Connect with us

Movie Reviews

PREDATOR: BADLANDS Review

Published

on

PREDATOR: BADLANDS Review
(BBB, C, VV, M):

Dominant Worldview and Other Worldview Content/Elements:

Very strong moral worldview, with some redemptive qualities, teaches that protecting the weak elevates and ennobles the soul, and aids in one’s survival and defeat of evil, and the movie also promotes compassion, empathy, helping others, and equipping the weak to survive, but two parental figures in the movie are evil and heartless, but the hero tries to appease his evil father and gain his approval, despite his father’s rejection;

Foul Language:

No foul language;

Advertisement

Violence:

Strong and light, sometimes scary, violence such as predator alien murders his older son because he refuses to kill his younger and weaker brother (the Predator society is based on Spartan-type values regarding hunting and war), evil father tries to kill the other son but the older brother pre-prepared his spaceship to take the younger brother to another planet to earn their clan’s hunting initiation status, younger brother crash lands and fights off vicious vines, younger brother finds human female android who helps him survive the planet’s dangers, she helps him survive plant seeds that explode and put other creatures to sleep before eating them, she helps him kill a large alien animal for food, they have to survive grass that’s sharp as knives, they discover and eventually befriend a small creature who helps them in the hunt, younger brother fights large alien creature with rows of vicious-looking teeth and an ability to regenerate in hopes of capturing said creature and earning him the right to become a respected member of his clan, younger brother and female android battle evil heartless androids of large corporation that wants to use the younger brother to develop weapons and other useful items for people and wants to do the same thing with the large alien creature and its regeneration abilities he’s hunting, a big fighting sequence occurs near the movie’s end, followed by another life and death fight, and android robot bodies are smashed or torn apart or beheaded, characters are impaled or partially exploded using small fiery worm creatures;

Sex:

No sex;

Nudity:

Advertisement

No nudity;

Alcohol Use:

No alcohol use;

Smoking and/or Drug Use and Abuse:

No smoking or drugs (evil android puts good android to sleep by turning her off); and,

Advertisement

Miscellaneous Immorality:

A humanoid alien creature, the Predator in the movie title, has a disagreement with his evil father but he hopes to earn his father’s respect by hunting and capturing a large, awesome alien creature, but the evil father has decided that both his younger and elder son are too weak to survive, so can his mind be changed?

PREDATOR: BADLANDS is a rousing science fiction thriller about a humanoid alien who tries to appease his evil father and gain his approval by hunting a large apex predator on an extremely dangerous planet but needs the help of a female android and a small monkey-like creature when they encounter a group of heartless evil androids. PREDATOR: BADLANDS is a terrific, exciting movie that teaches protecting and equipping the weak and that promote compassion, empathy and helping others to overcome evil, but the movie has lots of strong, intense action violence, scary moments and some scary characters and creatures.

The movie opens with a brief written preface about the Predator race of aliens called the Yautja. The primary goal of these aliens is to hunt, and they hunt alone.

Cut to their home planet. Kwei is the larger older brother of Dek. Dek, the movie’s central character, is the runt of the litter in a clan that removes any sign of weakness. The Yautja think one weak link breaks the chain. Sadly, for Dek, that means he’s subjected to not just being ousted from the clan but being killed.

Advertisement

Kwei and Dek are arguing about Dek’s situation in Kwei’s spaceship. Unexpectedly, Kwei sympathizes with Dek, but warns him that his chances don’t look good, especially since their father already has rejected Dek. Dek chooses a lethal planet called Genna as his hunting ground. He also decides that, to gain their father’s approval and elevate his status, he will hunt a large and allegedly unkillable apex predator called the Kalisk. Kwei is not happy about that. He thinks the Kalisk will kill Dek because Dek is too weak. Dek replies, that, if he dies, which probably is likely, at least he will die with honor.

At that point, their gray-haired father appears. He’s angry and asks why Kwei didn’t kill Dek as he ordered to do. Kwei defies his heartless father. So, their father decides Kwei too must die because to forgive weakness is itself a sign of weakness. So, he tries to kill Kwei, but Kwei defends himself.

Meanwhile, Dek tries to help his brother, but Kwei shoves Dek back into his spaceship and closes the door on him. So, Dek watches helplessly from the ship while Kwei fights his father. Eventually, the father fatally wounds Kwei by thrusting his flaming sword through Kwei’s chest from behind. With his dying breath, Kwei activates his ship to send Dek to Genna.

