Prometheus: a Spoiler-free Mini-review
Like a lot of Sifters - I'm a big speculative fiction fan - (I must be if I think that's what SF stands for). We've all been worked up to a lather by the many teasers and trailers. This is the great Ridley Scott. Although both Alien and Blade Runner are very different movies, they sit very high in the pantheon of SF masterpieces. One thing that both of these classic films have in common is that they are small movies. They focus on a few people in a particular setting - an apocalyptic noir L.A. and a creeping space hulk, respectively. By keeping it small, Scott focused on the characters and the story. The SF setting was just the backdrop to support this.
Prometheus is not like that. There is a lot happening on a broad canvas. Like so much science fiction coming out of Hollywood these days - the science fiction setting is the main character- and the human beings are just along for the thrill-ride. Great special effects, huge, save the whole world kinds of stuff, lots of those see-through LCD monitors that are all the rage - but little time for character development or story. How about a damn Vangelis soundtrack and some long moody tracking shots that lets us soak it in, Ridley? Sigh. In a lot of ways this felt more like a film directed by James Cameron.
It wasn't awful - and maybe my expectation was too high. The andriod character was memorable and the acting was good - what little of it we got to experience. Should you go see it? It's a Ridley Scott science fiction movie, of course you should. DoesPrometheus deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Alien and Blade Runner? Nope.
Prometheus is not like that. There is a lot happening on a broad canvas. Like so much science fiction coming out of Hollywood these days - the science fiction setting is the main character- and the human beings are just along for the thrill-ride. Great special effects, huge, save the whole world kinds of stuff, lots of those see-through LCD monitors that are all the rage - but little time for character development or story. How about a damn Vangelis soundtrack and some long moody tracking shots that lets us soak it in, Ridley? Sigh. In a lot of ways this felt more like a film directed by James Cameron.
It wasn't awful - and maybe my expectation was too high. The andriod character was memorable and the acting was good - what little of it we got to experience. Should you go see it? It's a Ridley Scott science fiction movie, of course you should. Does
17 Comments
JAPRThanks for the review, looks like I'm passing this one up until later on, I got me some Firefly to watch.
It's really disappointing how much the meaningful parts of commercialized arts (film, music, even video games) have become increasingly saturated with lowest-common-denominator-type filler; everything is more about the flair and the polish instead of the substance now.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
I completely agree. In most ways, TV SF is better than blockbuster films lately. They have smaller budgets and more time to develop the characters and the story. >> ^JAPR:
Thanks for the review, looks like I'm passing this one up until later on, I got me some Firefly to watch.
It's really disappointing how much the meaningful parts of commercialized arts (film, music, even video games) have become increasingly saturated with lowest-common-denominator-type filler; everything is more about the flair and the polish instead of the substance now.
gwiz665I was disappointed, but I have an inkling that it will gain on repeat viewings and maybe even with a directors cut.
There were a bunch of stuff I thought was unnecessary, but lots of details were neat.
70/100 I feel from 1 viewing.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
I can't go that high. I'll give it a 65. (on a curve)>> ^gwiz665:
I was disappointed, but I have an inkling that it will gain on repeat viewings and maybe even with a directors cut.
There were a bunch of stuff I thought was unnecessary, but lots of details were neat.
70/100 I feel from 1 viewing.
gwiz665We should do a spoilerfilled discussion somewhere, I have questions, speculations and such about it.
dystopianfuturetoday59 on metacritic. Ouch. http://www.metacritic.com/movie/prometheus
I'm still going to have to see it though.
DeanoI'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.
All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.
One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.
Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.
DeanoAlso one of the guys who gave us Lost and the new Star Trek wrote this. So, hmmmm....
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Master and Commander was good.>> ^Deano:
I'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.
All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.
One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.
Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.
Deano>> ^dag:
Master and Commander was good.>> ^Deano:
I'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.
All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.
One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.
Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.
Ah that's one I have not seen. Wonder if it's on Netflix?
Deano>> ^dag:
Master and Commander was good.>> ^Deano:
I'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.
All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.
One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.
Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.
Just checked that he's a producer on that one but did not direct.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Oh! you're right. Great movie though.>> ^Deano:
>> ^dag:
Master and Commander was good.>> ^Deano:
I'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.
All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.
One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.
Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.
Just checked that he's a producer on that one but did not direct.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Ebert loved it. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120606/REVIEWS/120609989
Maybe I was being too harsh.
antSo is it a prequel?
RyjkyjOn the "Alien" release in 1979:
"Critical reaction to the film was initially mixed. Some critics who were not usually favorable towards science fiction, such as Barry Norman of the BBC's Film series, were positive about the film's merits. Others, however, were not: Reviews by Variety, Sight and Sound, Vincent Canby and Leonard Maltin were mixed or negative. A review by Time Out said the film was an "empty bag of tricks whose production values and expensive trickery cannot disguise imaginative poverty"."
-Wikipedia
Deano>> ^Ryjkyj:
On the "Alien" release in 1979:
"Critical reaction to the film was initially mixed. Some critics who were not usually favorable towards science fiction, such as Barry Norman of the BBC's Film series, were positive about the film's merits. Others, however, were not: Reviews by Variety, Sight and Sound, Vincent Canby and Leonard Maltin were mixed or negative. A review by Time Out said the film was an "empty bag of tricks whose production values and expensive trickery cannot disguise imaginative poverty"."
-Wikipedia
Well they were wrong. Though I don't see why those criticisms should not be directed at this effort. Having just seen it I'm disappointed that my low expectations were met.
For a guy who claims to base his films in logic, Scott has a lot of illogical things going on. No tension, poor characters, dodgy dialogue at times and an overall plot that simply explains a few things in the lead up to the first film.
Also for a two hour film it's paced very quickly and for the first time in my life I am tempted to conclude this is purposely geared to the attention span of the Facebook generation.
DeanoBTW if anyone want's a very funny reading on the film from an archaeological perspective (sort of) try this;
http://digitaldigging.net/prometheus-an-archaeological-perspective/
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.