OUT NOW: Prey

In the 1700s, a young Comanche woman, Naru (Amber Midthunder), dreams of being a hunter.

When she joins her brother and the other hunters to track down a mountain lion, 

In her quest to prove her abilities, Naru will have to pit herself against another mysterious hunter on a similar quest to prove itself against other top predators…

Just when I was bemoaning the blot of Bullet Train, along comes Prey.

Prey is what the Predator series should have been.

Take an established story and drop a Predator in it.

The first movie is a beefcake 80s action movie - and then the Predator shows up.

The second movie is a cop action movie starring Murtagh - and then the Predator shows up.

Prey is a coming of age story about a young woman who wants to be acknowledged as a hunter by her people - and then a Predator… you get the idea.

 

The key thing is that the Predator is a new variable in a genre story that we are vaguely familiar with.

It helps that this story would still work without the Predator.

There is a version of this story where Naru goes on the hunt and undergoes a similar journey.

There are so many scenes which are effective without the presence of the familiar alien, from Naru’s relationship with her brother Taabe (Dakota Beavers), to her attempt to hunt a lion, or her discovery of a herd of skinned buffalo rotting in a field.

The Predator just raises the stakes.

Amber Midthunder is terrific in the lead role. Tough, practical and deadpan, she is a great action hero who never feels like she is fitting into a template.

Beavers is also great as her brother. It can be thankless role to be the barrier to another person’ a success but the role is better constructed than that, and he brings a gravitas and flinty empathy that is great.

He also gets one of the more overt callbacks to the original film and it does not feel like fan service.

Midthunder and Beavers also have a great, unstated dynamic as siblings, down to the way he nudges her awake in one scene.

They might spark off each other, but there is a level of trust between them that is refreshing.

There is no need for an obnoxious exposition drop.

That sense of economy extends to the whole movie - character is largely conveyed through action.

If I have criticisms, they are minor - and relate to the portrayal of the Predator itself.

Part of it is nostalgia and awareness of the original. 

The 1987 movie is a miracle born of circumstance - like Jaws, the filmmakers  had to rely on a slow build of tension because they did not have a working design for the Predator. 

There are scenes where I feel like we see too much of the predator too early.

There are a few too many scenes where the CGI is obvious, and could have been obscured with a more subtle approach in camerawork to obscure it.

It is a fault of contemporary filmmaking, but maybe it is also because this is the upteenth version of the Predator so the mystery is a bit pointless.

The other thing I could not help but notice was the creature’s movements. Performer Dane DiLiegro is blunt and brutish in his physicality in a way that feels a bit stiff. 

Perhaps this is a choice - this is meant to be the first time these creatures came into contact with humanity - but I think the movie could have sacrificed that continuity for greater suspense.

The other unique element that the original movie had was the late actor Kevin Peter Hall, who brought a presence and grace to the creature that remains terrifying.

Hall developed a specific series of movements for the creature, but that specificity has been missing from his successors.

This might just be my own nostalgia. DiLiegro os effective in the role.

Back to what is great about the movie.

We get a variety of different set pieces in different locations, and the finale is not a damp squib. There are also no big dollops of fan service.

While this movie is technically a prequel, it never feels like the movie is bending itself into a pretzel to set up events in the future.

This is its own beast. 

Overall, Prey is the kind of stripped-down action thriller I love, with a great lead performance at its centre. The movie it reminded me of the most was Sweetheart, another small-scale genre piece.

Prey is a great movie. 

OUT NOW: Bullet Train

 Ladybug (Brad Pitt), a veteran mercenary, has a job to lift a briefcase off a bullet train.

The only problem is that there are several other parties on the train who are also interested in the contents of said briefcase.

Cue mayhem. 

Based on the novel by Kōtarō Isaka, Bullet Train is a movie I should love.

It is a closed-room scenario featuring a fun cast. Count me in.

Bullet Train is the third solo effort from director David Leitch. Leitch started out as the co-director of John Wick, with Chad Stahelski.

While Stahelski has stuck with the Wick franchise, Leitch has pursued a more varied slate of films. 

Bullet Train feels like a stylistic continuation of his solo debut Atomic Blonde, particularly in its use of retro styling and needle drops (here it is seventies disco).

Atomic Blonde has many virtues, but I found its eighties styling somewhat unnecessary, while Charlize Theron and some strong action sequences were submerged in a confusing, overcomplicated script. 

