Forum Topic
eggchamber
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 12:33 PM[size=5][b]Note:[/b] This review has been marked "spoiler-free". Any spoilers posted will be removed (the entire post).[/size]
-----------------------------------------------------------------Major spoilers coming up!! Don't read if you haven't seen the film!!
I saw Prometheus yesterday, and I agree with all the lacklustre reviews I've read. Massively disappointing and a seriously wasted opportunity.
The one thing above all others missing from this film is atmosphere. Alien had it in spades, as did Blade Runner. Prometheus feels like a more or less random collection of scenes cobbled together to try to give the impression of a weighty philosophical exploration of our origins. On the basis of Prometheus it appears that Ridley Scott's ambition has far exceeded his grasp.
Is Prometheus a sci-fi horror film (think Alien)? No. Is it a poetic meditation on man's reasons for existence (think 2001)? No. Is it a cheesy entertainment (think the Star Wars prequels)? Although never falling to the depths of the Star Wars prequels it unfortunately does lean more towards the latter.
Yes, there are some visually spectacular moments, and images of quite stunning beauty. There is one sequence – Shaw's 'baby' – that is really gripping and quite gruesome. But the film rushes everything – the action, the plot (such as it is), and the information that is presented to the viewer - with the result that we can never really get to know the characters. We simply don't care about them as we did with the crew of the Nostromo. They are just disposable cardboard cut-outs, subservient to the demands of the plot. That is another major failing of this film. The plot drives the characters' actions when it should be the other way round.
The worst example of this is the fate of Fifield and Milburn. The ONLY reason Fifeld has his temper tantrum during the first visit to the 'temple' is so that he and Milburn will be left alone there to a gruesome fate. This event is a serious interruption to any sense of dread that was building up. When the re-animated Fifield returns to the ship to attack the crew, we've seen that kind of body-horror a hundred times before.
Holloway is disposed of just as we are getting to know the character and expecting his relationship with Shaw to be developed. Shaw recovers from the emotional trauma of her lover's death in about 30 seconds.
And then there's Vickers – the corporate suit whose agenda will be revealed later in the film. She too is disposed of and her death lends no sense of tension to the film.
Noomi Rapace does not convince in the role of Elizabeth Shaw. I'm trying to avoid direct comparisons with Alien, since this is a stand alone film, but Shaw is no Ripley. Rapace was stunning in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but here she is seriously miscast.
The creatures are not anything particularly new as Scott has claimed, with the possible exception of the 'snake-alien' that attacks Milburn. The final evolution of the giant proto-facehugger lacks originality, and doesn't really work. By that time what little sense of menace there was has been exhausted, and we're left yawning and waiting for the end. The proto-alien that emerges from the dead Engineer was completely unnecessary, I thought. Overall the creatures are completely lacking the originality and disturbing psychological undertones present in Giger's work.
My rating: 2.5/5
18 Replies
TheNextLV426
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 12:51 PMI can't argue with that.
I didn't find anything in the film scary or shocking. A lot of the scenes as you say are disjointed and I wondered what their purpose was. Why did David put the goo into Holloways cup? Who knows because Holloway was killed off before that even led anywhere.
The movie felt like there was too much going on, yet at the same time nothing was happening.
The ending was laughable and just when I thought something interesting might happen the dim finished.
2.5 is generous considering
Alain
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 1:00 PM+1.
I also wonder why David put that goo into Holloway's drink. No explanations, no sub plot which can explain this reaction... Orders from Weyland ? Glitch in David's brain ?
Another laughable point : Captain, you must stop this ship... Ok check, will do. And I don't give a f**** if i die....
I laughed when I saw the fate of Meredith "SQUITCHHH" Vickers....
As we say in french, allez hop, Poubelle !
orangecat
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 1:04 PMWeyland ordered David to infect Holloway as he knew he'd impregnate Shaw and they'd have material in the form of 'cuddles' to take back to earth in stasis
TheNextLV426
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 1:12 PMHow on earth did he know she would be impregnated? There was no indication of that at all.
They didn't know anything about the alien biology
Slipp_Digby
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 1:16 PMWeylands agenda is specifically to meet with the engineers in person and ask them for the secret of immortality. He has david trained in languages to do this.
How specifically does infecting holloway with an unknown infective agent help him to achieve this aim?
If all he wants is samples, why not remain in stasis on earth while a ship journeys there and back?
I can think of many risks to infecting holloway:-
- possible contagion to the crew and weyland himself
- unknown effects on holloway
- if this 'experiment' is discovered crew may revolt etc
It makes no sense to me.
Rubirosa
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 1:21 PMI agree with you said about Weyland telling David to insert the liquid into Holloways drink. I don't think that Weyland has to be certain that the black goo is going to have any effect on Holloway. But why not try it anyway. Weyland is a scientist. Scientists have theory's that drive from personal,ideas. It was a hunch, so why not try it. If it works great. If it doesn't move on to the next plan.
