Reviews

Reviewing episode one, "Fight or Flight" as well as all of season 3. Throughout the series has made caricatures of the book characters. The ones for television have taken on a life of their own which while recognizable are simultaneously profoundly different. Holden's bumbling naivete and blundering goodwill gave him a likeable and understandable earnestness in the books. His character here grows even weaker, and it strains belief to accept that the people he interacts with would trust or follow him. Alex and Amos differ from the book versions but their television personalities are at least entertaining and convincing. Prax and Draper's are close enough to accept (I always imagined Draper as the shape and size of a rugby player from one of the Pacific islands. The Draper here is cast to be attractive, and Prax is far too social competent and strong-willed). Avasarala and Naomi are perhaps the most believable and similar to their book counterparts.

The particular season is the best of the three. It hits its high points after the second half but not close enough to the end for a remarkable finale. The writing is better. There's a lot of scenes where the substance is conveyed through looks or hints and suggestions. The editing as a whole has gotten better, the shifting perspectives and stories well put together. The Belter patois is excellent, and one of my favorite characters on the television show so far gets a lot of screen time. Unfortunately this came at the expense of what was one of the best characters from this particular book. The television show collapses two characters into one, saving the life of someone who died in the books and putting her in his place on the television show. TV viewers will not know what they missed, but book readers recognize this for that terrible thing that television shows do - combining diverse people and abilities into a single character involved in all the action. This season streamlines a lot from the books as well, changing the details, timeline, and participants in ways that do not make the show any better, just simpler.

There's some great characters and tension that I do not recall from the book. I don't mind at all when the series adds more, but the revisions and changes are an affront. Not in this particular episode, but in the later ones where Belters are more frequent, the casting again becomes a problem. The Belters are supposed to look physically different - Skinnies they're called pejoratively in the book and season. To do a good job the actors cast as Belters - at least great numbers of them - needed to tall and lanky. Occasionally we see such a Belter. It should have been swapped. The majority of Belters should have looked distinct. This was laziness on the part of those in charge of casting.

The rest continues to be good science fiction. Compared to seasons one and two, this was by far the smartest and most exciting. Compared to its book, this was by far the worst adaptation.

I'm reviewing episode one, "Safe", and the entirety of series 2 at the same time. I'm also reviewing this as a reader of the books. The books were always television-ready. They were never that deep, never that stylistic, never that convincing, but they were fine science fiction easily adaptable to television. Like season one, this new episode and season really fail in the casting and characterization. They also dumb down the series. The directors and producers get the right general features for the characters - the beard, the drawl, the earnestness, the skin color or size - but they do not capture the real essence of the characters of the book. Draper was the big disappointment in this one. All the rest of the characters continue to be just a little off, the producers somehow unwilling to commit to the ones penned in the books but taking some hints and general direction from them. This episode and season continue to streamline and add randomly to the book plot. This did not make the television series better and only annoys book fans. What the series might have done better than the books is to capture the distrust and tension between Earth, Mars, and the Belters. The tension within each of the camps - particularly the Belters - is exceptionally portrayed. The CGI, sets, and action sequences continue to be great science fiction television. All in all, in makes for an episode and season that is above average science fiction but a real missed opportunity to create something extraordinary.

This review is for not only the first episode, Dulcinea, but for the entirety of season one. Also, I'm judging the episode and series as a reader of the books. The books were always ripe for television adaptation. They were gritty, fitting in with today's trend toward darker and dirtier television entertainment. They were thrillers, with a limited cast of characters easily distinguished from one another and steadfastly exhibiting their stereotypes. They have an overarching diabolical protagonist against which the heroes can vie. And ultimately they are simple, easy to follow, and episodic; perfect for television. What made the books better than average was the attention to some of the mechanics of and limitations within space - treating what is taken-for-granted in so many space operas as problems and details for the story. And the characters, while straightforward, were all flawed, easily relatable people.

