As a film lover, there are three letters that strike fear in my heart. U. F. C.
Seriously, directors — especially male directors — love the UFC and Mixed Martial Arts in general. If I had to guess, I would say that in another few years, there will be no more boxing movies. Sorry, Balboa. Sorry, Creed. You’re going to be replaced by movies that are exclusively about men kicking each other in a cage and then pounding on each other once they’re down. I’m not even saying that’s a bad thing. Obviously, the sport has a lot of fans. In the future, when Conor McGregor is doing double duty as both the President of Ireland and the Pope, a lot it will be due to the popularity of MMA. I have to say, though, that I almost always seem to find films about MMA and cage matches to be a little bit boring, unless they star Jean-Claude Van Damme or, in some cases, Lou Ferrigno. I prefer boxing movies. I guess I like my fights without the little kicks.
The Smashing Machine is a biopic of Mark Kerr (played by Dwayne Johnson), an MMA fighter who, the film tells us, was one of the early pioneers of the sport. When he’s first seen in the film, he’s being interviewed about his success in the UFC. We see a few clips of him fighting and watching his fists fly, we understand why he’s known as The Smashing Machine. He’s known for his ability to end fights quickly. He assures the interviewer that he doesn’t hate any of the men that he fights. (“Is he okay?” Mark asks about an opponent after one particularly brutal beat down.) Mark leaves the United States for Pride, which is Japan’s version of UFC. Not long after arriving in Japan, he discovers that Pride has changed its ruled to disallow almost all of Mark’s techniques because Mark was ending the fights too quickly.
One thing that we notice about Mark is that he’s always smiling and that he seems to have a rather low-key personality for someone who makes his living as a fighter. It’s easy to see that he’s holding back a lot of his emotions and that he gets those emotions out in the ring. When he’s not fighting, he’s living in a nice home with his girlfriend, Dawn (Emily Blunt). He’s a bit of a control freak, worrying about the cat getting on his couch, telling Dawn exactly how to make his protein shakes, and obsessing over the way a cactus is growing outside. Mark may be a fighter but he also constantly worries about his “tummy,” which is apparently overly sensitive. Mark is also a drug addict, popping painkillers like candy and shooting up in his bathroom. When Mark and Dawn argue, his temper can flare and he can go from being soft-spoken Mark to the someone who can tear a door off of its hinges. After Mark loses his first fight, he sinks deeper into depression and then tries to get clean. Complicating things is that Dawn is still using and Mark is preparing for his next fight in Japan.
For all the anticipation and the hype that surrounded its release, The Smashing Machine is an uneven film. It’s not necessarily a bad film but it is a film that leaves the viewer feeling somewhat detached from the action, on the outside looking in. Dwayne Johnson gives a good performance as Mark and Emily Blunt gives a good performance as Dawn but they’re never quite believable as a couple. (In fact, I would argue that Johnson’s best dramatic performance remains his nearly silent but physically powerful turn in the unfairly overlooked Faster.) Because the film is based on a true story and, I imagine, also because the film was directed by Benny Safdie, The Smashing Machine avoids a lot of the traditional cliches of the sports film. It’s very much an A24 film, wearing it’s indie aesthetic like a chip on its shoulder. I have to admit though that, while watching the film, I missed a lot of those cliches. There are some good scenes scattered throughout The Smashing Machine but there’s also not much narrative momentum.
That said, I do have to say that the film’s ending, which feature the real Mark Kerr shopping for groceries, did bring a smile to my face. He’s someone who has been through a lot so seeing him smiling and debating which cut of beef to purchase was definitely something of a relief.
“A fight to the death… only one will live… and the survivor… will face me!” — Grendel King
Hulu’s Predator: Killer of Killers signifies an ambitious and stylistically bold evolution of the Predator franchise, once again directed by Dan Trachtenberg following his excellent 2022 film Prey. Trachtenberg has clearly become the new creative caretaker of this series, bringing fresh vision and depth to the franchise. This animated anthology spans three distinct historical periods—Viking-era Scandinavia, feudal Japan, and World War II Europe—and tells the story of humanity’s ongoing, brutal clash with the alien hunters. By setting the predator mythos across such different cultures and eras, Trachtenberg presents a compelling exploration of survival, legacy, and adaptation.
The film unfolds in three chapters, each focusing on a different protagonist. The first segment introduces Ursa, a Viking mother consumed by grief and vengeance, who soon encounters a Predator in a primal battle that tests her strength and will to survive. The second segment is largely silent, centering on estranged brothers—a samurai and a ninja—in feudal Japan, who must unite against the alien menace. The final chapter shifts to World War II, following Torres, a Latino mechanic who seizes a chance to become a pilot amid chaotic battles against the Predators. Each story is steeped in its cultural milieu, aiming for depth and texture despite the limited runtime.
