Prey moves the Predator franchise forward, by taking it back in time
By focusing on the stories of the human characters—in a uniquely anachronistic setting—director Dan Trachtenberg rekindles interest in the uneven film series
Film Reviews Predator
There’s a fallacy in thinking each subsequent entry of a franchise needs to go bigger. What worked well for Aliens and Terminator 2: Judgment Day, simply isn’t applicable to every 80s-born sci-fi/action franchise that Hollywood repeatedly attempts to reinvigorate. With Dan Trachtenberg’s Prey, the long-running Predator franchise finally has an entry that can stand as an equal to the original film, precisely because it narrows its focus on the story elements that matter dramatically, instead of unnecessarily expanding the franchise’s mythology.
A prequel to Predator, Prey is set in 1719, following Naru (Amber Midthunder), a young Comanche warrior who wants to break the gender traditions of her tribe and become a hunter. Already a skilled tracker and healer, Naru’s strength is put to the test when an unseen adversary endangers her tribe. Within this new setting, Trachtenberg strips the Predator franchise back down to its core elements—the ruthlessness of this alien species and the ingenuity of humanity when confronted with nearly impossible odds. In concentrating on character and location, he backs off of the world-changing repercussions of the franchise’s immediate predecessors, creating an involving and tense character-driven experience whose strengths rely on narrative simplicity and a compelling lead in Midthunder.
Populated by American Indian characters as opposed to the glistening, muscle-bound military men of McTiernan’s film, Prey immediately sets itself apart from its predecessors. Written by Patrick Aison, the script takes its time before launching into the Predator’s bloodshed, grounding the audience in the Comanche’s decidedly anachronistic 1700s culture before shifting into its more contemporary genre elements. Aison establishes what hunting means to the Comanche, defines the roles expected of men and women in their tribe, and spotlights Naru’s competitive relationship with her older brother, Taabe, who’s played with empathy and star-making confidence by newcomer Dakota Beavers. Trachtenberg and cinematographer Jeff Cutter, reteaming from their work on 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016), take great lengths to create a sense of naturalism and beauty, both in the landscape and performances, that leads naturally into the eventual showdown with an alien audiences know is waiting in the brush.
After a close call with a mountain lion that the tribe takes as an indication that Naru isn’t meant to be a hunter, she sets out alone to find out what’s threatening her home. Midthunder lends Naru’s ambitions exudes a restless impatience that hardens into self-assurance, and eventually, lethal opposition to the Predator. It’s impossible not to think of Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley and Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor when watching Midthunder go through the wringer and emerging, bloodied and determined, to continue the fight. Trachtenberg took a similar approach to directing Mary Elizabeth Winstead in 10 Cloverfield Lane, but there is something particularly fresh and exciting about seeing an American Indian actress breathe life into what has become an iconic arc.
After Naru’s first confrontation with the Predator, the film continuously escalates and it becomes a gauntlet run of near escapes and propulsive action, depicted in decidedly cool but never larger-than-life terms. Stunt coordinators Steven McMichael and Jeremy Marinas conjure magic magic with mostly primitive weapons like bows and arrows, hatchets, and swords, giving the fights the kind of brisk pacing and visceral impact that action junkies expect in a post-John Wick film landscape. Once a group of French hunters joins the Predator’s list of targets, Prey not only delivers gore in spades but provides some of the best moments in the franchise. Playing the extraterrestrial beast, Dane DiLiegro offers arguably the most savage iteration of the species we’ve yet seen, ignoring the mischievous humor McTiernan gives them in his film, making their pursuit all the more threatening, especially opposite the lithe, stealthy Naru.
It’s clear that while the filmmakers are taking the property seriously, they’re also having fun. Alongside their respect for the Comanche, to whom the film is dedicated (and producer Jhane Meyers is a Comanche and Blackfeet American Indian, ensuring respect and authenticity in its depictions of their culture), there is a giddiness in the filmmaking that suggests that the film was a passion project for all involved. There are several callbacks to the first film Trachtenberg and his collaborators deftly work into key moments, but Prey creates new iconic moments that set apart this entry, while helping the series continue, and even evolve.
This is the shot in the arm that the franchise needed—a confident addition to its timeline, populated with moments that will leave long-time fans grinning and will encourage newcomers to explore the rest of the franchise. Additionally a win for genre film representation, Prey knows exactly what it wants to be, expanding the Predator mythos by creating traditions among the human characters that are as meaningful, or more, than their alien foes. More franchise filmmaking should be like this—despite the fact that it’s headed to Hulu, its intimacy deserves to be seen on the biggest scale possible.
168 Comments
“decidedly anachronistic 1700s culture”From what I’ve heard about this movie, they went to some lengths to ensure that the culture was depicted accurately for the time. Where they talking about iPads or saying “what’s up dawg?” Or did nobody at the AV Club bother looking up what anachronistic means?
Judging by this review, I’m not sure that the AV Club bothered to check up on the usage of “American Indian” vs. “Native American,” either.
I thought “Indigenous Peoples” was the proper term now anyways
Probably, but it’s definitely not “American Indians.”
Exactly, is the writer of this piece a boomer. Because even when I was in school in the 80s we were taught the term “Native Americans” as the proper term. Which may not be the preferred term now but is a lot better then the one coined because the colonizing asshole Columbus didn’t know where the fuck he was.
Colonizing genocidal asshole.
I figured the genocide was a given when I said colonizer but you are right, its good to be precise with these things
I personally try to avoid “American Indian” because of its historical origin, but some indigenuous people actually prefer it over “Native American” or “First Nations.” Some don’t care and will use them interchangably. Others try to avoid generic terms altogether in favour of proper tribal names. There isn’t a single “right” answer. Just be respectful, change it if someone asks you to, and it shouldn’t be a big deal.
As one who’s family is from India, I want & wish for Native Americans to call themselves Native Americans/indigenous tribes or just go by whatever their respective tribal name is. Leave the word Indian for those of us from India.