Each episode and season one do a good job of splitting up the material entertaining bits. The CGI looks good. The camera work is acceptable, and the sets are nice. There are some nice technological details scattered throughout the show that remind you that this is the future, and the mechanics of everything seem to work out right. The Expanse is a disappointment with regard to its ambitions, however. It never aspired to be better than the books. Those were never great, but the show does not deal with the physics of space flight as well nor does it accurately give us the characters from the book. My biggest complaint is with the casting. Everyone cast for the show is just a little too handsome, too fit, too clean for the characters from the book. The grit and flaws were the best part of the book series, and it is a shame that the producers decided to readjust the appearance and personalities and turn them into younger and prettier stars. With the exceptions of Naomi and Avasarala, none of the main characters quite fit their book appearances or personalities. The biggest change is for Holden, who is treated with much more sympathy and far less cynicism than than he earned in the books. They've done strange things to Amos as well, presumably in anticipation for some of the events in the later books. But the Amos here is not the Amos in Leviathan Wakes. Alex and Miller are recognizable, but conformity with the book was obviously not a priority. And as a book reader, that ultimately is a burr throughout. The book was good enough. Stick with it and only depart from it when you can improve on the story. Most of the departures however, are to make the plot or scene a little simpler, to create a little more drama, to make things more readily understood. Most of the effort that went into deviating from the book went into making this a dumber version of the book. The directing, the cinematography, the editing - everything else about it proceeded by playing it safe. Nothing especially artistic or creative is added to the story. It all is told competently, but it is a shame for the result to be so bland.

Season 4 lasts more than 500 minutes. The last 1 minute 44 seconds were unfortunate. The writers wanted to end on a note of ambiguity, but they left everyone befuddled instead. That is a shame not only because those were the final couple of minutes to the much longer series but because the episode had been so successful in wrapping up the many other threads and questions introduced thus far. Those last couple of minutes mar what was otherwise a really successful installment doing exactly what the series has done so well all along: showing us the terrifying possibilities that would have followed a Nazi victory; tracing the life paths and choices of villains, accommodationists, and rebels; confronting Americans' own sins with regard to racism and militarism, and doing it all in a mind-bending science fiction scenario. Fans of the book will perhaps be less disappointed by the ambiguity in the closing minutes. The television series took Philip K. Dick's ideas far further than he did and presented them with much more clarity than the book ever offered. The earlier episodes set expectations too high, unfortunately, and while the finale was able to deliver the resolutions to the bigger action story and interpersonal dramas, it did not give resolve the science fiction questions and or realize possibilities that viewers had been led to think it would.

The Not-Too-Revealing-Summary: Large, bad guy army tries to squash rag-tag rebel army. Desperate and longshot guerrilla style missions give the underdogs hope and viewers an opportunity to better know the characters.

The Not-Too-Revealing-Review:

The Lows: Editing, Slapstick, Creature CGI, New Casting, Side Plots. Editing: Star Wars has always been choppy. The transitions between scenes are something you could easily work into your Powerpoint presentation, and the blocks are so obviously blocks that the fact of editing comes to the forefront instead of remaining a behind-the-scenes technicality. This was the worst edited Star Wars movie - ever. The choppiness and blockiness was exaggerated by snippets of awkward dialogue and frames of irrelevant people being blown up or pushing buttons. Adult viewers know that this is not the way to make movies today, Star Wars geeks know that this is homage, but everyone can tell that it was done badly. Paying homage to the original is a staple for reboots, but you have to master those technical aspects for it to work. It didn't here. Slapstick: Everyone likes a good laugh. There were a few - perhaps even several - in The Last Jedi. For every good one however there were three flops. These were all the worse, in many cases, because the editors planned the moment as a humorous one, made the joke central to the scene, and then left some seconds free afterward for the expected laugh. When these failed, it was especially awkward. Even when they worked, it was obvious how contrived the moment was. The best laughs were those that weren't centered, that moved forward quickly leaving the viewer surprised as well as humored. Creature CGI: Way too many new creatures. Way too edited. The contrast between those creatures that were wearing suits and makeup and those completely generated by computer were stark, so stark that it often felt like I was watching movies from two different eras at the same time. Like the editing, CGI creatures are a place where their generation should not come to mind, but it was a distraction in this film. New Casting: Vice Admiral Holdo was awful. Cringing, there-must-be-something-up-their-sleeve mind-boggingly bad where the only possible explanation was that it was foreshadowing. And maybe it was, but it foreshadowed all the wrong conclusions.DJ was awesome. Far too awesome, in fact. His very presence can't be lent to a minor character when the acting and personality are that good. Side Plots: Okay, let's put it out there. These were dumb. One excursion was largely a waste of fantasy potential and the other gratuitous and mindless. So many moments and dramas were strained - people making dumb decisions, caricatured villains, implausible traps, and contradictory sacrifices and lessons. This was both badly written and badly envisioned.