Bullet Train is a more successful application of style, and a far more enjoyable film than Atomic Blonde, but like his other film, Deadpool 2, it also seems to have more story than necessary. 

Despite an interesting theme, I found the movie overlong and - in its flashback structure - a bit clunky. There is no eureka moment where it comes together.

The movie does not quite work but it benefits from a genuine star at the centre.

Brad Pitt is perfect as a fish out of water, both hyper-competent and goofy.

A cold fish trying to get in touch with his feelings, he is both too self-obsessed to gauge other people, but also paranoid that danger is around every corner.

He is so funny he lifts the movie around him. When he is not in the scene, the energy level dips.

And with a large cast, this movie has a lot of scenes without Pitt.

The big problem with Bullet Train is that the movie is two hours and six minutes long when it should have been 90 minutes long.

Part of the reason is that there is little about the additional scenes that feel original, or add that much to the movie’s suspense.  

There are so many characters and we spend an inordinate amount of time with all of them, covering their various individual plots. 

Watching the early scenes of characters gathering and talking (lots of talking!), I was getting flashbacks of Smokin’ Aces and all the post-Tarantino crime flicks of the noughties. When the characters start arguing over the specifics of The Thomas The Tank Engine, it feels like a photocopy of a photocopy.

While a certain level of audience knowledge can help generate suspense - a gun wired to explode and a poisonous snake add some level of tension - but we are given so much information the movie loses momentum. 

The film is also terrified of losing the audience so we get multiple flashbacks of key moments from earlier.

By the end of the movie, I was more exhausted than exhilarated.

Aside from Pitt, the cast are an embarrassment of riches - some of which feel wasted.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry have a good rapport as brother assassins, although they suffer from the lion share of po-mo dialogue. It takes a late-in-the-day flashback to give them any kind of pathos, which just reinforces how shoddy the story-telling is.

Zazie Beetz is great in Atlanta, but she seems to be stuck in supporting roles on the big screen. I like that she keeps popping up in action movies - but when is she going to get a good part?

Her role could have been played by anybody.

The same goes for Karen Fukuhara, who appears as a train attendant.

Andrew Koshi and Hiroyuki Sanada are fine actors with legitimate martial arts skills - but they are stuck with a po-faced storyline that feels too weighty for this movie.

I may be being a little too critical, but there is not much more to say.

This movie features a great performance from a genuine movie star, some gorgeous production design and solid action. But it would benefit from a more disciplined script and some judicious editing.

Catch up with the Sugabros (Part Deux)

One of the podcasts I co-host, the SugaBros, has just completed its third season.

If you are not familiar with the show, the conceit is that my friend Nemo and I review every song the Sugababes released. We have just finished reviewing their third LP, Three.

If this strikes your fancy, you can catch up with the third season at the links below. 

Three & Hole in the Head (with special guest Stabitha)

More Holes in More Heads

Whatever Makes You Happy

Caught in a Moment

Situation’s Heavy

Million Different Ways

Twisted

We Could Have It All

Conversation’s Over

In the Middle

Too Lost In You

Nasty Ghetto

Buster

Sometimes

Maya (w/ Stabitha)

Who (b-side)

This Ain't A Party Thing

Someone in My Bed

Down Down

Disturbed

Colder In The Rain

Final Thoughts on THREE

State of the Band w/ Stabitha

BITE-SIZED: Escape Room - Tournament of Champions (Adam Robitel, 2021)

Following the events of the last movie, Zoey (Taylor Russell) and Ben (Logan Miller)  are on the trail of the mysterious Minos Group.

Minos have their own plans for dealing with the survivors - a contest pitting the survivors of previous escape rooms against one another…

I wasn’t planning on reviewing this but after catching Words on Bathroom Walls, I was curious to check back in with star Taylor Russell’s other gig, fleeing enclosed spaces.

Looking back at the original Escape Room, I think I went into it with the wrong expectations.

I expected something smaller and cleverer.

Instead, it was a very silly but well-executed thriller. 

I did not think much of the third act or the sequel-baiting tag.

Going into Part Deux, I expected ridiculousness. 

And this movie is ridiculous. 

It is just a series of set pieces, but it is carried off with such aplomb and imagination that it does not matter. In its colorful production and design, it feels like a cartoon cousin to Italian giallo, mixed with the excess of a Fast and Furious movie.

I loved it.

The movie has a great sense of what it is.