Yeah it should stick to this way. I don’t understand how Columbus’s mistake was adapted for many centuries and why many Native Americans/indigenous tribes today even are OK with being called “Indians”. It’s like why honor a man who slaughtered and destroyed the lives of your fellow indigenous tribes?
What are you talking about? I’m a native dude and “American Indian” is used literally all the time when talking about Native Americans.
According to whom?
I like ‘First Nations’ as we say in Canada (as do most FN friends of mine, though Indigenous People is another good one). Here we’re getting more into actually saying what nation people come from, which is even better I think.
I thought the folks in question preferred to be named by tribe and don’t actually care about terms like “Indian” or “Native American.”
This appears to be correct. I posted a few comments explaining how AP recommends handling these identifiers. But they recommend naming specific tribe for individuals if it is known, and in this movie the characters are all Comanche, so that can safely be used in this case. But the actors all represent various other tribes so collectively, either Native American and American Indian are acceptable when you’re referring to the cast as a whole, or presumably when remarking on the significance of this type of representation in a genre film.
Proper news media usage should be to identify by tribal affiliation if it’s known and if it is applicable to an entire group of people being referenced. So for this film, as it only focuses on the Comanche people, the characters should be referred to as Comanche. For the actors, their real-life tribal affiliations may vary, so Native American and American Indian would typically be used as a general reference applicable to several people from different tribal affiliations. Per the AP Stylebook (which is the bible for most news orgs):
American Indians, Native Americans Both are acceptable terms in general references for those in the U.S. when referring to two or more people of different tribal affiliations. For individuals, use the name of the tribe; if that information is not immediately available, try to obtain it. He is a Navajo commissioner. She is a member of the Nisqually Indian Tribe. He is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Some tribes and tribal nations use member; others use citizen. If in doubt, use citizen. Avoid words such as wampum, warpath, powwow, teepee, brave, squaw, etc., which can be disparaging and offensive. In Alaska, the Indigenous groups are collectively known as Alaska Natives.First Nation is the preferred term for native tribes in Canada.Indian is used to describe the peoples and cultures of the South Asian nation of India. Do not use the term as a shorthand for American Indians.
I wish Natives would stop using the word Indian to describe themselves altogether and leave it just for people from India, but I guess this works too.
According to the National Museum of the American Indian at the Smithsonian, either is fine. It really depends on the individual or group.https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/informational/impact-words-tips
As someone who’s actually of Indian descent from India, I really wish people would stop calling Native Americans Indians and leave that term to be used to describe those from India. I get tired of having to explain to morons if I’m “dot or feather”.
See my other comment re: the AP Stylebook guidance on American Indian/Native American (both are considered acceptable and that style guide is used by an overwhelming majority of news outlets). I believe in matters such as this, the AP does its due diligence in consulting with different groups to established preferred verbiage.
Both are deemed acceptable by the Associated Press.
I came here to say something similar. I think the writer thought that “anachronistic” means “set in another time period”, which is not what it means.
It’s anachronistic in the sense that there are Native Americans fight space monsters. I don’t believe that ever happened historically to the Comanche.
First, it was the Comanche culture specifically, not the events of the movie that were referred to as anachronistic in the article. Second, historical fiction is not inherently anachronistic by virtue of inserting events or characters into the past. Imagining the historical Shakespeare had an affair with one of his actors: not anachronistic. Imagining that that same Shakespeare used a ball point pen to write his plays: anachronistic, (unless you’re also imagining a different historical reality). Similarly, imagining he saw a space alien’s starship: not anachronistic. Imagining he used a telescope to do so: anachronistic. “Anachronism” in this context means “getting historical details wrong, in the absence of another in-story explanation.” That doesn’t appear to be what the author meant.
So tell me, was “wild wild west” anachronistic or not? Anachronistic doesn’t just mean small inaccurate details, it can also be the basis for an entire concept.
Right. Next you’re gunna have to mansplain to me how Steampunk isn’t anachronistic. Anachronistic concepts aren’t only unintentional mistakes which seems to be your narrow definition. It’s also done on purpose. See: Steampunk, Cowboy Beebop, Cowboys vs. Aliens, Prey ect…
See where I wrote “in the absence of another in-story explanation” and “unless you’re imagining a different historical reality” and “in this context”? Yeah, I bet you did.
Miss my point and double down much? I’ll make it clear for you…Prey is a purposeful anachronistic mishmash. Just.like steampunk or cowboy beepop, or a bazillion other examples. Your definition is purposely narrow. There’s ALWAYS an “in-story explanation” in anachronistic fiction. “What if past but high tech stuff?”. In this case it’s “What if Indians but Aliens?”
“’ll make it clear for you…Prey is a purposeful anachronistic mishmash.”No, it isn’t.“Your definition is purposely narrow.”Not my definition, and no it isn’t.“In this case it’s “What if Indians but Aliens?””That’s not an anachronism.
Lazy. Just quoting me and saying “nah-uh” doesn’t count as a rebuttal. Your superficial definition is narrow af. Google up a dictionary
“Just quoting me and saying “nah-uh” doesn’t count as a rebuttal.”
Yes, it does.
Nah uh
I don’t think aliens meeting 1719 characters is any more anachronistic than aliens meeting 2022 characters. Maybe aliens had great technology 300 years ago. Anachronistic is when 1719 characters have technology (or use language etc) that they didn’t have at the time. Or if a character in Downton Abbey refers to a book that didn’t come out fir another 20 years.
The space monsters aren’t from the future (relative to the Comanche, unless all the “maybe there’s time travel” stuff from the piece about the series earlier this week actually means something), they’re just fictional. A story where the Comanche fight European witches would also be not a thing that ever historically happened to the Comanche, but it wouldn’t be anachronistic, it would just be, you know, a fantasy story.The conventional use of anachronistic would be the 1700s-era Comanche wearing digital watches. Or if this were set before Europeans came to the Americas, if characters in North America were using iron weapons.You could more vaguely argue that the story is anachronistic (relative to the Comanche) because it’s not one the Comanche themselves would have imagined or told (if that’s true – I don’t know where “people from other worlds” would have fit into their cosmology), but I don’t think that’s a reasonable use of the word, and I’m the sort of person who gets annoyed when medieval characters are all secret atheists with post-freudian psychologies.