The Highs: Acting, Character Development, Cinematography, Second Half of the Film. Acting and Character Development:Rey and Finn are excellent characters. They have contagious strengths and very real weaknesses. The respective actress and actor live these roles, and it is a genuine pleasure to watch them. Rose and Luke also had great performances. What is surprising about the film is that it was a very good drama first and a satisfying action-adventure second. The nemesis-turns-into-something-else relationship between Rey and Kylo Ren is without a doubt the highlight of the drama. Cinematography: Forget the space action sequences, aircraft, and weapons. There were some stunning scenes from the secluded island - the dark place hauntingly so. The sets were passing at best and distracting at worst, but the aerial views and more artistic shots of nature held a lot of value. Then, of course, there's that heavily edited CGI battle scene that everyone is going to be talking about and that all are going to remember. It might have been dumb, but it was breathtakingly beautiful. Second Half of the Film: I can understand reviewers and critics who watched the first half of the movie and had decided that it was bad. It was made for families and children and with such poor justifications for the taken upon dangers and decisions that one could easily let that ruin the rest of the film. Once you get past those cringe-worthy attempts at humor, past the awkward supporting actor performances, and let yourself get taken up into the dramas of the end, one can find a very good movie in here. This is where the drama and character development met the action adventure. No longer separate tracks, distractions, or filler, things came together in the movie. We viewers understood who was fighting for what and why, and we cared. The action scenes become not simple additions to the story but culminations of long-walked paths. There is both a very good movie in here and a very bad one. Wearing blinders helps one to ignore those mind-numbingly dumb moments and focus on the personal story arcs of the main characters.

Blockbusters typically suffer for a lack of artistry. Blade Runner 2049 smothered in a surfeit of it. It had a great script, a story that was engaging and surprising. It had stellar acting, from minor cast to the lead actor. It had beautiful sets and effects, worthy of the big budget. The 1980s modernist lighting and camera angles, however, were a step backward. That was a mistake thirty years ago, and to taint this beautiful film with the monochromatic tinting, neon lighting, and awkward closeups was simply unfortunate. The film would have lost about 3 minutes of running time if they cut all the closeups on eyeballs, for instance. Get rid of those extended scenes focusing on someone standing - yes, standing.... There was probably about thirty minutes of material that could have been cut from the unnecessarily long close-ups on facial expressions and postures. Those shots have a place in movies, and deserved to be in here, but Villeneuve lost all sense of perspective and moderation. Perhaps the most unfortunate artistic indulgence of the entire movie, however, was the soundtrack. I was stunned that the 2017 version of Blade Runner would return to 1982 for musical inspiration. The synthesizer gave the impression throughout that this was the 1980s artistic vision of the future. I had already seen that one years ago.

In Villeneuve's quest to pay homage to the 1982 cinematic precursor, he demonstrated a real lack of discernment, no awareness of what made the original special and what was simply then-fashionable. By carrying over, in block, so much from the Ridley Scott version, the 2049 director smeared all sorts of incongruous artistry over what should have been a new and dazzling production.

My impression of Childhood's End is undoubtedly colored by having read and thought well of the book. What one wants when a classic and favorite text is turned into a cinematic experience is for the emotional experience, dynamism, and wonder to be maintained while adding to it stimulating visuals and perhaps a little contemporizing. The miniseries satisfactorily conveys the uncertainty, doubts, and fears of a limited number of characters. Where one would expect the cinematic version to excel, however, is precisely where the three episodes are most limiting. The societal-wide impact of being visited by aliens is poorly conveyed. Instead of showing us the how the masses react, we hear it described. Even those whom have never read the book have to notice the limited number of panoramic scenes. I thought Karellen looked great and the few scenes that showed alien technology were eye-pleasing. These were rare presentations, however, and the vast majority of the scenes were close-up dialogues between two people. The two biggest disappointments were how time was conveyed and New Athens. Over two decades pass in both Clarke's book and the television series, yet in the series no real attempt is made to have the adults age. We aren't even treated to a view of how the world has changed over that time – again we have to listen to a conversation in which the changes are described. As to New Athens: it doesn't even live up to the meager expectations set by the early part of the series. Undoubtedly these are all results of entirely reasonable budgetary concerns. In the end, however, the miniseries does a disservice to both the novel and the SyFy channel. Still, the story isn't ruined, and for those unwilling to read the novel the show is accurate enough that they will never have to.