Visually, the film leverages a painterly animated style reminiscent of acclaimed adult animations like Arcane and Spider-Verse, yet it carries a darker, grittier tone suitable for the Predator universe. This style allows for intense, stylized violence—gore, blood, and brutal combat—which the anthology format showcases spectacularly. The distinct visual aesthetics of each era—from the somber shadows of Viking times, the flowing elegance of Japanese landscapes, to the metallic intensity of WWII dogfights—remarkably serve the film’s atmospheric ambitions. Notably, the Predators themselves are designed to reflect the atmosphere of each segment: the hulking, brute force Predator in the Viking-era matches the raw, physical brutality of that time; the lithe, agile Predator in feudal Japan suits the stealthy, precise combat of the samurai and ninja; and the grizzled, veteran pilot Predator in the WWII segment complements the aerial warfare and war-hardened theme. While some viewers may find the animation style unconventional compared to live-action, it delivers a fresh and inventive energy, allowing for spectacle and mood impossible in a traditional film.
Trachtenberg and screenwriter Micho Robert Rutare invest effort in creating emotionally grounded characters despite the anthology’s compressed storytelling. Ursa’s portrayal as a grieving mother brings weight to her arc, the Japanese chapter uses sibling rivalry and silence to evoke tension and tradition, while Torres embodies hope, determination, and cultural representation in a largely unexplored protagonist archetype for the series. The Predator itself remains a fearsome, vigilant hunter. Yet this film adds layers by examining how violence and survival shape human experience across eras, giving thematic weight beyond simple action thrills.
The film delivers relentless and varied action, ranging from poetic, skillful duels in Japan to brutal, visceral fights in the Viking and WWII chapters. Its anthology structure allows exploration of different combat styles and settings. However, this rapid pace sometimes sacrifices emotional depth and character development, making the stories feel like glimpses rather than fully realized narratives. Regarding the WWII segment, I found Torres’s character problematic; he often seems to succeed less through skill or ingenuity and more through luck or circumstance, embodying a “failing upwards” trope that weakens the audience’s emotional investment in his narrative. His frequent self-dialogue also disrupts the tone established by the near-silent Japanese chapter, creating a jarring shift that detracts from the overall cohesion.
Another notable aspect is the anthology format itself: while it enables a rich diversity of storytelling across periods and styles, the film’s roughly two-hour runtime limits how deeply each segment can develop. This leaves viewers craving more time to fully explore the characters and settings. In this respect, Predator: Killer of Killers might have been better served as a four-episode limited series rather than a single anthology film. Such a format would have allowed each segment to breathe, providing more room for nuanced storytelling and emotional engagement without making the runtime feel excessive. Stretching this anthology into a feature film already pushes its length near two hours, and adding more time to fully flesh out each story could have pushed it close to three hours, which might have been challenging for a theatrical or streaming movie. A limited series would have accommodated this expansiveness, letting each era’s story flourish while maintaining pacing and cohesion across episodes.
Though the film culminates in a grand finale combining the protagonists, the climax is somewhat chaotic and lacks coherence, which diminishes its impact. Notably, the movie ends on an unresolved note that doesn’t fully tie up the main storyline but instead clearly hints at a future sequel. While this open-ended conclusion may frustrate viewers seeking closure, it sets up anticipation for what lies ahead under Trachtenberg’s continued direction.
A fun piece of trivia is Michael Biehn’s inclusion as one of the voice actors in the film. With his role as Vandy in the WWII segment, Biehn has joined a very exclusive club: he is just the second actor to be part of all three iconic 1980s sci-fi franchises—Alien, Predator, and Terminator. Known for his roles as Kyle Reese in The Terminator and Corporal Dwayne Hicks in Aliens, Biehn’s presence in Killer of Killers cements his unique legacy alongside fellow actors Lance Henriksen and the late Bill Paxton, who both previously held this sci-fi trifecta distinction. Director Dan Trachtenberg deliberately cast Biehn as a nod to this legacy, making his involvement a meaningful Easter egg for longtime fans.
While Predator: Killer of Killers marks a striking artistic and narrative effort within the franchise, it is not without flaws. The anthology format, while innovative, sometimes feels like a drawback—it limits how much the film can dig into each character or setting fully. The weakest link remains the WWII chapter and its protagonist Torres, whose arc doesn’t quite deliver the same resonance and often feels contrived. The finale’s lack of narrative closure may leave some feeling unsatisfied, though it promises more to come.
Despite these negatives, this film confirms Dan Trachtenberg’s role as a visionary leader for the Predator franchise, blending genre thrills with cultural specificity and psychological insight. For fans and newcomers alike, it offers a unique, stylized, and intense take on the alien hunters—the best the franchise has offered in many years. The film’s ambition and creativity outweigh its shortcomings, setting a foundation for a promising future for Predator under Trachtenberg’s direction.
“It knows how to hunt, but I know how to survive.” — Naru
Dan Trachtenberg’s Prey is honestly a breath of fresh air for the Predator series. It takes us way back to the early 18th century, deep in the Comanche Nation, ditching the usual sci-fi city jungle for actual wide-open plains and a history-rich vibe. The story follows Naru, a young Comanche woman who’s determined to prove she can hunt just as well as the men in her tribe. Amber Midthunder totally nails it as Naru, giving a performance that’s both vulnerable and tough without trying too hard. Her journey isn’t just about hunting the Predator; it’s also about breaking free from the limits her tribe has set for her as a woman, and that makes the story hit a lot deeper than your typical monster flick.
