Is there anything wrong with this movie?
Seriously, I think it’s excellent. What say you? I give 10/10.
shareSeriously, I think it’s excellent. What say you? I give 10/10.
shareEveryone except the girl should have died in the end.
Nobody could verify what happened, the woman would be deemed hysterical/insane.
A well written 5 minute wrap up scene featuring a military investigation, with the photos of the team alive/dead. The cause of the teams demise would remain a complete mystery.
🤔
shareNo, Arnold should die, but the girl live, becasue that will make a wonderful sequel.
The girl get into insane asylum for believe alien, her son got take away, one day predator come back to kill the son......
That's actually really interesting. Bit like "what happens if we let Fincher direct Alien 3?" :D
Everybody fucking dies, everything is bleak, all hope is lost.
If pulled of right, it's great. But a slippery slope, as we know.
Some of the SFX were abit ropey even back in the day, especially the mini nuclear type explosion at the end, looks like it was ‘matted’ over the shot.
Also, I was never keen on the casting of the ‘General’ - played by R.G. Armstrong, he didn’t have the gravitas of say a Richard Crenna in First Blood, but to be fair the tone of the two films are different.
Predator still holds up amazingly well though, due in no small part to director McTiernan & of course Arnold himself, who shows perhaps is ‘widest’ acting range here more than in any other film. *
I really don't get your comparing the general to Trautman in First Blood and saying he should have been better. The general was a very small role and he never would have had any difference no matter who played him. He's only in the movie for like a total of 2 minutes!
shareI submit that he showed much more range in End of Days.
shareYou're right about the general being a tad weak, but… isn’t he onboard with Dillon’s fake story and setting up Dutch and his team? If so, the guy’s a weasel, in which case a lack of gravitas might actually be appropriate.
shareYes. Mud can't bypass thermal vision.
Yeah, this is pretty much the only flaw.
But it's hollywood science...so I'll conclude that there really isn't anything wrong with this movie. Pacing, character decisions...everything was on point.
What???
Why the hell not?
Mud is cold as fuck and moist. Must be around 5 degrees in a jungle.
And that was quite thick mud.
I can agree that DRY MUD would lose this blocking effect, but wet mud would reduce the temperature on his body enough to make him look like vegetation.
It's not possible, even Mythbusters tested it.
First, the mud is too thin.
Second, mud can't block heat for that long, it would warm up in 5 minutes.
mythbusters is as real as this film.
Mud is thin if you lay it thin.
The shit on Dutch looked a few cm thick.
And after ending up in the lake, and with such a thick layer of cold and wet mud, I bet his body temperature would take at least 30 min to raise enough and make the mud any warmer.
Do you even watch the movie to the very end? He use mud to fight the final battle, not just the lake scene.
And "30 minutes" is not possible, before that mud would dry and fall off.
No, I have never seen it....
As you can read above, I already addressed dry mud.
See it first, discuss it later.
shareSarcasm: not your friend.
shareSarcasm: not your friend either.
shareMy sarcasm is pretty obvious to anybody reading the thread.
Not to mention, what kind of idiot would comment without watching?
And Predator of all movies???? In 2021???? You think people live under a rock?
"what kind of idiot would comment without watching?"
I don't know, The kind that think mud can bypass thermal vision?
Nope, it's one of the greatest 80s action movies
Cast, story, gore, scares...
Perfect
Not really, could’ve maybe been a little longer.
shareThis is flawless, and highly rewatchable. Also typically special effects don't hold up well over time (see Terminator 1), but thirty years later this is still great.
shareCOULD HAVE USED SOME MORE BULGING MUSCLES.
share