Dek is knocked out by the spaceship’s sudden movement, and he wakes up on Genna. Immediately on exiting the ship, Dek encounters deadly brown vines that swing form the trees and try to kill and eat him. He fends them off with his blade and guns. A strange monkey-looking creature watches the fight and bonds with Dek. The creature is able to escape the vines by swinging through the trees, but he seems to help Dek fight them.

After fighting off the vines, Dek and the creature come to a clearing. They face new dangers, but get help from a damaged human-looking android, a female named Thia. Thia activates her translator and is able to understand Dek while he can understand her English. Her torso was severed from her robotic legs when she and her android companion, Tessa, encountered a Kalisk. She offers to take Dek to the creature’s lair if Dek will help her get back to Tessa, who disappeared during their fight with the creature. When Dek says he only hunts alone, Thia proposes that he think of her as a tool.

Advertisement

Dek agrees. So, with that, Dek and Thia establish a partnership, and the monkey creature, whom Thia names Bud, accompanies them.

Of course, getting to the Kalisk’s lair and capturing, or even killing the Kalisk is a very difficult proposition. Complications ensue when they come upon Thia’s twin android, Tessa. Thia’s twin decides that she and the androids under her leadership should serve the evil corporation that brought her and Thia to Genna. That means capturing the Kalisk and imprisoning Dek to take both of them to Earth for the company’s experiments and technology creation, including weapons creation.*

The odds are stacked against Dek, Thia and Bud. Will they survive and remain free?

PREDATOR: BADLANDS is a terrific science fiction thriller. It has excitement, thrills, heroic deeds, and lots of heart. Thia teaches Dek to be compassionate and empathetic. Meanwhile, the evil androids, including Tessa, are heartless automatons with not an ounce of sympathy. This conflict provides a marvelous, exhilarating contrast of good versus evil. Also, PREDATOR: BADLANDS has no foul or crude language and no explicit lewd or obscene content.

However, the movie does have lots of strong, action violence, scary moments, and scary creatures. The camera often cuts away from the more gruesome acts of violence, but it does show things like the father’s fiery blade exiting the older brother’s chest. Also, the good guys smash, crush, impale, and behead some of the heartless evil androids. Moreover, the predatory Yautja aliens are scary looking, as are the killer vines and the giant Kalisk monster. For instance, the Yautja have four large menacing teeth on the outside of their mouths, and the Kalisk has rows of scary teeth in its mouth plus a large scary dinosaur-like tail.

Advertisement

In addition, PREDATOR: BADLANDS shows that Dek and Kwei’s father is an evil alien who wants to kill his sons because they’ve disappointed him. Also, the computer program that the evil androids use is named MUTHR, like in the original ALIEN movie.* Thus, the movie’s two parental figures are evil and negative. So much for “honor thy father and mother.”

That said, PREDATOR: BADLANDS has a very strong moral worldview with some redemptive qualities. The movie teaches that protecting and equipping the weak ennobles and elevates the soul. It also aids in one’s survival and one’s triumph over evil.

MOVIEGUIDE® advises strong caution for the intense action violence and scary parts, characters and creatures in PREDATOR: BADLANDS.

* The evil corporation in PREDATOR: BADLANDS is the same as the one in the ALIEN movies, which originally ordered a heartless android to retrieve a dangerous alien specimen at the expense of the human crew of a spaceship called The Nostromo. 20th Century Fox, which is now owned by Disney, decided back in the 1990s to merge the ALIEN and PREDATOR franchises. In the ALIEN MOVIES, the company wanted to use the alien species to develop and sell new weapons, including bio-weapons. In PREDATOR: BADLANDS, the corporation also wants to use the large apex predator, the Kalisk’s, regeneration abilities to regenerate human body parts, including human and android soldiers, as part of the company’s medical and pharmaceutical division.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Book Review: The “Night” Movies of Film Critic A.S. Hamrah – The Arts Fuse

Published

on

Book Review: The “Night” Movies of Film Critic A.S. Hamrah – The Arts Fuse

By Peter Keough

Once again, critic A.S. Hamrah sheds perceptive light on our cinematic malaise.