Maiafay
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 5:51 PM[quote]Secondly, when Rubrirosa mentions that david puts the goo into Holloway's cup, rather than say, pricking him with a tiny needle or something, shows how the plot stoops, at times, to the utterly ridiculous. [/quote]
Okay, so instead of the easy and undetectable way (it's obviously tasteless) of infecting Holloway, you want David to prick him instead with a needle that Holloway can one: FEEL. Two: question, WTF, David? And three, run straight to Shaw and others to find out what the hell David stuck him with.
And here's the other farfetched explanation to how Weyland figured Holloway would infect Shaw. They're a couple, right? Couples have sex. Couples have sex to relieve stress. Couples have sex just to have sex. Amazing how that works. Now, there's always a chance Shaw would have a headache, but Weyland probably figured he'd have a shot of getting SOMETHING (infected Holloway for certain, infected Shaw a bonus) to observe and study. And this in turn, demonstrates how far he's willing to go to pursue his own agenda.
And David asks Holloway, How far are you willing to go? And considering David isn't a fan of Holloway's attitude or Holloway in general, he did the closest thing to a F-YOU to someone he subconsciously/consciously couldn't stand.
And this, I inferred without having to see the movie. Why does everything have to be handled to people in plot? This is driving me crazy with the whining reviews that have spammed the board recently. They didn't EXPLAIN THIS. THEY didn't EXPLAIN that. Sorry, I like movies as I like my books. No exposition. I think if you apply logic to the decisions made by characters in this movie, you'd have enough explanation.
MAJ
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 3:42 PMI think that a lot of the comments you make really bring out the weaknesses of the film. For ex. I would never have imagined an even remote comparison to phantom menace. That would seem to be a splash of very cold water. Secondly, when Rubrirosa mentions that david puts the goo into Holloway's cup, rather than say, pricking him with a tiny needle or something, shows how the plot stoops, at times, to the utterly ridiculous.
Rubirosa
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 6:50 PMHey thats good stuff you just said @ Maiafay. It makes a lot of sense. I have not sern the movie either. But I am a voracious reader, and I myelf when reading hace to use my imagination to visualize what i am reading. So why should it be any different when watching a film.
Hephaesta
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 8:21 PMInteresting discussion, esp the last couple of posts. Got me thinking about the mediums of books and films. Books demand the active participation of the reader. Energy must be used in the simple activity of reading the book...consciousness is certainly required in translating what is read into an image, a series of images, in the mind's eye.
Movies are different. They actually act a bit more like a soporific...putting the viewer into something akin to a hypnotic state. It has been proven that watching television to the point of "vegging out" is tantamount to being asleep--right down to brainwave patterns. This is one of the reasons that watching a film on a large screen in a darkened room is so popular and, well, comfortable...these conditions facilitate hypnosis.
When considering the different states of consciousness required for the best possible consumption of books and films, I'm left believing that, with the latter, there has to be far more responsibility placed on the shoulders of filmmakers for the creation of a truly rich...forgive the choice of word...story. They are carrying you into their world. You don't have to do any of the legwork yourself and, since you'll ideally be in a kind of twilight sleep while there, you SHOULDN'T do any of the work yourself.
This is not to say that a film's merits, or lack thereof, can't be discussed with relish after viewing with some friends and/or loved ones after the show at a local watering hole, or whathaveyou. But no matter how one argues about it later, a movie will stand or fall very much on the efforts those who made it, rather than those who fight about it later...and that's as it should be.
While a reader might well be the producer, director, and even star of what is being read...filmmakers don't leave viewers with the same wiggle room by dint of the very medium that is being used. They expect, even demand, that you fall into THEIR dream, and if you wake disappointed, well...it wasn't your dream.
Maiafay
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 8:58 PM@Hephaesta
I agree to a point. I still (personal preference) don't enjoy movies - and movie dialogue in particular - that wave explanations in my face. In dialogue it's especially eyerolling when they begin like, "Hey Fred, you KNOW why this is happening right? Because of this and this and that, and don't you remember five years ago when it happened then too? And don't forget the special weapon so and so's been developing over the past year and has stored in his basement - and is the ONLY thing that can kill the alien. Let's take the secret passageway that's been there since the first scene and magically figure out how to fire it!"
:/
This is what I mean, and if you need repeat viewings to let it sink in ie., Inception, then so be it. And Inception is a great example of letting the viewer figure things out on their own - and the reason why I loved it. It was intelligent, multi-layered and polished.
