Critic Reviews
| 75 |
Chicago Sun-Times
Moves at a breakneck pace, it has strong and simple characterizations, it has good location photography and terrific special effects, and it supplies what it claims to supply: an effective action movie.
|
| 75 |
The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
It's got thrills and chills and one of the most elegantly conceived monsters in the history of movies.
|
| 70 |
TV Guide
Staff (Non Credited)
Crisply stylish and suspenseful, making brilliant use of optical special effects, Predator is one of Schwarzenegger's best.
|
| 50 |
Variety
Staff (Not Credited)
A slightly above-average actioner that tries to compensate for tissue-thin-plot with ever-more-grisly death sequences and impressive special effects.
|
| 50 |
San Francisco Chronicle
The movie, a rather pointless thing when you get down to it, has little of the provocative intelligence that was found in "Terminator." But at least it's self-propelling in terms of suspense and cheap thrills. [12 June 1987, Daily Datebook, p.78]
|
| 50 |
Chicago Tribune
McTiernan, regrettably, seems more interested in spectacle than suspense, and the attack sequences are filmed for splashy visual impact. And an apocalyptic finale that raises the antiwar message to the nuclear level is more than McTiernan's metaphor can bear. [12 June 1987, Friday, p.J]
|
| 40 |
Chicago Reader
Pat Graham
Despite the off-rhythm styling and suggestions of primeval menace, there's really not much going on here.
|
| 30 |
The New York Times
Alternately grisly and dull, with few surprises. [12 June 1987, p.C6]
|
| 30 |
Washington Post
Frankly, scarier critters have checked into Roach Motels. [13 June 1987, Style, g1]
|
| 12 |
Christian Science Monitor
Arnold Schwarzenegger fights an outer-space monster in a third-world jungle. The monster never has a chance. Neither does the jungle. Neither does the audience. [19 June 1987, Arts & Leisure, p.23]
|
| 10 |
Los Angeles Times
It's arguably one of the emptiest, feeblest, most derivative scripts ever made as a major studio movie. There's no need to do a Mad magazine movie parody of this; it's already on the screen. [12 June 1987, Calendar, p.6-6]
|
|
