DACrowe
Avenger
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2000
- Messages
- 30,765
- Reaction score
- 624
- Points
- 78
Just got back from seeing this a few hours ago. My thoughts:
I can definitely see why this movie is causing so many fights and debates. It is a visually stunning film full of big ideas, big characters and a fantastic premise. However, it is not without its (many) flaws.
First, I really love to see Scott back in sci-fi. The Giger-monster or "xenomorph" has been run into the ground by executives at Fox pretty much since Alien. Aliens is a great movie too (and better than Prometheus), but each subsequent film in the franchise took away some of the horror and mystery around this truly alien creature. By returning to the Space Jockeys' ill-fated and sexually menacing ship, Scott returns to the primordial horror of the unknown, the danger of forbidden knowledge and, of course, the body horror. And when Prometheus is at its best, it is when Scott is exploring these repulsively engrossing aspects and themes of the story. The best scene in the movie, the one where everyone in my crowded matinee audience was deathly silent when they weren't making squeamish noises, is of course when Elizabeth [blackout]performs an abortion on herself to get that alien sucker out.[/blackout] Holy **** that was awesome.
What connects these moments is a dense mythological question of why are we here and if these aliens, the space jockeys, are our creators. The premise in itself is fascinating and really well explored. Some dislike the third act escalation of the ship being a facility to develop biological WMDs and that it was headed for Earth (no spoiler tags, it's in the freaking trailer). I thought it was brilliant myself. We're nothing to them but a failed experiment and they have decided to wipe us out and possibly start over. It doesn't matter why, that is the sort of unnerving question (like the Space Jockey himself in Alien) that is better left vague and unknown.
However, much else in the script crumbles under the weight of its lofty ambitions. Not explaining why the Jockeys do what they do is one thing, not explaining why there were maps to this planet/moon and why they wanted humans to see it in the first place is just lazy writing. I'm really not surprised in retrospect that Lindelof, the head writer on Lost wrote this. The other thing is the middle of the movie. It begins strong and ends strong, IMO. But the entire middle of the film is quite muddled. There were too many things going on and balls in the air.
We have to balance between what happens to Charlie after [blackout]David implants him with that alien virus-y, gooey stuff[/blackout], what Shaw does, what happens to the two scientists stuck on the ship over night, the geologist's return, the reveal of not only Guy Pearce's role in the story, but also its relationship to the Vickers character (Charlize Theron). And instead of building dread, like the first act, that makes the need of stopping this ship reaching Earth, it just feels confusing. I personally would have cut out the geologist's return and combined that with Charlie's story. His transformation subplot ended too abruptly and needed more payoff with David, Elizabeth, and general horror. It was rushed and didn't build. The horror should have been there and what Elizabeth does. Take out all the needless twists that go nowhere (like Pearce and Theron's relationship) and keep it simple.
Fortunately, the movie is held together by Scott's amazing visuals as well as a great cast. I must especially point out how great Fassbender is as David (Hal 9000 in the flesh, so to speak) and Noomi Rapace is as Elizabeth Shaw. Even if her accent isn't perfect, she just brings it as an actress and like her amazing Lisbeth Salander, she electrifies the screen.
It's a good, but very flawed movie. But I would be lying if I didn't say that disappoints me as I was really hoping for a masterpiece from Scott in sci-fi, especially given how awesome those trailers were. Still, it's causing amazing amounts of debates and controversial discussion after it's over. It leaves a searing impression that even people who hate it feel the need to mull over with other people. The fact that it was so ambitious, well crafted and visionary, it can still draw such a reaction even if it is a problematic movie. That is a testament to it in an era of fast-food, cookie cutter formulaic moviemaking that is immediately forgettable.
7.5/10
My opinion.
I can definitely see why this movie is causing so many fights and debates. It is a visually stunning film full of big ideas, big characters and a fantastic premise. However, it is not without its (many) flaws.
First, I really love to see Scott back in sci-fi. The Giger-monster or "xenomorph" has been run into the ground by executives at Fox pretty much since Alien. Aliens is a great movie too (and better than Prometheus), but each subsequent film in the franchise took away some of the horror and mystery around this truly alien creature. By returning to the Space Jockeys' ill-fated and sexually menacing ship, Scott returns to the primordial horror of the unknown, the danger of forbidden knowledge and, of course, the body horror. And when Prometheus is at its best, it is when Scott is exploring these repulsively engrossing aspects and themes of the story. The best scene in the movie, the one where everyone in my crowded matinee audience was deathly silent when they weren't making squeamish noises, is of course when Elizabeth [blackout]performs an abortion on herself to get that alien sucker out.[/blackout] Holy **** that was awesome.
What connects these moments is a dense mythological question of why are we here and if these aliens, the space jockeys, are our creators. The premise in itself is fascinating and really well explored. Some dislike the third act escalation of the ship being a facility to develop biological WMDs and that it was headed for Earth (no spoiler tags, it's in the freaking trailer). I thought it was brilliant myself. We're nothing to them but a failed experiment and they have decided to wipe us out and possibly start over. It doesn't matter why, that is the sort of unnerving question (like the Space Jockey himself in Alien) that is better left vague and unknown.
However, much else in the script crumbles under the weight of its lofty ambitions. Not explaining why the Jockeys do what they do is one thing, not explaining why there were maps to this planet/moon and why they wanted humans to see it in the first place is just lazy writing. I'm really not surprised in retrospect that Lindelof, the head writer on Lost wrote this. The other thing is the middle of the movie. It begins strong and ends strong, IMO. But the entire middle of the film is quite muddled. There were too many things going on and balls in the air.
We have to balance between what happens to Charlie after [blackout]David implants him with that alien virus-y, gooey stuff[/blackout], what Shaw does, what happens to the two scientists stuck on the ship over night, the geologist's return, the reveal of not only Guy Pearce's role in the story, but also its relationship to the Vickers character (Charlize Theron). And instead of building dread, like the first act, that makes the need of stopping this ship reaching Earth, it just feels confusing. I personally would have cut out the geologist's return and combined that with Charlie's story. His transformation subplot ended too abruptly and needed more payoff with David, Elizabeth, and general horror. It was rushed and didn't build. The horror should have been there and what Elizabeth does. Take out all the needless twists that go nowhere (like Pearce and Theron's relationship) and keep it simple.
Fortunately, the movie is held together by Scott's amazing visuals as well as a great cast. I must especially point out how great Fassbender is as David (Hal 9000 in the flesh, so to speak) and Noomi Rapace is as Elizabeth Shaw. Even if her accent isn't perfect, she just brings it as an actress and like her amazing Lisbeth Salander, she electrifies the screen.
It's a good, but very flawed movie. But I would be lying if I didn't say that disappoints me as I was really hoping for a masterpiece from Scott in sci-fi, especially given how awesome those trailers were. Still, it's causing amazing amounts of debates and controversial discussion after it's over. It leaves a searing impression that even people who hate it feel the need to mull over with other people. The fact that it was so ambitious, well crafted and visionary, it can still draw such a reaction even if it is a problematic movie. That is a testament to it in an era of fast-food, cookie cutter formulaic moviemaking that is immediately forgettable.
7.5/10
My opinion.
t:
