stugood-07006

At first an indictment of fluff and then a soft apologist for it. This episode finds Frasier starting his classes at Harvard where he soon discovers he's been hired as the dancing bear. Whilst Frasier is aghast by this prospect, the writing builds on signalling that this is what we the audience really should want. The sequences of Frasier being encouraged to sell out increasingly become cringe-worthy, as it feels this is the episode's only ideal of glory. Rather than explored through incisive humour or even a heart-to-heart with a character who might sympathise, it's just wall-to-wall sell-out gags echoing his TV talk show days after he left radio. It's ironic because the writing and supporting characters in this episode represent the fluff it at first mocks, but what it ultimately settles for. Worst episode, so far.

First, the good bits about Se7en are its cinematography, colour palette, and the ever reliable Morgan Freeman, replete with unnecessary end-narration.

His co-star, however - that's a different story.

Se7en is not a very good film. And it's aged much like Salad Cream. For a taster of this just check out its schlocky film-print-like titles twinned with commercial alt-rock.

Pitt has demonstrated some good acting before (Kalifornia, 1993) and after (Fight Club, 1999). Not here. Perhaps he didn't like the simpleton character he plays, or it was too underwritten, but in any case he just doesn't sell the archetype of the basic think-later masculinity the film wants to go for.

There are lots of classic literary quotes in Se7en left by the serial killer (Kevin Spacey), but it all amounts to pretentiousness. It feels rather like the film wants to sell the idea of smartness. By appealing to people who identify with Pitt's basic-man: those who hold some kind of resentment for "fag poetry", but would dearly like to be in on it. This insults not only its audience (Pitt's character is not likable enough), but also those who are somewhat well-read. Moreover, the clumsy, out-of-place, Neo-noir atmosphere plods inconsequentially to the film's culmination: the part for which it is best remembered, its shock ending. The link between the detectives (Freeman and Pitt) and the serial killer becomes personal; but radically so, and conveniently near the end. Only for the sake of the film's surprise. This is why Se7ven just doesn't work on a whole. It's too contrived and not nearly as clever as it thinks it is.

Pitt actually seems like he would rather play any other character than who he is playing, sophisticated or not. In Pitt's defense, it's likely the film still wouldn't come together even without his casting. Interestingly, there are two references made to an earlier, more skilfully made piece of art of this ilk, but Silence Of The Lambs (1991), Se7en is not. Incidentally, The Last Seduction (1994), China Moon (1994), and even The Firm (1993) are more cogent nineties noirs.

The CGI animals look like, well, CGI animals. Particularly the snake, lion and the bear. Could they not have brought in professional animal trainers for authenticity and better screen presence? One wonders. This was standard decades ago. Why not today in a multi-million dollar picture? One wonders. In other news: couldn't have the protagonist at least fashioned a moderate Native accent, like the actor who played her brother? As it is, she most decidedly provides the clear impression of a teenage girl comfortably aware of modern amenities, certainly not the idea of someone from the 18th century.

The score and cinematography often compliment each other by fashioning some kind of black comedy stylism. Unfortunately, the film offers little comedy or subversion. This points to something of a missed opportunity. Instead, the film takes itself largely serious, but without any distinct depth to speak of. However, what is nice to look at in this film is simply its sprawling nature. The colours and shots are a bit too pristine, like a 1000 other films of the modern time, but there's little else positive to recommend. That's a little unfair. The escape from the sinking sand in the swamp was the first time you might feel engaged with Prey. However, this was nearly at the 40-minute mark. The lead's physical retaliation against her oppressive male peers was also kind of exciting, even if the mental fight to equal them is too belaboured. When French settlers come into the story a better dimension is introduced, actually offering up a tense horror piece. The film then quickly devolves into en masse slaying, not at all bucking the trend of sequelitis, à la Hellraiser 3. It's a rather silly sequence. At least the other film knew it was having fun. The commentary on the patriarchy is the film's main plight, which could have served better as subtext. Surely, this is because the immediate threat is that of a volatile alien with advanced hunting weaponry, as opposed to male dominance. Since this is a contemporary vehicle, the inner meaning predictably must be pointed and prodded at until it's quite dead, and it has little or no impact on the viewer after a while.

I imagine the praise for Prey comes from critics gushing over this radical narrative shift, rather than from fans of the franchise, especially of the first film featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It also seems unlikely to acquire new fans, as it never quite commits wholeheartedly or authentically to its historical premise. An attempt to add some kind of prestige to an ailing franchise thuds flat on its face with copious amounts of CGI claret. We didn't even have time to touch upon the sound effects which lean far too bombastic during the ever occurring acts of limb removal. And what of the Predator? A CGI mess of lava and digital ash. When it's not digital it looks and walks like a man in a suit without any of the original's menace. The fight scene between it and the teenage protagonist at the end is fairly well-done, despite all being said.

In summation: Unnecessary use of CGI; the clouds, spaceship, and snake all look like they're from an expensive computer game, but not a movie. The cinematography is pristine, like a thousand productions, before and after, and not offering up much artistry, despite the beauty of a natural setting. The acting is fine, but the character interactions at times seem snappy and modern, rather than from 18th Century Native American. In general, there is a whiff of historical reenactment or even cosplay. The film lacks substantial grit to suspend disbelief. Why do all the characters have immaculate skin? You'll find neither a blemish, animal wound, or soiled piece of clothing in Prey. Only sanitisation.