When it's over, Ridley Scott's prequel to Alien (1979) didn't feel like a prequel at all. After a group of researchers discover a clue to the origins of man, an exploration team is assembled by the Weyland Corporation to travel to a distant planet, where the origins of man may actually be the death of mankind. The final scene had some elements of Alien, but a few seconds doesn't justify the term prequel. I wanted to embrace this film, because I am such a huge fan of the Alien franchise, but after seeing it twice, I still can't be persuaded to like it. Devoid of suspense and build up, this film just wasn't memorable, and it didn't make a lasting impression. I think the look of the film was fantastic, and I especially thought the technological props used within the film was impressive. In particular, the 3D mapping balls and the full body surgical bed. I remember these two elements the most, which says a lot for the look of the film, but not much for the story or characters. I thought Noomi Rapace was great in the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009), but in Prometheus, she seemed out of place as Elizabeth Shaw, the head researcher. Charlize Theron's portrayal of Captain Meredith Vickers was so rigid, it was hard to like the woman and impossible to care about what happens to her. Michael Fassbender made a decent android, but can't compete with Bishop's likability. Guy Pierce as Peter Weylan was old and downright boring. These are all wonderful actors, and I don't think it was a lack of talent that made their characters less than engaging, but a lack of a good script. I kept looking for clues to the origins of Alien, some tidbits of info that would connect the dots from what I already knew about the Alien universe. To my dismay and disappointment, I got four hours and eight minutes (I've seen it twice) of wonderful cinematography, introductions to some cool devices, and a lot of unanswered questions, such as, how does a squid like creature become and create the iconic alien we know so well?
My rating: 2.5 out of 5
Your absolutely bang on. Not very memorable as a whole, but rather in bits and pieces. I also think while the wardrobes and props were second to none, they did a very poor job of making Guy Pierce look old. Why not choose an elderly actor to begin with? We never see Weyland as a young(er) man anyway. I couldn't connect with any of the characters in a meaningful way. There certainly wasn't any equal to Ripley, or Hicks, or even Apone - "Wake up sweethearts!! What are you waiting for, breakfast in bed!?"ReplyDelete
I agree, no one can compete with Ripley, Hicks, Bishop, and yes, Apone. Also, let's not forget Dallas, Kane, and Ash from the original. All well written characters, all defined wonderfully in the films.Delete
It was a good movie but I would only give it a 7/10. I agree it didn't really feel like a prequel until I saw the alien at the end. I thought it was missing some key elements that the first through to fourth film had. I was so freaked out by the Caesarean scene, OMGosh!!! can you imagine going through that in a matter of minutes, its an alien and jumping off the table, only to then have to fight for your life to the bitter end. I didn't buy the sub plot of some random old rich man forcing his daughter and countless others to journey on a rejuvenation mission. As a viewer i think the writers could have come up with a better story line. Nonetheless, Yes, the cinematography was AMAZING!!! For an alien film it was good. I luv Michael Fassbender in anything he does.ReplyDelete
Yes, Michael Fassbender is the new "it-drama" guy. However, I didn't like his portrayal of Mr. Rochester, in the new Jane Eyre adaptation.Delete