Speaking of the monster, Prey strips away the Predator’s fancy gadgets and drops it into a more primal, back-to-basics showdown. This Predator isn’t rocking all the high-tech gear we usually see—it’s raw and brutal, with stuff that fits the time period, which makes the whole hunter vs. hunter dynamic feel way more grounded and tense. The movie smartly uses survival skills and brains over flashy tech, and that makes the hunt way more interesting because it’s about anticipation and smarts, not lasers and gadgets.
One of the coolest behind-the-scenes moves with Prey was the filmmakers’ emphasis on cultural authenticity, especially with language. While most of the film is in English, they also made a full Comanche language dub, which is huge because Comanche is a nearly lost language with very few fluent speakers. The cast went back and recorded the whole movie in Comanche, making it the first feature to do so. Originally, they intended to shoot the whole film in Comanche, which would have been even more impressive, but having this dub option available on streaming platforms gives viewers an immersive way to connect with the culture in an authentic way. This shows a real commitment to uplifting Indigenous voices while still making the film accessible.
Trachtenberg did a great job balancing the suspense with action. The Predator’s scenes are super intense and keep you on edge without going overboard. One of the coolest parts is when the Predator takes down a bear—it’s done so cleverly that even though the creature is rarely fully seen, the splashes of its green blood make the moment feel really eerie and unforgettable. The film really puts you in Naru’s shoes, making you feel her fear and determination as she tries to outsmart this deadly creature.
Now, even though the Predator is the main beast to watch out for, the behavior of the French fur trappers is actually more disturbing in many ways. These guys aren’t just out there trying to survive—they’re slaughtering entire herds of bison en masse, skinning the animals and leaving huge carcasses to rot. It’s a brutal, wasteful approach to hunting that contrasts starkly with the Predator, who hunts singularly and with purpose, never wasting what it kills. The trappers’ wanton destruction of the environment and disregard for the land and its creatures makes them a reprehensible presence in the film. They’re essentially invaders who exploit the natural resources with no respect, creating a real commentary on colonial greed. So while the Predator is the alien menace, the human antagonists serve as a grim reminder of real historical violence and environmental exploitation faced by Indigenous peoples. It’s a powerful layer in the story that adds depth to the conflict.
Besides Naru, the rest of the characters feel real and fleshed out. Her brother Taabe adds a nice sibling angle—there’s a good mix of support and conflict that makes their relationship believable and keeps the story grounded. The French fur trappers act as another layer of conflict, showing that not all dangers come from the Predator. Their ruthless ways make you think about the real threats to the Comanche people, adding depth to the narrative beyond just monster vs. human.
Visually, the film is gorgeous. The cinematographer Jeff Cutter captures the sweeping plains and natural beauty in a way that really draws you in, and the natural lighting, weather, and shadows all add to the mood perfectly. The music supports this vibe, mixing suspense with subtle tribal influences that really tie the whole atmosphere together. This combo of visuals and sound creates an immersive world you just want to get lost in.
The themes in Prey are surprisingly meaty. It challenges old-school gender roles, shines a light on indigenous culture with respect, and subtly touches on colonialism through its human villains. Naru’s fight to prove herself becomes more than just physical—it’s a stance against tradition that resonates on a broader level. This isn’t your usual throw-everything-at-the-wall action flick; it’s thoughtful and makes you care about the characters.
Sure, the movie’s pacing slows down a bit toward the end, stretching out the finale more than necessary, and a few moments lean on familiar action tropes, but these are small grumbles in an otherwise tight and exciting film. Practical effects—especially in how the Predator moves and attacks—bring a rawness that CGI-heavy movies often miss, making the battles feel grounded and visceral.
All in all, Prey stands out as probably the best Predator movie since the original. It respects the classic elements fans love but brings fresh ideas and a ton of heart. Amber Midthunder steals the show with her performance, and Dan Trachtenberg’s direction keeps things suspenseful and sharp. The cultural respect and social layers make it more than just another monster movie—it’s a rare example of blockbuster cinema that gets representation right.
If you’re into smart, intense action movies with a meaningful story and some cultural depth, you really shouldn’t miss Prey. It strips things down to the essentials—survival, smarts, and heart—and the result is a movie that sticks with you long after the credits roll. It’s about more than just hunting a monster; it’s about standing your ground, breaking through barriers, and owning your strength. Definitely worth checking out if you haven’t already.
“Gentlemen, remember… they’re large, they’re fast, and fucking you up is their idea of tourism.” — Traeger
Shane Black’s The Predator (2018) lands with a bang, offering a spectacle heavy on action, gore, and the signature snarky humor Black is known for. If you come looking for a suspenseful, tightly wound survival story in the tradition of the original 1987 film, you’re in for something very different—a gonzo mashup of nostalgia, R-rated slapstick carnage, and creature-feature excess that leans gleefully into genre absurdity.
