blood splatters and plenty of jokes for padding.
Critics also pointed out that the suburban setting was a poor substitute for the dense jungles (both concrete and otherwise) of previous films in the series, and the same went for the main cast of military misfits. The actors themselves were great, but this rag-tag band of outcasts wasn’t exactly what fans of the series were expecting.
These strange creative decisions were only exacerbated by the over-expansion of Predator lore, as the film boasts yet another super-Predator with a ridiculous backstory and action sequences more reminiscent of CGI-heavy superhero flicks than the old-school thrills of John McTiernan’s film. This also leads to a couple of sci-fi excesses like the previously mentioned autism fiasco and an unexpected twist about global warming.
Of course, one of the biggest issues was how the film was clearly reshot to hell, with shifting release dates, bizarre editing and ADR indicating that this absurd story was stitched together in post-production. Judging from behind-the-scenes photos and interviews, it appears that the final act was completely reworked before release, possibly against the director’s wishes. While some have claimed that this was due to the original cut of the film being literally too dark, Shane Black has gone on record with another story. The director claims that these reshoots were actually the result of negative test audience reactions after a focus group watched a rough workprint with incomplete visual effects.
THE SILVER LINING
It’s often said that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, and I guess that’s why all the things people seem to hate about The Predator are precisely what I love about it. It may not hold a candle to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s original run-in with an intergalactic hunter, but Black’s sequel has a lot of fun turning modern blockbuster tropes on their heads.
In some ways, Black’s film is more of a satire of modern action flicks than a proper Predator sequel. Knowing that the studio wouldn’t want to back a grounded horror/action hybrid like the original, the director decided to have a bit of fun with this big-budget monster flick, and I think the film’s irreverent approach is much more interesting than simply rehashing what came before.
In fact, the movie almost feels like a live-action version of one of those silly 80s cartoons that attempted to turn R-rated properties into kid-friendly toy commercials, and I mean that as a compliment. Hell, the movie even features a friendly Predator dog and an ecological message behind the action. If that doesn’t scream 80s cartoon, I don’t know what does.
I also really enjoy the creative casting here, with Black choosing to subvert the franchise’s established macho-man expectations by making our protagonists victims of warfare instead of cold-blooded killers. Having the audience care about the victims in a creature feature is incredibly difficult, and I’d say that The Predator does a great job of making you root for the humans. Boyd Holbrook is compelling enough as our protagonist, with Olivia Munn and Keegan-Michael Key standing out as memorable characters. But Thomas Jane is definitely the most entertaining as Baxley, a Marine veteran suffering from Tourette syndrome. This is a cool personal touch by the director, as Black actually suffers from this illness in real life.
Despite the messy storytelling and questionable additions to the lore, Shane Black’s The Predator remains a thoroughly entertaining entry in the franchise and isn’t afraid to poke fun at itself when things get out of hand. While I’m certainly hyped for Dan Trachtenberg’s Prey, which promises to bring the mandibled hunter back to its origins in a self-contained thriller, I still think The Predator is worth revisiting as an odd B-movie that’s just as fun as it is ridiculous.
Watching a bad movie doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad experience. Even the worst films can boast a good idea or two, and that’s why we’re trying to look on the bright side with The Silver Lining, where we shine a light on the best parts of traditionally maligned horror flicks.
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.