PREDATOR 2 - I just don't get it!

[Voodoo Magic]

I have a lot of guilty pleasures on my home video shelf, movies I can intellectually understand why they are universally deemed as "bad", yet recognize they still connect with me enough on a personal level that I still can find great enjoyment from them.

But the one thing I never could get my head around, which still surprises me till this day, is how "Predator 2" is not universally praised and regarded as an outstanding follow-up sci-fi sequel to "Predator".  While all movies have slight faults (even the classics), I just cannot identify with great honesty, the glaring issues with "Predator 2" creatively, narratively, casting, acting, pace nor direction, to justify the negativity it receives or its 27% Critic Tomatometer reception.

I've trumpeted this a hundred times, to a hundred people, so it's nice to see someone at JoBlo agree and express how underrated "Predator 2" is, enough to make a video about it:

[Vertigo]

I can only assume that critics generally had higher standards back then (*braces for rebuttal*).

I've always loved it - it's not the examination of masculinity that the first film was, nor of quite the same (IMO) unimpeachable quality, but for a pulp action/sci-fi film I think Predator 2 is pretty damn great. Well-defined characters, charismatic performances, perfectly paced with a decent narrative thrust, strong action, memorable scenes and ideas, fantastic art/design/effects/sound.

[TheBATMAN]

Agreed. I think Predator 2 is great for the most part. Far superior to Predators and The Predator.

[SM]

It's not universally praised because many didn't think Glover cut it as an action star following Schwarzenegger.  Or the pacing is patchy.  Or the final showdown is really lacklustre.  Or a major setpiece is wholesale ripoff of Aliens.  Or the ham Paxton successfully brought to Aliens didn't work this time.

Take your pick.

[Voodoo Magic]

And that's the fascinating aspect to me. In some other movies I'm a fan of, yes, but I can't see this other side you're describing with "Predator 2", i.e. visualize genuine validity in any of those criticisms you mentioned (other than that set piece being similar to the scene in "Aliens" of course. But that similarity to such a small aspect of the entire film dosent diminish the final product to me.) Cheers!

[SM]

It's a 15 minute sequence in a 90-odd minute film - nearly a sixth of the running time.  It's not insignificant.

The problem for me - and I like the film - is it's very stop-start from the train sequence which is halfway through the film.  Every time it starts to build up momentum, everything stops.  If they were going to rip-off Aliens they should've paid more attention to the last 40 minutes, and cut down the pauses, and effectively spent the second half of the film with a running battle with the Predator moving from location to location.

[Voodoo Magic]

It's a 15 minute sequence in a 90-odd minute film - nearly a sixth of the running time.  It's not insignificant.

The problem for me - and I like the film - is it's very stop-start from the train sequence which is halfway through the film.  Every time it starts to build up momentum, everything stops.  If they were going to rip-off Aliens they should've paid more attention to the last 40 minutes, and cut down the pauses, and effectively spent the second half of the film with a running battle with the Predator moving from location to location.

The entire 15 minute sequence is not a clone of the "Aliens", but aspects of that sequence indeed are similiar. However the entire narrative of "Predator 2" is so drastically different from the entire narrative of "Aliens", this scene's similiarties can therefore be deemed as insignificant.

And using the words "rip off Aliens" is a slippery slope when talking about any James Cameron film. Obviously Cameron has been notoriously accused of  brorrowing to outright plagiarizing in his films, including the Aliens script ripping of many elements from Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers.  I'm personally a big Cameron fan, and not taking a position on this in anyway, just observing there appears to be no 'higher horse' to take when it comes to Cameron films and rip-offs.

[SM]

Guys getting slaughtered by a monster they can't see while people watch on monitors before the hero goes in and tries to help them against the wishes of the powers-that-be is a blatant and shameless rip-off of Aliens.

I didn't say the whole film was a rip-off of Aliens - none of it is (okay maybe Paxton); just that it's a major set piece and is singularly unoriginal.

[whiterabbit]

No Schwarzenegger; no deal.

I think that's all there is too it.

[SiL]

Where to begin?

The pacing is very jerky. It builds too much energy too quickly, and doesn't do anything with it. Intense scenes repeatedly come to a slamming close with no denoument; we go from high action to people sitting around talking in the space of a single cut.

Watch the action and pacing in Predator -- it always rises and falls. We don't cut from halfway through the guerrilla camp attack to everyone talking about finding a way out of this shithole; we see the action through and let it wind down, while still building tension to the next scene.

The characters just aren't as interesting as the commandos in Predator. Danny Glover does not have the charm or magnetism of Schwarzenegger. Most of the supporting cast is just ... a'ight.

Between Paxton and Busey chewing scenery it's a wonder there were any sets left to film on. Memorable and entertaining, but also really kind of goofy in places.

The climax is just ... limp. The original is beautiful. 20 f**king minutes of man vs Predator, cat and mouse. There's a real sense that Arnie is f**ked. But in Predator 2 we just kind'a limp along after the warehouse scene, and after an unremarkable exchange of blows the Predator is killed.

Eh.

But I think the biggest thing is Hopkins simply wasn't as good a director as McTiernan was back then. McTiernan's direction gives Predator a sense of class and accomplishment. You could study Predator to learn action directing, but Predator 2 is pretty paint by numbers.

[Billiken]

I don't care what people think of Predator 2. I love it and that's all that matters.

[whiterabbit]

I think I was in 8th grade when this came out and it went like this. Those that went and saw it; thought that it was good. Those that didn't go and see it; didn't because it Arnold wasn't in it. You don't really hear anybody say anything bad about the movie aside from it being the one without Arnold. I really think it does boil down to that simple cause. Now don't get me wrong, Predator 2 is in no way a classic like Predator but it is a very good follow up movie.

Although Sil is correct in that McTiernan was kind of on a roll back in the 80's.

[SiL]

You don't really hear anybody say anything bad about the movie aside from it being the one without Arnold.

You don't hear people say much about it at all

[Huntsman]

Agreed. I think Predator 2 is great for the most part. Far superior to Predators and The Predator.

By a significant margin.

[Voodoo Magic]

You don't really hear anybody say anything bad about the movie aside from it being the one without Arnold.

You don't hear people say much about it at all

I guess you haven't done a lot of "Predator 2" google searches and tons of critic & audience review reading because no, whiterabbit is right. A lot of people say that. A lot.  It's not always the only reason, but it comes up repeatedly.