It’s anachronistic in the sense that there are Native Americans fight space monsters. I don’t believe that ever happened historically to the Comanche.
Records from that era are spotty at best.
You’re way more fun than these two nerds that wrote walls of text to mansplain anachronisms to me. I like ppl who get jokes.
Yo dude, you’re like the Predator of hunting word misusing humans. Straight up slaughtered that poor author. Now back to your home planet with you!
I’m gonna guess that the Comanches as depicted are a bit more “pre-historic” or naive than the Mongol-like imperial, military, and economic superpower the Spanish were often forced to treat them as during the 18th century.
I think, by many reviews, that there’s parts where the main characters are surprised or dismayed by white mistreatment of the buffalo, or where they find white men alien in the first place. The Comanche were in fact the primary diminishers of bison populations at the time (swiftly replaced, of course, but not before the US’ creation and westward expansion), and interacted with Spanish settlements all the time, primarily trading in horses and, you guessed it, bison hides and meat. That, and just outright raiding them because they could.
I’m gonna guess they used French dudes instead of Spanish for the European interlopers because it’s easier for audiences to dunk on the whiter snobbier French than the Spanish, hehe. That, and perhaps that French-speaking actors are for some reason easier to get in British Columbia.
But, you know, who gives a shit, I’m sure it works for the narrative.
So glad I’m not the only one who was confused by this. The editorial standards are basically at Blogspot level around here now.
Quite a few sentences in the review make little sense, too. See “magic magic” – maybe they meant “movie magic”. Also: “Midthunder lends Naru’s ambitions exudes a restless impatience”.
I’m so ready for this. don’t even have strong feelings about this franchise, but Trachtenberg has really proved himself as a consistent and dependable action-horror director, and Amber Midthunder is fucking awesome and hasn’t been used well since Legion. this looks extremely up my alley
“Amber Midthunder is fucking awesome and hasn’t been used well since Legion.”
yes, so fucking pumped as well, and I actually know very little about the series. I don’t know which edition is being released this friday, but I hope the Comanche version is released as well.
on Australia anyway the Comanche version is available on Disney +. unfortunately it’s not hard-encoded with subtitles, and for some reason the only subtitles available are Closed Captioned so you can’t watch the Comanche dub without also reading about trees rustling and wind blowing between every line of dialogue. that drives me crazy personally, but I know some people don’t mind it – still hope we get a proper set of subtitles soon because I really want to watch the Comanche version of this too
I don’t think she was used so well in legion either, but yeah, good to see her in a lead role
Mate, I’ve just seen this and while I loved the film as a whole I think you’re particularly going to enjoy it as a Midthunder showcase.
I just saw it too, and you’re right, she absolutely killed this. easily the most human a Predator lead has ever been without losing the transformation into preternatural badass you have to become to defeat the Predator. she was so good!
“Playing the extraterrestrial beast, Dane DiLiegro offers arguably the most savage iteration of the species we’ve yet seen, ignoring the mischievous humor McTiernan gives them in his film, making their pursuit all the more threatening, especially opposite the lithe, stealthy Naru.”
Though I haven’t seen it in a hot minute, I’ve probably watched Predator more times than is healthy and don’t remember the Predator having “mischievous humor.” Though the movie itself has a lot of fun treating Dutch and his crew of 80s action heroes like they were teenagers in a slasher film.
Just so we’re clear. Predator 2 is also awesome and I will hear no-one say otherwise!
Predator 2 has a lot of good stuff in it and its a fine Predator movie. The first one is better. But Predator 2 is better then any other Predator movie afterwards. The biggest issue with Predator movies is that someone thought they had to explain the Predators more and more. When “They are big game hunter aliens” is really all you need to know. Who cares about their society, their motives beyond hunting, if there are factions in their society. Plus all the AvP stuff is pretty crap, its a great comic book idea but was never really a good movie idea.
Predators was surprisingly good.
I’ve heard that but I have no watched it yet. I think every time I tried to watch it, it was not streaming on any service I had. Its on Hulu now so maybe I should give it a go after I watch Prey
Adrien Brody seems like one of the worst possible castings for an action hero. But he wound up being decent, though he’s certainly no Arnie.
as the years go on and we get fewer action movies it gets better and better in hindsight, too.
Particularly compared to The Predator.
I never thought Jim from the Office would be an action hero, either.
Agree. He held his own. I totally forgot Robert Rodriguez directed that, too. It shows, as the action scenes are competently staged and the whole ensemble mostly works. I could have done without Walton Goggins fantasizing about raping a bunch of women at one point (it felt like a line Rob Zombie could have written). He could have just said fucking and still get the same sleazy point across.
Rodriguez didn’t direct it, he wrote it while Nimrod Antal directed.Goggins’ character is supposed to be a death-row inmate, so it’s fitting that his fantasies are so anti-social.
“Nimrod” the hunter directed Predators…fitting!
It’s nominal determinism.
is it numisnal determinism if Teddy Roosevelt was a dime?
Ah, good call. I think I was half paying attention to the credits and saw his name and saw Danny Trejo, so I assumed RR directed lol.
Adrian was the anti-Arnold. Skinny, skinny little wisp of a man. Lol
Yeah, I liked it better than I thought I would. It’s aware of its own cheesy-ness and indulges in that. It felt a little over-edited too. Maybe it was over-scripted on the other hand. Eight or ten characters had backstories that either needed fleshing out, or shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Stacked cast, though. A “director’s cut” in some theoretical box-set sometime in the future would be worth a look.
After I watched it 25 times, I finally found it hard to get past some obvious faults in it.
That being said, I watched it 25 times.
Not nearly as many times as Werdup has seen the original.