The plot barrels forward with almost reckless energy. Boyd Holbrook stars as Quinn McKenna, a sniper whose mission goes haywire when a Predator spaceship crashes to Earth. Through a sequence of provocatively silly events, McKenna’s autistic son, Rory (Jacob Tremblay), ends up with the alien’s high-tech gear, unwittingly drawing attention from both the government and the technologically advanced Predators themselves. McKenna teams up with a ragtag bunch of soldiers, each with their own collection of quirks and psychological scars, plus Olivia Munn’s biologist Casey Bracket. This time, the hunt spills out of the jungle and into suburbia, with the chaos quickly escalating as a souped-up, genetically upgraded Predator enters the mix.
Where the 1987 original thrived on tension and jungle-stalking suspense, Black’s take is more about velocity, bloody spectacle, and loud, rapid-fire banter. The tone is set early, never letting up: The jokes fly thick and fast, the action is relentless, and there’s barely a lull for actual character development. The chemistry among “the Loonies,” McKenna’s loose-cannon squad, is the highlight—Keegan-Michael Key and Thomas Jane, in particular, deliver a mix of comic relief and bruised pathos that provides Black with fertile ground for his trademark dialogue. Sterling K. Brown chews the scenery as Traeger, the government antagonist, with a kind of joyous villainy that’s hard not to enjoy, even when the narrative slides into pure chaos. Olivia Munn starts strong as a scientist thrown into the deep end but is ultimately brushed aside by the film’s mayhem-heavy set pieces.
The film’s comedic pulse is strong, sometimes to its own detriment. Shane Black fills out every moment with his specific brand of irreverence, which works best in the banter between the Loonies but can undercut the menace of the Predators themselves. The violence is over-the-top, with practical splatter and digital effects combining for set pieces that are more monstrous brawls than hunting sequences. The movie rarely worries about internal logic—kids instantly deciphering alien technology and scientists surviving actions that would doom most is par for the course here. For fans of the previous films, there are enthusiastic callbacks and plenty of Easter eggs, though these are delivered more as punchlines than as foundations for new franchise mythology.
One of the film’s major issues is its kitchen-sink approach: it tries to be a throwback action movie, a gory sci-fi thriller, and a self-aware parody all at once. The result is a film constantly threatening to come apart at the seams—some viewers will find the tonal whiplash exhausting, with jokes about mental illness and disability that are more dated than daring. The narrative bounces between subplots and characters so quickly that plot armor and convenient twists abound, while the stakes themselves grow ever more implausible. If you’re looking for slow-burn tension or the primal fear that powered John McTiernan’s or even Stephen Hopkins’ installments, you’ll find yourself unmoored by the gleeful chaos and genre self-parody that Black serves up.
Still, for all its messiness, The Predator is never boring. It’s an action movie that refuses to slow down, boldly swapping iconic mud-soaked hunting for suburban street battles, and musclebound brawn for damaged, wise-cracking outcasts. It is, in its own profane, ADD-addled way, a love letter to the kind of big, dumb, fun genre movies that Black himself helped define in the late ’80s and ’90s.
Ultimately, The Predator isn’t a triumphant reinvention of the franchise nor a true return to the original’s nerve-shredding simplicity. Fans looking to see a return to the franchise’s glory days will be sorely disappointed. However, taken on its own merits and not dragged down by the expectations brought by the franchise, the film does entertain with its wild, unruly, blood-spattered romp that wears its flaws on its sleeve and dares the audience to laugh along with the carnage. If you’re in it for straight-up monster mayhem, creative kills, and a barrage of one-liners, you’ll have a blast. If you’re looking for restraint, genre evolution, or old-school suspense, you’ll probably end up shaking your head—grinning, maybe, but shaking it all the same.
In Alan J. Pakula’s 1974 film The Parallax View, Warren Beatty plays a seedy journalist who goes undercover to investigate the links between the mysterious Parallax Corporation and a series of recent political assassinations. In the film’s most famous sequence, Beatty — pretending to be a job applicant (read: potential assassin) for the Parallax Corporation — is shown an orientation film that has been designed to test whether or not he’s a suitable applicant. The montage is shown in its entirety, without once cutting away to show us Beatty’s reaction. The implication, of course, is that what’s important isn’t how Beatty reacts to the montage but how the viewers sitting out in the audience react.
So, at the risk of furthering the conspiracy, here’s that montage.
Extraction 2 drops you right into the thick of things, cranking the intensity way past the first film. To quickly recap, the original Extraction introduced Tyler Rake, a gritty mercenary with a troubled past played with undeniable grit by Chris Harmsworth. The story was simple but effective—a high-stakes rescue of a kidnapped boy in Dhaka, Bangladesh, filled with edge-of-your-seat action and those now-iconic, almost balletic long-take fight sequences. It was raw, realistic, and emotionally grounded. Harmsworth’s portrayal anchored the chaos in human vulnerability, helping the film stand out from the typical action fare.
Now, the sequel’s aim is clear—it wants to go bigger, bloodier, and more relentless, and it pulls that off in many ways. The standout here is definitely the action choreography. Sam Hargrave, the director, really flexes his muscle with several jaw-dropping sequences, especially a breathtaking 21-minute continuous take that makes you feel like you’re running alongside Rake, dodging bullets and throwing punches in real time. It’s an impressive technical feat but, more importantly, it’s incredibly immersive. The fights have that gritty realism where each blow counts, and the camera work lets you see every tense moment clearly instead of hiding behind shaky cuts.