This black comedy explores devotion, jealously, honesty, compromise, deception, and true love. Bizarre and dystopian, the theme had great promise. Still, it was a movie to be endured. After about 35 minutes, I wasn't sure that I could take any more. The Lobster has that purposeful and all-pervasive awkwardness that saturates Wes Anderson films. The embellishments on this story, however, nearly ruined it. The narration and musical score were grating. In fact, the avant-garde posturing could have been much more easily and pleasantly achieved by leaving out the accompanying music and voice overs. Unfortunate casting with Colin Farrell. It's not that he did a bad job with the part, but that it would have been so much better with an unknown playing the role. Overall, this was not an enjoyable film but instead a provocative watch. I'm not sure that it will have any long-lasting implications for the way I think, and I'm really not sure that I'm glad I watched it. I'm just not sure what the deal is with these purposefully made bad movies.

Who knew that physics could be such fun? Know that this is not a work of hard science; you will have more fun with it if you simply accept that this is a different universe and scientific laws operate as stated.

That opening and closing narration was perhaps the worst I've ever heard. The barefaced social criticism would really have benefited from the subtlety and detail that was put into the scores of beautiful scenes. The social and political aspects generally distracted from the light-hearted and whimsical ambiance generated. Overall, however, it was a creative and fun movie well worth watching.

This was a better stand-alone series than it was a prequel.

I thought the first two seasons of Battlestar Galactica were great, and I was immensely pleased with the shift presented in Caprica. Instead of an action-packed, space-warring, post-apocalyptic survival series; we are given a stylish business and crime science fiction drama. That vision was excellently conceived and adequately executed. The plot was interesting, and the subplots contributed to a pleasantly complicated picture.

It all fell apart, however, in the areas where they tried to hard to connect it to Battlestar Galactica. They didn't need to make the "Adams" family that particular family. They did it for the connection to Battlestar Galactica, and it actually undermines (or replaces) what we knew of them in BSG. We didn't need to see the first use of every BSG phrase - Cylon (okay maybe that one was permissible), Toaster, and Skin Job (this one, in fact, shouldn't have been around until BSG). The final episode was the worst in this regard. It gives a contradictory account to many of the factual (and major) elements of BSG. The origins of _______ are contradicted, and the whole god thing (which was, admittedly, bewildering in BSG) is undermined and redirected in the final episode. I'm sure they were hoping for a full second season, but I think we were spared a disaster when the show was canceled. Had they kept going, they looked on track to make everything worse.

I simply can't see what this show added to the science fiction trove. It is basically a Firefly knockoff - only it isn't quirky. The most serious flaws are in pacing and character development. The series introduced relational drama way too early and then proceeded as if we knew or understood the characters' motivations. There was an excessive reliance on backstabbing and betrayal as the major suspense device. The effects and set were also disappointing. The ark-hunter theme held a lot more potential than the wild west theme; I suppose they didn't pursue it because of some budget or technical limitations. I will say that everything came together for the show in season three, episode eight. It is unfortunate that the series didn't exhibit more of the qualities presented in that episode.

Edgy, gritty, realistic; this series intertwines two genres - post apocalyptic and science fiction. Battlestar Galactica succeeds in the area in which the Star Trek televisions series never even competed - realism. The show gives a look into our foreseeable future: there aren't hundreds of alien races, just the human; there aren't any force fields or tractor beams, put an aircraft carrier into space and you've got Galactica; this isn't a ship full of geniuses and the corps d'elite, these are people that enlisted because they wanted a free education or to satisfy their parents' expectations.

The theme of survival permeates the first two seasons and makes nearly every episode a nail biter. The effects are spectacular, the acting is great, the post-apocalyptic atmosphere is relayed convincingly. The second two seasons lose their purpose early into the third season. Many of the mysteries and puzzles from the first couple of seasons turn bizarre and unconnected. Lacking a clear direction, the storyline becomes filled with love triangles designed to take up screen time and stretch out the season. In lieu of actual plot development, individuals simply betray their character so as to create new melodramas. It doesn't appear that the writers knew how they were going to finish the second half of the series and what resulted was a really rough and misdirected draft. We get a relatively satisfying ending that generally brings the plot to a close. The deeper questions, however, - what is life, what is our purpose, is the human species worth saving - are mangled, mutilated, butchered, and left stinking in an tangled pile. The second two seasons were bad enough as to undermine the first. It is better to have never watched Battlestar Galactica than it is to finish all four seasons. I'll give the first two a collective score of 8/10 and the second two a 4/10.