Pffffft. I can recite the original beginning to end, including the actual gaps in dialogue and the music changes. I lost count of that number around the same time I lost count of Aliens viewings. If they put me in solitary after they find all the bodies, I will never be without a film catalog. =P
I agree. I just rewatched the whole series (minus AVP) and was surprised at how much I enjoyed Predators (despite its ludicrous premise and odd choice of lead actor). The Predator, however, was a flaming car wreck.I will not tolerate any disparaging remarks about Predator 2. Danny Glover, Gary Busey and Bill MF’in Paxton are equal to at least five Arnies.
I agree, but it’s only the fourth-best Predator movie now that Prey is out, sandwiched between the original and P2 on my list.
Plus all the AvP stuff is pretty crap, its a great comic book idea but was never really a good movie idea.
The video games based on the concept were good at their very worst, and classics at their best. But it’s definitely not an idea with any actual dramatic heft.
Exactly. As a game it’s a fine concept. As a comic with no need to worry about budget and plot can take a back seat, it’s okay too. But as a movie it didn’t work. Part of that, for me, was setting it in the present instead of the future. For me I can buy Predators still running around in the future more then Xenomorphs on modern day earth
The problem is it’s two unknowable antagonistic entities with genital heads fighting because that’s what they do. Even the movie’s tagline understood that there’s no reason to care who wins. Kaiju movies manage to humanize their monsters more, and even when they don’t the sheer scale of the destruction makes the fighting meaningful to people.
“Even the movie’s tagline understood that there’s no reason to care who wins” – literally loling at this
Every Predator movie is fine, at least. It’s a consistent series as long as you remember that they’re all dumb as rocks.
https://cinematicdiversions.com/predator-2-1990-review/In Conclusion: Predator 2 is one of the best experiences you can have with film nostalgia. There is nothing more delightful than seeing a film thirty years later and enjoying it a lot more than you did the first time around. Time has been kind to Predator 2. In the end, it is a fun and silly action film.
Predator 2 certainly has fun moments and sure, I’ll concede I’ve warmed up more to it over the years. But it still doesn’t equal the original for two big reasons: 1.) Too much repetition from the original. By that I mean several scenes are remakes of scenes from the first: the discovery of the corpses, the funerals for Blaine/Danny, the main character’s realizations, the main character running away from an explosion at the end. 2.) The facial effects of the creature itself don’t look as convincing. In the original, they did some nice realistic work for the mandibles and facial movements. In the sequel, they look too plasticky.Though full of great character actors, I also don’t find the supporting cast to be as engaging as the original’s. Now all that said, the film is certainly fun and I give it props for the different location and exploring more of the creature’s mythology.
This sounds like a good call by everyone involved. I’d go see it in a heartbeat if it was in theaters and this was 1989.Now can we get one set in the midst of a horrific World War I battlefield?
Really psyched for this one.
I really wish this had a theatrical release. But hey, I’m not going to complain that I can just wake up tomorrow and watch it at home. And since it isn’t Warner Bros releasing the film, I can be pretty sure they won’t cancel the release some time this afternoon.
really looking forward to this, still quite disappointed i don’t have the option to pay to see it in a theatre. would have loved even a one or two night only event.
This sounds good enough to overcome my initial reaction of “if Predators discovered Earth this early, they would have just slaughtered the whole planet or left because it was too boring.”
From Predator 2 we know they had been coming to earth for a long time and the whole point is they are big game hunters. So they are not slaughtering every human they see, they are hunting the “Alpha” humans.
Not that we need more story but if they revealed in one of these movies that Earth was, in fact, a Predator game reserve they intentional manipulated our development to make us more challenging to hunt, that could be cool. Who knows, maybe hunting humans is like hunting on earth. Before the Predator can go hunt they have to get a license for each human they plan to kill and take back and are heavily fined(or lose their license) if they take back too many or intentional kill a young buck of pregnant doe
Yes, I can see that. That’s the reason for all the irrational wars of choice. Training for the prey.
I love the idea that these fuckers are so into hunting and super long term planners that they were like “Okay so we all agree that hunting giant lizard monsters has gotten kinda boring, so lets throw an asteroid at the planet and wipe them out. That should give those apes a few million years to get really good at killing each other and seed the planet with a very powerful but limited energy source whos use will also increase the temperature because I did not buy this new fishnet shirt to cover it with a parka to hunt these monkeys.”
LOL!“Dude, I paid 50 bucks for this Gucci fishnet and you want me to cover it with last year’s Columbia puffy coat? Fuq is wrong with you bro? Turn the damn heaters on!”
Imagine redneck Predators that do the equivalent of fishing with dynamite.
This seems like the kind of movie that should have gotten a theatrical release.
At this point I’ll be happy if it comes out on Blu ray.
This is typically the exact kind of movie that premieres in August. The last predator came out in August. Surprised this movie, dumped on Hulu, is getting good reviews. Should have released it in theaters it seems.
Honestly could have pushed it to a late September release and hope for some October Halloween money. Seems like these days they just shoot for ghost stories and slasher movies around Halloween, but Predator movies are straight up old school monster/alien invasion movies that should be celebrated around Halloween
Nah this is is perfect for August, like previous some previous films. Why? Bc there’s literally nothing else out new in theaters except for fucking SuperPets. But only a tiny fraction of ppl are ever going to see this, or even know that it exists. This will become the “forgotten” movie in the franchise, which really sucks. “The Predator 2018″ was god awful but still earned something.
Maybe the good response to the movie will encourage Disney to redo the sketchy animal CGI and release it to theaters. It was a great looking movie, and I would pay to see it again on a big-ass screen.
it’s on Hulu because Hulu produced it for themselves, there was never a different plan. Same deal for the new Hellraiser due later this year
I am guess it didn’t since the last one(which was bad) bombed hard
the predator is one of the most ineptly made movies i’ve ever seen released by a major studio.
Cutting a major character out of the 3rd act at the last minute didn’t help, but its main failing was making a group where every character was The Wacky One – imagine “Seinfeld” but they’re all Kramers.
