Reply to Topic
Didn't he like redistribute a "newer" version of Alien in 2003? Or are you using sarcasm?
Prometheus
→ in Movie Reviews
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I said it was not unusual....meaning it has happened many, many times before. "Blade Runner" is just one example.
Okie dokie lol, I wasn't sure cuz I didn't even know until recently when I watched Alien again that he did that on a regular basis.
I'm seeing this today, but I've got a big cache of spoiler-filled links, interviews, and analytical pieces that I've been saving for consumption afterwards. My old man wrote something on it, too, that I also haven't read, but which I'm sure is good. 
The Politics of Ridley Scott's Blockbuster Film Prometheus.
The Politics of Ridley Scott's Blockbuster Film Prometheus.
X
Favorite Movies
It would be good if it wasn't written by that Jerry Bowyer guy!
KIDDING!
Reading now...
(EDIT) - The article is spoiler free until your pop says SPOILERS AHEAD! So you are safe reading up until then.
KIDDING!
Reading now...
(EDIT) - The article is spoiler free until your pop says SPOILERS AHEAD! So you are safe reading up until then.
__________________
“l believe if they set aside their law as and when they wish, their law no longer has rightful authority over us. All they have over us then is tyranny. And l will not live under that yoke.” ― Jack Winthrop
Last edited by Sedai; 06-14-12 at 12:21 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I so glad to hear positive reviews on the film. I've been trying to get my bf to see this with me and we just havn't had the time yet. (Been a busy summer) My friend who saw it told me she was terribly dissappointed so I was feeling kind of gloomy about it... but now that I read such positive reviews I'm getting all pumped again! 
__________________
Nicolas Cage
Nicolas Cage^to be in 14 movies in the next two years^
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I have a feeling I have managed to be the only person on the planet to see this movie with absolutely NO spoilers in advance. All I knew/saw were the TV ads, which were about 30 seconds long, with pretty much no dialogue, and conveyed ambiance but not plot.
I didn't even know it was supposed to be an Alien prequel. Seriously. I didn't have a clue.
Until the very end of the movie, when I said loudly, "AHA!" To which my daughter said, "Yeah, didn't you know it was a prequel?" Um, no. Should I have? LOL
This naivete probably explains why my thoughts during the movie were along these lines all too often: "Geez, this is like a ripoff of both Alien AND 2001: A Space Odyssey!"
Seriously, same main opening scenes -- a crew in a ship that's traveled quite far, all waking up from hypersleep, being cranky and witty and catty to each other, then sitting around a table eating "breakfasts" of various sorts. Oh, and there's a milky-headed robot who sounds like HAL and acts like Ash and Bishop ... one who doesn't seem to care if he kills humans during the first part of the flick, but then at the end saves Shaw's life and talks her out of returning to Earth. If he has definable motives and an agenda, it felt as if they kept changing and shifting.
I really hated Pearce's bad "old man" makeup. They can put a man on the moon -- literally and CGI -- but they still can't make good old-guy makeup for a movie? Please.
The part I found the most vexing was all of Shaw's activity post-major-abdominal self-surgery. Adrenaline rush be damned, there is no way you can sever the amount of abdominal muscles she did and then bounce around like that, climbing walls, leaping over chasms in a single bound, without bleeding out from that hastily stapled wound.
Seriously, the woman's going to die in space from an infection. What a letdown that would be after all that, huh?
Also, she jumped on this ship with a bare amount of supplies. What's she going to be eating during the long trip? What if the hypersleep chamber thingies aren't working or don't "fit" her properly or something?
Yes, I tend to think practical. So sue me. To me, these sorts of questions (in a movie like this) are almost more vexing than the philosophical ones (which were barely asked).
---
Speaking of which: So, why does David insist on taking away Shaw's cross necklace (something I haven't seen asked here at all)? Does he make connections with the 2,000-year-old man (apologies to Mel Brooks) and the "Christ" thing and is afraid the necklace will offend someone they find? It seems now like such a random act, with only symbolic significance for us as viewers: Shaw is being asked to put her faith aside for the time being ... and of course, later, she gets the necklace back, symbolizing her embracing her faith again... a faith we never really see defined all that well.
It was obvious from the beginning that we were meant to identify mainly with Shaw (she's the only one whose childhood we see in flashback, with poignant memories and sadnesses), but frankly, I found David and the ship's captain the two most engaging characters. Theron was great as Vickers, but I found I really wanted a better, more thorough father-daughter scene than what we got (her simply uttering "Father" at the end of a sentence before leaving the room). Of course, the fact that we're told that David is the closest thing to a son that Weyland's ever had smarts with Vickers, David's almost-sister/sibling.
More later. Still processing things, but I tend to nitpit the details because if those are wrong, then the larger philosophies tend to annoy me because I wonder why a decent writer couldn't piece together details of a story properly.
----
In a trilogy, no one piece stands *completely* alone, but at least they tend to feel as if they build on each other. Shaw's decision at the end seems slightly random -- why wouldn't she go back to Earth to tell everyone what she's found, if only as warning rather than scientific knowledge? Won't they simply send out some other crew later and ... oh wait, never mind.
This first installment in a proposed trilogy felt as if it randomly left out key pieces of a puzzle that we'll realize still has a few pieces that went missing somewhere along the line. And I personally dislike putting together a jigsaw puzzle only to end up with a handful of key pieces missing after all that work.
It was gorgeous. It was great fun. It got me thinking a little bit. But the annoying details will win the day for me every time. If it makes me think, "Shame on you, writer. You got paid a ton of money for this, and nobody pointed out these glaring issues with your STORYLINE?"... then I give it fewer stars.
Don't know how to do the popcorn things, but 3.5 stars outta 5 for me.
I didn't even know it was supposed to be an Alien prequel. Seriously. I didn't have a clue.
Until the very end of the movie, when I said loudly, "AHA!" To which my daughter said, "Yeah, didn't you know it was a prequel?" Um, no. Should I have? LOL
This naivete probably explains why my thoughts during the movie were along these lines all too often: "Geez, this is like a ripoff of both Alien AND 2001: A Space Odyssey!"
Seriously, same main opening scenes -- a crew in a ship that's traveled quite far, all waking up from hypersleep, being cranky and witty and catty to each other, then sitting around a table eating "breakfasts" of various sorts. Oh, and there's a milky-headed robot who sounds like HAL and acts like Ash and Bishop ... one who doesn't seem to care if he kills humans during the first part of the flick, but then at the end saves Shaw's life and talks her out of returning to Earth. If he has definable motives and an agenda, it felt as if they kept changing and shifting.
I really hated Pearce's bad "old man" makeup. They can put a man on the moon -- literally and CGI -- but they still can't make good old-guy makeup for a movie? Please.
The part I found the most vexing was all of Shaw's activity post-major-abdominal self-surgery. Adrenaline rush be damned, there is no way you can sever the amount of abdominal muscles she did and then bounce around like that, climbing walls, leaping over chasms in a single bound, without bleeding out from that hastily stapled wound.
Seriously, the woman's going to die in space from an infection. What a letdown that would be after all that, huh?
Also, she jumped on this ship with a bare amount of supplies. What's she going to be eating during the long trip? What if the hypersleep chamber thingies aren't working or don't "fit" her properly or something?
Yes, I tend to think practical. So sue me. To me, these sorts of questions (in a movie like this) are almost more vexing than the philosophical ones (which were barely asked).
---
Speaking of which: So, why does David insist on taking away Shaw's cross necklace (something I haven't seen asked here at all)? Does he make connections with the 2,000-year-old man (apologies to Mel Brooks) and the "Christ" thing and is afraid the necklace will offend someone they find? It seems now like such a random act, with only symbolic significance for us as viewers: Shaw is being asked to put her faith aside for the time being ... and of course, later, she gets the necklace back, symbolizing her embracing her faith again... a faith we never really see defined all that well.
It was obvious from the beginning that we were meant to identify mainly with Shaw (she's the only one whose childhood we see in flashback, with poignant memories and sadnesses), but frankly, I found David and the ship's captain the two most engaging characters. Theron was great as Vickers, but I found I really wanted a better, more thorough father-daughter scene than what we got (her simply uttering "Father" at the end of a sentence before leaving the room). Of course, the fact that we're told that David is the closest thing to a son that Weyland's ever had smarts with Vickers, David's almost-sister/sibling.
More later. Still processing things, but I tend to nitpit the details because if those are wrong, then the larger philosophies tend to annoy me because I wonder why a decent writer couldn't piece together details of a story properly.
----
In a trilogy, no one piece stands *completely* alone, but at least they tend to feel as if they build on each other. Shaw's decision at the end seems slightly random -- why wouldn't she go back to Earth to tell everyone what she's found, if only as warning rather than scientific knowledge? Won't they simply send out some other crew later and ... oh wait, never mind.
This first installment in a proposed trilogy felt as if it randomly left out key pieces of a puzzle that we'll realize still has a few pieces that went missing somewhere along the line. And I personally dislike putting together a jigsaw puzzle only to end up with a handful of key pieces missing after all that work.
It was gorgeous. It was great fun. It got me thinking a little bit. But the annoying details will win the day for me every time. If it makes me think, "Shame on you, writer. You got paid a ton of money for this, and nobody pointed out these glaring issues with your STORYLINE?"... then I give it fewer stars.
Don't know how to do the popcorn things, but 3.5 stars outta 5 for me.
Last edited by Austruck; 06-15-12 at 03:47 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
To be fair, I thought Austruck would actually rate this a lot lower than she did. She's a writer, and the issues I found with the film all fell in Lindelhoff's lap. I really enjoyed the rest of the film, but a few instances had me cringing at the writing.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I did enjoy it, Seds, and I still think my 3.5/5 is about right. But I wonder now, having read through this thread, how much of that is because I was so totally spoiler-free going into it. Aside from the occasional thought of "Gee, this is ANOTHER ripoff scene from Alien!" I found it a ton of strangely scary fun.
