Ridley Scott’s Prometheus opens with one of the most spectacular and beguiling scenes ever put on film. The camera sweeps across a planet that might be ours, or not, to find a creature who might be human, or not, in the act of what might be suicide or seeding the world with life. Or both. A large, unidentified space ship twists away into the clouds as the creature drinks some goo, shows a look of surprise, and disintegrates. Or more accurately, falls apart from his DNA outward. It’s the kind of scene that would have been impossible to create just a few years ago, and that leaves you wondering “What did I just see?” while you await more.
That thought — What did I just see? — kept pace with me throughout the entire movie. From one plot turn to the next, What did I just see? was my most common reaction. Something moves at a character’s feet — What did I just see? The android, a machine Alien fans know not to trust, does something quickly with his hands — What did I just see? That uncertainty is not due to image quality or camera work; in fact, Prometheus is visually staggering. Incredible. The film editing is understated, not choppy the way many action films tend to be. The cinematography and special effects are as good as any that have been put to film. With one exception, the cast is top notch. Michael Fassbender as the android David is pitch perfect, sometimes childlike, sometimes outwardly evil, though as a robot he cannot be. His true motives stay off screen, obscure and inscrutable. Charlize Theron is regal and icy; Noomi Rapace as scientist Elizabeth Shaw combines Sigourney Weaver’s tough mind with the vulnerability of Newt, the little girl from Aliens. The one case of miscasting is that of Logan Marshall-Green as scientist Charlie Holloway. He is never believable as a scientist driven to spend years traveling to the other side of the galaxy just for the sake of knowledge, and is a drag on the film.
Prometheus‘ pace is fast despite the long, steady shots of underground caverns that may or may not be natural, and the too-few face-offs with actual aliens who may be something more or less than mere living things. The pace is almost too quick to allow the audience to figure out what is motivating the characters to do what they’re doing, and one particular plot twist involving the geologist made no sense at all, other than to insert a very standard horror film trope of separating the characters to commence the kills. I won’t say too much about it, though, because like nearly all turns in this story, saying too much gives too much of the plot away.
I am with you on whether I like this movie or not. It is visually stunning but as you point out the two guys getting separated rang falsely to me.
The nod to Lawrence of Arabia I think will zoom over many people’s heads. David, doing a 2010 Bowman voice nicely, identifies with TE Lawrence because both beings know they are getting screwed over by those they have to obey. Lucifer rebelling springs to mind. So David does things his own way that follow the letter of his instructions, its the only way he can rebel.
There is supposed to be a sequel to this movie. So stay tuned on how we jump from LV-223 to LV-426. And what happens to Shaw and David.
“My God, its full of stars.” That movie will always remain my favorite of where did we come from movies.
I’m going to see this Sunday night with my brother and a friend.
I was 11 when I saw the original in the theater. In some ways, it made more of an impact on me then Star Wars did just a few years earlier.
From the reviews, I have some hope that the Alien series will manage to bounce back from some lousy sequels, unlike the Star Wars movies, which pretty much skidded downhill after Empire.
“Elusive” is a perfect word for Prometheus, and one would have to have a staggeringly good memory for a film from 1979 and what a ringed planet looks like or at least an intimate knowledge of Alien canon to understand why. Suffice it to say there is purposeful confusion here and in more ways than one. Prometheus is a riddle wrapped in a mystery.
SF film, like Western, can be a useful genre for those who delight in setting perceptual traps about what is smart and sophisticated as opposed to what is not. Scott set a perceptual trap in Alien for those who really think wine is more sophisticated that soda pop and does so again in Prometheus. That is a slightly diabolical concept for film because it means the more one buys into the idea that SF film, or literature, may be gratuitous and shallow, the more that is all one will see. It is misdirection – a practical joke.
The question may not be only who’s your daddy but who’s your daddy’s daddy. There is a purposeful reference shown more than once to something a character wears about their neck and a much more blithe reference to a radiocarbon date that is tossed off so quickly it may escape notice. This is alluded to in sideways fashion at the film’s beginning but without context. Something happened a long time ago but in the end as many new questions are raised as may be answered and one isn’t even sure if the old questions have been answered.
Aside from the great look of the film, it will definitely be one that will be rewarded by multiple viewings and getting out one’s Sherlock Holmes hat. The odd thing about Prometheus is that whatever clues and answers reside within Prometheus don’t reside only within the film but also outside it. That is a weakness because as I allude to earlier, one must reference another film as well as that film’s external canon where it resides within fandom to have a chance at coming to grips with Prometheus.
