Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Prometheus—movie review

Reviews
by Leonard Maltin
June 8, 2012 2:12 AM
96 Comments
  • |
Photo: Kerry Brown - courtesy Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

First, the good news: Prometheus is a captivating experience, meant to be savored on the big screen. Ridley Scott’s reputation as a master craftsman is well deserved and he offers up a big, impressive, eye-opening production. It’s also well cast, with two forceful female characters played for all they’re worth by Noomi Rapace (Sweden’s Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) and Charlize Theron. Even better, the versatile Michael Fassbender plays a sly, sophisticated robot, built in human form to make the real humans more comfortable dealing with him. He’s a living, breathing version of HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, and like HAL, he needs watching: he’s always one step ahead of everyone else on the spaceship Prometheus.

The year is 2093. Rapace and her partner (Logan Marshall-Green) play scientists who, thanks to a deep-pocketed corporation, get the opportunity to travel on Prometheus to a distant moon in search of clues to the origins of mankind. A series of cave drawings have led them on this ambitious journey. Most of their fellow voyagers are just along for the ride, including captain Idris Elba and chilly executive officer Theron. It’s the quest for answers to the Big Questions that gives Prometheus its underpinning of thoughtfulness. (Rapace wears a cross given to her by her late father, not to contradict her scientific discoveries but because, she says, “It’s what I choose to believe,” echoing the words of her dad.)

When Ridley Scott directed his science-fiction saga Alien back in 1979, he dared to take his time, carefully building up to the first scary incidents. That won’t do in 2012, so there is a moment in the opening scene involving a humanoid creature that serves as a tease of things to come. This presages the bad news: Prometheus may be more intelligent than run-of-the-mill sci-fi sagas, but it doesn’t skimp on icky, gross-out moments or scenes in which characters make poor decisions that lead to their mutilation and demise—as in any tacky B movie. Watching Prometheus requires a strong stomach.

Photo: Kerry Brown - courtesy Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

The screenplay, by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof, apparently began as a prequel to Alien and then evolved into something else, but echoes of Alien remain, which is why official acknowledgment is made to the writers of that film, Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett.

While I was completely engrossed in Prometheus, I felt a tug-of-war going on between the cerebral and visceral elements, right up to the finale. In fact, there are two endings, and without giving anything away, I’ll say that I wish the movie had faded out after the first. Fans may disagree, but I think the inconsistency in Prometheus’ DNA—and the obvious contradiction this represents—is what keeps it from being a great film, or a ground-breaker, as Alien was.

I don’t mean to damn this film with faint praise: falling short of greatness doesn’t mean the movie isn’t gripping and entertaining. It is. And it certainly gives audiences their money’s worth.

Prometheus is available for digital download now from Itunes and on DVD/Blu-ray everywhere October 9.

Prometheus

  • Photo: Kerry Brown - Twentieth Century Fox
    1 of 4

    Michael Fassbender as David

    Exploring the alien environment.
  • 2 of 4

    Ridley Scott directing Noomi Rapace

    On the set of Prometheus.
  • 3 of 4

    A Monolithic structure

    towering over the space travelers.
  • 4 of 4

    David (Michael Fassbender) explores an alien vessel

    and makes a possible world-changing discovery.
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

96 Comments

  • Neil | October 11, 2013 11:47 AMReply

    Do you pay attention to what makes a movie good? How did you get your job? Who pays you to be completely ignorant of all the well established elements that make up a good story? ......These are the questions I'm left asking after reading your review. I could care less about the questions raised by the film. I would slap you with a white glove if you delivered that review to me in person. Damn you Leonard. Damn you to he'll.

  • jay are | February 19, 2013 10:15 AMReply

    Scott saps his own masterpiece Alien with this botch! As if he was forced to make a fast buck.

  • Dean White | January 22, 2013 6:44 PMReply

    One of the worst films I have ever seen. Seriously terrible. Directorially incompetent. Just horrendous. Lost all respect for every critic who defends this abomination of cinema...

  • John | November 30, 2012 9:32 PMReply

    Just finished the movie. While I didn't really care for it, the movie did provide a lot of suspense. My wife and I had a few theories going as to what was going on. I wasn't expecting something this gory (I normally avoid gory movies) so maybe it wasn't for me to begin with. I wouldn't watch it again, yet I'm left slightly intrigued as to some of the parallels they were trying to draw. Biggest complaint is the trillion dollar space mission by and large sent a bunch of nobodies with little training to do the job.

  • Wes4Les | November 15, 2012 1:23 AMReply

    This film fails to entertain on so many levels, I won't spend an hour typing them all out.