But regarding Prometheus, some of the questions from naysayers just make me shake my head. Like above with Shaw and Weyland's agenda, Holloway infected by his drink instead of a needle. There are logical and common sense explanations that shouldn't be handed to you. As I said, I came up with those conclusions based on spoilers and I haven't seen the movie.
Maybe I might (doubt it) start agreeing with the negative (as no movie is without flaws) but I already love Fassbender, the tone of the movie, the overall style and design, the themes - and I know after seeing the ho-hum Snow White and the Huntsman that even a flawed Prometheus will be twenty times better.
Hell, the trailer of Prometheus is better than the entire Snow White movie.
Hephaesta
MemberOvomorphJun-02-2012 9:38 PM@Maiafay
Understood, although I was no fan of Inception. However, I felt that No Country For Old Men and most of the works of David Lynch (especially pre Lost Highway) fall into the sort of category you're talking about. The greatest films don't telegraph every single punch and will make you come back for more. That's the mark of a successful dream...it's one that you look forward to returning to again and again.
While we seem to have our aesthetic differences, I think we're basically on the same page. Although, if you'd feel so inclined, I'd like to know why you're fond of Inception. I have been looking for someone that could...well, not explain it to me, per se...but make me see the beauty in it. That puppy just didn't ring any of my bells, and I was SO looking forward to it. Bah. Grates me every time I think about it...(shudder).
Custodian
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 3:00 AMRapace is totally miscast - certainly if we're to take her girl-memories as reference i.e. why did her normal English accent fall into that Foreign Rapacianism in adult life?
In ALIEN (due to budgetary limitations) we never really saw the xeno and our minds went BERSERK trying to piece together what it was and what it could do. In this film, it's just all there, with gruesomely intrusion Hollywood porn lighting from every angle. Oh, look, a vagina. A penis. Please...
My final point, you bolt together a Caesarian scar that wide with small guage pins like that and then make Rapace gad about like a gazelle, SHE GONNA RIP. But no, climbing up from exhaust ports is fine with our heroine. Not convincing at all...
Oh, and the FLAMES FROM THE EXHAUST of the 'derelict'? Really? Flames? I was thinking more PLASMA anti-grav or something like the MATRIX Nebuqednezar (sp) effect with a lovely timehole disappearing effect on at-altitude ignition. Gah.....
2013 sci-fi horror novels 'Custodian' and 'Tandem' available from Amazon, B&N, iTunes etc...
Maiafay
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:05 AM@Free planet
So, they didn't do the special effects to your liking? And from other reviews, Rapace does one of the best performaces in the film (aside from Fassbender). Odd. Oh well, can't please you all.
@Hephaesta
The concepts and visuals were the biggest aspects of the film I enjoyed. I'm not one for Decaprio, but he was convincing as the pensive Cobb. I liked how the movie presented all the pieces and you had to figure out what piece went where. The limbo being practically forever, Mal so confused to whether reality was a dream, Cobb's subconscious Mal attempting to "keep him" in limbo was interesting - if not self-destructive. Overall art direction, style. I just liked it. Then again, I'm partial to any movie that has surreal dreamlike qualities. Anything to do with the mind and all its facets and darker corners is a default WIN with me.
It's the reason I liked The Cell when everyone hated it.
Slipp_Digby
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:43 AM@Maiafay
Would you considering answer my question posed above? The problem isnt so much the way David infects Holloway, but why, what motivates him, how does this help Weyland achieve his objective?
It serves no purpose, except to provide the big shock set piece of Shaw in the med pod.
Its these types of strange out of character actions which make the film seem so uncomfortable to watch. Its plot driving character, sometimes by doing absurb things. I want to see characters who are driving the plot!
Hephaesta
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 9:17 AM@Maiafay
Go figure. I actually liked The Cell, too. Have you ever seen The Fall? Same director...simple but moving story...STUNNING visuals.
Maiafay
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 1:56 PMI haven't seen the movie, but would assume David was just obeying orders from Weyland. And I can only speculate (again, having not seen the movie, but know tons of spoilers) that Weyland was desperate enough to use anyone and anything to further his search of immortality.
I'm also assuming David studied the goo and had his own theories of what it might be. Scientists in general experiment and are motivated by curiosity. That's what drives them. The need for answers: What is it? What does it do? There doesn't have to be a complicated reason why David did anything. I personally think David harbored a dislike for Holloway (based on what I've heard and seen in clips) so whether following orders or motivated by sheer curiosity (which for David would be enough), David had no qualms about giving Holloway what he "wished" for.
And that's my take on it.
@Hephaesta
Lol, that's good you liked the Cell. It was trashed by everyone, though. I find it one of J Loe's best films. The dark imagery and surreal visuals reminded me of Silent Hill (love the games up to #4, then the series went downhill).
And no, haven't seen the Fall. I'll check it out :)
Add A Reply
