How can people call this film "predictable" with a straight face? I mean, sure it's predictable, but only in the sense that every thriller is predictable. The ending will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever seen a movie before. The good guys are fine, the bad guys are captured or killed. Ok, so in that regard, it is predictable.
But to criticize the film on this score is an immense injustice. First, like I said, practically all films are predictable in this sense. I mean, come on! Did anyone for a second think that Han, Luke, and Chewie *wouldn't* rescue the Princess? Did anyone really think that the Raiders of the Lost Ark might not find have found it? Did anyone really think that the cute children in "Jurassic Park" wouldn't survive? No!! All movies are predictable. Not all, but all of them that anyone wants to go and see. Get used to it.
Plus, it's only the final result that's predictable. To continue the chess metaphor I've seen other reviewers adopt (Ebert, I think it was), you know going in the final position of the pieces, and you know who will have won. But in this film, as in chess, as in... I don't, basketball, it isn't the result that matters. It's the journey from the opening, through the middle, to the destination, that's important. This film gives us a seemingly perfect stalemate situation... good guys can't get out, can't get help, bad guys can't get in, won't leave. The situation cannot remain in equilibrium forever, but there is no immediately apparent way for either side to break to deadlock.
But, pretty soon, they start thinking. One side comes up with a plan, puts it in action. The other side responds. Stalemate restored. These plans are ingenious and plausible, and situations that result are tense and exciting. Tension and excitement are common commodities in thrillers, but let me repeat: ingenious and plausible. When's the last time you saw a thriller whose plot was ingenious and plausible. I can't recall.
That's what makes this film so good. It's not a groundbreaking, visionary work. It's just a film that has an abundance of Hollywood's rarest and most precious asset, simple quality. Do people even appreciate quality anymore? I don't know.
But to criticize the film on this score is an immense injustice. First, like I said, practically all films are predictable in this sense. I mean, come on! Did anyone for a second think that Han, Luke, and Chewie *wouldn't* rescue the Princess? Did anyone really think that the Raiders of the Lost Ark might not find have found it? Did anyone really think that the cute children in "Jurassic Park" wouldn't survive? No!! All movies are predictable. Not all, but all of them that anyone wants to go and see. Get used to it.
Plus, it's only the final result that's predictable. To continue the chess metaphor I've seen other reviewers adopt (Ebert, I think it was), you know going in the final position of the pieces, and you know who will have won. But in this film, as in chess, as in... I don't, basketball, it isn't the result that matters. It's the journey from the opening, through the middle, to the destination, that's important. This film gives us a seemingly perfect stalemate situation... good guys can't get out, can't get help, bad guys can't get in, won't leave. The situation cannot remain in equilibrium forever, but there is no immediately apparent way for either side to break to deadlock.
But, pretty soon, they start thinking. One side comes up with a plan, puts it in action. The other side responds. Stalemate restored. These plans are ingenious and plausible, and situations that result are tense and exciting. Tension and excitement are common commodities in thrillers, but let me repeat: ingenious and plausible. When's the last time you saw a thriller whose plot was ingenious and plausible. I can't recall.
That's what makes this film so good. It's not a groundbreaking, visionary work. It's just a film that has an abundance of Hollywood's rarest and most precious asset, simple quality. Do people even appreciate quality anymore? I don't know.