AndyDursin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:04 pm
Excellent movie and it did do well. Alas the box-office is dead as a doornail right now, theaters are going to be closing up again because there's nothing but super-hero crap this fall to keep the attendance going forward. Like TOP GUN was great and all but there's nothing like it on the horizon.
I had mixed feelings about this movie. I've always been interested in (and admired) Native American culture, so the idea of a Predator "requel" (to use Andy's term) set in the 18th century American west seemed a potentially neat idea. But while Prey is sufficiently watchable, I also found it unremarkable, and the idea of dropping the Predator a few miles from a Cheyenne village a bit contrived.
Now, I'm not among those condemning this film as "woke". Ironically, what bothers me is that I find the use of Native Americans characters almost exploitative, like the studio was thinking "Lets make some more money off this old war horse -- and look virtuous at the same time by casting Native Americans!" But the Cheyenne characters just come across as little more than window dressing. There's nothing uniquely "Native American" about Prey. This same exact script could just as easily have been set in Asia, Africa or Scandinavia. (And as far as casting minorities, I'd like to point out that the original Predator had an interracial cast, featuring Carl Weathers, Bill Duke and Sonny Landham.)
Taken as an actioner, Prey is interest-holding, but it pails in comparison to the Schwarzenegger original. Although the 1987 movie was obviously influenced by Aliens and Rambo, it was a also a pretty unique premise, with a script that offered a lot of surprises and inventive action sequences along the way. Prey gets off to a slow start -- and it does get better as it goes along, with some fine sequences (once we're past the first half hour anyway). But it isn't nearly as thrilling or engaging as the 1987 movie.
Prey is not a very original film either. Apart from being a Predator remake, it cribs from other sources -- in particular Mulan, while repurposing the scene of the skinned buffalo from Dances With Wolves. The end credits are basically a ripoff of the title sequence in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
The effects are not very good -- in fact they're frankly lousy in a lot of scenes. The CGI grizzly bear is laughably fake, and looks less convincing than the monster in Brotherhood of the Wolf! The score is crummy -- it's the usual percussion loops and vague chords, with no theme or melody. Had the filmmakers asked back Alan Silvestri, and let him do his thing, this movie would have been far-more intense and suspenseful -- and felt larger in scope too.
Most of the cast are excellent, but what really saves the movie is its lead, Amber Midthunder, who is just wonderful -- brave, spunky, ruthless, and beautiful too. That the film works at all is primarily down to her.
All things considered though, Prey is just...unceremonious, and "fails to ignite".
There's no suspense in the movie. I agree Paul there's nothing unique about the Native American element either. I found it was much more invested in promoting Disney's contemporary feminist agenda, wherein all the male characters were weak/ineffective/downright evil. Sadly that's precisely the reason why there is not a single surprise to be found with the movie. When you know the outcome based on the premise...
AndyDursin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 9:22 am
There's no suspense in the movie. I agree Paul there's nothing unique about the Native American element either. I found it was much more invested in promoting Disney's contemporary feminist agenda, wherein all the male characters were weak/ineffective/downright evil. Sadly that's precisely the reason why there is not a single surprise to be found with the movie. When you know the outcome based on the premise...
There are a lot of more interesting directions this movie could have gone in.
It would have been more inventive for the characters to use their traditional tactics to outsmart the "superior" opponent. Or maybe turn the tables toward the end so that "the hunter becomes the hunted" (ala Apocalypto). Or join forces with some of the French trappers, instead of using them as throwaway "bad guys".
The "girl power" angle wasn't too well-handled either. As I said I really liked Midthunder, but the idea of a woman beating-up a man wasn't believable.
But as you say, the ultimate issue with the movie is it just wasn't that engaging.
The wife chose this to watch on a rainy labor day morning. There was potential for a good movie in there somewhere, but we came up with better plot twists than the writers, and the plot holes were so big I wonder how the filmmakers couldn't see them.
Spoilers:
Chris Pratt does his usual character- a heroic every man. I liked him better as doofus Andy on Parks & Rec. The storyline: In the future, aliens have invaded, so the only way to get soldiers is to, go back in time before it happened and draft people from the past.
