Anyone seen PROMETHEUS?

[sukumvit boy]

I went to see the 3D version last night; it looks spectacular although I think that 3D technology adds little more than 30% of the quality of the film. In the first Alien, the spacecraft was called Nostomo, a reference to the novel by Conrad without explaining why; in this film the robot character David models himself on Lawrence of Arabia, again without explanation. Prometheus gave fire to the humans and was punished by the Gods, and 'The New Prometheus' is the sub-title of Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein. This Scott film is a gloomy attempt to depict human beings as fundamentally self-destructive, while adding in the mind-numbing stupidity of Erich van Daneken's Chariots of the Gods even though the main character -an archaeologist/anthropologist wears a crucifix and evidently thinks Darwin and evolution is of no importance in understanding where people come from -a view that would make the film pointless. None of the characters in the film except David has any charisma or real purpose, just the usual stereotypes of scientists and real men who drink and drive.

Prometheus in the Greek context is part of the hugely important narrative in which human beings take control of their lives away from the Gods, the story of Philoctetes is another. Prometheus should thus be about the denial of Gods as architects of human society, but just as with Shelley, whoever they are and on whatever planet they come from, create humans and you find that killing is what they do best; apparently this is also what happens when you create Aliens; but I suspect this film has a sub-text and was surprised the Alien didn't shriek Allahu Akbar when bursting forth from various stomachs. Loving it seems, is of no importance. A confused film, without a cat. And the music is repetitive, shaped by cliche's and a nuisance. 4/10.

Thanks Stavros,great post.

[Stavros]

Thanks for the compliment -today's Guardian has 10 questions on Prometheus which don't seem to have a logical answer, but then logic isn't part of the film. But it doesn't answer the question Why does David fashion his hair after Lawrence of Arabia?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...-key-questions

[Jamie French]

I went expecting an experience, what I got was middle of the road sci-fi flick. I thought I cared about the origin story of the alien species, the corporate interest in acquiring it, etc. but by the end of the film I realized all I wanted was to be brought back to the place that the original film was really all about... fear of the unknown in the dark, and suspense. I wanted the bleak, primal horror movie that was made in 1979 and all I got was an ultra sharp, HD yawner. One dimensional, cliched stock characters who give you no reason to care or even really hate them. The motives of the antagonists/protagonists lacked gravity. Reactions to overwhelming events were shrugged off. A romance was ham-fistedly crammed into place for easily accessible plot points. Duex Ex Machina was in play... it was lit too brightly, no atmosphere, no real sense of unease, no tension. It was all paint by numbers with a very expensive brush.

[Prospero]

Jamie wrote: "It was all paint by numbers with a very expensive brush." GREAT LINE.


Didn't get my expected preview tickets for this (damn) but on reading the reviews here I'm tempted not to bother. It sounds like a gloriously expensive visual feast, but mind numbingly stupid and designed to shock. Not really my kind of film in the end. But I might go see it at the IMAX as it's a talking point.

[Teydyn]

And again the characters made so many stupid mistakes... i was more then surprised by the flamethrower-action

[Stavros]

Is it the case that Ridley Scott when he goes techie gets so obsessed with what technology can do he forgets to tell a coherent story? I am looking at his filmography, amongst which there is worthless garbage like GI Jane, American Gangster, Thelma and Louise, there are the techy films like Blade Runner (hugely over-rated) and Alien, and the Cecil B de Mille stuff like Gladiator, 1492: Conquest of Paradise, Hannibal and Kingdom of Heaven none of which I have seen; but I must admit to appreciating the editing and overall conception of Black Hawk Down, which looks like his most successful film. Feedback on the ones mentioned and others welcomed, I don't want to dismiss him entirely. David Fincher is another director who often puts show before substance.

[youngblood61]

Still looking forward to seeing it despite the mixed reviews.

[TheMadMan]

A few things come to mind after watching it:

(Spoilers)

* Why wasn't the woman's abortion discussed AT ALL after it occured?

* Why wasn't the zombie guy's attack discussed AT ALL after it occured?

* I liked the Space Jockey's looking like aliens, not babies on steroids.

* So, to get a Xenomorph, a man must be infected with black goop, he must impregnate a woman, the woman must birth a squid, the squid must attack an Engineer, and the Engineer in turn gives birth to a Xenomorph? That seems really complicated, and doesn't explain at all how a shipload of them gets on LV-426

* Shallow Characters, no tension, unnecessary characters and plot points (The girls father died of Ebola? Didn't seem to contribute much).

* The best part was the special effects. This is a good thing when the story is good too. I did not think that was the case with this film.

[Teydyn]

Switch your brain off and keep it off, maybe dont sleep the night before...

[Prospero]

I think Stavros is probably the harshest film critic I've ever come across - dismissing films that are hugely popular as worthless rubbish. And meanwhile praising the sort of art films many would find utterly tedious - even if they fulfill the criteria of "art." There is - surely - a place for entertainment which is not high art. Thus "Thelma and Louise" while no masterpiece was a good and entertaining evening. Cinema is a bastard form - ranging from drivel to high art. I think Stavros you swing to the far end of the spectrum and dismiss most films out of hand if they don't meet your own rigorous standards.