The Algorithm of the Night: Film Criticism 2019-2025 by A.S. Hamrah. n + 1. 554 pages. $23

If film criticism – and film itself – survive the ongoing cultural, political, economic, and technological onslaughts they face, it will be due in part to writers like A. S. Hamrah. His latest collection (there are two, in fact; I have not yet read Last Week in End Times Cinema, but I am sure that it will also be the perfect holiday gift for the dystopic cinephile on your list) picks up where his previous book The Earth Dies Streaming left off, unleashing his savage indignation on today’s fatuous, lazy critical conversations and the vapid studio fodder that sustains it.

Not that it is all negativity. This inexhaustibly illuminating and entertaining assortment of reviews, essays, mordant Oscar roundups, and freewheeling, sui generis bagatelles first seen in such publications as n+1 (for which he is the film critic), The Baffler, the New York Review of Books, and the Criterion Collection is filled with numerous laudatory appreciations of films old and new — all of which you should watch or watch again. I was impressed with his eloquent, insightful praise for Debra Granik’s Leave No Trace (2018), his shrewd analysis of Abbas Kiarostami’s masterpiece A Taste of Cherry (1997) and its mixed critical reaction, and his reassessment of John Sayles’s neglected epic of class warfare Matewan (1987), among many others.

Advertisement

Also not to be missed are Hamrah’s absurdist ventures into his personal life, many in theaters (or not in theaters, as when Covid shut them down in 2020), such as the time he observed a menacing attendee at a screening of 2010’s Joker. “It would be best to see [Joker] in a theater with a potential psychopath for that added thrill of maybe not surviving it,” he concludes. One strikingly admirable characteristic of Hamrah’s criticism is that he consciously avoids writing anything that could be manipulated by a studio into a banal blurb. You will find no “White knuckle thrill ride” or “Your heart will melt” or “A monumental cinematic experience” here.

The book does boast a bounty of blurbable bits, but they are not the kind that any publicist will put in an ad. These are laugh-out-loud takedowns of bad movies, vain filmmakers, and vapid performers. Some of my favorites among these beautiful barbs include his description of The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) as “[S]horter than Wakanda Forever by a whopping 47 minutes but still too long,” his dismissal of Jojo Rabbit (2019) as “combining Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson in the worst, cop-out ways,” and his exasperated take on Edward Berger’s 2022 remake of All Quiet on the Western Front (“What happened to the German cinema?”).

Film critic A. S. Hamrah — another inexhaustibly illuminating and entertaining assortment of writings on film. Photo: n+1 benefit.

He also displays the rare critical ability to reassess  a director and give him his due. In his review of Berger’s 2024 Conclave, he admits that “Berger directs [it] like he is a totally different filmmaker than the one who made the 2022 version All Quiet on the Western Front. Unlike that film, this one is highly burnished and tightly wound.” (Watch out – close to blurb material there!)

The book ends with an apotheosis of the listicle called “Movie Stars in Bathtubs: 48 Movies and Two Incidents” in which Hamrah summarizes nine decades of cinema. It ranges from Louis Feuillade’s 1916 silent crime serial Les Vampires (“‘It is in Les Vampires that one must look for the great reality of our century’ wrote the surrealists Aragon and Breton”) to Brian De Palma’s 2002 neo-noir Femme Fatale (“There is a picture book called Movie Stars in Bathtubs, but there aren’t enough movie stars in bathtubs. De Palma’s Femme Fatale, which stars Rebecca Romijn, does much to correct that.”)

Advertisement

Around the volume’s midpoint, Hamrah includes one of the two “incidents” of the title. In “1951: The first issue of Cahiers du Cinema” he celebrates the astonishing cadre of cinephiles, many of whom are depicted in Richard Linklater’s recent film Nouvelle Vague, who put out the publication that reinvented an art form. “Unlike critics today,” Hamrah points out, “these writers did not complain that they were powerless. They defended the movies they loved and excoriated the ones they hated. For them film criticism was a confrontation, its goal to change how films were viewed and how they were made.” It’s a tradition that Hamrah, who combines the personal point of view and cultural literacy of James Agee with the historical, contextualizing vision of J. Hoberman, triumphantly embraces.


Peter Keough writes about film and other topics and has contributed to numerous publications. He had been the film editor of the Boston Phoenix from 1989 to its demise in 2013 and has edited three books on film, including Kathryn Bigelow: Interviews (University Press of Mississippi, 2013) and For Kids of All Ages: The National Society of Film Critics on Children’s Movies (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019).

