Latest
How Famous Memoirs Were Really Written: What the Collaborators DidStranger in a Strange LandProfiles in CourageDid I Ever Tell You This?: A MemoirFlorida RoadkillTeam of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex WorldMy Share of the Task: A MemoirWe Were Soldiers Once… and Young: Ia Drang, the Battle That Changed the War in VietnamThe Columbia Restaurant: Celebrating a Century of History, Culture, and CuisineA Tiger among Us: A Story of Valor in Vietnam’s A Shau ValleyTop Sergeant: The Life and Times of Sergeant Major of the Army William G. BainbridgeSailing True North: Ten Admirals and the Voyage of CharacterPodkayne of MarsMake Your Bed: Little Things That Can Change Your Life…And Maybe the WorldSam Walton: Made in America: My StoryI, RobotOpen: An AutobiographyShattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of MidwayA World at Arms: A Global History of World War IIL.L. Bean: The Making of an American IconA Higher Standard: Leadership Strategies from America’s First Female Four-Star GeneralLife21 Days to Success Through Networking: The Life and Times of Gnik RowtenCampus BattlefieldThe Bell JarRight Wing RevolutionThe Sage of SagittariusTime for a Turning PointDesigning Casinos to Dominate the CompetitionLove’s Executioner and Other Tales of PsychotherapyBeneath a Scarlet SkyThe Library BookThe Phone Book: The Curious History of the Book That Everyone Uses But No One ReadsTrump: The Art of the DealThe MAGA DoctrineThe College ScamSea Stories: My Life in Special OperationsPa’anNetworking Your Way to SuccessMasters of NetworkingRadioSoldier for Life: Leader Lessons from the 12th Sergeant Major of the ArmyThe Melting Point: High Command and War in the 21st CenturyAmerican SoldierIt Doesn’t Take a HeroStop, in the Name of GodDoes Explicit Sex Sell Books? An Answer to The Absolute Degeneracy of Modern WritingThe Mary Sue: How a 1973 Star Trek Parody Became a Writing TermWhat the AI Writing Survey Says About Jobs, Freelancers and Fiction AuthorsHow Long Does Google Take? Crawling, Indexing and Recovery Times

Predator (1987) Review

TL;DR: Predator (1987) rates 8.5 out of 10 on the rewatch scale. Predator works on both levels, as brutal action filmmaking and as something more considered about what happens when the apex predator encounters something that outranks it. The 8.5 reflects both the entertainment value and the craft intelligence operating underneath it.

Official trailer

Predator (1987)
8.5 / 10

Predator works on both levels, as brutal action filmmaking and as something more considered about what happens when the apex predator encounters something that outranks it. Neither reading cancels the other. The film is thrilling on its surface and interesting underneath. That’s rarer in the action genre than the genre’s reputation suggests.

The 8.5 reflects both the entertainment value and the craft intelligence operating underneath it. This isn’t a film that accidentally achieved something. McTiernan made deliberate choices at every level, structural, performative, visual, that add up to a film more coherent than its premise promises.

Predator is pure fun for me, and smarter fun than it has any right to be. It could have been a dumb muscle movie, and it turns into a creature film with a code of honor and a director who knows exactly when to stop the shooting. The half point it drops is for a team I’d have liked to know better before they start dying.

The Setup That Justifies the Horror

McTiernan spends the film’s first act establishing Dutch’s team as the most competent military unit possible. Not just capable, supernaturally efficient, operating as a single organism with specialized functions. The assault on the guerrilla camp early in the film is almost operatic in its coordination: everyone doing their job, overwhelming a defended position with practiced ease, no hesitation and no wasted motion.

This establishment is patient and careful, and it’s essential. The audience needs to believe these men could handle anything before the film introduces the one thing they can’t handle. The horror of the middle act, the systematic elimination of each specialist by something that understands their capabilities and neutralizes them, only works because the first act made those capabilities real. If the team hadn’t been convincingly formidable, their deaths would be slasher-movie convenient instead of disturbing.

The Predator designs each elimination to neutralize a specific capability.

It kills the sniper from distance. It takes the tracker from behind. It disarms the heavy weapons specialist before finishing him. The Predator is studying the team and selecting targets in an order that makes tactical sense. That intelligence makes it frightening instead of just dangerous.

The order of those kills is what scares me. The thing picks them off like a hunter who has read their files, and that’s far creepier to me than a monster jumping out of the dark.

For Writers Predator’s setup shows that the capability you establish in the first act determines the weight of the threat in the second. The more convincingly formidable you make your protagonists, the more frightening the thing that overcomes them becomes. Establish capability before you strip it away. The stripping is only as effective as the establishment was convincing. A threat that defeats already-weak characters isn’t impressive. A threat that systematically dismantles a unit the audience believed in is unsettling.

The Predator as Character

The Predator is one of cinema’s great creature designs because it’s comprehensible. It’s a code. It’s a technology. It works by rules that, once the film reveals them, make its previous behavior retrospectively interpretable. It hunts for sport. It doesn’t attack the unarmed. It takes trophies. It removes itself from a fight it considers unfair.

That comprehensibility lifts Predator above standard monster-movie status for me. The creature has a philosophy about what counts as a worthy hunt, and Dutch wins by understanding that philosophy and exploiting it. He makes himself a worthy opponent, levels the technological playing field with mud and fire, and turns an execution into a real contest. I think that’s the smartest idea in the film.

