Prometheus (Alien prequel)

[Cras]

I saw it in 3D. Is it worth it? 3D does help make scenes a bit more "intimate", you could say, but I doubt you will miss much of anything if you choose to see just the 2d.

 

[Codz]

How was the movie itself?

 

[Keatah]

Mmm.. I've always rather found 3d to be a distraction. You end up paying attention to the effects and not the story, or even the ambiance.

 

[Cras]

How was the movie itself?

its in media res. It does not bother to address every single issue in exposition. It is well paced, well directed, good actors, some good characters, I quite liked the captain of the ship.

In my opinion, it was very well done, and is quite enjoyable. Good suspense, good sci-fi elements. I recommend it for sure.

It is shot in 3D in the more common format now, where it is just a movie that happens to be in 3D, no gimmicks. It adds to the scenes, it really does. I understand that 3D is not something everyone reacts well to, some even dont get any senstation from the effect, but I would say it is worth it, but you certainly will not loose much of anything if you see the 2D.

 

[Andy44]

After all the hype I was a little let down. Overall it's an okay movie, but there are some things about it I didn't like. Logan Marshall-Green is an annoying actor who was a little too cool for his own (and the film's) good. 80mileshigh has already mentioned this "hipness" thing; he also mentioned the working class griping and how it seemed out of place. This is a science expedition and the guy doing all the griping was a scientist with a major attitude who I immediately wanted to see get punched in the face. I also felt like the first half of the story was rushed to get us through the background and on the main event.

The whole thing about the Space Jockey was kind of cool, not what I expected. Still the film leaves a lot of questions, though.

 

[80mileshigh]

One thing that bugs me a lot in hindsight is the idea that the scientific crew didn't know each other at all before arrival, and the slapstick banter during the briefing - these people are meant to be scholars?

Still, I've found myself thinking about this film a lot since seeing it. That's the mark of a good film isn't it?

It's showing at a small cinema in Melbourne (Nova) so I might go there after the horror of the suburban megaplex - might be interesting to see how it stands up on a smaller screen

I should point out I was wrong in one of my posts from several months ago - all the archaeological finds are from Earth.

 

[clive bradbury]

Don't expect too much - Scott is one of my favourite directors, but I left very disappointed. In my opinion, the Village Voice critic has it right:

'the film is "prone to shallow ponderousness", that can "mimic the appearance of an epic, noble, important movie", but fails to "payoff".'

Add to that the weak script and several unconvincing characters (expect Fassbender - who is excellent). Come on Ridley, forget the Alien franchise and get on with 'The Forever War'. Now that is the movie I want to see...

 

[Krys]

Garyw and I saw it for Gary's birthday on Friday....and we both feel the movie is a pile of crap. Seriously. Suspense? not really. Thriller? not at all. It falls flat on pretty much every category from acting, staging and costumes to the lack of a storyline.

In Gary's words "Prometheus in a nutshell humans find alien, wake alien who obviously hates mornings, punch up, credits. oh and silly fish birth scene."

 

[orbekler]

a

...Still the film leaves a lot of questions, though.

That's why Sir Scott thinks to make a sequel.

...and the slapstick banter during the briefing - these people are meant to be scholars?...

- This is a known technique - the briefing is not for the scientists, it's for the FILM AUDIENCE!

For example, in "Da Vinci Code", do you remember the paternalistic explanations of Sir Teabing to Mr. Langdon on the Templar history or whatsoever?
If Mr. Langdon was a real cultured historian as his fictional role imposed, would have spitted right between the eyes of Teabing.
But of course, that explanation was for the film audience, mostly not aware of historical details (fictional or not) needed to evolve the movie plot.

...Come on Ridley, forget the Alien franchise and get on with 'The Forever War'. Now that is the movie I want to see...

This will depend on the box office, now something about 67 million $ vs 130 millions $ of budget.

If eventually Promentheus will be a flop, Sir Scott will forget the Alien franchise.

 

[Ghostrider]

It is the classic "as you know" trope... Like in CSI when the investigators are explaining to each other the fine points of electrocution, decomposition and firestarting. They're all pros in their field, they know the stuff. And you don't expect real detectives to have this exchange:

"I managed to get a readable license number from the surveillance video."
"Great. Now we only have to check it on the motor database to come up with the owner."
"Yes, and then we can run the name through the police database to check their criminal record."