Scott assumes real fans will do exactly that and he has helped a little in interviews. Prometheus is truly a cross-platform mystery. The truth is that there is much more to consider in Prometheus than one initially thinks, that range from grim analogues to virgin births to Hal 9000 to what it means to be human, ala Blade Runner.
Alien movies begin and end with eyes closed, Ripley dreaming while on meth. Or so it would seem. I expect her to return in a pre-pre-quel to answer ‘who’s your daddy?’, by revealing ‘who’s your Mother.’
I know exactly what I just saw: a lame plot, extremely gross & disgusting scenes, a déja-vu recycled Alien, miscasted and pretentious. The best thing on this movie was my dear friend… The Popcorn Bag!
Are you sure you weren’t in the wrong theater? Battleship, perhaps?
No, I’m pretty sure he and I saw the same movie. It was pretty lame.
Unfortunately my longer comment was rejected (as are most of my comments to PJMedia, I don’t know why) or I’d give you a lengthy explanation as to why I feel that way.
I completely agree with you. I blogged today about hoe lame the plot was. I think the screenwriters were trying to tell 2 stories: the origin of life and the origin of the Alien..but they failed on both parts. Would’ve been better as just a movie about the origin of the Alien from the 1979 movie.
It’s a nice movie, with great visuals, and some enjoyable milieu backstory, but ultimately it fails to really tell a new story.
Virtually every character, every scene, could be checked off against Ye Standard List of Tropes for “Alien” Movies. The few that couldn’t are just other generic Sci-fi tropes usually used by Ridley Scott.
Ultimately, the whole thing was more a 15 minute, consolidated Blu-Ray “behind the scenes extra package”, stretched out into a feature length movie remake of the original. While I’d still watch that a Ridley Scott version of that, it cannot really be called an excellent movie all on its own.
“remake of the original?”
Admit it…you didn’t even watch it, did you? You just wanted to try out the whole “Blu-Ray stretched out into a full length feature” line, didn’t you?
This had no resemblance to the original.
While I disagree with AF_Vet on the quality of the film, I have to agree with him on this point. Sam didn’t see the film. It couldn’t have been more different from Alien, except in its desperate third-act attempt to tie itself to that film.
(signed, another AF vet)
Ricko, don’t hold back. Tell us how your really feel.
You’re right; it’s all about the subtleties. Think about the date they landed: Christmas Day. It’s another hint at the creator/created/new man (Jesus is the “New Adam” in scripture) theme that runs through the entire film. Aside from a few small hiccups, the film was very good, and better than most science fiction films made today.
I think you’ve hit on an important secret and what the gods wanted to do to mankind when they stopped worshiping and obeying them and turned to other gods. Significant that radiocarbon date is 2,000 years ago.
I haven’t seen Prometheus yet…I saw previews this afternoon when the wife and I went to see Avengers. From what I have seen of trailers and read from on line reviews the story sounds like a good portion of it if not copied from, rhymes with, Larry Niven’s Pak Protectors.
Indeed, there is much going on in this flawed but fascinating film.
My review can be found here:
http://noocyte.blogspot.com/2012/06/prometheus.html
I saw some similarities to Ryk Spoor’s novel, _Boundary_, at least in the situation. (I’ve not yet read Threshold).
There isn’t any of the blood-spattering monster stuff in Ryk’s book, but his book is one of the reasons that my reaction to the movie Prometheus was that the ending was just *wrong*.
I just got back from seeing the movie. Let me agree with and add to Ricko’s comments: overdone computer graphics, forgettable characters, pointless script, in fact, not a memorable line in the whole movie.
I needed two bags of popcorn to get through this stinker.
Any movie from Ridley Scott is going to look good, and this mess is no exception. However, the plot is a mess, the editing was clunky and I didn’t give a damn about any of the characters.
The movie was a disappointment, and I’m not going to spend any more time that I have in figuring out why it sucked.
God, what a waste.
Thanks I thought I was the only one. It was so boring and derivative I almost walked out in the first half. Terrible.
Your last sentence is the centerpiece of the film.
Sounds like the movie was all show and no go.
Hmm. My takeaway from this is;
1. The movie is visually spectacular.
2. Charlize Theron is beautiful. (No surprise there.)
3. The plot is as least as obscure as Blade Runner. (I can truthfully say that to me, the best thing about that one was the Vangelis score, which deserved a better movie.)
