Prometheus

[Mal12345]

Do you remember this from the beginning?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dettifoss

The human race began in Africa.

 

[Circle]

The human race began in Africa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsGKAx41-Ns

 

[Mal12345]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsGKAx41-Ns

That was a cool song! It kind of reminds me of this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foxD6ZQlnlU

 

[MacGuffin]

Okay, I finally saw the freaking movie, well over a month later. Hopefully I won't take so long for Batman in a few weeks.

PROS

1) Gorgeous art direction. Truly worthy of the first two Alien movies. Even though one says early on that straight lines aren't made by God, nearly everything was curved and organic. The 3D star map was wonderous.

2) Most of the acting: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Idris Elba, and Charlize Theron were all great.

3) Fairly well-made, better than 90% of the Hollywood movies you'll see this summer. Which makes the film good, but not great.

4) David.

CONS

1) Tries to be both a cerebral sci-fi movie and a horror sci-fi movie and fails at both. Not once was I actually scared (in comparison, the original Alien can still raise my blood pressure despite the fact I've seen it more than a dozen times). The "chariots of the gods" stuff is old hat at this point. I'd rather explore David's psyche.

2) Hands-down, the stupidest science team I've ever seen. I could forgive "the believer" disregarding common sense first contact protocol, but she's actually the most sensible person (besides Theron's character).

3) Everyone not named in the PROS section was a waste. Esp. the infected scientist lover. Like someone stated earlier, not sure what Rapace's character saw in him at all.

4) Too similar to Alien:

I'm glad they didn't pace it like Alien because that would have been too much similarity for me - I like newness and experimentation, even if it doesn't quite get there.

It wasn't nearly as masterfully paced as Alien by far, but way too many similar moments to generate actual suspense.

What, something is growing inside you? I wonder if that's good? SEEN THIS BEFORE

The android has ulterior motives? No way! SEEN THAT BEFORE

Going to the "lifeboat"? I bet that's a safe refuge from monsters. SEEN THAT TOO

Ultimately, that's where the film breaks down. It's set up to ask all these important questions and then turns into a monster movie patterned on the original Alien. Nowhere near as bad from one half to the other as Event Horizon, but you can't really have both. Still, I don't dismiss the movie, the film is clearly not meant to be self-contained, there has to be a sequel to it. The motivations of the Engineers, both in creating human life and then deciding to destroy it have not been answered. I will also hope David is explained as well: was he acting on his own in infecting the crew or just under the orders of Weyland?

I find it interesting that a lot of people seemed to have trouble with the opening scene...it seems rather straightforward: the Engineer ingested a substance and seeded a world with the genetic material that eventually evolves in to humans.

Yeah, I didn't have any trouble. The DNA dissolves, then recombines, then you see cells dividing under the title card of the movie.



I was surprised at the references to other Alien movies besides the first:

"It’s what I choose to believe." = Alien³

"David, we are leaving!" = Aliens

I thought Ridley Scott's ego wouldn't allow it. Maybe Lindelof snuck it past Scott.

 

[Totenkindly]

God, Event Horizon was a real dog.

 

[MacGuffin]

God, Event Horizon was a real dog.

I loved the first half as much as I hated the second half.

 

[Zarathustra]

God, Event Horizon was a real dog.

I loved the first half as much as I hated the second half.

"Liberate tutemae ex Inferis..."

*shows eyeballs*

 

[Totenkindly]

I loved the first half as much as I hated the second half.

I agree, it started better than it ended.

 

[MacGuffin]

(Example on par: An alien spacecraft collides with another spaceship in the atmosphere. One ship explodes, the other crashes and rolls. It's likely that the g-force and impacts alone would render any mortal being unconscious for at least a short period of time. It's also plausible that the infrastucture of the alien ship should be damaged and devastated from such a crash. Not only is the ship not apparently broken, but the alien commander somehow stays awake, immediately unbuckles himself, somehow quickly gets out of his ship, and then manages to know exactly what piece of flotsam to go to in order to track down the only human that happens to still be alive on the moon's surface, in record time!)

Well this sort of leap and [MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION]'s autistic-level-nitpick-to-the-extreme complaint about g forces don't bother me too much. I'm imaginative enough to assume a creator-level intelligence can devise a suspended animation apparatus or successfully design something to mitigate acceleration changes in their spaceships. It's never a particular detail for me that drives me nuts so much as it's a break in common sense or nonsensical action/reaction situations.

You know what bothered me about this sequence? Absolutely none of that, it was David's warning. How does a detached head know what is going on to that degree?

 

[Istbkleta]

I liked how every stupid thing that humans ever do in a horror movie to screw things up was avoided in this one.
That was a funny aspect of the movie I don't think people are giving it credit for.

It felt very pragmatic, with real characters.

If anything it was way too short - there were a lot of issues to explore and characters to develop.
30 more minutes would have been great.

I hope they cut less material the next movie.

I also liked the main idea of the evil gods who created us and have now decided to destroy humanity.

This movie is ahead of its time. After the second one there will be a billion clones being pitched to the studios.

 

[Totenkindly]

Maybe he had swivel capability in his spine, so the head could rotate while lying on the ground (or bouncing off the walls in the ship), and he also had a wifi connection so he could observe the ship crashing from multiple exterior angles in real time even while he was inside.

Androids are tricky little sneaks.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

You know what bothered me about this sequence? Absolutely none of that, it was David's warning. How does a detached head know what is going on to that degree?

What bothered me the most was that the third act played out like a really bad Mystery Science Theater episode. And when David announced that the Engineer was coming for Shaw and then it frantically cuts to the big, bald bastard breaking into the pod like he freaking out on bath salts?

I lost it. I was in stitches.

I have to get this movie when it comes out on Blu-Ray so I can MST3K style it with my friends.

 

[Laurie]

That's amusing. I thought the questions it asked never moved out of adolescence, as the point for Ne is not just to ask questions but to explore them. You don't need to arrive at "The Answer" because often there is no "The Answer" and any answer reached will be partial if not contrived -- but it's the exploration that counts... and the film really did not explore questions, it just hinted at them and then dropped them.

This!

I feel like I liked the movie until I start to analyze it. Not much of it made sense. So many irritating things, so many things that didn't make sense. Wasted characters. There really isn't much to analyze. The second one is really going to make or break the first movie.

It reminds me of Avatar. I told my daughter I LOVED it on the way out of the theatre. A few weeks later I was tepid on it. Now I would rather never see it again.

Also, the old man makeup was SO DISTRACTING. I was just waiting for him to become young because that's the only reason I could figure they would use a young actor for an old actor. Once he died I was just irritated that they made me watch that makeup that long.

I also agree that Theron was totally wasted.

 

[Totenkindly]

It reminds me of Avatar. I told my daughter I LOVED it on the way out of the theatre. A few weeks later I was tepid on it. Now I would rather never see it again.

I actually saw Avatar seven times in the theater. It wasn't for the lead character (although some of the supportive cast, like Zoe Seldana and Stephen Lang, were pretty strong), and it wasn't for the dialogue either, it was more for the immersive experience. At some point, I drained the experience dry, and I have a really hard time watching that movie anymore because the rest is kind of predictable and flat.

Also, the old man makeup was SO DISTRACTING. I was just waiting for him to become young because that's the only reason I could figure they would use a young actor for an old actor. Once he died I was just irritated that they made me watch that makeup that long.

I had the same reaction to the makeup as well. it looked very fake. I think they had planned to include younger shots of him in the actual movie but for some reason those were cut. He did show up in the fake Ted talk and other promo materials.

 

[Totenkindly]

It reminds me of Avatar. I told my daughter I LOVED it on the way out of the theatre. A few weeks later I was tepid on it. Now I would rather never see it again.

I actually saw Avatar seven times in the theater. It wasn't for the lead character (although some of the supportive cast, like Zoe Seldana and Stephen Lang, were pretty strong), and it wasn't for the dialogue either, it was more for the immersive experience. At some point, I drained the experience dry, and I have a really hard time watching that movie anymore because the rest is kind of predictable and flat. I was disappointed with Giovanni Ribisi, too -- he's a wonderful character actor who usually brings life to any movie he's in, but his portrayal here as the overseer of the project seemed like such an caricature. I kind of felt the way about the performances here too.

Also, the old man makeup was SO DISTRACTING. I was just waiting for him to become young because that's the only reason I could figure they would use a young actor for an old actor. Once he died I was just irritated that they made me watch that makeup that long.

I had the same reaction to the makeup as well. it looked very fake. I think they had planned to include younger shots of him in the actual movie but for some reason those were cut. He did show up in the fake Ted talk and other promo materials.

 

[Laurie]

I actually saw Avatar seven times in the theater.

Now that was just brilliant. You are getting what is actually the best part (only good part?) of Avatar that way.

 

[Totenkindly]

Now that was just brilliant. You are getting what is actually the best part (only good part?) of Avatar that way.

Theater viewing in 3D. The home viewing experience isn't really worth much. The extra footage in the expanded expanded edition was interesting, but that was about it.

I think Prometheus had a few large-scale money shots (as in the size of the alien ship, and the star field, and the opening scene with the cataract -- it's worth seeing the vastness of it in the theater), but most of the 3D stuff didn't seem worth it.

 

[The Ü™]

James Cameron should stick to writing action scenes and science fiction dialogue, not love dialogue. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that was wrong with Titanic and Avatar. As far as Jimmy Cameron's obsession with the actual Titanic, it's kinda creepy...kinda like necrophilia, but with an ex-ship instead of an ex-person. And he acts like he owns the ship.

As for 3D in the movies, I enjoyed Avatar just as much in 2D (corny as it was). Didn't see Titanic in 3D.

The only two movies that were really, really worth the price of admission in 3D were Hugo and Final Destination 5.

 

[Totenkindly]

James Cameron should stick to writing action scenes and science fiction dialogue, not love dialogue. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that was wrong with Titanic and Avatar.

I can't argue with that. I think the clumsiest parts of any Cameron movie I've seen has been the romantic dialogue.

The only two exceptions I would say to that rule would be The Abyss and Aliens. Both of these were successful because the romance was typically understated and implied via other types of dialogue as well as the actions of the characters. I could believe Bud and Lindsey in The Abyss had a love/hate relationship, and Bud's few moments of gush were believable based on the situation and character; meanwhile, Hicks and Ripley played well off each other, their words exuded respect for each other, and for both of them, that was the pathway to a deeper relationship -- their final comments to each other (where they traded first names) revealed more connection and concern for each other in that basic sharing of personal information than any overt romantic dialogue in Titanic did. It was pretty clear at that point that they had some kind of future together... until Fincher mucked with things in the next pic.

To tie it back to Prometheus, even the characters who were supposed to be connected really did not seem to exude much chemistry.

The only two movies that were really, really worth the price of admission in 3D were Hugo and Final Destination 5.

I didn't see FD5, but Hugo was easily one of the most effective uses of 3D I've ever seen in a movie release.
Meanwhile, I've a lot of BAD/irrelevant uses of 3D, enough to make me ill.

 

[MacGuffin]

Cave of Forgotten Dreams is the only other movie I've seen (besides Avatar) that demanded 3D to fully appreciate it.

I missed out on Hugo.