Three years have passed since the release of Prey, and the film is no longer the bold novelty in the Predator universe. I think it represented an experiment that sparked intense reactions, divided the audience and left behind an uncomfortable question- what remains when a classic franchise is reinterpreted through the filter of contemporary ideology?
The idea of placing the action in 1719, in the middle of the Comanche tribe, is brave - I liked it. Giving up the military and urban setting in favor of a pre-colonial America brings a breath of fresh air. Naru, a teenager who wants to become a hunter, is the protagonist of a story of survival, courage and personal affirmation. Visually, the film looks good: wide landscapes, natural light, a tense atmosphere that promises a lot.
- But the promise is quickly broken.
In the original films, the Predator was an overwhelming presence. Not just a monster, but a force of nature, a symbol of inevitable death. In Prey, he becomes a predictable obstacle. The design is interesting — the bone mask, the primitive weapons — but the behavior is inconsistent. He no longer hunts with strategy, but seems to be wandering through the forest waiting to be defeated.
The final fight, which should be the height of tension, is a succession of tricks that, while ingenious, fail to convince. The Predator is defeated not by force, but by simple logic and luck. And that, in the context of a franchise that defined the fight between man and monster, is disappointing.
The script seems written with the intention of conveying a message, not telling a story. The dialogue is functional, but lacking depth. The supporting characters are almost nonexistent. The French introduced into the story have no clear motivation, and the dynamic between Naru and her tribe is treated superficially. You don't really feel the social pressure, you don't feel the inner conflict. Everything is suggested, nothing is explored.
Perhaps the most disturbing decision is the use of English. The Comanches in the film speak fluently, like teenagers in an American TV series. In reality, in 1719, these people had no way of knowing English... instead of creating an immersive experience, the film chooses the commercial path, sacrificing credibility for accessibility.
The comments in recent years are a spectacle in themselves. Some consider it "the best in the series", others call it "a mess for fools". There is talk of forced feminism, a weak Predator, an implausible protagonist. And between these extremes, there is a rupture: between what the film wants to be and what it manages to convey.
Prey is not a failed film, but it also leaves no trace. He tried to change the rules, to come up with something different, to breathe new life into the franchise. He had the intention, he had the courage, but he didn't have the consistency. No depth, no rhythm, no weight — everything remains at the level of an idea, not of impact.
https://youtube.com/shorts/gmMjCtcEMAg?si=JXcCOTxKjXul6OEk
Watched now, Prey seems like a stop between two stations. It opens nothing, it closes nothing. It's the moment when Predator looked in the mirror and no longer knew what he saw. And maybe, in trying to be something else, he lost exactly what made him recognizable.
If you haven't seen Prey, it's worth a chance. Not because it's memorable, but because it tries something different. Don't expect the tension of '87, nor the classic brutality. But if you want to see what an experiment looks like in a franchise that no longer knows what it wants, it's a film that's easy to watch and leaves room for discussion. That's it.