My conclusion is;
4. Wait for the DVD, which won’t be long in coming.
cheers
eon
What’s obscure about Blade Runner? Emotionally stunted slaves with 4 year life spans escape to Earth and one hopes to find out how to extend their life span before they are hunted down and killed by a blade runner. The slaves are so human in every way the only way one can tell them from the non-slaves is to give them an empathy test that reveals their lack of experience and child’s view of the world.
True. But the movie required twosequel novels to explain that. (Blade Runner 2; The Edge Of Human, and Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night, both by K.W. Jeter, based on Philip K. Dick’s original story outlines, and authorized by his estate.) Including that the term “blade runner” was an Anglicization of the German blubiger, or “One who quiets” (kills). All of which was in Dick’s original outlines, but somehow never even got mentioned in the film itself. (But even PKD never explained why the German word got hung on the whole business, as the replicant technology wasn’t even developed in Germany!)
Much of this could easily have been worked in, notably in Deckard’s (Harrison Ford) voiceover narration in the International Cut. The fact that it wasn’t is probably an artefact of the “script wars” between director Ridley Scott and screenwriter David Peoples, as described in the book The Making of Blade Runner.
If a movie needs a concordance to be understood, it’s more obscure than it really needs to be. 2001; A Space Odyssey had the same problem; you really needed to read The Making of Kubrick’s 2001 to figure it out.
Neither Blade Runner or2001 is a bad movie- but both could have been so much better.
cheers
eon
Your answer is more confusing than Blade Runner. I saw BR when it first came out – the plot was easy to understand. I’ve never even heard of those two novels you mentioned. Blade Runner does not need outside canon to be understood.
To understand the larger context of BR, one needs to know it is one of Dick’s 4 novels set in a post-apocalypse America split between Japan and Germany after WW II – the Asian presence, the patois language used and the artificial snake and owl reference make more sense then but that doesn’t really affect the plot. Prometheus needs outside canon (fandom not original novels as in the case of Dick) to fully understand the larger context as well, but it also really doesn’t affect the plot. It’s merely fun to understand the future year the original Alien took place which I don’t believe is stated in that film itself or Aliens. Knowing that year may yet come into play if there is a Prometheus sequel.
The term “Bladerunner” was lifted from the title of a 1974 novel by SF author Alan Nourse – it was used for one reason – it sounded cool.
2001 is equally simple: aliens that observe us use monoliths kind of like alarms/tests: when we get to the moon, that monolith sends a signal to the aliens we have reached that tech capacity – another alarm/test awaits us around Jupiter. That’s why the original Clarke short story upon which 2001 is based is called The Sentinel. What is unclear is whether the aliens also teach or evolve humans.
What somewhat muddied the plot of 2001 is that we don’t know if the nervous breakdown of the Hal computer is connected to the mysterious aliens – as much fun as that central sequence is, it seems kind of goofy to splash it in there like a separate short story with separate issues but that blur the plot. It turns out Hal’s breakdown had nothing to do with aliens.
1. Yes, I know “Blade Runner” was borrowed from the novel of the same name by Alan E. Nourse; I have it and have read it. (Frankly, Raiders From The Rings is better.) It also was used by William S. Burroughs as the title of a screen treatment for an unrelated project.
All of which is irrelevant, as it does not explain the use of the term in the world of the story. If I write an SF story in which hand-held energy weapons are called “phasers”, I’d better either (a) be writing a story set in the Star Trek universe, (b) have Paramount’s permission, and/or (c) have a very good reason, like it’s a reasonable acronym for a PHased array laSER (hat tip to Winchell Chung’s Atomic Rockets website).
2. Jeter’s books were not fanfics. They were authorized sequels to the movie, which has a fundamentally different storyline than the original PKD novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. In fact, about all the two have in common is the idea of androids (which are called just that in DADOES, not “replicants”), and a main character named Richard Deckard. Even the weather is different; L.A. in the original novel looks, and feels, more like it was in the mid-1920s, minus the film industry.
3. There is no evidence in the movie that it is set in the world of The Man in The High Castle. Anymore than there is evidence that DADOES was. PKD pretty definitely stated that BR was set in our world, just (at the time) four decades into the future. (Lucky for us his prognostication was wrong.)