I wish it did. My internet isn’t good enough for streaming.
I had to use subtitles a few times cause the dialog is a mix of Comanche and English. Also there are no subtitles when someone is speaking in Comanche or French.I’m glad this movie was available on Hulu because it’s just as good as Predator (1987) and Predator 2 (1990). Not having to wait months for a home release was the right choice.
I’ve said it before but I kinda wish this was pre-white people in general (for the setting, I mean), but still, this looks cool as fuck and I’ll be watching.
They’re probably there so there’s a group the predator can just slaughter while the audience cheers.
**SPOILERS**Yes.
it honestly was great watching the settlers get slaughtered, and nice to have a group that aren’t nazis that modern audiences recognize as being just as hell bent on genocide.
It could be interpreted that the Predator here serves an analogy for the European treatment of Native Americans. Notice how their language was left just as untranslated and “otherworldly” as the Predator’s clicks, at least from the Native American perspective. There’s also a return again and again to presenting a pattern of something hunting another something (or someone). On the surface we get a combo suspense, action, horror, sci-fi film yet it also delivers a real world message. Some of the most powerful narratives function along these lines opening the door to deeper conversations.
Moment I found out the director did Ten Cloverfield Lane I was in. That film was spectacular plus or minus the ending. Glad to see Predator can bounce back after the AVP films and The Predator.
That film was spectacular plus or minus the ending.My wife hates science fiction shows and movies (yet her favourite video games are the Horizon franchise and The Outer Worlds — psychotic behaviour) and I showed her 10 Cloverfield Lane not realizing that she had no reference point for it, so just as the final scenes were happening, she turned to me, completely pissed off, and said, “Are those aliens? Is this a movie about fucking aliens?”But yeah, I wish it had remained The Cellar and wasn’t forced to become a Cloverfield movie because it’s great little thriller without the fucking aliens (and that totally kills the tension vis-à-vis what’s going on outside the bunker).
I do wonder what the original ending was like, because boy does that last 15 minutes feel tacked on in the most obvious of ways.
I don’t have any special desire to see this, but, I was on a podcast with Dan Trachtenberg in 2010, which, by the transitive law of podcasting, means I pretty much directed this movie.
I just finished it and you did great on this one!
You’ll probably want to change that statement after watching it. :DCheers
I’m a white Canadian and lately we’ve been doing a lot of soul searching about our relationship with our indigenous peoples, including how we refer to them in media. It’s become jarring for me to see the term “American Indian” used because we would never use the term “Indian” up here any more. Is “Native American” not the preferred terminology in the US?
Hell, there are still people who use the phrase “Red Indian” but, to be fair, those people are horrible old racists who will probably die off in the not-too-distant future. But you are correct that “Native American” (or Indigenous American) is preferred over “American Indian” — especially because they are not, in fact, “Indians”… Too bad the US doesn’t have the term “First Nations” like in Canada.
The famous activist Russell Means caused a bit of a stir by saying he preferred to be called an Indian, as he found “Native American” should apply to anyone born in the country.
No offense to Mr. Means but I think he was being foolish as he’s basically honoring an incorrect term. Also, considering there’s more of a South Asian population in America these days with more Indians from India, he should let those from the actual country use their correct description.
“American Indian” was used for so long that plenty of modern “Native Americans” actually prefer that term to the latter – not to mention that “native” would never be used to describe, say, people with Celtic ancestry in Norway. Also, they’re not native “Americans” – this was never supposed to be a country in the first place.
A celt in norway in any period of history (or pre-history) would be a foreigner.
Apologies to the Celts, but I think you get my point.
Well, I wish they’d stick to calling themselves indigenous or whatever their respective tribal name is. Leave the word Indian to describe those from India.
It’s just that simple!
I can agree with that. AP Style dictates that either Native American or American Indian are acceptable if it’s referring to a collective group within the current U.S. geography. I think this review handled it appropriately based on the AP’s guidance. It referred to the characters as Comanche and referred to the actors collectively by the terms approved by the AP. I’m sure they consult a lot of experts and representatives from this community before landing on a consensus for proper identifiers. As with anything, I’m sure some will disagree, which is why they PREFER identifying by tribal affiliation for individuals.
You have to understand. The rage explodes quite quickly down here, but the actual change? Not so much.
I guess we’re lucky in Australia since we got to use the word Aboriginal to label the indigenous peoples, even though there’s hundreds of different mobs.
Could also reasonably just cut through the bs and call them The Invaded, because if you’re not Aboriginal you’re arguably an invader.
Indian has been a term so ubiquitous since its use by colonizers in the US, and in laws and in treaties, that it turned into indigenous populations adopting it. To this day, there is a large populus of indigenous people who prefer American Indian over Native American. https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/faq/did-you-know#:~:text=The%20consensus%2C%20however%2C%20is%20that,preferred%20by%20many%20Native%20people.
And I don’t understand why either. Why do some Native Americans wish to go by an incorrect term that was only given around 500 years ago and one given by a man who pillaged, raped and destroyed the lives of their fellow indigenous tribes? Also, as one who is Indian from the country of India I’ve always been irritated by having to explain “what kind of Indian I am”. As India was well known to European scholars in 1492, it should have been obvious that the people in the Caribbean were not the same as the people from India. I never understood why this misnomer continued to persist into the present day too! We’re the second most populous country in the world and we have to explain which “type of Indian we are”? Our cultures are completely different and have their own distinctions. And I mean no disrespect as I completely respect Native American culture. I just wish we would use the proper terms in this day and age. And don’t even get me started on these unfunny dumbasses with their stupid “dot or feather” joke every time the word Indian is brought up. Ugh.
In 15th century Europe the word India or Indies referred to basically all of southern Asia, from modern day India, through Southern China, the entirety of Southeast Asia and the archipelagos. There was no India as a country then and the term didn’t apply to a specific people but instead a massive region. Columbus thought he had reached Champa, modern day southern Vietnam. He didn’t think he reached modern day India. European sea trade with the region that became India didn’t start until after Columbus reached the Americas, and the English name for the modern country of India was forced on it by colonizers starting around the same time.
