"Prey" Was Actually Pretty Good

You know, I'm really happy that the Predator legacy prequel "Prey" finally got a physical release. It's a well-earned milestone for a solid film that surpassed my expectations by a long shot. Now, is "Prey" a best-picture-worthy title? No. Is it a film that will be talked about for ages to come, films the likes of "Dr. Strangelove," "The Dark Knight," or "Casablanca?" No. However, what it is is an underdog story that I couldn't help but take notice of for a variety of reasons.

When the trailer for this movie first dropped online, I had mixed feelings about it, and those feelings definitely skewed into the negative. From the looks of the trailer, I was expecting this to be yet another movie about some self-centered, egotistical, charisma-less woman being pitted against a lineup of bland, one-note, unlikable, studio-mandated men for a "battle of supremacy," if you will. It's a tiring, unhelpful, lazy trope that I've seen used way too many times, and to be honest, it's also more than a little disrespectful of both genders (no, life is not a competition between two sides of the human race that God created to live in harmony). And so, imagine my surprise when the advertising turned out to be incredibly misleading, and "Prey," in turn, turned out to be not merely a checking box for studios but rather a smart, inventive, tense, enjoyable thriller with an incredible sense and command of the rules of setup and payoff, as well as a lead that you actually wanted to root for. Now, is this movie perfect? No. No, it's not. If I had to levy a complaint against the film, it would be that the characters are kind of bland. This is an issue that the original film also suffered from, but ultimately, I think that the good things about this movie far outweigh the bad, and to date, it is my favorite "Predator" film. Now, being something of a history nerd, I could be biased in favor of a movie set in 1719, but bear with me, because "Prey" is definitely a film worth giving a watch.

To throw out a brief synopsis, "Prey" follows Naru, a young woman in the Comanche tribe of North America, as she tries to prove herself as a hunter while a new threat simultaneously emerges from places unknown.

The first thing I love about "Prey" is that it actually made the predator scary again. I know it sounds novel, but for a long time, the crux upon which the "Predator" franchise sat, the fear of the unknown, was weak and favored spectacle over a raw fear of some unstoppable force. To make a point, take a look at James Cameron's "Aliens." I absolutely adore this film, and I think it built up a fear of the unknown very well before setting the bloodthirsty, savage creatures in question loose. However, Cameron's excellent sequel effectively hamstrung the films that came after it because when we saw that the Xenomorphs could be killed if you had big enough guns, we learned to no longer fear them as long as your characters could say "hasta la vista, baby!" loud enough. This is the same thing that happened with the Predator movies. Once you can get a good look at the monster enough times, the monster is no longer scary. But "Prey" brought back that sense of mystery, this mythos that had previously surrounded the predator. How did it do this? It showed you the monster as little as possible. The fear of what we cannot see is always far more tangible than the fear of what we can, and Dan Trachtenberg, the director of the film, understood this perfectly. And by weaponizing the predator's cloaking device effectively as well as by pitting the predator against some poorly armed humans, he created a monster that was scary again.

"Prey" is refreshingly simple. Now, don't get me wrong: there is a time and a place for movies with complex stories that deal with complex subject matter. For example, look at "Inception." However, the window for getting a complex film about monsters hunting people right is very small, and I can't think of many exceptional examples of this type of film outside of "A Quiet Place" (and arguably its sequel). Trachtenburg perfectly understood what movie he was making: he was making a movie where he was pitting an underdog against an overpowered monster. He created nothing more and, to my surprise and delight, certainly nothing less. This movie doesn't worry about creating a convoluted plot. If I had to boil it down, it's about an unappreciated warrior trying to learn how to defeat a creature she doesn't fully understand. That's kind of it. And you know what? I'm happy with that. Don't fear the idea of writing a simple story. A lot of people have this misconception that a simple story = a bad story, and the fact of the matter is that this is just simply not true. I will take a simple story told well over a complex story told poorly any day, and a simple story allows for things that a complex story doesn't, namely a focus on fleshing out atmosphere and heightening tension, both of which "Prey" does remarkably well.

"Prey" is patient and smart. This movie takes a long time to reveal the predator in all of its terrifying glory, and this was a very smart move on the part of the director, writers, and editors. Men fear most what they cannot see, and waiting to reveal the predator for a long time heightened this tension. I will never forget the scene where Naru hides from the predator in the grass. It was a brilliant, brief (but not too brief) moment of tension that shuffled scene dynamics masterfully. No jumpscare can beat an atmospheric, primal, creeping dread of the unknown, and "Prey" understands this. This film knew it was at a disadvantage due to its attempts to make a known creature feel mysterious, and yet it still manages to play the hand it is dealt well. Even I'm not completely sure how they pulled it off, but I can tell you that they did. If I had to make an educated guess, I think that this film plays off of the perspective of its human characters. They have no idea what they're up against, and by limiting the scale of the movie to more or less their perspective, the film is placing us, the audience, in their shoes. In essence, a "less is more" approach is the idea I'm trying to touch on.

I normally wouldn't do this, but I need to devote a section to the historical accuracy of this movie. Yes, I know that an alien creature never hunted Native Americans in 1719, but otherwise, this film carries with it a surprising amount of historical detail that frankly didn't need to exist in the film, given that it is ultimately a science fiction story. The makers of this film insisted on getting the look of the movie right and making sure that everything looked accurate, and the film excels in this area. For instance, Naru uses a toothbrush at one point in the film. The producer of the film insisted on making sure that even a detail as small as this one looked period-accurate. The wardrobe of the film and the looks of the tepees were historically accurate as well. As I was researching the historical accuracy of the film, I discovered that the scene where Taabe, Naru's brother, rides a horse was actually added into the film after the screenplay was written because there was no other instance of a horse appearing in the movie, despite riding horses being a huge part of the Comanche lifestyle. Now, there are still some goofs here and there, most notably the geography of the movie (the Comanches were a southern plains tribe, not a northern great plains tribe), but "Prey" is ultimately still a fictional film, and I have to give massive points to the props, wardrobe, and writing teams for their obvious dedication and attention to detail.

And finally, one of my favorite things about this movie is that "Prey" allows its protagonist to fail. This is incredibly important. Success generally only opens up one possible story path in a film, while failure opens up a plethora while also allowing your character to grow. One problem I have noticed in modern Hollywood is that if studios view a group of people as oppressed or marginalized in any way, they will depict them as flawless. I can see why they might want to do this, but it's ultimately a bad habit that needs to go away. Why? If a character can't fail, then neither can they grow. Naru is a flawed character. At the beginning of the film, she's bad at hunting. That's kind of all there is to say about her skill level at the start of the film. She knows what she wants to do, but she doesn't know how to do it. And "Prey" is about her learning to do it. It's about her learning to hunt. She's obviously in over her head going after a predator, and it was fun to see her learn, adapt, and grow as the movie progressed.

As something of a footnote, I'm going to have to dock this film points for making its cast too large, leaving too small of an area for us to develop meaningful attachments to the characters, but I have to say that "Prey" really surprised me. It's no secret that Predator films haven't been doing too well recently, and when I saw that this movie got good reviews, I was surprised, relieved, and skeptical all at the same time. But after giving it a watch, I can confidently say that it was more than worth my time. If you have any misgivings about the movie, especially if you're a fan of the original, I can confidently dissuade you from those notions. Now, "Prey" is no "Alien," but I would go so far as to say it's probably the best film that the Predator franchise has made so far, likely better than the first one, and above all, it's a unique film that I had a lot of fun watching.

Prey - 7/10

Proverbs 6:5