Chris Hemsworth, once again, owns the role. This time around, you can see a bit more of the toll the mercenary life has taken on Rake. Hemsworth brings a subtle layer of weariness mixed with fierce determination. His physicality is on full display—he’s convincing in those brutal hand-to-hand combats without ever feeling like a stuntman stand-in. He does it all, and it’s clear he’s not just punching air; this is a man fighting for something beyond just survival. The emotional beats land a bit more naturally this time around, helped by Hemsworth’s grounded performance, which balances the nonstop action with moments of quiet reflection.
Visually, the film is a significant step up. The settings shift from humid, congested streets to icy, oppressive Georgia, and the cinematography makes the most of this change. The chilly, bleak palette fits perfectly with the film’s mood—harsh, unforgiving, and tense. The camera work is bold yet measured; it takes its time to show us the fights fully, letting the choreography breathe without rushing or confusing the viewer. This clarity turns the action scenes into mini-masterpieces, where every movement, every shot, and every punch feels deliberate and impactful.
That said, not everything clicks perfectly. The plot plays it safe with familiar revenge and rescue-mission beats, and the supporting characters don’t get much development beyond their utility to the story. Golshifteh Farahani steals a few scenes as Nik, adding fresh energy and complexity as a tough and capable ally, but others around her mainly exist to get the body count up. There’s a formulaic feel to the storyline—with plenty of high-stakes tension but little in the way of surprise. If you go in looking for deep storytelling or rich character arcs, you might be left wanting.
The film truly embraces the “bigger is better” mantra, and in many ways, it pays off spectacularly with larger, more intricate action sequences and expanded scale. This escalation brings a fuller, more thrilling spectacle that keeps you hooked from start to finish. However, this increase in scope leads to a trade-off: the narrative feels more convoluted and sometimes weighed down by its own ambition. The plot introduces multiple new characters and intersecting agendas, which lengthens the storyline unnecessarily and complicates what could have been a more straightforward mission. This convolution makes the story not only more formulaic but also harder to follow, detracting from the lean storytelling charm that made the first movie so effective.
Tone-wise, the movie trades some of the first film’s grounded grit for a flashier, more stylized look and feel. Some sequences stretch believability—Rake’s near-indestructibility and certain stunt setups can pull you out of the moment. Still, if you’re willing to accept that and enjoy the ride, the movie delivers on adrenaline and spectacle in full force.
One of the most refreshing things about Extraction 2 is how well it balances raw, physical combat with moments of emotional depth. Between the intense fight scenes, there are small windows into who Tyler Rake is and what drives him. These touches give the film a heartbeat beneath all the explosions and punches. Rake is no cookie-cutter action hero; he’s a broken man clawing his way toward redemption, and that gives the film a surprising amount of emotional weight for a movie mainly about violence and chaos.
Ultimately, Extraction 2 isn’t reinventing the wheel, but it doesn’t need to. It knows its audience and delivers exactly what it promises: high-octane, impeccably executed action sequences tied together by a thread of humanity. Hemsworth’s portrayal elevates it beyond just a flashy romp, lending it a gritty soul. The villains feel suitably menacing, and the stakes are convincingly high, which keeps the tension ticking throughout.
If you loved the first Extraction for its mix of brutal realism and emotional punch, the sequel will feel familiar but amplified—more intense, more expansive, and a bit louder. If you’re new to the series, Extraction 2 still stands solid on its own as a showcase of what well-choreographed action cinema looks like today—raw, precise, and emotionally resonant with just enough story to keep you invested without dragging you down.
In short, Extraction 2 is a wild, thrilling ride with a surprisingly human heart beating beneath all the chaos. It’s a film that knows how to entertain, showcasing Chris Harmsworth at his physical and emotional best and proving that action movies can still push creative boundaries while keeping viewers hooked. The movie brings bigger and bolder set pieces that truly live up to the “bigger is better” slogan, but this comes at the cost of making the plot more convoluted and overly complicated than it needed to be. While the intricate story layers may strain some viewers, the explosive action and solid performances make it a must-watch for any fan of visceral, edge-of-your-seat thrillers. If you want a no-nonsense blockbuster with a pulse, Extraction 2 delivers in spades.
Extraction (2020) is an action film directed by Sam Hargrave and written by Joe Russo, centering on a high-stakes rescue mission led by Chris Hemsworth’s character, Tyler Rake. The story comes from the graphic novel Ciudad, following Rake, a hardened mercenary tasked with rescuing Ovi Mahajan—the kidnapped teenage son of a Mumbai drug lord—from a rival gang in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
The biggest highlight of the film is undoubtedly the action. Sam Hargrave’s background as a stuntman and stunt coordinator heavily shapes the film’s visceral, grounded fight scenes and chase sequences. Before directing Extraction, Hargrave worked extensively in Hollywood, doubling for Chris Evans as Captain America in several Marvel movies like Winter Soldier and Endgame, and choreographing stunts for The Avengers, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Hunger Games. This experience shows in the film’s impressive physicality and well-structured action set pieces.