And I was literally trying to talk Yoda out of seeing it just hours beforehand, afraid it would be too gory or creepy. The surgery scene was outrageous but didn't totally do me in as I might have feared. Perhaps all that telescoping for any scary scene helped me and kept me from being sneaked-up on. (Again, though, having seen the Alien movies, it was ridiculous how easy it was to see the deaths coming. I must've said "REDSHIRT!" ten times. LOL)
And I was literally trying to talk Yoda out of seeing it just hours beforehand, afraid it would be too gory or creepy. The surgery scene was outrageous but didn't totally do me in as I might have feared. Perhaps all that telescoping for any scary scene helped me and kept me from being sneaked-up on. (Again, though, having seen the Alien movies, it was ridiculous how easy it was to see the deaths coming. I must've said "REDSHIRT!" ten times. LOL)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
(straight from Movie Tab II)
I never saw any movie from the Alien franchise, I never read a full review for this film, or even watched a preview, so I came in here blind as a bat. There were two things that really stuck out for me in this movie. The first was the wonderful CGI that I haven't seen worked so well in a long time. It beats the hell out of The Avengers special effects. Secondly was Michael Fassbenders performance of the robot David. While he can not feel or show emotion he can have the same characteristics of Hal 9000. A confident robot who needs his way, and does what ever he needs to do, to get it. One big negative was the lack luster performance of Charlize Theron, the few times she showed emotion it was very unrealistic and made her look like an amateur theater actress compared to the rest of the cast. It was a very good sci-fi but nowhere near perfect, it had mistakes that could be caught by someone watching there very first movie. None the less it's enjoyable and phsycologocal and will mostly likely leave a mark in the 2012 in film genre.
Anyone else have thoughts on Thernons performance? I thought it was one of the worse I saw in a long time
I never saw any movie from the Alien franchise, I never read a full review for this film, or even watched a preview, so I came in here blind as a bat. There were two things that really stuck out for me in this movie. The first was the wonderful CGI that I haven't seen worked so well in a long time. It beats the hell out of The Avengers special effects. Secondly was Michael Fassbenders performance of the robot David. While he can not feel or show emotion he can have the same characteristics of Hal 9000. A confident robot who needs his way, and does what ever he needs to do, to get it. One big negative was the lack luster performance of Charlize Theron, the few times she showed emotion it was very unrealistic and made her look like an amateur theater actress compared to the rest of the cast. It was a very good sci-fi but nowhere near perfect, it had mistakes that could be caught by someone watching there very first movie. None the less it's enjoyable and phsycologocal and will mostly likely leave a mark in the 2012 in film genre.
Anyone else have thoughts on Thernons performance? I thought it was one of the worse I saw in a long time
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Prometheus is an eye-gasm of visual flare. I dug the art direction and cinematography, the story on the other hand....is somewhere in the middle.
As for all the questions:
As for all the questions:
WARNING: "Prometheus" spoilers below
The scene in which David spikes the drink is after he speaks to Weyland and tells Theron "Try Harder" which tells me that he was under orders to test this substance on a human. We all know Weyland was looking for a cure for death. David asks Holloway how far would he go for answers, when Holloway responded with as far as he could, David took that as an "okay".
I completely agree with the concern of the anwers in this film being kept for sequels. It's a shame they went this route.
Anyone else think Theron was also an Android?
I completely agree with the concern of the anwers in this film being kept for sequels. It's a shame they went this route.
Anyone else think Theron was also an Android?
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Anyone else think Theron was also an Android?
I thought so far a good part of the movie but she showed to much emotion in the confession of who her father is, and she wouldn't call him father. It sure felt like she was though
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I so glad to hear positive reviews on the film. I've been trying to get my bf to see this with me and we just havn't had the time yet. (Been a busy summer) My friend who saw it told me she was terribly dissappointed so I was feeling kind of gloomy about it... but now that I read such positive reviews I'm getting all pumped again!
Does your bf not like those movies? My boyfriend and I went opening night lol.
Yeah, I thought that was stupid too because she so obviously is like 5'4 or maybe shorter and that guy was way bigger so no way could the ring fit.
Unless she has serious man hands, or he has girly wimpy hands which everyone knows what people say about small hands.......
Unless she has serious man hands, or he has girly wimpy hands which everyone knows what people say about small hands.......
I'm not going to get all deep, philosophical, poetic or otherwise about Prometheus. I'll just say this - meh. I am done with anything coming out from the studios. Big budget films suck. So disgusted I want to puke. Done. Done with all the pukes. I will never go to the theater again (save for art house theaters) - done. They can all rot.
__________________
Have you ever held a lion in your arms? I have. He smelled funky.
Have you ever held a lion in your arms? I have. He smelled funky.
Last edited by Cenydd Ros; 06-20-12 at 03:55 AM.
To be fair - production value was awesome - effing gorgeous. Production design and art department were beyond great. Acting, great. Noomi Rapace is a goddess, her body might be the best production deisgn of the movie. Wooff woofff! Directing was subperb. BUT story was a hunk of sh-t. Eff Damon Lindelof sideways. And eff Fox.