Rather than:

"Hey, you remember that Camaro in the 7-11 lot? Turns out the owner has a criminal record the length of Interstate 76."

Unfortunately, two logical steps are missing and the screenwriters' handbook rules that viewers are idiots. Sadly it's often true - not simply idiots, but many have the attention span of a goldfish with ADHD on drugs. Raise their hands those who, while watching some thriller movie or such haven't heard someone asking in a low voice (hopefully low) stuff like "Hey, I don't understand. Who's that guy? Is he dead? And why everybody is calling him by a different name?"

 

[orbekler]

...And you don't expect real detectives to have this exchange:

"I managed to get a readable license number from the surveillance video."
"Great. Now we only have to check it on the motor database to come up with the owner."
"Yes, and then we can run the name through the police database to check their criminal record."...

It reminds me a Mickey Mouse strip! :lol:

 

[garyw]

This is a known technique - the briefing is not for the scientists, it's for the FILM AUDIENCE!

It's a film technique that doesn't work.

If you show me a bunch of people who don't know each other I will treat them as a bunch of people who don't know each other. If you want to dump exposition into the movie why not have a 2 minute briefing scene on Earth before they go into stasis for the flight?

 

[80mileshigh]

- This is a known technique - the briefing is not for the scientists, it's for the FILM AUDIENCE!

Obviously, but which audience? Given the films lofty aspirations, and Scott's often stated admiration for the philosophical power of sci-fi, thinking sci-fi fans are right to be a little annoyed - even whilst excepting the limitations of such an endeavour as a commercial project.

There is a dissonance which runs through this whole project between the film as a work of art and the film as a commodity, between what a film maker might like to do, and what a studio will permit him to. The result is a film which can be at once far-reaching and disappointing.

 

[clive bradbury]

a

That's why Sir Scott thinks to make a sequel.

Do us a favour, Ridley - please don't bother.

 

[Ghostrider]

If you show me a bunch of people who don't know each other I will treat them as a bunch of people who don't know each other. If you want to dump exposition into the movie why not have a 2 minute briefing scene on Earth before they go into stasis for the flight?

Because 2 minutes is a bit long, unless you make it into an animated/filmed sequence with a voiceover. "Show, don't tell" is the rule here, unless you can cram everything into a neat short opening crawl.

 

[garyw]

Then make it shorter? Do 30 seconds of exposition and 10 seconds of shot of the ship leaving Earth?

The point I'm making is that if you show me something on the screen I will accept that it is what the film makers want me to see not that it was put there to dump exposition to the audience.

 

[Andy44]

a

That's why Sir Scott thinks to make a sequel.

Setting up for a potential sequel is not an excuse for a weak story.

- This is a known technique - the briefing is not for the scientists, it's for the FILM AUDIENCE!

For example, in "Da Vinci Code",

Sorry, I really wanted to come out of the theater raving about a great movie, but it didn't happen, and scenes like this are the reason. As with Star Trek and other popular franchises, fans will try every argument to justify the bad decisions of the film makers, but in the end it's still a poor decision.

And Da Vinci Code is hardly an example of a well-done film. It was merely okay at best.

The Alien universe has a lot more stories to tell, though, so we may get a few good movies out of this run after all. As long as Scott learns from this anyway. Doesn't seem to work with George Lucas, though.

 

[garyw]

The Alien universe may well have more stories to tell but if Ridley Scott is involved I will not be seeing them at the cinema. I refuse to give that man any more of my money. If the whole purpose was to set up a sequel then he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. People PAID to see this pile of absolute rubbish and he expects people to pay again to see what should have been on screen in the first place?

No thanks. I'll wait for the DVD rental.

 

[clive bradbury]

I'll wait for the DVD rental.

Or not, in my case.

 

[Andy44]

This is the first Scott movie I recall which didn't knock me out. Bladerunner, Blackhawk Down, Alien, all excellent. I'm surprised he botched this one. The little promo videos going around youtube were very well-made, expecially the one about David (who turns out to be the best thing in this film).