    Whatever this film was "supposed" to be saying about human life originating elsewhere, or something along those lines, got lost in a shuffle of goopy special effects, illogical situations, wooden acting, leaden pacing, emotional distancing, and thoroughly un-engaging performances. If this weren't such a terrible let-down and disappointment to me, I'd hardly remember it. 17 crew members, none of whom made an impact save for the android, and even "David" behaved in a detestable fashion at times. As much as I appreciate Fassbender as an actor, I nearly applauded when his character was attacked. Rapace is one of the least interesting actresses I've ever seen; she has no spark of emotion in her acting what-so-ever. And Theron apparently caught her bug, she was a vague non-entity in this, much like the rest of the wasted, non-descript cast. I cannot believe people defend this movie on any point or grounds; if I'd paid to see this in the theater, I would've been sorely tempted to leave at some point. To hades with special effects; I don't pay good money to be "dazzled" by something a computer created, I wanted an interesting film and got "Slither" in space, with an enormous budget.

  • Wes4Les | November 20, 2012 7:28 AM

    I can't believe Maltin's description of Rapace's and Theron's acting in this. Forceful? For all their worths? Theron's character especially was one-dimensional (for just her first two scenes, then she was no-dimensional) un-interesting, and she looked like she couldn't wait to get out of this stink-bomb. Rapace is thoroughly un-appealing, un-believable, and un-attractive in this. Jumping around like the Energizer Bunny on Red Bull one minute, making "O's" w/ her pouty mouth the next to show (concern? fear? disapproval of the situation in Bosnia? she makes this face for nearly every expression in this emotion-less film.) And if either of these decidedly under-written, un-forceful characters "gave this their all," I'd loathe to see them in a film where they were phoning it in. Rapace here reminds me of that petulant brat next door who whines about her dolly being taken from her, and behaves just as childishly.

  • katesisco | November 10, 2012 6:38 PMReply

    Thought about it for a while; and beyond entertainment is the concept of how artificial life will animate itself; make its own decisions, create its self in a human image. David does all this; he eats and drinks when the crew is asleep, he exercises, he models himself after Peter OToole in the movie, he is not able to be 'unlugged' as W's daughter says she will do. David is the 'life' created by the god W as shown by the foot-washing episode. This movie clearly was elevating itself past the Aliens format to compete with 2001: A Space Odyssey.
    Hal runs amok and David is more cleaver, he makes plans.

  • Chemtrait | October 27, 2012 12:55 AMReply

    Absolutely incredible.

  • dfheth | October 15, 2012 4:30 AMReply

    ------- http://www.chic-goods.us/ -----------

    hello,This is a wholesaler's web site.

    Items, fashion, and: popular personality.

    Product quality,commodity price is absolutely!

    Always deeply overseas friends love and support.

    Please stop you progress in your choice so, need!!!!!

    ------- http://www.chic-goods.us/ -------

  • Max | August 21, 2012 6:18 AMReply

    The worst movie I've ever seen

  • Wes4Les | November 15, 2012 1:29 AM

    Not the worst I've seen, but by far and away the worst I've seen in 2012. I couldn't wait for it to end, and I believe in time I won't learn to appreciate anything this bloated flop has to offer. Which it doesn't; I can't recall a single scene that compelled, fascinated or interested me, but I can recall several that made me wonder who wrote the script, or bothered to proof-read it.

  • Lightfandango | September 5, 2012 2:18 AM

    Fascinating post sir.

  • Michael | August 9, 2012 5:24 AMReply

    My "review" on this bad film on imdb (spoilers):
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/reviews-1600

  • Murfthesurf | July 5, 2012 5:47 PMReply

    Bring the no-doze. There is one thing for a deliberately paced film and another for one that sleep walks. I loved Alien and is the only movie I have seen with two hands over my eyes. In this turkey, Scott seems to have no clue on what type of film he wants to make. And the make-up on Guy Pearce was terrible, reminding me of Bette Midler's make-up in For The Boys. Why not just get an actor in that age group? I thought the acting,save for Fassbender, was robotic. I never bought any of them as scientists. This was a huge disappointment.