4. The obscurity in 2001 occurs when it leaves Clarke’s original story “The Sentinel” behind, and becomes a surrealistic, 1960s, LSD-inspired head trip. A factor Clarke tried to make more concrete in his adaptation of the screenplay, and did not entirely succeed at. (By his own admission; see The Lost Worlds of 2001, which includes Clarke’s own proposed ending, which Kubrick rejected as “too cerebral”.)
5. Your point re HAL is well taken. In return, I would point out that Clarke thought it required a sequel to deal with it. The result was the novel 2010; Odyssey Two.
cheers
eon
I saw both 2001, and Bladerunner in the theaters and understood them both perfectly. 2001 in 1968 when I was 10 years old and Bladerunner in 1982 when I was 23. I still think Bladerunner is one of the all time greats. 2001 except for a few moments (the bone smashing sequence, and open the door HAL…) was boring.
“I saw both 2001, and Bladerunner in the theaters and understood them both perfectly.”
It’s a rarity to find someone who can watch a Kubrick film one time and understand it perfectly.
2001 is Kurick’s adaptation of another work, but if folks think he wasn’t making it distinctly “Kubrick” are missing a lot. A fascinating interpretation of 2001 involves the obelisk as the movie screen (in aspect ratio) and the interplay between art and reality.
Understood 2001 in one sitting. Man, you’re missing a lot.
Bottom line: wait for the sequel then watch both to get the answer.
So yeah. Incredible visual feel. The artistic aesthetic was a very delicate balancing act. It had to appear “new” as Alien was made three decades ago. But it also had to appear slightly retro compared to Alien because it predates it. It is truly stunning visually, probably a landmark film in that regard. The Engineers are fully realized, mysterious and ghostly.
I was disappointed in many aspects: it was impatiently edited, with no room or space in the cuts. People’s reactions to what they were witnessing (THE ANSWERS!) was not believable. That hunky scientist guy was terrible. The zombie geologist came out of nowhere. Guy Pierce was awesome in a role that was ill-defined.
So I left sort of unfulfilled. But here I am three days later thinking about this damned movie still. It really stuck to my ribs and left me melancholy, which is what good scifi does. It’s probably the only modern sci-fi, other than the excellent Moon, to achieve that level of emotional poignancy. And most of the criticisms, except for the editing flaws, could be said for Blade Runner (Harrison Ford is an abomination in that one), which I adore for so many reasons. Is it perfect? Is any great movie perfect? No. I loved it and I want to see it again.
Ditto. For my money, it could have used a bit more development of the secondary characters – one of the things that made Alien and Aliens effective. I didn’t really care about the crew or the other scientists. I still want to see it again, though.
I haven’t seen “Prometheus” yet, so I didn’t make it past the first paragraph of this article–a “POSSIBLE SPOILERS” warning might have been in order.
I find the review appropriate. I would also recommend the movie. Yes, some of the big ideas were flawed, and some of the plot twists were silly, and for a few moments it could have even been a bad sci fi show on TV. The character development was lacking and it was probably gratuitously, schlocky-violent..
But I also sat there transfixed. This is a movie, a visual art form, and the set design, cinematography, the scope of the creative vision and the intelligence were much, much better than what you normally get. I’d go even further: for moments in the first hour, it touched 2001 territory.
It’s my understanding that this “spectacular” opening scene involves vomiting. Has anyone else noticed that a vomiting scene is now a required element in movies, and that movie makers will go out of their way to put one in? It is apparently the new standard of sophistication.
You are incorrect. The opening scene is indeed visually magnificent, at least up until the guy dissolves. The vomiting comes later as a side-effect of hypersleep. It’s not gross-out vomiting – you don’t really see anything.
Bugs, thanks for the clarification. My info came from a movie review. I might not be up to discerning the difference between gross-out and good etiquette vomiting
I agree. I left this film both feeling a little lost and unfulfilled, yet not. Hard to describe. The secondary characters weren’t the greatest, but the protagonist? Woooow. She knocked it out of the park. And the Android DAvid? Probably the most compelling character in the film. As for the questions it raises? Well, moody,dark futures with more questions than answers are kind of Ridley Scott’s thing. If you like good science fiction, do NOT miss this movie.
I think this movie is not worth going to see it or wait to see it on DVD, maybe we could save our time and money on something else.
“Unsurprisingly, given his knack for crafting popular entertainment, it has enough substance and spectacle to be intriguing and immensely profitable. Yet it’s the opposite of enlightening. What jumps out is the movie’s rejection of a fundamental tenet of theism, namely, the belief that God created the human race. This element — combined with significant violence and offensive language — renders “Prometheus” extremely problematic for viewers of faith.”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv066.htm
If you actually watch the movie, it does nothing of the kind as far as rejecting God. In fact it may be quite the opposite and a crucial element of the plot. Crosses, X-mas and 2,000 years wasn’t put in there with a lottery draw.