The Predator’s removal of its own weapons before the final fight is the moment that defines the creature’s entire moral architecture. It could finish Dutch with its technology. It chooses not to. That choice, honor over efficiency, makes the Predator more interesting than any amount of gruesome hunting would.

The Creature’s Code A monster with a philosophy is more frightening than one without. The Predator’s honor code means its behavior is predictable once understood. That means Dutch can work with it. The most effective antagonists are comprehensible instead of arbitrary, and comprehensibility, paradoxically, often makes them more threatening because it implies a will.
For Writers Give your antagonists a code. Not a moral code necessarily, a behavioral code. A set of consistent principles that governs what they’ll and won’t do, what they consider acceptable and what they consider beneath them. The Predator’s code is what allows Dutch to defeat it, and what makes the defeat feel earned instead of convenient. A villain or monster that works by comprehensible principles is more frightening than one that appears wherever the plot needs it, because the audience can anticipate it. Anticipation is what drives sustained tension.

Schwarzenegger’s Performance

Schwarzenegger’s performance in Predator is carefully calibrated in ways his action films often aren’t.

Dutch is confident without arrogance, commanding without condescension, and the performance never winks at the audience about what kind of film this is. He plays it completely straight, the only approach that works. A knowing performance in a film this earnest about its premise would collapse the structure.

The devolution across the film is the performance’s real achievement. Dutch at the beginning moves like a man accustomed to winning. Dutch alone in the jungle, covered in mud, building traps out of what the forest provides, moves like an animal operating on instinct. The contrast between those two modes is total and convincing, and Schwarzenegger earns it by playing the first act with such specific confidence that the regression has somewhere real to fall from.

The final confrontation is won by the version of Dutch who has shed everything technological and civilized, and the argument he’s making to the Predator is that they’re the same kind of thing. Mud-covered and alone, with improvised weapons, he finally speaks its language, and the creature answers by giving up its own advantages. That mutual recognition is my favorite moment in the film, and Schwarzenegger’s physicality makes me believe every second of it.

The Action-Horror Hybrid

Predator is a real genre hybrid instead of an action film with horror elements or a horror film with action elements. The first act is action. The middle act is horror. The final act is something different from either, a stripped-down duel between two entities who have recognized each other as equivalents.

The transition between tones is handled with real craft.

McTiernan doesn’t switch genres abruptly. He drains the action gradually, each elimination removing another element of the military operation’s confidence, until the horror tone is dominant without the audience having been able to identify exactly when the switch happened. That gradual erosion of certainty is itself a horror technique borrowed from the best of the genre.

McTiernan’s handling of that shift is what I admire most about the film. I can’t point to the minute the action movie turns into a horror movie, and I think that’s exactly what he was after.

For Writers Predator shows that genre transitions within a single story can be executed gradually instead of abruptly. The film begins as an action movie and ends as something close to a stripped-down survival thriller, with horror in the middle. McTiernan accomplishes this by steadily removing the elements that defined the opening tone, the team, the weapons, the mission parameters, until only the primal situation remains. If you’re writing a story that needs to shift genre tones, make the shift through subtraction instead of addition. Remove what made the opening tone possible, and the new tone will emerge naturally from what’s left.

Is Predator worth watching?

Predator gets its 8.5 because it gives me a real alien with a comprehensible code, a director who builds every scene with purpose, and Schwarzenegger doing his most interesting work as a man reduced to mud and ingenuity. It misses a 9 because the team exists mostly to be picked off, and I wanted a little more of them before the jungle started emptying out. Everything else about it hits, and I’d put it near the top of 1980s action.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Predator hold up?
The practical effects hold up considerably better than CGI from the same era would. The jungle photography, McTiernan’s action geography, and the Predator design are all durable. The pacing is slightly more methodical than contemporary action audiences expect, but the patience serves the buildup. It holds up as a formal achievement even for viewers arriving without nostalgia for the period.
What makes the Predator different from other alien antagonists?
The code. It doesn’t kill the unarmed reporter. It strips its weapons for the final confrontation. It collects trophies instead of simply eliminating threats. These are the behaviors of an entity with a philosophy about what makes a hunt legitimate, not the behaviors of a weapon or a biological predator. The code gives the Predator dignity as an antagonist: it’s principled about how it exercises its danger.
Why does the sequel franchise fail to match the original?
By expanding the Predator from one to many, Predator 2’s hunting grounds, Aliens vs. Predator’s scale, the later sequels’ mythology, the franchise lost what the original understood: the horror is intimate. One intelligent hunter pursuing one group of capable people in one environment. The intimacy of the threat is what generates the kind of dread the original achieves. Scale dissolves that intimacy and produces spectacle instead, a different and lesser quality of engagement.

About the Author
Richard Lowe, professional ghostwriter

Richard Lowe is a professional ghostwriter and author with 113+ books authored and 54+ ghostwritten. Before writing full time he spent 33 years in enterprise technology, including 20 years as Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe's. He writes nonfiction, fiction and memoir, and works with executives and experts on books that build authority.

More about Richard Lowe →

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are solely those of Richard Lowe and are based on personal experience and research. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional legal, financial, accounting, or business advice. Always consult with qualified professionals before making important business or legal decisions. Richard Lowe is not a lawyer, accountant, or licensed professional advisor, and this content does not establish any professional relationship.