  • Patrick M. Gouin | July 4, 2012 11:24 PMReply

    When director Ridley Scott (Alien and Blade runner) does a science fiction film, it is an event.
    The film takes us 70 years in the future aboard the space vessel Prometheus en route to an unknown planet which is believed to harbour a mystery highly sought after. The parallels with Alien are numerous. In many ways, this story is the un-admitted prequel to Alien with the added bonus of some explanations. Alien was high on horror and anticipation, but lacking in information and motivation.
    In both films, space exploration is in the hands of private enterprise which subjugates scientific rigour to megalomania. When Alien came to the screens, I remember finding this omnipresence of Capitalism in space exploration farfetched. Today, I must admit that we are headed in that direction and speedily at that. Just think of the space tourists. We again find a lactated android who keeps vital information from the crew and follows his own agenda. It is highly unlikely that a dozen people sent far into space would not have access to vital information. Smoking is still a habit in this near future although in sharp decline today, except maybe in Asia, which will surely come around in the next 70 years. Again we find a strong heroine. In Alien she was called Ripley, her she is Shaw, played by Noomi Rapace. We remember her as the ground breaking heroine Lisbeth Salander in the Millennium series (the Swedish version). Probably one of Scott’s inside jokes, Rapace’s character is named Elizabeth Shaw. The resemblance between the two names is too great for a coincidence.
    More than 30 years after Alien, a reprise of similar movie effects and storyline does not move today’s audiences as before. There are many characters in this film that lack development. We are all together surprised when these illustrious unknowns do the ultimate sacrifice.
    There will be a sequel no doubt, the ending leads us on.

  • Mike | July 3, 2012 11:53 AMReply

    I saw the movie...pretty good overall. I liked the way it sorta made a connection between these events and what John Hirt found on the derelict ship in the original Alien movie. It went along pretty weel until near the end. The last surviving Engineer sits in the space-jockey chair...puts on the helmet....voila...elephantine space jockey that was found dead and calcified in the original. I thought..."OK, that was the guy they found"...and I guess somewhere later, he will get a facehugger on him and will burst out of his chest, the way they found him fossilized in the original. But then Prometheus throws a curveball. He escapes, goes to Shaws lifeboat and attacks her. Then gets killed on the lifeboat. So where is the continuity....how can he be the fossilized space jockey with the hiole in his chest in the original. Don't tell me all these events happen again later. That was the biggest non-continuity factor for me. Any thoughts?

  • ras | July 3, 2012 4:34 PM

    Prometheus is set on a different planet than the one Alien is set on.

  • Ophelia | June 29, 2012 6:47 PMReply

    Just saw it. Enjoyed it, on the whole. Then enjoyed reading these comments. I thought I must be being dim because I couldn't follow the plot or that it was 'too deep/cosmic/intelligent for me' but think that could actually just be a sign of bad storytelling, as I'm not really that dim. I loved some of the goriness as a non sci-fi fan (usually) however. Enjoyed the Vagina Dentata (Dali fear of vagina with teeth?) and consuming sex-monsters. It had potential comedy in the 'worst period pains in the world' scene, when she staggers along the corridor, and the 'sexy boyfriend is actually a monster, especially when he gets you up the duff' scene and the weird, 'wipe your slimy bogeys on the wall' bit. Hmm. I thought Shaw was very convincing and somehow earthy despite it all and it was a strong female role. The script seemed a bit non-existent. No good lines, particularly. The feminine 'soulless' metrosexual Fassbender was really marvellous.

  • GOO6ER | June 28, 2012 11:36 PMReply

    Producers were determined not to connect this project with any of the Alien canon that occurred in the post-Sigourney Weaver films. Yet resemblances to "Alien vs. Predator" are striking, starting with the unprofessional and downright moronic actions of secondary characters. It's disappointing that a nevertheless good flick like this has to resort to disposable movie cliches. And I would really like to get to know the 3 pilots better before I'll buy that they'll decide in an instant to sacrifice themselves on a plea by Shaw. They didn't even propose an alternative. I loved the comparison of them to Christ on the cross, the pilot in the middle and the two co-pilots on each side. Recall they even raised their arms outstretched to their sides at the moment of impact. Excellent metaphor considering they are the "saviors" of Earth.

  • Sham | June 28, 2012 4:34 PMReply

    I am a sci-fi geek and I did not like this movie. I enjoyed the visuals, the ideas, and the possibilities. I did not like the grind house grotesquery.. It was epic one moment then "B" rate Forbidden Planet the next. The movie was not suspenseful like the Alien movie. The movie was not intense with non stop action like James Cameron's Aliens. This is not a prequel to Alien. The movie takes place somewhere on a moon in the galaxy of Alien. I had a very familiar feeling of I've seen this in that movie-oh, and, OH, I've seen this in that movie. The android is sabotaging the crew- Alien- next, an alien birth - V the TV series- next, don't touch that alien snake- Leviathan-next, he's turning into an alien zombie because of alien goo- Green Lantern LOL! next, let's crash the ship into their ship to stop them-Star Trek movies, twice. I felt the movie was a combination of everything sci-fi I've seen in my life. It would have been cool if Ridley Scott would have had the gonads to keep with a creationist story-that's new in Hollywood. Oh, the critics might have found that more grotesue than an Alien octopus c-section. Just Sayin'.