No, India DID exist as a country back then as there were countless civilizations flourishing there and outsiders of India knew of the country and its people. Alexander the Great, Islamic Rulers from the Middle East and the Portuguese were some of the non-Indians to know about the country. It was known as India back then too as the name originally derived from the Indus River and the modern day English term of “India” is taken from Greek and Latin.
Read for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India#:~:text=The%20English%20term%20is%20from,modern%20Sindh%2C%20in%20Pakistan).You also seem to be making excuses for Columbus. The point is that he still landed in the wrong place and added an annoying mistaken term to an entirely different group of people while the people who are actual Indians from the correct place of origin annoyingly had to be involved in a case of mistaken identity for centuries due to him being an idiot. And I haven’t even gotten into the reality of him being an evil genocidal maniac who destroyed native civilizations. Yet, some Native Americans still want to go by his mistaken terms to honor such a man?
I did read for myself, and as your link shows, the term referred to different regions at different times and obviously not the modern country of India, which didn’t exist as an independent country until the 20th century. Look at the 1492 Behaim globe. The region of India encompasses all of southern Asia, including China. It basically meant anything east of the Indus river. It wasn’t referring to a country or a specific people. The region that is today India was various kingdoms whose borders had nothing to do with modern day India.India is only called India today because it was decided on by European colonizers. Not much different than American Indians in that regard.
But again you’re missing what I’m getting at. The point I’m getting at is that the native tribes of North America, the Caribbean and Canada are all a different culture, ethnicity from those who originate from the South Asian country of India and I wish people would stop using the term Indian as they’re both the same thing.
India was called India long before the British colonial era and was described like that in Old English as far back as the 9th Century. It’s a BIG difference than some idiot European explorer mistakenly referring to an entirely different group of people as those from India. So basically you’re defending Columbus’s mistake and the use of the misnomer? This guy destroyed the lives of those the Caribbean and their civilization and gave them a mistaken name! I really don’t know what to say here.
Seriously, fuck off with the “defending Columbus” bullshit, because I’m obviously not doing that. You’re starting to sound like a hindutva nationalist. What was being described as India, Indie or any other similar term, by Europeans in the past has literally nothing to do with the country of India today. It referred to vast regions that encompassed hundreds of cultures and ethnicities, none of which referred to themselves as “Indian.” It’s a European name that was foisted upon them, the same as Native Americans. In the 16th century all of Southeast Asia and the archipelagos (which are still called the East Indies) was termed India or Indies.The term contracting to be more specific to the Indian Subcontinent was during the European colonial period, and even then there was no country called India, nor the borders defined today. There were colonial territories, defined by Europeans and multiple -stans they decided to come up with to name them, and they certainly didn’t care that it encompassed multiple cultures. The only reason India is the english term for the modern country is because the British occupation forced English as a language onto the varied cultures of modern day India and forcefully defined its borders. None of the diverse native population defined themselves as “Indians.” They adopted a European term placed upon them for hundreds of years just like American Indians did.It’s also impossible to not see some Hindutva bullshit when you say stuff like this: The point I’m getting at is that the native tribes of North America, the Caribbean and Canada are all a different culture, ethnicity from those who originate from the South Asian country of India and I wish people would stop using the term Indian as they’re both the same thing.Not people who originate from South Asia, but specifically people who originate from within the borders of modern day India. There isn’t, and never has been, a homogenous “culture” or “ethnicity” on the Indian Subcontinent in the terms you’re applying. Historically it’s been one of the most diverse areas in the world in its shifting cultures and populations. And it still is, but you clearly think there’s only one culture and ethnicity that defines being Indian.
Well, you do seem to be defending the misnomer with the excuse of “well the country wasn’t the same as it is now”. Of course it wasn’t! No country in the entire world has been the same as it was several centuries ago. The original name for India was Sind taken from the Sindh River, then the Ancient Indians called it Sindhu (also called Hindu by the Ancient Persians). Then the Ancient Greeks labeled the river as the Indus River which the word “Indian” and “India” came from. Then Ancient Greek writers began calling it as India. This is confirmed by various sources as well! Hindustan was another name for the country so some variation of “-Ind” or “-Hind” has been part of the region’s name for several centuries long BEFORE the 16th century or the British Raj. And no it is not the same as European explorers giving the indigenous tribes of America as “Indians” as India’s name was a mix of root variations of the word originally given within the region and blended by outside influences (the Ancient Persians and Greeks) who themselves assimilated into India’s ethnic makeup. The Greek philosopher Herodotus and the explorer Hecataeus even called the people of the Indus Valley as Indians as well. Yes, India is made up of different ethnic groups and so forth, but there are common unifying aspects that defined those in the Indus region: the presence of the Sanskrit & Hindi languages, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and Sikhism being practiced, the regional foods and the traditional garments of it’s citizens (like dhotis for men and saris for women). Columbus should have quickly realized that these natives of the Caribbean were NOT the same as those in India/South Asia. All I ask is that people use the proper and correct terms since we’re much more knowledgeable and well versed in different cultures and countries these days. That makes me a Hindutva nationalist asshole? LOL I AM TOTALLY AGAINST WHAT THEY STAND FOR! I just want for the word Indian to correctly refer to those from India and for Native Americans/Indigenous tribes to use their respective tribal names or whatever and just call each other by how we should be properly called. Why continue using what a misguided idiot explorer used several centuries ago because we didn’t know any better? What’s so wrong about that?
In america native american is a term almost exclusively used by white people, the phrase implies that they were american before america existed which makes no sense.