The film was indeed visually spectacular, but the story and storytelling was clunky and stupid, not necessarily in that order. That a space crew so far in the future could be so ill-suited to the task, poorly trained and assembled and just plain shortsighted and naive was borderline offensive. There was so much wrong with Prometheus that I am sorry I wasted even matinee money on it and would advise movie-goers to stay home and watch “Blade Runner” again.
And while Dick’s book (that carried the cool title “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”)was hard to get through (like all his books) the film was rich and textured and well-acted by more than a dozen actors who went on to become pretty successful.
#22 – Then they totally missed the part where the protagonist deliberately put back on her cross – she still believes in her faith in spite of the darkness.
Guy Pearce plays Peter Weyland and, using him, there is a creepy reference in the film to TED Conferences. The TED Conferences of today are the spawn of Chris Anderson, owner of The Sapling Foundation, a supplier of globalist shock troops who travel the lecture circuit giving “TEDtalks” and spouting One World ideology. Even creepier is Anderson’s wife, Jacqueline Novogratz, who is founder and CEO of the Acumen Fund, also a globalist promoter with a thinly disguised patina of helping the poor. And just who is the founding partner of the Acumen Fund? Why Andrea Soros Colombel. Does the middle name ring a bell? Yep, the arch New World Order globalist himself…George Soros. Creepy, huh?
I haven’t seen the film, so I don’t know if it’s in a good or bad context. However, Weland-Yutani is the evil globalist corporation that helps make the Alien universe the dystopia it is. It would be appropriate to him talk in good terms about something Soros funded. One villain referring to another and all.
They tried to do too much in 2 hrs. The film is a visual delight but the story is no “2001 a space odyssey”. Actually got silly in the end with the spaceship rolling across the ground.
You are a confusing man. Some guy writing a novel 13 years after the movie comes out doesn’t change the fact the term bladerunner was used cuz it was cool – it doesn’t matter who authorized what. If I say right now today that Roddenberry’s estate has authorized me to say Star Trek’s mission was to find fishsticks it will not affect anything and change canon.
As for the Japanese/German future, if Deckard himself says he’s speaking cityspeak comprised of German and Japanese and there are people riding bicycles around straight out of an Asian stereotype, a detective who’s hobby is making origami figures and frickin’ geishas are featured on flying blimps and the original novel is said to posit a L.A. occupied by the Empire of Japan after WW II then that’s plenty of “evidence.”
Synthetic animals used in both works buttress the view that Dick’s future background is used. And in both works Deckard hunts androids so the fundamental storyline is in fact the same. I recommend the SF novel “They’d Rather Be Right” by Mark Clifton for more insight.
All I got to say is Carl Marx would be proud to know his hero Premetheus was made into a movie. Carl Marx was a fan of this Greek God. So I will not spend my dollards on this movie wether it be good or bad.
Let’s work on our spelling, please.
The start of the was lifted from “2001: A Space Odyssey.” If I put my mind to it, I’m sure I could identify all the other movies that got ripped off to make this waste of time.
The title of this article intrigued me…Perhaps a good question to pose to Barack “Frank Davis” Hussein Obama, no?
An audience which cannot understand Bladerunner and thinks it lame doesn’t like Prometheus.
Perfect, I’m going to see it this Friday.
(If there were no laughter, there would be no Tao.)
What audience are you referring too? This comment section, where Prometheus was concerned, seems to break down into those who are trying to find some way to defend it, and those who think it sucked.
I loved the original Alien (never thought it was boring) and think the “Directors Cut” of Blade Runner a masterpiece (one of the first DVDs I bought, maybe even the first). That doesn’t change my view that Prometheus was a waste.
This movie was nothing more than a updated version of the old movie Alien.
Even it’s alien looked like the one in alien vs. predator. I was disappointed don’t waste your money best flicks thus far this year are
MIB, Avengers, Snow White.
GORT, KLATU, NADU, BARRADO!
Did you mean “Klaatu barada nikto?”
I look forward to James Cameron picking up the pieces of Ridley’s film and doing another space-marine kick-ass sequel like before.
The subtitle of Frankenstein was The New Prometheus. When we consider David, we may wonder about the responsibility of creating such a being.