  • Desmond | June 25, 2012 11:19 PMReply

    A lot of the criticism of this movie seems to be of this flavor: people who simply didn't understand the movie.

    Re: David: The moon is not the Engineers' home planet, it was a military/bio-weapons base, and therefore they did not "develop" there.

    Why does David do anything he does? If you have to ask that, you clearly weren't paying attention. The only questionable/unexplained thing he does is intentionally infecting Holloway with the black substance, though he does this right after Weyland orders him to "try harder". He didn't necessarily know that it would have the effects that it did, for all he knew, it was the elixir of immortality that Weyland was looking for.

  • LOST in space | July 5, 2012 11:02 PM

    BASICS: The premiss of the journey is based upon very old drawings around the earth that point to their destination. You would assume that the knowledge that led to these drawing were based upon part of the DNA that was disseminated on earth in the early segment of this movie. The early alien that drank the "goo" then broke down was not from the same location that the "ancient star maps" led them to. So, why would the DNA memories of the ancient alien astronauts lead the earth scientists to a location building WMD? Why not lead them to the original home of the ancient astronaut? I believe that is the major flaw in this storyline.

  • Desmond | July 3, 2012 8:43 PM

    The characters in Alien also did stupid things. Because....people do stupid things. Real life is full of examples of this, no need to hold our fiction to higher standards.

    David doing what he did put all the crew in danger? And Ash protecting the creature in Alien didn't do the same? I don't think Weyland was too concerned about anyone's safety at that point, including his own.

    As for Holloway, he may not even have been affected by the CO2 in the atmosphere at that stage of his metamorphosis. Rather than putting everyone else at risk, he chose to sacrifice himself, and whatever he was going through was probably already excruciatingly painful. The moment wasn't unlike other scenes in the Alien series where characters have preferred death by fire to some other horrible fate.

  • TIMC | June 26, 2012 10:40 AM

    You're killing me Desmond.

    The people who didn't understand the movie - really did understand the movie rather well.

    What they didn't understand was the idiotic crew members doing whatever they could to get each other killed in stupid ways. That goes for David as well. Infecting Holloway was stupid and unnecessary having little or no chance of producing the desired results even if he was supposed to try harder. It put all the crew members in danger including Weyland. Later, after it's clear he's infected, Holloway insists on dieing the most painful way possible rather than, I dunno, taking off his own helmet so he could die painlessly inside of two minutes? Nah, being burned to death is way more fun.

    The movie is filled with the same such nonsense. I gave it a 6/10.

  • Sanya | June 25, 2012 2:52 AMReply

    This movie was so incredibly atrocious that it’s hard to put into words just how bad it is!
    I was feeling extremely disappointed and just plain angry that I wasted hours of my life watching such drivel. The only relief were the comfy seats at Wave Cinema. It makes me sick to see the great talents of the visual effects artists wasted – not to mention the gargantuan sums of money that it must have cost. I have lost all respect for Ridley Scott, and I hope this pile of offal fades quickly into the obscurity of failure and doesn’t besmirch the incredible legacy of Alien and Aliens.

  • Rogerious | July 18, 2012 3:38 PM

    I couldn't agree more TIMC. Being an avid Sci-Fi guy, I was really looking forward to seeing this movie. While the first 20 minutes held my interest, even though that this journey was the sole enterprise of an old man (who should have been an actual old man playing the role) seeking immortality, with a couple of scientist tagging along to find earths' origin, the balance was spent trying to suspend my interest, and actually care about what was happening and the significance of it all. It was a difficult task to maintain, which became more difficult as the movie dragged on. Charleze was stiff as a board, and the only character I really cared about was the captain :). Like you I couldn't believe that I actually spent 3 hours of my day watching this - IMAX 3D no less. And I left immediately in disbelief and felt a bit let down. I expected much more from Mr. Scott.

  • David | June 22, 2012 11:31 PMReply

    Does anyone notice that the beings on the moon from whom we derive our DNA also live in an incompatible atmosphere? How can they be genetically identical to us yet have developed on a planet so inhospitable to human life? Or that the resuscitated head croaks, yet could not have had lungs or vocal chords? This movie was typically American; visually overstimulating and ignorant in the details. Any keen eye will spot a logical inconsistency per minute. The characters act with incoherent agendas, especially the robot David? Why does he do ANYTHING he does? A thinking person cannot enjoy this flick. It insults the intellect, believing that when your mouth drops in awe at what you see, your brain stops working.