One of the film’s standout moments is a roughly 15-minute continuous shot that follows Rake through escalating fights, car chases, and shoots without cuts, putting the audience right in the middle of the chaos. Cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel maintains great clarity during this complex sequence, making it easy to follow the action without losing tension or momentum.
Chris Hemsworth’s Tyler Rake is a mix of toughness and quiet emotion. While Rake is the typical stoic, skilled mercenary with a haunting past, Hemsworth brings enough charisma and subtlety to keep him interesting. Rudhraksh Jaiswal’s Ovi balances vulnerability and resilience, and their relationship adds some emotional depth to an otherwise action-heavy film.
The setting of Dhaka plays a significant role in creating tension. The crowded streets and claustrophobic urban spaces add a feeling of danger and urgency. The production design and score contribute to this gritty atmosphere, making the world feel lived-in and tense.
Violence in Extraction is brutal and unflinching, not shying away from the grim realities of its story. The R rating is earned through graphic fights, gun battles, and some harsh moments involving bystanders, including children. This unrelenting approach to violence adds a raw edge to the film but can also feel overwhelming at times.
However, the movie’s major drawback comes from its story and character development, which are fairly thin and formulaic. The plot is straightforward: a mercenary protecting a kidnapped kid while fighting off enemies. Most of the supporting characters are underdeveloped, with the villain Amir portrayed as a one-dimensional bad guy without much backstory or nuance. Although Randeep Hooda’s character Saju adds some tension and complexity, other roles feel functional rather than memorable.
The film attempts to add emotional weight through Rake and Ovi’s bond, but the effort sometimes falls flat. Key moments meant to build character feels like typical exposition, and some plot points are rushed or underexplored. A subplot involving David Harbour’s character feels tacked on and doesn’t quite fit into the narrative flow.
Pacing also hinders the film, especially in the middle act, where the story slows down and struggles to balance action with character moments. This section can feel tedious compared to the rest of the film’s adrenaline-fueled sequences.
The ending, while action-packed and satisfying in terms of spectacle, also features a somewhat questionable twist and a final shot that feels like a cheat, leaving some ambiguity that may frustrate viewers seeking clear resolution.
In summary, Extraction delivers on what fans of intense, well-executed action expect. It’s a showcase for Hargrave’s stunt expertise and Hemsworth’s physical performance but falls short when it comes to storytelling and character depth. The film is a gripping, high-energy ride with brutal, creative fight and chase scenes—but if you’re looking for a nuanced plot or fully fleshed-out characters, it’s lacking. Fans of pure action films like John Wick or The Raid will find much to enjoy here, but others may find the story too simplistic and the constant violence numbing over time.
“Sometimes I wonder… will God ever forgive us for what we’ve done to each other? Then I look around and I realize, God left this place a long time ago.” — Danny Archer
Edward Zwick’s 2006 film Blood Diamond is one of those big Hollywood productions that tries to be both a gritty, globe-trotting thriller and a politically conscious indictment of the diamond trade’s role in African civil wars. Set in Sierra Leone during the 1990s, it stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Danny Archer, a Rhodesian mercenary and diamond smuggler, and Djimon Hounsou as Solomon Vandy, a fisherman torn from his family by rebels and forced into brutal diamond mining. Rounding out the leads is Jennifer Connelly as Maddy Bowen, a tenacious reporter determined to expose the atrocities fueling the global supply of conflict diamonds. The film is ambitious, harrowing, and, at times, as slickly entertaining as it is bluntly didactic. But like many socially minded blockbusters, it walks a tightrope between genuine drama and Hollywood sensationalism.
The story kicks off with a bang—literally—as Solomon’s village is raided by Revolutionary United Front militants, a moment that quickly plunges the viewer into Sierra Leone’s chaotic civil war. Solomon’s family is fragmented: he ends up a slave at a rebel-run mining camp, his son is eventually brainwashed into a child soldier, and his wife flees for safety. Meanwhile, DiCaprio’s Archer lands in jail after a failed smuggling run—which sets the two men on a collision course. Archer learns of Solomon’s discovery of an enormous, rare pink diamond—a stone that could mean escape or redemption for both men but is a magnet for greed, violence, and compromise. Their uneasy partnership with Maddy Bowen, who’s chasing a story, adds layers as their individual motives collide and evolve.
The movie doesn’t shy away from illustrating the devastating effects of the diamond trade—child soldiers, forced labor, mass displacement, and political corruption. While most of the on-screen violence is handled to maximize emotional punch, it never lets the viewer forget the real-world stakes of the Blood Diamond narrative. The film ultimately points viewers toward the establishment of the Kimberley Process—a set of international regulations designed to combat the illicit diamond trade.
A lot of the film’s emotional weight lands on DiCaprio and Hounsou, and for good reason. Leonardo DiCaprio nabs the complex role of Danny Archer with a layered performance and goes the extra mile by working hard on the Zimbabwean (Rhodesian) accent. While accents in film can be divisive, DiCaprio immersed himself deeply, working with dialect coaches and spending time with people from the region to best capture the regional nuances. Although some viewers and critics felt the accent was uneven or shifted at points, many others praised him for nailing this challenging and rare dialect. For an American actor to convincingly embody a mercenary with roots in that part of the world is no small feat. DiCaprio’s commitment brings credibility to Archer’s character, who is morally ambiguous but immensely human.
