This film can actually be regarded as a war film with monster skin. It is easy to think of the Vietnam War from the background and time of the story, and the same routine was used in a Colombian alien monster film "Battle of Los Angeles" a few years ago. Said to fight monsters, in fact, it is just another form of war film. But why can "Predator" succeed?
To be honest, from my point of view, I think the positioning of this movie is quite unsound. Obviously, the invisible predator in this movie is actually a metaphor for the "ubiquitous Viet Cong". This danger hidden in the jungle brought great horror to the U.S. military at that time. But from another point of view, the US army has become prey in this movie, and the "Viet Cong" is the hunter (or predator in the title). This can be seen as a very thoughtful role change, allowing people to feel the feeling of the invaded country from another angle. The idea is still very good. But the problem is that as a commercial film, humans must win in the end. In this context, the previous metaphors become extremely ironic.
However, this can also be regarded as an element of success. First of all, the first half of the whole movie, the monster dragon sees the head but not the end, while retaining enough suspense, it also shows its strength through continuous killing; secondly, the protagonist played by Schwarzenegger and the monster's wit and courage in the final game are also enough to catch People; third, the seamless connection between the early war films and the later monster films is not at all boring; in the end, the role switching as described above, even if logically cannot withstand scrutiny, but who would not want to bring it in commercial films What about the color of some humanistic thinking?
View more about Predator reviews