  • Thraccus | July 10, 2012 7:43 PM

    1) The planet of Prometheus' destination is not their home planet. 2) They were on a ship that had an artificial atmosphere 3) They had suits for conditions outside their ship. 4) Ridley Scott is British 5) David's agenda is at the behest of Weyland-a dying man who wants answers and maybe a solution to immortality-so anything goes.

  • JC | June 22, 2012 11:56 AMReply

    Truly a mixed bag.

    The basic underlying concept is worthwhile and the movie is just beautiful to look at. The effects are wonderful and there are just enough "ick" moments to remind us that we are in a horror/sci-fi agglomeration. It's great to see the "Alien" motif on screen again and to see some development of the aim of the "Space Jockeys" and the origin of the xenomorphs.

    The lack of character development or definition, the outlandishly ridiculous choices and actions of the characters and the scientific oversights and blunders mar what could have been a splendid movie experience. So many of these items have already been enumerated that I won't bother going into detail (taking off helemts in an unknown environment; running, jumping, leaping and grabbing after abdominal surgery, etc.). Sure, we can be apologists for many of these occurrences, but it would have been preferable to plausibly get to where you needed to be by another route or at least attempt to explain some of them with snippets of expository dialogue.

    The actions of the characters in "Prometheus" remind me of the characters in "Enterprise," the last TV incarnation of "Star Trek." In an attempt to portray mankind as naive and new to the wonders of outer space, the "Enterprise" writers stripped away all layers of common sense and made them profoundly stupid. This was simply evidence of writers that just did not have the chops to get to the point that they wanted to get to in a realistic fashion.

    Nevertheless, I hold out some hope that an extended cut made availabe on BD / DVD will patch up some of the holes and heal the wounds as miraculously as Shaw's staples healed her. Although flawed, I still applaud "Prometheus" for the effort. It was nice to see an attempt at film-making that went beyond pandering to the lowest common denominator present in far too many movies today - sound and fury signifying nothing. They should have tried a bit harder, however. I believe that the fear (fact?) that today's audiences have very short attention spans contributed to the decision to possibly cut material that could have made some of the cringe-worthy moments more palatable.

    Overall, I'd grade it a B- and would look forward to an additional installment or two.

  • CJ | June 22, 2012 4:02 AMReply

    my bf worked on this movie and he said everyone working on it was a fool, had no previous knowledge of other cinematic achievements, and the actors were very much as you see them on film - like without any real consideration. Noomi was a constant diva on the set and Charlize was always trying to act "cool" with the crew who were not impressed with her contrived attitude.
    He was very excited to work on it ( worked on other Scott films) however is very much ashamed of it... he said everyone on the set thought the script writing was lacking in depth and that taking off the helmets wasn't very smart however it was Fox's idea who insisted it to the actor's were to be seen! oh well another one bites the dust!

  • novamike | June 22, 2012 2:36 AMReply

    There are basically two reasons to see this movie: Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender, a couple of kick-ass actors who make this otherwise uninspired 'sort-of' prequel to Alien watchable.

    Rapace is to this movie everything Sigourney Weaver was to Alien--a strong, beautiful female lead who immediately gets you rooting for her. Fassbender--wow, it's hard to say enough about his performance as David the android, who patterns himself after the young Peter O'Toole through watching his movies. His motives are fascinatingly opaque, even at the story's resolution, and he manages to be both charming and sympathetic, as well as chillingly scary ... more chilling, really, than any of the monsters who, though icky, are kind of old hat.

    And that is one of the big problems with this film: it really delivers nothing very new, aside from its admittedly great special effects. The other characters are mostly stock throw-ins, and some are just too damned stupid to live, which in fact they don't do for very long.

    Most disappointing, though, are the so-called 'engineers,' or 'space-jockeys' who apparently created the human race and then had sufficient second thoughts about it to want to wipe us out. Basically, they are simply over-sized humanoids. Their motivation for creating and then trying to destroy the human race is non-existent, and even though Rapace sets out to solve this mystery at the end of the film, it's hard to imagine that the answer will be very interesting if there's ever a sequel to the prequel.

    I could also nit-pick on some of the mis-matches in story and detail with Alien, but won't bother. If you were a big fan of Alien and Aliens, they are easy enough to spot. And, oh ... it's not nearly as scary as Alien, but that is probably because there's little shock value in gory stuff exploding out of people's bodies when you already know it's going to happen.

    All of this said, I'd still recommend the movie, if only for Rapace and Fassbender's great performances, and for the terrific sets and special effects. See it in 3-D for sure, and IMax if possible.

  • mike schlesinger | June 21, 2012 7:58 PMReply

    Strip away the stunning visuals and the metaphysical psycho-babble, and what you're left with is the black-tie version of THE GREEN SLIME. Once you accept that, you're fine.