Djimon Hounsou, playing Solomon Vandy, serves as the emotional core and grounding presence of the film. His portrayal of a man torn apart by civil war, who fights desperately to reclaim his family, is heartbreaking and physically compelling. Their scenes together create genuine tension, as trust is both scarce and necessary for survival. Jennifer Connelly’s Maddy Bowen, while less fleshed out, brings determination and serves as the moral compass driving the film’s exposé of conflict diamonds.
Director Edward Zwick has a way of blending spectacle with raw storytelling. The action sequences, especially the firefights and escapes, feel intense and immersive. The cinematography captures the lush, dangerous landscape of Sierra Leone vividly, contrasting beauty with brutality. Some technical aspects do show their age—like certain digital effects that can feel artificial—but these don’t significantly dampen the overall experience. The soundtrack by James Newton Howard underscores the drama without veering into heavy-handed territory.
Blood Diamond scores high on several fronts. The performances by DiCaprio and Hounsou are standout elements, their evolving relationship carrying the film’s emotional heft. The pulse-pounding action sequences inject thrills while highlighting the chaos of civil war. Perhaps most importantly, the movie exposes the grim realities behind the glittering allure of diamonds, educating audiences about child soldiers, forced labor, and the complicity of international markets in perpetuating violence. Though it sometimes leans into melodrama and moralizing dialogue, the film’s commitment to its message is fairly unambiguous and impactful.
That said, the film sometimes succumbs to the trappings of big-budget Hollywood storytelling. The plot can feel overly convenient, with coincidences and resolutions that stretch credibility. Supporting characters, aside from the leads, are underdeveloped, mainly functioning as plot devices. Dialogue can at times be heavy-handed, particularly in the final act where scenes verge on preachy. Some narrative contrivances—like the recovery and passing of the pink diamond—can feel forced even in a tense, action-driven context. On the technical side, a few CGI moments fail to hold up under scrutiny, but these are minor irritants in an otherwise immersive film.
An important and unavoidable observation about Blood Diamond is how, like many of Edward Zwick’s previous action-dramas, it leans heavily into the “white savior” trope, if not outright embodying it. This trope centers a white protagonist—in this case, Danny Archer—who becomes the crucial figure in the salvation or redemption of non-white characters and communities. While the film sheds light on the horrors and complexity of Sierra Leone’s civil war and the conflict diamond trade, the narrative perspective and moral center overwhelmingly revolve around Archer’s personal journey from cynical mercenary to reluctant hero. The African characters, though vital and powerful especially through Hounsou’s Solomon, are often cast in more reactive roles, with Archer positioned as the key agent for change. The film also features a white journalist, Maddy Bowen, reinforcing this pattern.
Zwick’s leanings toward this trope are not new or isolated. His earlier films Glory (1989) and The Last Samurai (2003) also engage with the white savior narrative. Glory, a Civil War epic about the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, tells a historically significant story but largely centers on Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, a white officer played by Matthew Broderick, as the story’s main emotional and narrative anchor. The film has been noted for respectfully addressing racism and heroism but still revolves around Shaw’s perspective and sacrifice as a key redemptive figure for the African American soldiers. The Last Samurai similarly places Tom Cruise’s character, an American military advisor, at the heart of a narrative about Japanese samurai culture and resistance, blending cultural appreciation with the problematic trope of the white outsider who becomes indispensable to a non-white community’s fate.
This approach, familiar in Hollywood, walks the line between broad audience engagement and ethical storytelling. Zwick’s films often balance studio and audience expectations with a desire to tell compelling stories about marginalized communities. Yet inevitably, this framing simplifies complex histories and contributes to critiques that such films center whiteness and diminish the agency of non-white characters.
Casually speaking, Blood Diamond is not subtle, but that directness is part of its appeal. For viewers looking for a gripping action drama with strong performances and an ethical core, it delivers. It entertains while providing a sobering look at the high cost of luxury goods. DiCaprio’s portrayal of Danny Archer, complete with an authentically worked-on accent from the region, puts to rest doubts about his action lead capabilities. Hounsou’s performance lingers emotionally, especially in scenes grappling with the trauma of child soldiering. The violence depicted is raw and unvarnished, contributing to a visceral sense of the film’s urgent themes.
Running for about two hours and 23 minutes, the film has plenty of time to develop its complex story and deliver tense action sequences without feeling rushed or padded. Ultimately, Blood Diamond is an effective historical thriller that balances high stakes and moral urgency. While it’s not nuanced in every aspect and occasionally tips into cliché and convenience, it makes a strong case for itself beyond mere entertainment. Whether you’re interested in history, action, or the human stories behind the diamond trade, this film offers a thought-provoking, emotionally resonant experience. Leonardo DiCaprio’s dedication to portraying a Rhodesian mercenary authentically, especially through his accent work, is a highlight that complements the film’s broader narrative ambitions.
Now, to make clear, I’m not the Bronson expert that Brad is so I will picking from a smaller pool of selections. But no matter! Let’s do this!