The not-too-revealing-synopsis: This is an addition to the Mad Max series that is set in a desert world where order and scientific progress have ceased. Mankind, still dependent upon fuel to power engines built in the productive times past, scavenges and fights for whatever gasoline can be found. Organized bands of highway robbers are the closest approximation to society and those still with traces of humanity and civility can only survive on the periphery of savagery.

The not-too-revealing-review: It has a good story. There are great action scenes. The created world itself is thoughtful and detailed, full of wonder and surprise. It is full of memorable characters, and Charlize Theron was perfect. How, then, did it go so terribly wrong?.... Imagine a talented painter who spends months on a piece. He creatively employs the appropriate techniques: lighting, texture, perspective, etc. Then the artists hands a random stranger a Sharpie and asks them to overlay the painting with a stick figure mural which offers the stranger's interpretation of the artist's work. In the end result, one can still glimpse the beauty of what is underneath, but the final product is irreparably marred. This was Mad Max: Fury Road. George Miller had created a fantastic world. And then, for reasons I cannot fathom, decided to ask Tom Hardy to reprise his role as Forrest Bondurant from the movie Lawless. Hardy is a great actor with versatility, and you ask him to do this? Why would you so extensively (or at all for that matter) rely on double-film speed to make the action scenes seem faster? That wasn't actually that cool in the 1970s, and it is just bizarre today. And why would you edit the scenes so that they were choppy and seeming to purposefully stifle continuity and development. It was almost as if the director wanted to regress to the graphic novel format. Somewhere in the vaults of the studio there lies the unedited footage for this movie. If that could be put together in a less choppy, slower pace film that more reflected mainstream films today, this could have been a truly enjoyable movie.

This was truly an unpleasant viewing experience. For those wanting a comparison, think Crank (2006) merged with Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014). I suppose that if you liked Crank and/or Sin City, however, this might be just the thing you are looking for.

The not-too-revealing-synopsis:

In a not-too-distant future, political rivalries have given way to a unified construction and military effort to combat a shared, other-worldly threat. New technology and science produce the next generation of defenses for the Earth. These new defenses, dependent on humans, are limited by their vulnerabilities while simultaneously bolstered by their vitality.

The not-too-revealing-review:

Pacific Rim captures "big". The movie convincingly relates the big threat to humanity, the big communal response, the big industrial production, and the big adversary. This near future is even made plausible on the political, technological, and fantasy level. The movie fails, however, to escape the graphic novel origins. Where storyline development could have come through the explanation and development of the futuristic technology, it settles for unsurprising weaponry "reveals"; where it could have entertained grand science fiction questions, it throws in another action scene; where it could have showcased large-scale action choreography, it focuses in on a punch landing or head being knocked backward. It belongs in the video game movie genre with all the flaws one expects to accompany such a label: weak storyline, repetitive action scenes, and cliché characters. It does fare better than expected in a number of categories: the acting was acceptable nor and the character development was less than ruinous. It was as shiny and glossy as one expects from a big budget motion picture of this sort, but the action scenes were sluggish and clunky. It matches up with Transformers in effects but is more Godzilla (1954) in terms of action choreography. I enjoyed it while I was in the theater, but I will not think fondly of it on the outside. I do not recommend the movie, but neither would I discourage those who desire a good solid two hours of big effects and mayhem.

Acting: 6/10 Cinematography: 7/10 Character Development: 5/10 Choreography: 3/10 Storyline: 6/10 Resonance: 1/10

The not-too-revealing-synopsis: Tough cops in a tough neighborhood. A story about relationships inside the patrol car, within the station, amongst friends, and around the neighborhood.

The not-too-revealing-review: This movie is a conversation piece for cinematographers and aspiring directors (and their critics): Plot, in the traditional sense, is instead put as a side-story; camera angles and perspectives are supposed to supply the drama as much as the acting or action. Ultimately I enjoyed neither aspect of the film. Pushing character development as the primary substance of the film had some aesthetic value, but it was not satisfying to me as a viewer. The shaky and disorienting camera scenes not only were unpleasant to experience, but also failed to deliver a real-life grit to what was supposed to be about real-life heroes. The acting was fine; the lines were great. The disregard for political correctness was humorous and believable. Getting to know the characters was fun but not enough to carry the movie.

It is a movie to skip, both at the theater and at home (unless you are one of those aspiring cinematographers, directors, or critics noted above).