  • john12 | June 21, 2012 4:05 PMReply

    testing

  • Tony Fiorentino | June 21, 2012 3:35 AMReply

    This movie must end on the garbage heap of sci-fi. The will do anything to get you to a theatre, then they throw shit at you. How many Alien monster body invasions do we have to see. This is Ridley Scott tribute to crap. A captain who acts more like a garbage truck driver - out having sex the first night on a strange planet while an alien life lurks in a cavern. The man hardly speaks English. I bet there was more intelligence on the boat that first dumped its gargo at Colony Bay, than there is in this movie. The crew is totally unvetted and out of sync with what is going on. Perhaps it is us who expected too much from movie-making for profit.

  • bring on more enlightened times | July 26, 2012 9:02 AM

    You need uniform, ceremony, celibacy and Queen's English to tell an expert from an 'ordinary' person? Perhaps the proof of this captain's expertise is in the effectiveness with which he gets people and cargo from A to B.

  • Mike Page | June 18, 2012 12:37 PMReply

    Wow, this movie really hit some nerves for you all, good and bad. I liked the visuals mostly and can't help but feel the movie was really Ridley Scott's tribute to science fiction films of the 20th century and their origins in pulp magazine and paperback art. Noomi Rapace looks like the woman in Metropolis. The bubble space suits look like EC comics and the original Buck Rogers pulp cover. The space ship interior looks like 2001. And of course all the Alien images, etc. There were enough ideas and concepts in the film to restart the Alien franchise, and also the visuals let us sci-fi movie fans of old enjoy some grat nostalgia for what has come before. And I can't help but feel that Jack Kirby and Forrest Ackerman would have really enjoyed it.

  • Julie Lhbjh | June 16, 2012 9:05 PMReply

    OK, we two hard core lovers of SciFi books and movies, notably Alien, just couldn't get through this movie. We DID love the red mapping balls and the surgery segment. We went for a drink afterward, and had conversation of all the cliches in this movie, some from the '50s. (We DO love the artwork of H.R. Geiger. Yes, we Can suspend disbelief. And yes, I am carping. Just us old timers would notice anything.

    * from the cave to a specialized starship with nary a wrinkle on her face
    *the ubiquitous solo android - Hi Dave
    *smoking ciggys on ship
    *incredibly inept people on the ship (a la Destination Moon)
    *why rocketry if they have antigravity (red mapping globes)
    *why venture forth immediately upon landing 6 hr. til dusk
    *whipping off those masks underground in variable atmosphere
    *everybody touching EVERYTHING
    * a storm worthy of Forbidden Planet
    *the old guy's not old (actor was young)
    *vaporization in bubble helmets
    *down the throat stuff again
    *underground ship like X Files
    *Tron uniforms
    * we did like the ending, in yet another Pod escape

  • Tom Vierce | June 16, 2012 8:09 PMReply

    I do understand what this movie is all about, what its trying to say, when left the theater (as having background as a 100% Nerd and 100% science fiction hardcore).

    I am trying to be objective, because i am one of alien fans.

    Many great movies that have much more complex story line and ideas than Prometheus can deliver it in good, smart, analytical and established ways. But Prometheus has shown me otherwise.
    The concept of faith and ancient astronauts mix is not something new to me, and it left me out of wow factor when watching the first scene of the movie.

    And after watching it for some more, i found that Prometheus has many weaknesses mainly in the script, where all the characters always behaving irrational and shows intelligence third of normal human being (as its has been shown by many forums out there).
    Maybe if there is one scene that explained if space travel and cryostasis can reduced your normal brain capacity and capability into 30%, i can forgive all the scenes that happened after that.
    There are many moments in the film, when i actually do get bored.
    And it makes me left the theater with empty feeling.

    I do agree with LM, that this is not a great film, it even not trying to be one.
    Offer us again,something fresh, something new, something that makes you crave for more in one solid and full package. A brilliant plot, rational character thinking, and emotional story telling, Sir Ridley..
    And it would revive the Alien franchise once again, that can withstood the time.

  • Javi | June 16, 2012 6:26 PMReply

    I just watched it. I liked it. I have some questions but it might be because I was eating my nachos. What I notice about the comments posted is the people who liked the movie have explained their reasons why. And the people who didn't like it use weak words and cannot explain why.

  • Gary | June 29, 2012 2:23 PM

    Javi you can't even explain why YOU like the movie. Aside from the fact that you had nachos, I don't think you even remember what you're talking about here.

