After 33 years Ridley Scott decided to revisit the universe first created in "Alien", but this time around he decided on a (almost) completely different approach. Unlike the "Alien" which speaks of most primal human emotions, "Prometheus" is more concerned with human thirst for knowledge and answers to eternal questions. What is our purpose? Is there God? Is there extraterrestrial life? As all of you who watched the movie could see, it answers only part of this questions.The rest of them are likely to be answered in the inevitable sequel, but that's not of concern here. It's important to note that in spite of philosophical questions, "Prometheus" is mainly a science fiction movie, and like in most sci-fi movies, visuals and action play great part in it. So it's a movie that should work on many levels. Unfortunately it only works on some.
The story is intriguing. Based on ancient drawings found all over the world the planet, where our creators supposedly wait for us, is located and spaceship Prometheus, along with its crew, is sent to investigate it. As you could imagine, when they land things go downhill. All this is preceded by a scene which is probably showing a creation of life on Earth (or some similar planet). We see a big white humanoid called "engineer" drinking some strange black liquid, throwing himself in the water and dissolving in it. Later in the movie we find out the DNA of these humanoids has the same structure as ours, hence the previous interpretation. Here we can note main problem of this movie in example. Elizabeth Shaw, one of the main characters, finds out about the DNA match and tells no one about it!? She does later share it with her partner and colleague Charlie Holloway, but it's some time later and you would think this kind of discovery is something she would immediately announce to everyone on board. This is just an example of illogicalities in the script, of which there are more than few and there is no point in writing them all here. These plot holes are main flaw of the movie along with poorly written characters. For example: A man who financed whole expedition to the planet of our makers (which, by the way, it turns out not to be) is one Peter Weyland. A very wealthy businessman and visionary who believes humans are the new gods but apparently still seeks the old ones. For one of such intellect and skills it's rather odd how he conducts a meeting with engineer, despite of his old age. There's also an android in search of answers to the questions it shouldn't even ask. Or should it? Or should I say "he"? In addition to plot holes and poorly written characters there are few over-the-top moments which seem really unnecessary. Shaw giving birth is the first one that comes to mind.
But, surprisingly enough, it isn't as bad as it seems. In terms of visual effects, art direction, costumes, cinematography, sound editing, and all other related areas, the movie is flawless. Even it's use of 3D is very good, which can't be said of nearly every movie since "Avatar". The soundtrack also holds ground. Combined with wide shots of Prometheus crew in big spacious caverns it creates the feeling of anxiety filmmakers probably hoped for. At least they got something right. It should also be noted that the acting is pretty good considering how the characters are written. Kudos to Michael Fassbender for he showed us how to be the perfect android, Peter O'Toole AND Lawrence of Arabia all at once!
What to say in the end? As you could see, the movie leaves you with (too) many questions. Some it should, some it shouldn't leave you with. Scott said that the blu-ray/dvd version will be 20 to 30 minutes longer. We can only hope that the extended version will eliminate part of the questions. Maybe even part of the scenes, although that is hard to expect. There is also the case of the sequel but judging by this one, they shouldn't jump right on it. At least not till they have all the answers they should have.
watched 'the sweet hereafter' lately, brilliant movie in disastrous alliance bd transfer, starring equally brilliant ian holm.
ReplyDeletewith prometheus hot as the weather around these days, i couldn't help myself not thinking of his portrayal of ash during the watching. i'm yet to see 'prometheus', it will be bd source once it is out. and i will do my best to ignore sharp divided PoV-s floating across the internet and make up my mind on my own.
but i know this: ridley scott is visual genius and the scripts he transformed into his works are merely excuses for sharing his artistic vision(s). that's why blade runner is arguably his last true masterpiece.
we'll see about this one.
p.s. nice review! i could bookmark this if there will be more. :)
As you can see, there already is more. ;) I can't guarantee the speed of new reviews coming up. It depends on a lot of factors. Most prominent of all my laziness to write. :D But I'll try to put something up every couple of days.
DeleteP.S.
Thanks for your comment! I'm just starting with this so it means a lot to me! :)
It seems you have been around for a while and I failed to notice, which is not very well done of me but I shall strive to rectify it. And I'm starting off with Prometheus.
ReplyDeleteYou have pointed out the weaknesses as well as (some) strong points using unfailing arguments. And I agree with most, if not all of them.
Michael Fassbender did a marvelous job (loved your Peter O'Toole simile - spot on) and if there is one thing that will stick in my mind when I think of this film it will be his performance. I'd call it eerily beautiful. Eerily in the sense of disturbing reality with which he portrayed the character of David. Beautiful for much the same reasons.
Aside from David, this film tickled many questions within my own mind which I tend to keep dormant. Who are we? Where do we come from? How far are we willing to go to secure answers.... Yes, it is a selfish and subjective reason to recommend a film but for all that I say - go and see it. Think about it and maybe, just maybe, you too will find it beautiful simply because you've secured some food for thought.