There is no attempt at depth, only pace. 

It just cuts to the chase - after a flashback sequence that recaps the last movie, and a scene introducing us to the architect of the mazes, we are back with heroes Zoey (Taylor Russell) and Ben (Logan Miller).

 

There is an efficient, classic slasher sequel brevity to this opening section, giving more time for the set pieces.

One weird thing about this movie is that I did not realize that I was not watching the theatrical version. The one I watched was the extended cut which features new beginning and ending sequences which completely alter the film. In this version, we get a new antagonist, with the tease of a new villain for a potential part 3.

Based on what I know of the theatrical version, this feels like an attempt to set up a sequel. 

Color me interested.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

NZIFF 2022: Crimes of the Future (David Cronenberg)

In the future, surgery is the new sex.

But is it also a crime?

Every now and then I debate what this blog should be about.

I try to dabble in multiple genres and get out of Hollywood/American cinema. 

The older I get I also feel more conscious of areas of film knowledge and theory that I am ignorant of. 

But then there are cases like Crimes of the Future, where I feel like my prior knowledge is an impediment.

David Cronenberg is a filmmaker I was obsessed with years before I saw anything he made.

As a teen, I read books, interviews and plot summaries. 

This meant when I watched his movies I did not feel like I could write anything about them - on the one hand, they were not surprising to watch. 

On the other hand I was always second-guessing my thoughts about them - was I just regurgitating bits of critical analysis I read when I was 16?

I was also conscious that I had not watched a lot of Cronenberg’s movies - I have not seen anything he’s made since the 1980s.

I tried to catch up beforehand but life got in the way.

 

Maybe it was good that I was familiar with Cronenberg’s early work because this film feels like a return.

Albeit this is the most hopeful version of Cronenberg’s particular brand of horror.

What is fascinating about Cronenberg’s work is his obsession with bodily transformation - and the filmmaker’s position is not based on a moral binary. 

To Cronenberg, bodily transformation is not inherently horrific. 

It is merely another form of existence. The humans in this future have begun to lose their sense of pain and grow new organs with unknown functions.

The conflict in Crimes is that these transformations - particularly the creation of new organs - are the ultimate taboo and illegal. 

There is a branch of law enforcement dedicated to registering and eliminating them.

What is also similar to Cronenberg’s early work is the script (which he wrote solo) which Carrie’s over certain traits: It is overly didactic, and features a lot of exposition through dialogue. 

It also features Cronenberg’s trademark of offbeat character names: Timlin, Wippet, and Saul Tenser.

The movie does feel overly didactic at points, and I found some of the character interactions and decision-making a little hard to follow.

While it goes heavy on the exposition, it does not go too far into world-building.

I loved the bric-a-brac of the backgrounds - the rundown buildings, spare interiors and dead, half-sunken ships dotting the shoreline.

Instead of going into a crowded mode-en-scene, the filmmakers have taken elements away. This creates a sense of loneliness and desolation.

This is a world that is lived in but dying (or at least appears to be).

There are also some great audiovisual moments which carry over the film’s themes without dialogue - the first performance piece manages to convey a sense of the eroticism and rapture of the performers and the audience.

The one real detriment is the use of CGI in the surgery scenes - it is noticeably poor in rendering and detracts from the film’s focus on the flesh 

The biggest change from Cronenberg’s early work is the performances.

Mortensen is a worn-down, deadpan centre.

I found Seydoux hard to read - she is as enamoured with the surgery as Mortensen’s Saul, but she seems to yearn for more. 

She earnestly believes in their art - a love defined when she rejects the idea of performing an autopsy because there will be no consent.

I liked it but I wonder if it is working the way the filmmakers want.

Kristen Stewart delivers a highly mannered performance which manages to be the funniest character in the film. 

It feels like she is trying to repress an orgasm in every scene. 

Stewart is the most obvious example but the movie is funny.

Crimes of the Future may be a little slow and clunky, but it has a wonderfully deadpan sense of humour.

Even as the characters’ art might come off abject to our eyes, it is treated as matter-of-fact by the characters.

My mind is abuzz after this movie, but I am keen to watch more of Cronenberg’s work from across his filmography. Watching Crimes - and its parallels with his early work - made me feel like I had only touched the bread on a sandwich I needed to bite into.

The biggest takeaway from the movie is a sense of hope.

Instead of a dying world, we have been watching a snake shedding its skin.