  • Elaine | June 16, 2012 8:33 AMReply

    The movie is beautifully shot, glossy and with enough special effects to leave you "starry eyed." But ultimately, I think the source of my disappointment in the movie is that it is largely an exercise in Darwinism; far too many characters make completely unintelligible mistakes, their own lack of survival skills rendering them un-relatable and flat. Yet Shaw is the razor-sharp contrast, her own survival skills so remarkable that she becomes nearly super-human in her own right. It's this very distinct contrast that makes it hard for me to feel connected to any of the human characters; I left the theater feeling as though so many of them were ciphers meant to propel the philosophical and theological questions more than provide meaningful contributions to the overall story. In comparison to the original "Alien," I'd say Ripley and crew felt far more "human" to me than those of "Prometheus."

    What sticks with me more than anything is the imagery of the captain and his co-pilots sacrificing themselves. It wasn't until the credits were rolling that I realized how subtly it referenced the crucifixion; the captain sacrificing himself for the sake of mankind while his co-pilots completed the picture as they flanked his sides. Coyly, it hearkens back to the Christmas tree at the start of the movie, but in this heavy netting of philosophical ponderances, I'm still left wondering what it means, how it fits with Shaw's own belief system, and how it will shape the story of a possible sequel if Ridley sees fit to further the Judeo-Christian theme.

  • Wayne | June 18, 2012 1:20 AM

    Michael! Come on! Even if I was a God hating atheist, the "christian" thread was blatantly there. Mr. Robot is surprised that "she still believed" enough to put the cross back on. It's not "The Passion", but its WAY more than Madonna's cross.

  • Michael | June 16, 2012 12:25 PM

    Wow. I saw no Judeo -Christian theme at all. The woman was wearing a cross. Madonna wears a crucifix, so what? The woman clearly did not believe that 'Jesus' was who he is claimed to be in the Bible. Human beings often do stupid things that I personally cannot relate to. Sometimes those people are in the space program [The NASA diaper woman for example] I would be suprised if people from 70 years ago could relate to me or some of my responses to things. The fact that I find it difficult to relate to people who live in the year 2080 something is not too suprising. I think the real problem with all the negative feedback for the movie is that it makes people think about what they don't want to think about, and that makes them reach for reasons to dislike it. It's called science 'fiction', not science 'truth'.

  • Claire | June 16, 2012 5:59 AMReply

    I just watched it in a theater. In fact, I didn't know what this movie wanted to say.
    This was too hard to understand, so I am reading some reviews and comments for better
    understanding.

  • Carthy | June 15, 2012 1:47 AMReply

    A good level of excitement, wonderful performances, and an interesting plot--those are the pluses. And I agree overall it's well worth seeing. There was a lot of jumpy, disjointed storytelling, though (felt like a little too much unthoughtful editing), and some confusing scenes. The "second ending" felt like a complete nonsequitur. My favorite part (and one of the most interesting sci-fi ideas I've ever seen) was the surgery machine.

  • mm | June 14, 2012 5:14 PMReply

    Just saw Prometheus....I want my money back! Probably the worst movie I ever saw! I REALLY went bad when the c-section was done and then she was move active the a athletes in the Olympics!

  • Arod | June 20, 2012 10:31 PM

    Agree 1000%. Waste of time and all that money! Very silly, unless you're 10 y.o.,and your parents are ignorant.

  • Coldefry | June 20, 2012 9:51 AM

    Agree completely. This could be the worst movie I have ever seen. Who cares about these characters? Why should we care about these characters? Bad things are happening to these people and I don't care because I don't know who they are and what on earth they are doing out there. The writing is absolutely pathetic. Charleze Theron is an awesome actress, but she has to say the stupidest things in this movie rendering her completely unbelievable. Pity, as the special effects were nice. Almost any sci-fi film is better than this one.

  • Wayne | June 18, 2012 1:27 AM

    MM, so glad you noticed that miss c-section didn't even look pale! Lip gloss stayed intact! Maybe I don't suspend disbelief well. In fact, I suck at it. Make me a believable sci-fi and I will watch it 15 times. Despite the bizarre ending, 2001 still does it better than them all.

  • Michael | June 16, 2012 12:32 PM

    Since you or I do not understand surgery in the 2080s neither one of us could possibly know how quickly one might become 'normal'. If you want a 'bad' movie you need look no further than The Cabin In the Woods. I guy gets scewered in the back with a long knife or sword like object, and then later in the movie a full camera shot of his back is seen and not only is there no wound, but his shirt doesn't even have a hole in it. The 'worst movie you've ever seen', wow, you must really have high standards or else you don't get out much.

  • DJ Pondo | June 14, 2012 3:46 PMReply

    I really enjoyed Prometheus. And, in a selfish way, I'm happy that so many people have made unfavorable comments about the movie. Those comments may cause the movie to spend less time in theaters - and, help get it released on Blue-Ray sooner. So, keep dissin' the flick y'all. I already pre-ordered my copy on Amazon.