Neither Native American or American Indian is correct. The correct answer is the person’s tribe. I am Osage, but since few know what that is or anything about Osage Nation, I don’t mind Native American. I usually correct people when they say American Indian half heartedly because we aren’t from India. But many “Natives” don’t care. They’re both wrong, it’s really the tribe. Think about calling a Frenchman and a Brit simply a European. Or calling a Canadian, Mexican, or US Citizen a North American. The funny thing is if aliens came down they probably would call us north Americans. Cuz they couldn’t tell the difference. In North America, the tribes were completely different from each other. Language, looks, religion, trade. Some tribes were warlike some were farmers. Osages were taller than some and considered fair skinned. And that’s how they were described by even white men who traded, but in the end they were all the enemy or Indians. So the actual name of a “native American” is Osage, or Cherokee, or Souix, or Blackfoot. And yes it actually is important, since while people think all tribes are the same… They are definitely not. Just ask the Morongo, who have a billion $ casino while most are poor.BTW this isn’t being woke. Natives really don’t care about that. Most tribes are destitute and have a high alcohol/meth problem which the US govt is totally OK with. Technically we are Nations living on US or Canadian soil that they wouldn’t mind if they didn’t exist. Sorry to send so much! Never posted here. Really looking forward to this movie. The funny thing is…. Killers of the Flower moon is about my tribe and what made it take so long is that our tribe demanded a certain number of actual Osage be used. Kinda makes it hard to cast. Sometimes it’s better to not be woke and just make a good movie. I bet the same happened with this movie.
Think about calling a Frenchman and a Brit simply a European.People do that all the time. It really boils down to scale. America is technically one country but it’s effectively 50 different countries. When people are referring to someone from Texas, they usually just call them American, not Texan. Same goes for people from every state. It’s pretty common for people to be referred to by the continent or subcontinent they reside in.
This article identifies the tribe. But we also need some way to refer to the group of tribes collectively. To use your example, sure, a Frenchman may want to be identified as being a Frenchman, and a Brit and Brit, but there are times when we are talking about people in Europe from different nations, so there’s nothing wrong with using the term “European.”
Neither Native American or American Indian are correct. The correct answer is the name of the tribe or Nation. But the problem is that I’m Osage Nation and everyone has figured we all look the same so we are Cherokee, sometimes Souix, or Apache. Those were more warrior tribes so became more famous and once everyone became ubiquitous what can we do? Expect anyone to get lessons on what tribes were from what areas? So after we were basically wiped out, we just accepted American Indian or Native American because what else can we do? I prefer Native American and half heartedly correct my friends by saying we aren’t Indians! It’s funny cuz people here are sounding like they are trying to be woke. Tribes were as different as countries, they looked different (osages were fairly tall) their economies were different, their religions were different… But imagine… If aliens came down and took over most of the continent… Mexicans, Canadians and US citizens, would probably be called North Americans or indigenous people, because they can’t tell the difference. Which is exactly what happened to the Tribal Nations. How many people say Asian, yet a Korean would be offended to be called Vietnamese and vice versa) Here’s the thing. Tribes aren’t woke because they are simply trying to stay alive at this point rampant meth and alcoholism leads to early deaths. And the US stole our money (killers of the flower moon) and like any country, you’re not happy with many small nations within your borders. So call us whatever you want. Shoot Redskin wasn’t even that bad because at least it was a reminder of the way “American Indians” were looked at. Erasing it just makes the the group that won feel better about themselves. Sorry to go on so long. I’m looking forward to the movie which I BELIEVE is about the Comanche Nation. Although I doubt they were all Comanche actors. Funny side note… It took a long time to make Killers of the flower moon because Osage Nation demanded a certain number of actual Osages were used… That’s how autonomous the tribes feel. Imagine trying to cast with local theater actors. I hope this and KOTFM are still good though.
Yes, Native Americans/indigenous tribe and the respective tribal name are all the correct way to describe those of native ancestry here in the United States, but we still have our share of idiots referring to them as “Indians” which I wish they’d stop already.
You must be a blast at parties.
Per the latest from the AP Stylebook, both American Indian and Native American are acceptable for members/citizens of tribes within the U.S. geography (using this loosely as the U.S. wasn’t yet established at this point). AP says to refer to tribes from Canada as First Nation and from Alaska as Alaska Natives. When referring to the characters from this film, Comanche would be the proper way to go because we know all the characters fit that affiliation. But since the actors all represent different tribal affiliations, they can collectively be referred to as Native American OR American Indian. I’m sure this will evolve in time, as it has over generations. Technically if you call out a specific actor, they SHOULD identify them by their specific tribal affiliation, but in this context I get why they went with more general terminology, as it’s notable to have a female action movie lead who is Native American/American Indian, period. That point might be lost if you referred to Amber Midthunder’s unique representation solely by her Fort Peck Sioux Tribe affiliation. People could think that just that specific tribal affiliation is underrepresented in the sci-fi/action/horror genre, when it’s really the entire Native American community that we don’t often see represented in these roles.
CGP Grey had a video about this. The term “American Indian” is preferred among many indigenous people in the USA because of the problem of “overinclusivity.” Many American Indians feel little or no cultural affinity to indigenous people outside the borders of the USA, and wish to distinguish themselves from, say, Canadian first nations or mesoamerican civilizations. Bottom line, if that’s what most of them want to be called, I’m cool with doing it.
But what about those from the country of India who get annoyed with the misnomer still being used when it’s very incorrect?
Indigenous
Apparently, the term “Native American” is falling out of favor with some groups. That doesn’t surprise me — like “African American,” it has a sterile, academic quality that feels like it was made up to address a problem, not a word that entered speech more naturally. You’d sort of like a term that feels colloquial, not like something designed by a sociologist.I think the key is (1) to respect the words that a group uses to describe itself; and (2) where there is disagreement within the group about the terms to use, to largely tolerate those differences.
