An in-depth analysis of what I DIDN'T like about Prometheus...

Let me start by saying that I really did like Prometheus. I thought it was well worth the money spent, had some great ideas behind it, and had a wonderful cast. I really don't feel the need to talk about what I did like in detail because it's not what we like that matters, it's what we don't like or are confused about because there can only be one of three reasons why: 1- personal taste, 2- artistic ambiguity, 3- inability to convey the idea at hand. Having said that... ... there are a few aspects of the movie that sort of broke it for me. I haven't read any other reviews so if these notions have already been discussed to death, I apologize. Also, I've only seen it once so maybe I didn't quite grasp everything the first time, although I am pretty detail oriented when it comes to, well, everything. I take my first issue with the character of David. His boy-like demeanor is endearing, but his motivation leaves me yearning for more understanding. As an android, he doesn't have "wants" or "needs", yet he seems determined to act with a purpose, one which could only be culled from a personal agenda that he supposedly doesn't have. Non-programmed priorities of his own will. In many ways, David is the purest antagonist in Prometheus. He is both accepted and somewhat despised, seemingly by everybody for one reason or another. The unlikely, unappreciated, yet necessary, relationship that David and Shaw share by the end of the film can only solidify this proposition. David plays out much like a classic Judas or Brute. In and of it's self, I find this a wonderful element to the overall story... but I feel it would be better executed in a dedicated medium, if not film than book. But that isn't the case, unfortunately. Instead, that idea was placed within a larger which, in theory works but is unbalanced in execution. The larger theme in Prometheus is, of course, meeting our makers. That is the plot element that drives all other ideas in the film, which brings me to more motivation issues... this time concerning Holloway. Here is a doctor who is on the search for HIS maker, HIS creator, yet he treats David with the highest amount of contempt and even hatred. How can someone (a doctor who thinks both abstract and analytically as per his actions/reactions in the film) who recognizes them self as being the product of creation, be so cruel to another product of creation? I suppose that's the big question we ask ourselves everyday about those around us. An important theme, but it is not explained and lives only as the interaction between Holloway and David. But once again, what is the motivation for this? For it to play such an important role in how the film pans out, it should have a clearer explanation. I feel character motivation suffers in Prometheus as it did in Alien (which is the ONLY Alien comparison I will make, but only because it is a directorial flaw in two similar works and not actually comparing to the film it's self). In Alien, Scott had these characters who each acted a certain way, but he had no motivation for such archetypes. The actors struggled with this to the point where Scott had to come up with back stories for the actors to pull from. This, of course, was in the middle of production so the ideas were brief and vague, allowing the talent to pull from that when necessary. In Prometheus, Scott had well-crafted back stories and specific motivations (many of which the audience is left out on) so the talent creates characters who are a sum of their past, rather than vague archetypes who pull upon their experience in the past to craft where they are going. I'll use Holloway and David as examples, but also Vickers, Janek, and Shaw (to some degree). I felt that this made the film more of a story than a portrayal of human drama or even horror. In the end, of course it's a story... but do you have a beautifully shot work of art, or a beautifully shot Hollywood blockbuster? I feel the characters, while unique, fell victim to the mediocrity of the major studio expectations. But this, in part, is due to the lack of motivation for the audience. Certainly there are individuals who are "one dimensional", but to have so many in one ship, in order for anyone to maintain their specific attitude and thought process, we need some understanding of that motivation. Speaking of character design, I was left baffled by Shaw half way through. She looses her lover, finds out she is pregnant with some sort of genetically altered fetus, has it removed while conscious, finds out Weyland is alive and on the ship, finds out there is a living engineer... all a very short span, a day (maybe 2, max... but doubtful). Certainly she would experience shock, but for such a long period of time, there is no way she wouldn't crash. A body can only supply so much adrenaline before it is forced to rest. Plus, the shots she was giving herself appeared to kill pain. There is no way she would have been able to continue so long without resting. Maybe, of course, she was genetically altered by sleeping with Holloway, but this is never explored or even hinted at, so the average viewer will not understand. The absurdity of it only further compels the "major summer blockbuster" formula that is so rampant in big screen entertainment today. I find it hard to believe that Scott would over look such an obvious flaw. I suppose if the film was intended as a Hollywood story, then it is fine... but I expected something less mainstream. I will probably get stabbed for saying this but Guy Pearce had no place in this film. Weyland should have never even been aboard the Prometheus to begin with. That element has been played before, many times over... and within the same franchise (albeit, different "universes). Weyland in Prometheus was essentially the same Weyland in AvP, only this one was motivated by greed while the AvP Weyland was motivated by accomplishment. Furthermore, the aged make up looks blatantly fake. Scott spoke in interviews about how he wanted to limit the digital effects as they add a less than genuine look and feel to a film, yet the prosthetic aging application was probably the least visually appealing aspect in the entire film. I have more to touch upon, such as continuity (what happened with the creature that shot out of dude's mouth? Why did no one else speak about Shaw's baby?) and more motivation( Why was Janek and his two (I'm assuming) unnamed companions so willing to just up and die, especially not having any idea what was happening and the gravity of the situation?), but I want to talk about one last thing before I pass out: the "aliens". I loved the proto-facehugger. The proto-hugger, I get it. There were tiny worms, they got in the goo, they "evolved" into larger worm things. Holloway transforming, I get it. His dna is changing, not just breaking down but creating life within it's self. Fifeild, I'm still confused on that creature's motivation and how it decided that the best way to walk to the Prometheus was WITH IT'S LEGS BENT BACKWARD OVER IT'S HEAD. I do, however, get the Alien reference with that, and that he is no longer quite human and thus, his actions are understandable. The Shaw baby, even that I can get. It still retains it's sperm-like appearance, Holloway was infected after all (the tentacles, I guess, are from Shaw's side of the family...). The starfish beast (which, ironically [or maybe not so much], a "leaked" script spoke of a "STAR BEAST" at the end of the film...) I do NOT understand. I understand the starfish as we know it, it is an extremely ancient echinoderms. I don't get how THAT comes from a reconstruction of one of Holloway's sperm cells and whatever genetic material it took from Shaw's egg. Spermy/squid baby, feasible. Starfish monster, very unlikely and a little absurd. Especially considering how many tentacles it had, and how more and more kept coming out. The other creature I didn't like was the engineer "xenomorph". The effects felt like an homage to Alien 3, while the whole scene seemed forced and only put in to "appease" the franchise fans... making it the weakest part of the film. Having said all of that, it was still a good film. I enjoyed it thoroughly, I just felt that there were some motivation issues and execution problems that made the film not as cohesive as it could have been. I'll certainly be seeing it again this weekend just to make sure I caught everything. And on that note, I'm passing out.