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Film reviews: ‘The Secret Agent’ and ‘Zootopia 2’

Published

on

Film reviews: ‘The Secret Agent’ and ‘Zootopia 2’

‘The Secret Agent’

Directed by Kleber Mendonça Filho (R)

★★★★

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Fackham Hall movie review & film summary (2025) | Roger Ebert

Published

on

Fackham Hall movie review & film summary (2025) | Roger Ebert

You’d think it would be easy to parody beloved period British dramas because they have so many guilty pleasure repeated tropes: huge historic houses, romances within and between upper classes and their servants, swooningly fabulous clothes, luscious meals, fabulous furnishings, and dialogue that sounds witty even when it isn’t because it is delivered in heavenly aristocratic accents with exquisite, RADA-trained diction. But the secret to the really great parody is truly loving whatever it is you’re making fun of. Thus, on a scale from the top (by Grabthar’s hammer, that would be “Galaxy Quest”) to the sloppy (I love you, Wayanses, but noticing something is not the same as being funny about it), “Fackham Hall” comes in around the middle.

Its watchability comes from the very elements it is trying to undermine: the fairy-tale setting of a huge country house, antique furniture, and beautiful people wearing gorgeous period clothes, speaking in accents ranging from elegant upper-class to cute commoner. Most of its jokes are based less on observing what makes these works so popular than on what is silliest or most outrageous. But what’s funny in the writers’ room does not always work on screen. An example of the tone is the title, the name of the characters’ residence, which a character says aloud to make sure we know it sounds like a crude insult to everyone involved.

The story is set in 1931, or, to put it in context, after the end of “Downton Abbey” and around the third of the ensuing films. We are informed, in case you have no exposure of any kind to this genre, in which case, why are you even watching this, that “England was a nation divided by class.” The country is suffering through a depression, but the Davenport family, who have occupied their ancestral home for 400 years, have no such concerns. (The 2,500-acre estate of Knowsley Hall, also featured in “Peaky Blinders,” plays the part of the ancestral home.) 

“The sheer grandeur of Fackham Hall was a testament to splendor and an enduring family legacy,” we are told by a narrator whose identity we will not discover until the end. “They led a decadent life and barely had to lift a finger.” Indeed, Lord Davenport (Damian Lewis) is sipping a cocktail from a glass held to his lips by a servant. He and Lady Davenport (Katherine Waterston) are congratulating themselves on the upcoming wedding of their daughter, Poppy (Emma Laird), to the presumptive heir to the property, Archibald (Tom Felton). “I’m just delighted she’s finally found the right cousin,” Lord Davenport smiles. As anyone who knows this genre understands, only males can inherit the land. Since the Davenports’ four sons, John, Paul, George, and Ringo, all died, this marriage is the only way they will be able to stay in their home. Thus, the motto on the family crest is “Incestuous ad Infinitum.”

The Davenports’ other daughter, considered too old and independent-minded at 23 to be likely to find a husband, is Rose (Thomasin McKenzie). She will soon meet a plucky orphan lad and kind-hearted pickpocket named Eric Noone (as in “no one”), played by Ben Radcliffe, handsome and charming enough to play the lead in any period romantic drama, and wisely calibrates his performance as though he is doing just that.

Advertisement

Noone is sent to deliver a message to Fackham Hall just as Poppy and Archibald are about to get married, except they don’t, because Poppy makes a dramatic race from the church to the arms of her low-born beloved. This puts the pressure on Rose to take over as Archibald’s fiancée and save the family home.

This is one of those “throw everything at the screen and by the time you realize that one wasn’t funny, four more will have come at you” movies. These include running jokes, anachronisms, sight gags, potty humor (in one case, chamber pot-y humor), slapstick, an extended dick joke, an extended “who’s on first”-type joke involving a character named Watt, sight gags, and verbal misunderstandings, e.g., “You fought [in WWI] with my father.” “No, we were on the same side.” And a tailor shop called “Tailor Swift.”

One element of this film that works well is that the actors understand the assignment, no winking at the audience, except for British comedian/presenter and co-writer of the screenplay, Jimmy Carr, playing a vicar who cannot help running the liturgy texts together to make them sound dirty. The score by Oli Julian and the costumes by Rosalind Ebbutt are also perfectly suitable for the kinds of movies this one spoofs. It’s just the jokes that, like British cocktails, are to American taste lukewarm.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending