Alien Movie Universe

A REVIEW - Seen the film twice (spoilers-inside)

2275 Views31 Replies
Forum Topic

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 5:33 PM
First up - the film is not hugely spiritual and nor does it raise any higher level consciousness questions - it couldn't be more different than 2001 in style or feeling. However this doesn't make it a fail. It's actually far more simple than I imagined. It's very straight-forward. Lindelhofs script is completely unlike LOST, thankfully. Expect a fairly straightforward film that stylistically fits between Alien and Aliens in style. It's more action than science. OK, a few of the reviewers are sh***ing all over this film. Rest assured it's a four star movie. Well made and entertaining. It's NOT the second coming, or the greatest film ever made - but it is most definitely NOT a bad movie. I watch an inordinate amount of film and the great majority is well below this film in terms of scope, structure, aesthetic, dialogue, ideas and script. Yes that's right - the script and dialogue is far better than most Hollywood fare. There are STANDOUT performances in terms of acting, Noomi and- in particular - Fabulous Fassbender are 1st class. So the negatives - most of the actors are 'cannon fodder'. Well yes - OF COURSE! For crying out loud - that was always the case and it's no different than any other film, Alien based or otherwise. The actors that 'survive' at the end are the best and most rounded/well formed. Noomi in particular now has a reason to become hard assed in the sequel (looks like there will be one as MOST people excluding a few 'fanboys' have enjoyed it for what it is - myself (another huge fan) included). The reviews are not really mixed - so far they aggregate 85% and 87% on rotten tomatoes - pretty bloody good. Very positive reactions generally, now the reviews are coming in. The dialogue - yes there are a few bad lines - no biggie - so what? People are different - the times I shake my head listening to peoples bizarre ideas, phraseology and idiotic rants - I can put up with "my puppies...Owwwwww" and "Stephen Stills used to own this - Love The One Your With" etc etc (heck that even made me laugh as I like Stephen Stills...even if it was 'odd' to refer to him not as if he will be a point of cultural reference at that time). Noomi after her Caesarean - she can do a lot of stuff - yep - she was Pumped Full of Drugs!!! No big deal. The Engineer was 'savage'. Yes his intention is to kill humanity - of course he swatted them like flies. We don't know why? Thank god, or even an Engineer. That's what made Alien intriguing. It's what makes Blade Runner great - it's why 2001 is profound - yet unfathomable. We don't need answers to everything. Most things are clear - they came for answers -they got death and no reason. But David (Fassbender) makes it clear that he is in the same position as the humans throughout in their position with the Engineers.....He states that it doesn't matter why as the whole reason why they are made may be as simple as the reason why the android was made "Because we can". The music - occasionally it does hark back to the 80's in the horn/flugel sound - it comes up a couple of times - and perhaps it was unnecessary - more 'silence' may have benefited the movie - but, again - not a major f**k up! The FLUTE!!! Did it remind me of the comedy show "Little Britain"s Scottish guest house owner? Yep. Did it remind me of Close Encounters? Yes. Is it far-fetched to thin that any other advanced race may use music and have rituals that are like ours - Particuarly as we are created in their image - and SHARE THE SAME DNA??? Hell yes. Perhaps they brought us music??!! It's not a big deal - just unexpected! The film didn't answer all your questions? It answered everything I needed to know. What was the Alien creature, facehuggers and eggs for? Re-creation. "To create, sometimes we have to destroy first". David is speaking from experience here... I am glad Prometheus is the way it is and that it 'evolved' or was 'engineered?' into something without a direct connection to Alien. There are clearly many connections but the planet and creatures do not relate directly to that film. I think the next stage will answer some questions again and raise far bigger questions - altough I am certain that the Alien we see in the 1979 is partly mechanoid as the Engineers will be fascinated by human technology - the android and somehow Davids digital DNA(??!!) will become part of their arsenal - creating a stronger, more perfect creature. Saw the midnight showing last nigh, then woke at 11am and went to the 12.00pm showing an hour later with my wife - didn't hear any negative reaction despite listening to peoples conversations. Could it have been better though? Yes. I would have liked something a bit trippy and less straightforward. But I think the ending is the set-up for a deeper meaning film with less characters that is more focused and intense. Go see it people, make up your own minds - but don't go in expecting The Matrix. :-)
31 Replies

DAVROS59

MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 1:18 AM
I think the Engineer only startes to get violent when he saw the distress Shaw was in and the way she was being treated he then caressed david ,realised he was an android.Hence the promethean theme. His race (gods) gave life and the chance to reproduce(fire) and humans turned out a bit rotten and made synthetics re Androids . Thus the creators (gods) were disappointed.

Svanya

AdminPraetorianJun-02-2012 12:47 AM
A lovely and honest review in my opinion. :)

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 5:39 PM
Oh and the 3-D - not bad - pretty low key and that suits me - the trailer for SpiderMan was unwatchable in 3-D- fast motion at 24frames per second just makes for a whole load of blurring. Thankfully apart from the shards in the storm the 3-D whilst mild was quite good. But I normally watch in 2D...

Frantz

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 5:44 PM
YEs is see that now reviews are more balanced and they tend to draw the same conclusions ... Very good movie , not a masterpiece . Ive found the 3d a bit irrelevant ( imo )

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 5:48 PM
Yeah- I find most 3D unsatisfactory - but that may change with 60FPS? Anyway, yes I would say it was a good film - Scotts least successful entry in sci-fi - but I'm hardly surprised. I don't think it needs to be much longer - would be nice to see more characterisation and subtext - but I really don't think there is much more to the film - it's all still to come. And I'm not dissapointed by that at all.

galacticnorth

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 5:51 PM
Seen it twice and agree with pretty much everything you said. There are some alien franchise superfans that will inevitably complain and they have of course a right to do so, but when ppl start talking about the Phantom Menace and Alien ressurection it gets quite ridiculous. As for the last comment about the Matrix....I think Prometheus touches on more interesting and provocative concepts than the Matrix, but The Matrix for me is a bit better as a whole.

Mark Cawley

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 5:58 PM
Well im putting it on my shelf next to Alien.......where it belongs. Its just as big a movie as Alien is.

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 6:02 PM
galacticnorth- What I meant is don't go expecting to be taken on a ride of a metaphysical, psychedelic or transcendental nature - it's just not a mind boggling movie at all. (I tend to love that sort of stuff and kind of expected this to have more of those elements and have those themes placed in a far bigger context, instead of simply trailing around a fairly straightforward action type of movie. And the nonsense some people are spewing about Phantom Menace is just crazy - and relates I presume only to their feeling of disappointment with those films compared to the original trilogy. I was 5 when Alien came out and saw it when the UK TV premier was on (I was still in Primary - think I was 9yrs old) as my bro was 4 years older and my mum didn't expect it to be so scary (love ya mum, thanks!). Therefore it made a MASSIVE impression on me, MASSIVE - my chest was going to burst in the playground the next day! (and for years afterwards!!!). Same with Star Wars - it's my childhood and nothing will ever compare as I will never be 7 years old again.... Still, this is far, far, far more successful than any Star Wars Prequel.

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 6:06 PM
Mark - I rate it as sub Alien - for reasons above and the dark sinister, creepy nature. Will have to trawl through the Blu's to really consider the others - but on instinct it's as good but different as Aiens. 3 and Resurrection I have only watched twice in all these years....they're due a re-appraisal from me...

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 6:19 PM
The motivation for God/the Engineers/Life is given during the many exchanges between the humans that David talks to - in this case the answers that man is looking for are to be found in a simple place, within. In other words the motivations of the Engineers are no different to ours in creating and replacing David, the android. I think it's simply drawing a parallel as we are a contactable God for David, yet we make no sense and appear as Brutal as the Engineer seems to us. Think about that. The hardest questions often have very simple answers that are in your face all the time - we just fail too look or see them. I think that's what the film was saying.

brightonrock

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 8:25 PM
OK here are some issues I had...and they're in no particular order as I can't remember them all! Why does David infect Holloway? Is David good, bad or just doing what he's told? Why does he sedate and subdue Shaw when she's pregnant...and then comfort her when she has the C-section? Why does NO ONE bat an eye-lid when Shaw stumbles in all messed up from her operation? Why does Holloway decide to end his life so quickly? Why does Shaw get pregnant yet Fifield turn into a crazy mutant? And the eternal loop: why does the engineer want to kill earth life? These are real issues. Sure, you could posit very logical theories: Weyland is behind all this, he knew about the engineers all along, David is merely responding to stimuli, etc etc. But the fact is that there are SO many unanswered questions that I just can't believe that the person who wrote this could summon up such beautiful ideas about creation and the human condition, only have so many unresolved issues and half-assed lines such as: 'Miss Vickers...is there an agenda you're not telling us about?' Ultimate subtext (your take on it) vs No Subtext (shoddy plot moments and painfully obvious exposition). Feels...inconsistent? No?

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 6:32 PM
The Alien that 'bursts out whole" - clearly NOT a mistake - Ridley invented the life cycle and this is an experiment not intended to happen - the very fact the engineer birthed it suggests to me that this Alien is a new life-form never seen before. It's also going to be about 12 to 15 foot tall! A bit like the original...Space Jockey...hang on. Getting carried away. Seriously though I loved some of the ideas on this board for the movie and they would have made for a good film too. I hope some of you consider scripting. I worked for 10 years as a cameraman in TV, my dad also worked in film - working on such wonderful British films as...er...DownTime. Yeah. That's. Right. I've never seen it either! :-D My point being that many people here would be better served trying to use their talents and imaginations to write something 'better'. Who knows? You might get an idea onto the new movie...really.

brightonrock

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 7:31 PM
Right.... Continuing what we were saying on the other thread: the reason I don't think the 'because we could' answer plays out is because at the end David asks her why she wants to go to their home planet, and she replies because she wants to know why they created us and why they wanted to kill us. That alone says to the audience 'we haven't told you yet WHY they wanted to'. However it may turn out that you are indeed right and the ultimate answer is that life is essentially meaningless. We create and destroy because we can. However if it takes two more films to reach that conclusion i think people might tear the cinema apart.

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 7:38 PM
Yes, but David argues that it's irrelevant. But he admires her resolve to ask - and he has nothing to lose either.... People spend their whole lives reaching this conclusion, so two films is hardly a biggie for me - and many people tear their and others very 'lives' apart over such issues. Even those who follow a divine path! Basically if you want answers, be religious, and unquestioning. It appears to work for many people (though not for me!). Life without questions and discovery may well be more meaningless than life filled with answers that are unpleasant and even mundane. We may be better off not knowing. (One reviewer has suggested leaving this as a standalone movie without a sequel - and that may not be a bad idea).

brightonrock

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 9:11 PM
I knew that I would go and see it again just to see what a second viewing did to me (i tend to find second views affect me much more differently), but I didn't think I would want to go as soon. Interested to see how it all feels a second time around. Thanks for all the insight. It's been really fun. Now if we could just find out what those engineers were running away from...

brightonrock

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 7:47 PM
If what you've said is accurate (i'm still not sure it is, but it's definitely interesting) then Prometheus needs to be viewed many times, as it comes in layers that have be stripped away and appreciated. If the point of it all is the journey (asking 'why?') rather than the destination (finding out why) then the film needs to be watched again and again before many will reach this conclusion. Some will never reach it. My worry is that all of your theories - as clever as they are - weren't intentional. And that you may be far smarter than the people worked on it. You've got a great way of looking at the film, and you're helping me to look at it in a MUCH more positive light, but there are still huge issues with major beats in the film. And i suppose that's why i don't think it's ultimately as smart as you're suggesting. Because - for the film-makers at least - using existentialism or meta-narrative as a means of explaning away plot-holed writing doesn't wash.

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 7:58 PM
Believe me, I didn't contribute to the early ideas at all - because I'm not that smart or intense - I just thought it was so intentional it was hitting us in the face VERY HARD throughout. [b]In this sense the film is really about David.[/b] I'm not sure about the plotholes - I didn't see any major one's - what did you think was so problematic? Just shot down one persons complaints about plot holes - he just didn't get it I think. P.S. I only though the film was good - not great, but solid entertainment above most of what Hollywood puts out. I'm a fan of South Korean cinema...!

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 8:28 PM
David is asked by Weland to "Try Harder". He does not elaborate - but that is Davids reaction. Before David infects him, he checks with Holloway what he would be prepared to do for answers. He replies "Whatever it takes". David takes this to mean that Holloway gives permission for what he envisages doing to him as being acceptable. Not only to Holloway and the humans but to Davids own curiosity - in other words David has an agenda - not necessarily entirely Weylands one - he may be carrying out his own will .

brightonrock

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 8:39 PM
Man, i'm being SCHOOLED here! OK, i'm with you on the Holloway/David interactions. But does that mean Weyland is behind ALL of this then? Does he want the alien? Is he just doing experiments? This is where i'm unsure of the motivations? David is outright mean to Shaw later. He actually makes a joke about the fact she had an alien inside of her. Seems out of character with someone following a secured line of reasoning? Also space jockeys: are we really saying there is no motivation than '...why not?' And do you think Ridley Scott and Spaihts/Lindeloff are as smart as you feel this film is?

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 8:45 PM
Is David good, bad or just doing what he's told? [b]He's following humans, his engineers example - he's been made in their image after all. Perhaps he too wants to be closer to God and this is one way of doing that. "Don't all children really want their parents dead?" Davids brain is ticking over big time.[/b] Why does he sedate and subdue Shaw when she's pregnant... [b]To Study.[/b] and then comfort her when she has the C-section? [b]He states that he "admires her tenacity". He is impressed.[/b] Why does NO ONE bat an eye-lid when Shaw stumbles in all messed up from her operation? [b]They already would have known about it, I presumed and the goal was now about 'meeting he maker'. Shaw is inconsequential to them, Weyland and the others in the room will have seen all kinds of horrors - in Weylands case he couldn't care less about anything other than his own agenda. The other two are his slaves effectively.[/b] Why does Holloway decide to end his life so quickly? [b] He can't get on the ship, and he doesn't want Shaw to stay with him - possiby infecting her . It's a snap call and I think he knew he was likely a dead man after seeing Fifield etc.[/b] Why does Shaw get pregnant yet Fifield turn into a crazy mutant? [b]Different method of infection, different urns, different creatures/organisms, DNA. Who knows what else was in those urns. The cobralien mutated from the little millipedes he stood on when first walking in.[/b] And the eternal loop: why does the engineer want to kill earth life? [b] Maybe humans were a bioweapon initially that was an experiment that was due to be wiped out 1,900 years ago (based on our time in relation to the film) when all this kicked off on the ship, according to the corpse carbon dating of the engineer. But I think that we don't need to know this. As mentioned by David "Sometimes to create life, you have to destroy first. Holloway was Davids go at creating by destruction.[/b] 'Miss Vickers...is there an agenda you're not telling us about?' [b] Everyone has an agenda, some are revealed, some are hinted at - some are to be guessed at. Again the whole movie can be summarised by that line. It has more depth than you realise, in context. The film is all about agendas - everyone has one and they are ALL personal to the individual. Except for the selfless suicide crash...perhaps?[/b]

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 8:47 PM
Ridley Scott is an intelligent man - no less intelligent than me - and if I can get here after a few hours then surely after months and years of work they would not knock out a load of meaningless shit??? ;-)

brightonrock

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 8:54 PM
OK. Your points are very consistent and thought out. And right now i'm starting to feel differently about the film. But ONLY because of what you've said and NOT what I saw. I didn't see or feel this level of intelligence when I was in the cinema today. Yet despite of this you seem to think it's not a particularly spiritual venture? Whereas I would say - forgoing the gore - this understanding of the film is very spiritual.

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 8:59 PM
Yeah - I just wanted more than a hint - one that would slap people harder in the face and e more clear about, even if there was no answers at the end. This would likely only have been achieved if the Engineer had taken us under his wing and then we pissed him off as he realised we messed with his toys.

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 9:00 PM
Thanks by the way, I think you've made me think about the film much more deeply and helped me decide the film is actually better than I realised on first reaction too! Ha - I might start a blog.... :-D

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 9:02 PM
I only say t wasn't very spiritual or heady because the film serves to work well as an action type of movie and the subtext is less pronounced than I would have liked. Ridley mentioned this as a compromise between the two...

karlosfunkster

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 9:06 PM
I'd like to hear other peoples ideas - did other people feel this was a deeper film than they realised after a bit of discussion???

brightonrock

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 9:18 PM
To be honest man, I think there are a lot of people who - if they were having input like you just gave me - would start to think about this film differently. All you need is that push in the right direction. Earlier, I was ranting about how no answers are given. Now? I'm starting to think about it all differently. Literally one hours difference.

Katie

MemberOvomorphJun-01-2012 10:58 PM
One question that comes to mind is: why the Engineers thought they had the right to 'engineer'? Meaning, why they felt they had the right to destroy what was naturally on a planet, to create what they wanted on that same planet? This seems to be a recurring theme through out science fiction (if not overused, yet.)

travis bickle

MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 2:04 AM
in the original 1979 movie , the crew go inside the ship where they eventually find the space jockey lying on the pilot seat...chest open...in this new movie this space jockey pursues shaw inside the pod or whatever and eventually dies. How to explain this? It seems its not the same space jockey,but that means that after the ship came crashing down, the other jockeys woke up, but david said only one was alive.

travis bickle

MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 3:42 AM
oh ,apparently its not even same moon,that explains it, but hav to say its cheap trick, good movie but that detail dropped points for me.
Add A Reply

Join the discussion! Sign in using your Scified Account to add your say!

New to the site? You can create your own profile in seconds!

* Signing in also removes ads *

Alien Movie Universe Forums
Alien
AlienDiscuss all things Alien here
Alien: Covenant
Alien: CovenantDiscuss the Prometheus Sequel, Alien: Covenant
Prometheus
PrometheusEverything About Prometheus
Alien: Romulus
Alien: RomulusDiscuss the new Fede Alvarez Alien movie here
Alien: Earth Series
Alien: Earth SeriesDiscuss the Alien FX TV series here!
Alien Movies
Alien MoviesDiscuss the Classic Alien Films
Prometheus Fan Art
Prometheus Fan ArtArtwork & Fiction From the Fans
Alien Games
Alien GamesDiscuss Alien games here
Alien 5 Movie
Alien 5 MovieDiscuss Neill Blomkamps’s vision for Alien 5 here
New Forum Topics
Hot Forum Topics
Highest Forum Ranks Unlocked
ninXeno426
ninXeno426 » Praetorian
62% To Next Rank
Thoughts_Dreams
Thoughts_Dreams » Neomorph
88% To Next Rank
Jonesy
Jonesy » Chestburster
51% To Next Rank
MuzzleNZ
MuzzleNZ » Facehugger
33% To Next Rank
damiendada
damiendada » Ovomorph
68% To Next Rank
Unofficial Alien Animated Series
Alien: Analects - the unofficial Alien animated series
Watch Alien: Analects - The unofficial Alien animated series we created! Visit the official page!
Latest Media
Community Stats
This Alien Movie Universe community is part of the Scified network. Scified hosts a network of online fan-site communities containing 406,050 posts by 48,357 members (4 are online now). The Alien Forum is the most recently active forum. The latest Forum topic added was: Alright! Alien Earth trailer! (Xenomorphing podcast)
VIPWhat are VIP?AdminModeratorSpecial TitleMember

This website provides the latest information, news, rumors and scoops on the Alien: Romulus movie and Alien TV series for FX! Get the latest news on the Alien prequels, sequels, spin-offs and more. Alien movie, game and TV series news is provided and maintained by fans of the Alien film franchise. This site is not affiliated with 20th Century Studios, FX, Hulu, Disney or any of their respective owners.

© 2025 Scified.com
New Member? Join Up!
Create A Profile

Remove Ads, Contribute Content, Win Prizes!

Already A Member? Sign in


Log in to view your personalized notifications across Scified!

Transport To Communities
AlienFansite
GodzillaFansite
PredatorFansite
Search Scified
Main Menu
Community
Sci-Fi Movies
Help & Info