Immediately, the question is raised, if they know when the aliens arrive and where, why not stop it when it happens? He meets his grown up daughter, who he doesn't want to see die (but of course does). Once they solve the alien problem with a virus, why is he worried? Once he goes back in time, it changes the future, so the dramatic stakes are non-existent. At another point they lock up the big alien, keeping it sedated. The main characters discuss how they keep it drugged every hour. Then it wakes up. Did they forget to give it the medicine? The entire 3rd act wouldn't happen if they had set an alarm clock.
One part Aliens, one part back to the future, it isn't half as good as either. Good FX when you see them, although most of the movie is in the usual industrial buildings and offices. Unhelpful soundtrack by Balfe.
My better ending? The crashed alien spacecraft buried in the ice wasn't random aliens, it was a spaceship sent from the future in another attempt to save the future, but something went wrong and it went back in time, meaning that the future caused their own mess.
That's about what I thought as well Bobamike, it was watchable but very silly. Some workable ideas but it was almost as if there were too many of them stuffed into the film.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) 5.5 of 10
=Okay after all my troubles with the disc I did manage to get through the entirety of the film. It was the first time I'd really taken a good look at it in decades and seeing it in this high quality offered me a reminder of what it was like when I saw it in 1979 at age 10. A lot of optical razzle-dazzle and precious little in the way of a compelling plot.
As a story, TMP is really a mess. It's basically a high-falutin remake of the "Changeling" episode only instead of a miniature old Earth probe we have something on a vast scale. Ironically, Nomad was far more destructive since he actually destroyed whole civilizations whereas the death toll from V-Ger is considerably less with the Klingon ships and the space station. Then we get an ending ripped off from both 2001 and a first season "Space 1999" episode (while the scene where Kirk gathers everyone on the Recreation deck to explain everything is ripped off from Battlestar Galactica's pilot episode where Lorne Greene assembles everyone to tell them about Earth). But it's increasingly clear that plot is secondary to visual effects, hence the long scene of the approach to the Enterprise which plays out in silence to Goldsmith's music or the wormhole sequence. The end result is anything but a good case of Trek storytelling which is why "Wrath of Khan" succeeded in rescuing the franchise because it brought things back to basics. Goldsmith's score is terrific, but it's utterly lacking in that sense of being distinctively "Trek" which IMO is what Horner succeeded at in WOK and why I feel Horner had earned the right for his music to become the default standard for the series (and why I was opposed to its absence in Trek IV among other things). The less said about those AWFUL costumes, the better.
It was great to revisit it, but seeing it in peak visual splendor reminded me why TMP was seriously lacking in terms of heart and storytelling.
Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:25 pm
Then we get an ending ripped off from both 2001 and a first season "Space 1999" episode (while the scene where Kirk gathers everyone on the Recreation deck to explain everything is ripped off from Battlestar Galactica's pilot episode where Lorne Greene assembles everyone to tell them about Earth).
I have to say I think that is a bit of a stretch. Dramatic necessity required Kirk to appraise the crew of the situation, and scenes in which a leader addresses their followers have been around since long before Battlestar Galactica.
I agree TMP is influenced by 2001 (the cloud sequence most especially) but the climax of Kubrick's film is vague and ambiguous whereas that of Star Trek is far more self-explanatory. I don't see anything that recalls Space: 1999.
Goldsmith's score is terrific, but it's utterly lacking in that sense of being distinctively "Trek" which IMO is what Horner succeeded at in WOK and why I feel Horner had earned the right for his music to become the default standard for the series (and why I was opposed to its absence in Trek IV among other things).
How do you define "distinctively Trek"? Even the scores of the original series were all unique -- there was no mistaking Fred Steiner for Gerald Fried, nor George Duning and Jerry Fielding for those composers, or each other.
From my perspective Goldsmith's style is what became "distinctively Trek" -- the way his TMP theme resurfaced in Next Generation, and his later recruitment for Star Trek V, First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis as well as the Voyager theme. Goldsmith was also influence on the TV scores of Ron Jones Jay Chattaway.
Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:58 pm
I agree TMP is influenced by 2001 (the cloud sequence most especially) but the climax of Kubrick's film is vague and ambiguous whereas that of Star Trek is far more self-explanatory. I don't see anything that recalls Space: 1999.
The first season episode "Force Of Life" with Ian McShane who ends up getting transformed into a new life form just like Decker (though against his will in this case and with dire results) and at the end there's even musing by Koenig and Victor Bergman about possibly witnessing a new form of evolutionary development.
I feel Goldsmith's TNP score captured Trek wonderfully. Horner's WOK is solid but, IMO, was a one trick pony. It fit WOK so well (and I play it a lot) but I don't think his stuff (his style) would have worked across multiple films (III was recycled material that went nowhere, IMO, with the possible exception of The Katra Ritual...though I understand that his score for III was necessary for continutiy in that storyline). I especially didn't see Horner's style as fitting for the tone and style of IV (or any of the other ones). Horner was for the moment, but Goldsmith's style and range could work across the scope of multiple movies and storylines...again, IMO.
That's an interesting way of putting it. I think you're right Michael. Horner, thematically, certainly seemed to be out of ideas by the time he did STAR TREK III which is mostly a pale imitation of KHAN. It's one other reason I didn't want him coming back to IV, not to mention that sweeping "high seas" romantic sound was too dense for the more lighthearted, frolicking tone of THE VOYAGE HOME.
I liked the way he used the Courage theme to get out of SEARCH FOR SPOCK (it's probably the best use of the TV theme in the movies) before rolling into his end credits -- but I think he was spent with the series and, musically, had nothing left to say after III, which I don't think is nearly on the level of his score for II. I know Eric and some fans think he should have done IV for continuity's sake but I disagree and feel his score for III is evidence enough that it was time he moved on (and did).
To clarify one point. It's not that I think Horner should have kept doing all the Trek film scores per se, but that his main theme at least in terms of the credits, had become for me the default "sound" of the series finding its voice after the first movie ended up being a colossal misfire on so many levels. You can have Rosenmann do the same kind of score he did in Trek IV but if you still at least use Horner's theme for the End Credits then there's the maintenance of consistency that was observed when Williams didn't do certain sequel films or going back to the days when Franz Waxman made sure to quote Newman's thematic material from "The Robe" in "Demetrius And The Gladiators". That's really been more the source of my objection in that Horner's work was discarded wholesale and we were starting over from scratch with a new main theme for the movie. That to me was cinematically inconsistent.
mkaroly wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 10:14 am
Horner's WOK is solid but, IMO, was a one trick pony. It fit WOK so well (and I play it a lot) but I don't think his stuff (his style) would have worked across multiple films (III was recycled material that went nowhere, IMO, with the possible exception of The Katra Ritual...though I understand that his score for III was necessary for continutiy in that storyline).
Oddly enough, Horner considered his score for Star Trek III "vastly better than Star Trek II. It's a much more interesting score, and for me, a much more beautiful score than Star Trek II".
Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 1:26 pm
You can have Rosenmann do the same kind of score he did in Trek IV but if you still at least use Horner's theme for the End Credits then there's the maintenance of consistency that was observed when Williams didn't do certain sequel films or going back to the days when Franz Waxman made sure to quote Newman's thematic material from "The Robe" in "Demetrius And The Gladiators".
Rosenman was way-too egotistical to ever consider integrating another composer's themes into his score though.
I do think Horner -- and good many other composers -- would have better served Star Trek IV than Rosenman. I always found Rosenman's title music trite and melodically unimaginitive, with its recycling of Lord of the Rings and the "Christmas in the 23rd Century" style.
I don't want to rehash the same arguments we've had with Rosenman though I do want to make a larger point that IV was hugely popular and one of the most acclaimed and successful films by far in the entire series. It's not even close on that end. If there was a real issue with the score it did not in the least impact the film's performance. As well as most anyone's enjoyment with it (well at least outside you guys obviously!