Chiming in, as a proud member of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, that the term “Indian” is just fine with us. My mother (whose mother grew up on the reservation) always held that the term “Native American” was the brainchild of a bunch of white people with guilty feelings sitting around trying to think of ways to atone for the past that didn’t require a lot of effort. She had opinions. That aside, my view is that if other tribal members (or their descendants) want to embrace certain terminology, that’s for you to choose and for us to respect. (On a related note, don’t get my father’s side of the family, whose origins are in Calvillo, Mexico, started on the term “Latinx.”)Granted, it hasn’t published in a while, but here’s a link to the most recent Bad River tribal newsletter, where you can see for yourself how the tribe identifies on the masthead. http://www.badriver-nsn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210317_Newsletter.pdf
I read this book a couple years ago by a white guy and he notes in the preface that he uses the term “Indian” throughout the book because almost 100% of the indigenous/native/pick your term people he interviewed and researched with used that term. Note: super interesting book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus
I still it’s ridiculous that many Native Americans wish to be called like that and as someone who’s of Indian American descent (you know from the actual country of India), I wish people would stop calling the natives as Indians and use the proper terms in this day and age.
No offense but why go by a mistaken term given by a man (Columbus) who murdered, raped and destroyed the lives of your fellow tribal people?
As somebody who’s from the country of India, I get annoyed having to distinguish between our people when our cultures, languages, etc. have nothing to do with each other.
When and where is this released, and shouldn’t that information be in the review?
Hi! Yes, it should have been. It’s on Hulu in the U.S. as of a few hours ago.
Thanks!
I’m Britain, it’s on Disney+.And it’s bloody brilliant. But it should have been in cinemas.
Disney+ in Canada too, but agree it should have had a theatrical release
Glad they’ve stopped putting release information in their reviews. Now I can be completely surprised when I stumble across this on Hulu tomorrow.
I can’t wait for this. The first Predator is like a top 5 movie for me, and all the reviews for this one have been very positive
Yo! How sick would it be for a Predator to sing Back in Time by Huey Lewis and the News in that fucked up language they speak?
Throw in a DeLorean and I’ll find you the funding.
I still can’t get over someone from TRS is turning out to become one of my favorite filmmakers. Can’t wait for this one.
I
really enjoyed the movie. The big brother little sister dynamic between
Taabe and Naru was great. Kind wish they did a bit more of that instead
of the somewhat over the top bullying Naru got from the other hunters
in her tribe.The Predator was great. I like how this is set in a much more open
space compared to the other movies. This Predator didn’t have as much
thick vegetation and trees to hide in. It couldn’t just jump into the
trees and escape like the Predator in the first film. It was actually
more vulnerable. Although, I was expecting them to do something with the
colder weather. They establish in the previous films that the Predator
comes out to hunt during the hottest times. But this movie was set in
the fall and the lower temperature didn’t seem to have any effect.I also would have preferred if they had just shot the whole film in Commanche. I saw some of the dubbed version and it just didn’t feel right.
They definitely should have spent a bit more money to improve the CGI and given this a theatrical release.
Yea the CGI was kinda sus. I also thought the fight scenes where edited in a jank manner that made the sometime hard to follow. Also it seemed to me that she killed it a bit to easily.
Watched this last night and really enjoyed it. What I liked most is that it’s a very lean film – everything has its place and there’s no filler. Let’s now keep jumping back in time with future Predator movies. I’d like to see a Predator vs Dinosaurs film next please.
I remember Predator 2 being fun but cheesy…and undersupported by the studio. Predators got into the “big predator little predator” thing where in Jurassic Park the T-Rex is suddenly your friend. Also when the film’s really obvious big reveal happened a lady in the theater literally screamed, so at least that was good. TEH PREDATOR was pretty useless…could you even tell what happened to Sterling K. Brown’s character? How did he die exactly?This is the best one since the first, and because it’s so beautifully shot it might be the first one’s equal. Amber Midthunder is putting down some serious Summer Glau and just totally kills in the role. The guy playing her brother is fantastic. The dog should be president. Waayyyyy better than it had any right to be.
Waayyyyy better than it had any right to be.
One reason I think it is as good as it is, is because expectations were so low based upon previous entries.
I disagree, I would have been fine with an AVP level of meh, I was already about 30 minutes into it when I realized it was good
Summer Glau. Omg thank you. Every time I saw Amber’s cute little face it reminded me of someone, but I couldn’t place it.
Spoiler alert!
I liked it. I watched original and then this back to back (my wife had never seen the first one) and I thought the action was better and the story more interesting. The movie itself was beautiful (Alberta never disappoints). The French trappers added an interesting wrinkle as everyone in the movie was out to capture and/or kill each other. Loved the languages. Kinda wish they had released a cut that was all in Comanche and French with subtitles. It was certainly no worse than the original, which was overly long by 20-30 minutes and felt like an episode of the A-Team at times. And the dog lived, so +1 for that.
Also thought it was a great story, I felt the French trappers were a little cartoonish, like something out of a 90s cartoon. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the action and our leading lady.
We watched it this weekend and I thought it was pretty good. I should have waited to see the AV Club rating because I think it was a solid B. So I was going in with high hopes and was kinda disappointed…not much….it was just hyped a bit too much. I did enjoy how it was stripped down and raw. “Basic” weapons for the Predator….as much as they could.
They did release a comanche dub of the movie… supposedly. There’s a ton of press promoting the fact that this is the first full lenghth Comanche feature film.Now that being said, I can’t find it. It’s not an audio feature; and all the press says that it was released as a “separate” stream on Hulu (even though it’s dubbed over, not actually spoken in real time). I’ve seen some posts out here about people watching it too…so the thing obviously exists.However, I can’t find it on Hulu. I tried multiple searches… including the audio features (even though it’s not supposed to be there); and I can’t find anything. I’m guessing it quietly got pulled, because I can’t find any press about that either.Dubbing can be tough and distracting…. so maybe it was getting some bad reactions? Who knows, but I’m definitely curious to know what happened.
I found the Comanche dub under “more Predator” or something like that under the movie itself. There was a bit of lip flapping, and I wish they just had the guts to release it spoken in Comanche with subtitles, but it was worth watching in the native language.
y’all gotta stop writing these reviews on your phones.