Awful, horrible, cliche filled claptrap

I respectfully disagree. I was NOT disappointed. If you have such passionate hate for the film, why not just forget about it? Leave this website and forget the movie? Simple. Or better yet, write an angry letter to Ridley Scott and friends explaining how angry you are.

xemu, can i suggest NON-fiction? I mean, it sounds like you wanted a documentary.

NineteenHundred, Might I remind you this is a DISCUSSION board. So discuss the film, don't tell people to leave. Freedom of speech is allowed. And ideas can be shared. Why don't you stop acting like a child and ask him some follow up questions to better understand him?

You're singling out a bit of dialogue without including the context (which was an exchange between an embittered child and a tyrannical egotistical power mad parent, btw..she was being caustic with her choice of words) And then calling the whole script a wash. That's pretty idiotic. The "plot holes" I bet you're alluding to have been well documented by the writers and Scott as left open intentionally...both to suggest a possible sequel, or to be left open for debate (such like many elements of 2001) I agree with some characters being bumbling, no debate there. But one could contend that only one, maybe two of the slightly central characters were the bumbling ones, and more were just a bit of cliche. Think about how you conduct yourself in everyday life for a moment...is every utterance you speak a well crafted, exacting idea, or is 80% of it small talk and drivel? I bet the latter. Though these characters are scientists or what have you, they are humans first. Not everything that came out of Sagan's mouth was cosmic truths. I think 90% of the script was fine and unfolded how real people actually talk.

I wanted a clever, unpredictable plot with deep, smart dialogue. Prometheus is no Alien or Blade Runner. Not even close. Millburn is jar jar binx.

yeah, but in star wars you don't get to see jar jar slowly die after arm is broken.

Prometheus was not meant to be an Alien...at all, it was stated many times by Scott. You cant make "Alien" twice, it was done already. Scott is not going to beat a dead horse over again as we saw with the sequels. I believe that is the problem, many people want to see a xeno, a queen, a remake of Alien but through Prometheus....not gonna happen... The story was meant to go into a different direction, rather than follow in the shadow of Alien.

#Sambo Ok, I'm sorry for being harsh. But I didn't ask any questions for discussion because no one is obviously going to change his mind about the film. His reasons are very subjective and you can't argue with subjective opinions.

Prometheus is not on the level of Alien, Blade Runner or 2001. What we have here is a Star Wars prequel. Its watchable, though a huge disappointment.

Xemu, there is a blindspot most fans have when comparing what they loved 30 years ago to what is brand new. The biggest thing that changed in those 30 years is probably you, not to mention you've had a long time for those movies to grow on you. This is often very hard to see, but taste and impressions and most importantly how impressionable you are change a lot in 30 years. Even for Ridley Scott. what recently would you say compares to this, because the movies you cited are 30 years ago

The IMDB user reviewers are overall negative. Here is one fine piece of copy that sums up my thoughts exactly: "So who do they send? A gaggle of fractious goons whose collective scientific nous is rivalled only by that of the Three Stooges. Within minutes of touching down (conveniently beside the only 'man-made' structures on the planet, a'la 1960s Star Trek) the 'scientists' are yanking off their helmets, on the basis of 'it seems fine to me', dipping their fingers into strange organic ooze, and lugging a severed alien head back to an unquarantined spaceship in a sandwich bag."

Well, compared to the expectations for a new sci-fi movie of sci-fi-godfather ridley scott ANY script or movie can only disappoint. But compared to the most other sci-fi plots, prometheus is a masterpiece. It "could" have been done much better by changing the screenplay here and there, smarter development of the characters and definitly another end, which would give the viewer a greater "satisfaction feeling". It lacks mostly of TO MANY open questions and as it is not a movie that is "closed in itself" you simply can not be satisfied with it. And thats exactly the "lindelofs strategy of writing screenplays", all the way down of the dumb blah-LOST-opera. Never come to the end, to the answer, and allways feed suspense....

@xemu I was also very disappointed after seeing this film. Great visuals can never make up for a bad story and horrendous acting. I just couldn't believe in the characters except David. Holloway, Fifield and Milburn would be better off in another AvP sequel, they're the most stupid scientists/geologists etc I've ever seen. Why build a trillion dollar ship only to let all these schmucks get along acting unprofessional? Seriously, why are they chosen for this mission? Out of billions of people, couldn't Weyland find any serious, disciplined scientists? The first hour of the film is great, it builds up the tension only to be brought down by a series of events that doesn't make any sense because everything is rushed like a Michael Bay film. Then add some ridiculous puppet monsters, a hyper zombie, and Prometheus just turned into a freak show that forgot It's own beginning.

@xemu That review snippet sounds like it was written by someone who wasn't paying attention to the movie. Or even worse, didn't even see it.

There was no movie to pay attention to. How about this, leave the mute button off, but have all of the dialogue in a language I don't understand. The movie as it is, would lose nothing. The OP is correct on all accounts. Promethus follows every pitfall of a bad movie from bad writing, to completely idiotic characters, to cheesy creatures. OMG the scientists are so dumb! OMG the creatures are fraking stupid and unimaginative!

I [i]WAS[/i] very disappointed too. Thankfully I quite like the film now though :) Sorry to hear you didnt like, it my friend.

Isn't IMDB *always* negative, especially about anticipated movies? On the "review" in question: "So who do they send? A gaggle of fractious goons whose collective scientific nous is rivalled only by that of the Three Stooges. Within minutes of touching down (conveniently beside the only 'man-made' structures on the planet, a'la 1960s Star Trek) the 'scientists' are yanking off their helmets, on the basis of 'it seems fine to me', dipping their fingers into strange organic ooze, and lugging a severed alien head back to an unquarantined spaceship in a sandwich bag." 1. The "man made" structure we watched them after searching the planet for some sign of the civilaztion they were hoping to locate, you mean? Would you have preferred they just land on the first bit of dirt they come to instead? Even on our own missions to the moon, the landing site was chosen after as careful a survey as we can manage... 2. Helmets were removed after analysis of the atmosphere, with note taken that this was not natural but rather 'man made' in the same manner as their own terraforming methodologies. In fact, it was even stated that the atmosphere was just like earth's - "only cleaner". And there was quite a bit an arguing over Holloway's choice to remove his helmet, besides. 3. The crew was explicitly told not to touch the goo. It was David who did so, because he was following the orders of Weyland. 4. The severed head was quarantined (twice, in point of fact) and placed through a decontamination process. Clearly, whoever wrote the review either didn't see the film or lacked the capacity to pay any sort of close attention (perhaps ADHD). And I wonder if that isn't the divisive line between people who able to enjoy the film versus those who can manage only vitriol for it. It was a film that did not hand its audience pat answers with an easy to follow plot that completed a 90 minute journey with a neat wrap up.

In terms of Storytelling, the execution is generally so very poor that the fact of it cannot simply be brushed aside as, "deliberate intrigue" - this is structural poverty.

I second 1900's original post 100%

It's still crappy screenwriting, and an embarrassment, in my opinion, for a master like Ridley Scott to present us with what happens with the Shaw character. Nobody could undergo the serious surgery trauma she went through and then run and jump and essentially turn into Sigourney Weaver. I can't remember if she ran in front of a slo-mo explosion, but she might as well have - by that point it was essentially Michael Bay. I expected this movie to be so much more sophisticated than that. That what you get when you settle for hipster tv writers, I suppose. I can forgive all the red herrings and Alien mythology that we're left guessing at, that's part of the fun, but worn-out cliches ? THAT was grosser than any of the slime 'n' creatures.