6. Death Wish III (1985, dir by Michael Winner)
Yes, I have to start with Death Wish III. The Death Wish sequels are definitely a mixed bag but Death Wish III was wonderfully over-the-top, a film that cheerfully dropped Bronson in the middle of an absurd circus and allowed him to tame the lions, as it were. I will always love this film for the presence of Plunger Guy, a bad guy who heads into battle carrying a plunger.
5. Breakheart Pass (1975, dir by Tom Gries)
This is an enjoyable mix of a western, a murder mystery, and an adventure film. Charles Bronson is a mysterious man on a snowbound train. Charles Durning, Ben Johnson, Richard Crenna, Jill Ireland, and Ed Lauter co-star and everyone — especially Johnson and Durning — bring a lot to their roles. This may not be one of Bronson’s best-known films but it is one of his most enjoyable and Bronson himself is at his most likable.
4. Death Wish (1973, dir by Michael Winner)
“My heart bleeds a little for the less fortunate,” Bronson’s Paul Kersey says at the start of the film and those of us watching immediately say, “C’mon, Charlie, really?” That said, one reason why Death Wish works as well as it does is because Bronson actually gives a very good and very emotionally honest performance as a man who finally snaps and starts to take the law into his own hands. (I love the barely veiled contempt that’s present whenever Paul talks to his son-in-law.) Not surprisingly, considering that it was directed by Michael Winner, Death Wish is an often-sordid film that doesn’t have a hint of subtlety. But it’s also brutally effective, a film that captures the way a lot of people feel when they hear about reports of out-of-control crime. Even today, it’s easy to see why Death Wish was the film that finally Bronson a star in the United States.
3. Once Upon A Time In The West (1968, dir by Sergio Leone)
Bronson plays Harmonica in the most epic of all of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns. Leone pays homage to the American western while also gleefully subverting it. The quiet and unemotional Bronson is the film’s hero. Henry Fonda is the sadistic villain who guns down a child. Jason Robards is an outlaw. While I don’t consider it to be quite as good as either The Good, The Bad, or the Ugly or Once Upon A Time In America, Once Upon A Time In The West is still one of Leone’s masterpieces.
2. From Noon Till Three (1976, dir by Frank D. Gliroy)
For all of his reputation for being a tough guy who didn’t show much emotion, there was no denying Bronson’s love for his second wife, Jill Ireland. From Noon Till Three brings Bronson and Ireland together in a film that is a third western, a third romantic comedy, and a third social satire. It’s a film that gives Bronson a chance to show off his romantic side and it might leave you surprised! The film also featured Jill Ireland’s best performance in a Bronson film. I always highly recommend this one. It’s proof that there was more to Bronson than just shooting the bad guys.
Ten To Midnight (1983, dir by J. Lee Thompson)
This is the ultimate 80s Bronson film and one that I like for a reason that might surprise you. On the one hand, you’ve got Bronson as a tough cop, Andrew Stevens as his liberal partner, and Gene Davis as the disturbingly plausible serial killer, Warren Stacy. Bronson is great as the world weary cop. His scenes with Stevens are amusing and, at times, even poignant. (It helps that Stevens was the rare co-star that Bronson liked.) Davis is terrifying and the film’s final moments are very emotionally satisfying. (“No, we won’t.”) But the reason why I love this film is because of the relationship between Bronson’s cop and his daughter, who played by Lisa Eilbacher. Their scenes together — testy but loving — are well-acted by both actors and they always make me think of me and my Dad. Ten To Midnight is the Bronson film that actually makes me cry.
Two Americans meet up in Turkey in 1922. Josh Corey (Charles Bronson) is a cynical soldier-of-fortune who, along with his mercenary crew, is hoping to make money out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Adam Dyer (Tony Curtis) is the heir to a shipping company and is hoping to get his last remaining boat out of the Turkish dock where it’s been interned since World War I. Osman Bey (Gregorie Aslan), one of the local powerbrokers who has risen to power since the Turkish Revolution, hires Josh and Adam to escort his daughters and their protector, Alia (Michele Mercier), to Mecca. Actually, the plan is for them to instead go to Cairo to recover a priceless treasure. The journey to Cairo is filled with action and betrayal as Josh and Adam try to navigate the upheaval of the post-war Middle East.
You Can’t Win ‘Em All is a mix of action and comedy, an adventure that owes more than a little to the other big budget heist films of the 60s and 70s. (Director Peter Collinson was hired due to his work on The Italian Job.) The film’s humor comes from the partnership of the stoic Bronson with the talkative Tony Curtis. In fact, the film’s main flaw is that Tony Curtis talks too much. Curtis simply will not shut up. After about fifteen minutes, I was tired of listening to him. Curtis’s acting limitations really come through the more that he talks and, as a result, Bronson walks away with the entire movie by saying next to nothing. Bronson keeps largely quiet because he doesn’t have to speak to make an impression. His stare says everything that needs to be said.
You Can’t Win ‘Em All is uneven but it has a few good action sequences and Bronson doing what Bronson did best. Watching this movie made me appreciate Charles Bronson all the more. Even when working with a less-than-great script and a miscast co-star, Bronson still had the undefinable quality that made him a star.
Through the Shattered Lens 