The Not-Too-Revealing-Summary: Inception is a thought-provoking action movie that is best tagged with keywords like "con-men," "corporate espionage," "psychological thriller" or even "philosophy."

The-Not-Too-Revealing-Review: Inception takes a very simple - and very traditional - genre and fashions it around a complicated idea. The movie is truly a work of art - in a positive sense as much as in a pejorative sense. Director Christopher Nolan takes a fairly complicated notion and unravels it for the audience in such a way as to entertain visually and provoke thoughtfully. The movie was, however, art for art's sake. It was a demonstration: the goal was not to amaze, thrill, or surprise but to bewilder. It was a presentation of a mental knot and then the step-by-step exhibition of how one would disentangle it. In this regard the movie was a success. Some of my many grievances (and they were many) against the film: The action scenes were quite obviously padding for the core of the film. Most of the scenes were shot in indoor, extremely confined situations - and though stylish - they were not the strikingly visual scenes I had hoped for. The big, outdoor, scenes where this big budget film had a chance to truly impress failed completely. The fight scenes where the movie had the opportunity to provide some iconic segment - looked like men hoisted in the air with wires. Between two of Nolan's other works - Memento and the Dark Knight - Inception was more Memento. The attention to detail present in the Dark Knight made it into Inception - but only into the unraveling of Nolan's idea. The many filler scenes lacked this consideration and left the film with a duality of wonderfully thought-through details interspersed with inanity.

Some other odds and ends: Tip of the hat to Nolan for leaving some things unexplained. It is unclear if this is truly present day or some time in the future and the director rightly leaves that for the audience to decide for themselves. Explanations for the mechanisms of the technology are left alone - and for the better. I could not have told you who Tom Hardy was before this film but after this performance I look forward to whatever it is he may do next. I hope Nolan credits a certain 1999 film (whose title I shall not mention so I do not spoil this movie for anyone else). The relationship goes far beyond similarity or inspiration. Nolan took it further (with a budget of over $130 million more) but it is bothersome to see Inception heralded for "originality." Overall I cannot recommend this film. It was neither enjoyable nor entertaining to watch. I can respect the skill it takes for someone to make a house of cards but in the end I have no real desire to stare at a house of cards.

The Not-Too-Revealing Synopsis: This is the fourth in the "Die Hard" action series that centers on a New York cop who begrudgingly serves in the hero role against a highly organized criminal plot.

The Not-Too-Revealing Review: "Live Free or Die Hard," succeeds as an action blockbuster and is undeserving of the usually accompanying adjective "mindless." The rough, tough, bruiser of a NY cop is still there, though now with some exploration of just what it is that makes him capable of performing his heroic feats. The stuck-in-the-80s McClane is juxtaposed with a technological world and the people - good guys and bad - that populate it. These and a few more thoughtful and even more subtle themes run through the film and give it a well-rounded flavor. Though mostly adequate justification is given for the appropriate suspension of disbelief, there were three scenes in particular that pushed it too far. For thorough enjoyment you have to overlook those moments. Typically the preface "It was never intended to win an Oscar" is used to give license to mind-numbing special effects and action drivel but not so with this "Die Hard." Make no mistake - this is an action film - 97% pure action - but the remaining 3% supplies quality character development that sets this action film apart from the standard. I highly recommend this to any Die Hard followers and anyone who enjoys an action movie.

The Not-Too-Revealing Summary: Predator has found a new hunt.

The Not-Too-Revealing Review: The short time between the opening scene and the "Predators" title caption established, for me, that this was not going to be a big budget or high quality movie. Nothing in the remainder of the movie contradicted this. The storyline very quickly becomes obvious and, unfortunately, cliché. The idea has been done before and a majority of the characters (exception of perhaps three) delivered ridiculously over-informative lines in lieu of real character development. A few potentially significant introductions in the film were left disappointingly unexplored. The technology of the Predators had not substantially changed since the first Predator - yet another missed opportunity. The fight scenes as well were largely devoid of creativity or originality. I was pleased to find the movie still enjoyable despite all the detractions. It was more poorly developed and thought through than the original but approached Predator 1 quality. I do not, however, think it was overly demanding of me to expect newer and better of a sequel that had 23 years to develop. This movie was about 5% Science Fiction, 10% Drama, and 85% Good ole' Action. If you are a Predator fan I recommend the viewing but be prepared for the worst (and then be a tad bit pleased). If you are new to Predator then I suggest you skip it.