Is there food?

It’s always nice to be surprised. Maybe I should rephrase that: it’s always nice to be surprised by a film. These days there’s an awful lot of tired generic crap out there. Cinema with no soul, no bite, no passion.

Every now and then you get low budget little movies that pop up and blow you away. You get a body-blow of refreshment and inspiration when someone gets it so very right and it appears with no fanfare at all.

And that’s the case with The Disappearance of Alice Creed. It’s got some positive press in the UK (perhaps gaining extra attention because of a certain rising British star’s nudity, more on that later) but it’s not been trumpeted as a “must see”. But it is: if you like your films intelligent and well made this is definitely a must see.

It’s kind of a dark caper movie. There are twists and turns and you’re never really sure how it’s going to end up. It’s impossible to discuss at any length without giving something away, but it’s enough to say that it’s satisfying in its serpentine shenanigans.

The three cast members – for that’s all there is – are each brilliant in their own way. They’re playing well developed, believable characters. Special praise goes to Gemma Arterton for being something of a revelation after Bond, Clash of the Titans, and Prince of Persia. It’s evident that she can actually act, can pull off pathos when required, and can manage to avoid becoming an irritation over the film’s duration. Yes, there’s nudity, but it’s not for titillation. It actually happens in one of the films most uncomfortable moments, and in classic “I’ll get my kit off if the script is right” fashion, it fits perfectly with the plot and I can see why Arterton agreed to do it.

Deserving of even more praise than Arterton is writer director J Blakeson (he’s on Twitter folks: http://twitter.com/jblakeson). While there’s no real flashy direction beyond the excellent opening sequence – you could almost pull the whole thing off on stage if you set things up right – it’s all handled confidently and effectively. The writing is spot on, and the plot reminded me of classic caper movies like Deathtrap or Sleuth but dragged into the 21st century and given a suitable layer of grit. There are twists, ladies and gentlemen, and while you might be able to guess where things are going, you won’t know for sure until you get there.

You should see it. There’s a good chance Alice Creed has disappeared from British cinemas by now (see what I did there?) but there should be a dvd release soon; Blakeson recorded his DVD commentary the other day (http://twitter.com/jblakeson/status/19024503731). I urge you to go and pick it up when it comes out.

Predators is, in a nutshell, a 106 minute love letter to John McTiernan’s ’87 original. That’s a good thing and a bad thing.

It’s a good thing because, frankly, everything since the original has been a waste of good celluloid. It’s a bad thing because I get the distinct impression that everyone involved could have turned in something really top notch if only they’d had the courage to stand on their own a little.

For fans of the original the doe-eyed reverence makes for some fun reference spotting. It certainly makes Predators feel like a comfortable sequel to a 23 year old film. It even goes as far as to directly describe the events of the original film. In terms of quality, entertainment, and thrills it’s far more memorable than anything else that’s carried the Predator brand since Arnie first shook hands with Carl Weathers all those years ago.

The music features large chunks of the original movie’s score (which is great, I love the original score), there’s dialog repeated (I even noticed a couple of Aliens quotes in there too), and the old mini gun and mud smearing make an appearance. There’s so much familiarity that at times it feels more like a remake than a sequel. Rodriguez and co have been careful to sell this as a sequel, but in this modern age of “re-imaginings” it wouldn’t have been surprising to see this described as a remake.

I like the cast too. It’s nice to see Walton Goggins on the big screen after enjoying him in Justified. And I really don’t have a problem with Adrian Brody. I found him to be more entertaining in this than King Kong, at least.

The letdown for me was the Predators themselves. In the original, the Predator gets quite a bit of screen time on his own. Whether fixing up wounds, cleaning trophies, preparing for war, or lurking in trees, there’s a hunter/hunted relationship developed throughout the film, leading up to the final confrontation. You don’t really get that in Predators. There’s the occasional human-less scene, but what’s there doesn’t serve to form any sort of attachment or bond with the adversary. Part of this might also be the way the creatures move. Kevin Peter Hall really nailed his performance, moving superbly in every scene. The Predators here aren’t bad, but they lack a certain elegance and attention to detail that existed before.

Despite that, it’s all good fun. Really, it is. If you’re a fan of the original I suspect you’ll probably enjoy this. Just don’t expect too much. Don’t expect the original. What we have here is a solid B-movie with villains you’re already familiar with. Go in with low expectations, buy yourself some popcorn, and switch off your brain for a bit. Hopefully you’ll have a good time.