Predator 2 (1990)

Director: Stephen Hopkins

Cast: Danny Glover, Gary Busey, Rubén Blades, María Conchita Alonso

Have I Seen It Before: Yeah, but with only the thinnest of memories. As we approach Predator: Badlands I feel that need to run through the series.

Did I Like It: And I’m not entirely sure why. All the films in the series are so pointedly different, only the faintest wisps of a canon is built from entry to entry. We’ll probably never get to this film on Beyond the Cabin in the Woods, but for listeners of the show I had to have Kenzi explain to me the rich tapestry of the Yautja that came to a head in Prey (2022), and how most of it happens in the background of this particular film.

And that would pretty much wrap up the “what’s good” section. A xenomorph skull is the kind of thing films are filled with these days, and apparently there’s more. The film certainly makes an attempt to be different than the original Predator (1990), and I can’t imagine spending any more time with Dutch (Schwarzenegger) would feel derivative in any franchise outside of those created by James Cameron*. The rifle at the end is the seed from which the mighty oak of Prey.

That’s about it.

The rest of the film is an action movie for action movie’s sake. Run, run, run. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Who are we running from? Who are we shooting towards? Why does it matter. These are not the kinds of things we can address in a 108 minute runtime, and you wouldn’t be particularly interested in the answers. This is made all the more aggravating when it becomes clear that this Predator film is only fitfully interested in being about the Predator. It’s a hodgepodge of warmed over ingredients from other franchise sequels of the era. I’ll bet all the money in my pocket that Bill Paxton was cast mainly to tap into the energy he brought to Aliens (1986), and nearly every second of this film is consumed with the same lack of amiability that weighed down RoboCop 2 (1990), released only a few months earlier.

*If you do ignore the Terminator films, Arnold really has a lot more restraint about sequels than I think we ever give him credit for.

Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)

Director: Richard Donner

Cast: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Joe Pesci, Joss Ackland

Have I Seen it Before: Again, sure.

Did I Like It: I almost want to take back my retroactive ambivalence about <Lethal Weapon (1987)>. There were instances—indeed, long stretches—where I was less distracted by how awful Mel Gibson has proven himself to be.

My immediate instinct is to to say that there’s so much Three Stooges shtick jammed into the film that I can’t help but be annoyed at the movie for an entirely different set of Gibson’s predilections… But that doesn’t cover it: I actually found myself liking the film.

Part of that is that this feels like a more personal story for Riggs, if not necessarily Murtaugh (Glover). The previously unseen unravelling of his life now fuels part of the plot. While the whole “I’m the villain and the cause of all your problems” has been done to death here (and, indeed, is a reprise in the great summer of 1989 after Batman (1989) pulled the same trick), it does give some narrative fuel to Riggs’ Riggsiness, whereas in the last film it just felt like a randomly selected character trait to serve his mismatched pairing with Murtaugh.

Also, the conceit behind the film is somewhat ingenious in its simplicity. What is an Action Movie Cop (tm) to do when the evil crime lords also have diplomatic immunity. Granted, it could have easily been a plot in a Robocop film, would have been right at home creating issues for John McClane in a Die Hard sequel, or even any number of Schwarzenegger or Stallone characters. But Riggs and Murtaugh got there first, so they get the points… If points were something we were keeping track of in 1980s action films.

Lethal Weapon (1987)

Director: Richard Donner

Cast: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Mitchell Ryan, Gary Busey

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: Let’s reckon with a strange question before I get into any qualities of the movie. Why is there so much sturm und drang as to whether or not Die Hard (1988) is a Christmas movie (it, is by the way, but that’s a discussion for another review), when this movie gets hardly a peep?

I wonder if it is mostly that by the time that these silly movie debates held on the internet became a thing, Mel Gibson as one of the all-time leading men had firmly become a thing of the past.

And that’s the thing I’m most struck by here. We’re supposed to like Mel Gibson. Feel sorry for him. Even with this being the ur of the modern buddy action movie, it’s hard to separate Mel Gibson the man from Martin Riggs the character. All of that manic energy will soon be harnessed into something pretty ugly. Makes it difficult to have a good time, and isn’t that the point of a movie like Lethal Weapon?

I was struck recently by reading that Richard Donner’s first choice for Riggs was his Superman (1978) discovery, Christopher Reeve. I have a hard time imagining that, as even when Reeve played slightly unhinged and despicable, he had a gentleness that couldn’t fully be erased. That he went ahead and made Superman IV - The Quest for Peace (1987) was probably the wrong move for him, but I probably would have been able to more fully dwell on the action, the chemistry between Riggs and Murtaugh, and Donner’s direction.

Now, it all feels a bit too weird for words. No one knows the fate of the long-threatened Lethal Finale now that Donner has passed on, but I can’t help but imagine that one being really weird.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Director: Wes Anderson

Cast: Danny Glover, Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Bill Murray

Have I Seen It Before?: Any time I talk about one of my books, I inevitably say something with the syntax of, “Everyone knows (blank) did (blank). What this book presupposes is: Maybe he didn’t?” There were a number of years where I wanted to make films like Wes Anderson makes them.

Yeah, I saw this one on opening weekend.

Did I like it?: Clearly yes. I’ve probably seen the movie a dozen times over the last twenty years, and each time I’m floored by those opposing paintings of a gang of maniacs on dirt bikes. It’s that funny. The rest of the movie is, too.

On this viewing, however, I dug a little deeper. I actually had the screenplay open in front of me, and read along with what played out on the screen. I don’t really recommend doing that, especially if this would be your first viewing of the film. But it was an illuminating way to see it. For all of his well-earned reputation as a visual stylist, Wes Anderson (still working here with Owen Wilson, who really should be writing more, if these early Anderson films were any indication) is also an immaculate writer. It’s hard to conceive of a film where Bill Murray’s improvisational skills don’t make up the lion’s share of his screen time, but I can attest that Raleigh St. Clair appears almost entirely as he does on the page.

The story is pristine as well. There are few movies that truck with voice over narration as much as this one does and still feels like a movie and not an audio book. I was struck by how my memory seemed to think that Alec Baldwin’s narration was spread throughout the film, but really only appears in the first half an hour and then in the last few minutes. The screenplay makes the case for its characters so cogently, that even if I wasn’t giggling throughout, it would have been a film that stuck with me.

Anderson may be the only kind of director who can get away with that.