  • nevil | June 14, 2012 1:59 AMReply

    I am interested in seeing the next part of the movie. This part looked more like a prequel to aliens. I feel the story lacks a firm premise on which I can justify my conclusions. Lot of things are just said leaving us to ponder on what may be the real cause of the cave man drawings found at the beginning of the movie. Further the movie becomes interesting once there is a dna match of humans, but then it brings you back to thinking about the end where an alien is born off the first human. More than anything I miss the predators, hope that they include the predators in the next part of the movie.

  • Buzzardbill | June 13, 2012 5:36 PMReply

    As drs. Shall 1st do no harm a movie requires suspension of disbelief. When you do this becomes a highly entertaining film. I thoroughly enjoyed this flick by not nitpicking details which I sometimes do. Once I gave up trying to decide if that was Tom Hardy in the male lead I sat back, absorbed the fine acting, 1st rate effects and mythological storytelling. A 9 out of. 10.

  • Howard | June 13, 2012 7:17 AMReply

    I saw it in 2-d because the 3-d version had already started. Some of the actions of the crew seemed silly since they are scientists and certainly aware of the dangers posed by such things as alian viruses, etc. One such seen however, would have been far more scary in 3-d and hence more entertaining. The film was certainly gripping and I will definitely see the sequel.

  • Marc | June 12, 2012 8:23 PMReply

    Movie should be called "PROTHETICUS" seems the whole movie script was dropped and just thrown together to make a mess of a compilation of sorts? All acting sucked visual graphics were cool, but the movie sucked, guess they forgot about a climax or any other writing rules. That dam robot couldn't keep his hands off everything, and no one told him to stop, I would have shot him with my fazer, he was annoying, as the rest of them all were also, no main character, stupid scientist, this movie was a wast of my time and money.

  • Michael | June 16, 2012 12:42 PM

    The script was excellent, it made perfect sense. Science fiction is exactly that, science 'fiction'.
    The acting was as good as it is in just about any movie, so that critisizm is bogus. Climaxes are optional in a movie that will continue the story in another film. [By the way there was a climax] I'll let you figure it out. So you were annoyed by the robot. You would have shot him with a phaser. In Star Trek [also science fiction] as in Star Wars [science fantasy] no one ever seems to care about the fact that people go whipping around the universe at very high speeds and no one's even wearing a seat belt. I guess people decide what movies they are going to hold accountable and what movies they're not.

  • Hannah Banana | June 12, 2012 2:41 PMReply

    Remember "GUY" in "Galaxy Quest"?....that's what some of these people were "GUY" the first one(s) to die. So that isn't saying a lot when comparing 2 movies, huh? Finally got my husband to go and he says "it's not like Alien is it" (he doesn't like the whole squishy alien thing). Oh no no no, that's not what I heard. oops. I guess squid aliens = squishy aliens. And trying to explain how a woman who just had a C-section, running around with alarms blaring (any other time someone was getting busted on doing ANYTHING) and actually doing the physicality of it all...noooooo way. I wanted to like this movie as much as Alien but didn't. It was 'okay' and the expectations could've been met, but weren't. I thought it would be more thought-provoking, like "Inception" where you actually had to discuss it and watch a second time because you wanted to really dissect it. Now, THAT is a winner....a movie that makes you think, but entertains.

  • Andy | June 12, 2012 11:42 AMReply

    I suppose you could argue that the idiot B-movie behaviour (They were all so stupid they deserved to die) is a metaphor for the way that humans are destroying the earth and would justify the Engineers decision to terminate the lot of us.

  • Jonathan | June 12, 2012 7:51 AMReply

    I find it amusing that folks watch this film and don't grasp it. Therefore they say the movie is 'stupid', 'crap', 'a waste etc. Its a mistake to project your own inability to understand the story on the film. The 'suppossed' plot holes are none existent as many posts and other sites have explained. In most cases it is a matter of the viewer missing key details or not paying attention. This film is amazing, smart, beautiful and the first step towards a greater story. I loved the thoughtful insights involving Darwinism, Creationism, Mythology, Theology, Sociology, Politics, Military Agenda, Spirituality, Biology, etc. - WONDERFUL!

    I really appreciated that the filmakers opened a dialogue for the audience to ponder. They don't tell or presume that they have an answer for these BIG questions. Now we have the chance to discuss these things amongst ourselves. In this way PROMETHEUS is as 'groundbreaking' as Alien and Blade Runner (Both films which still have their fair share of admirerers and detractors by the way).

    I appreciate everyone's opinion on this film. I think that Sir Ridley Scott has given us a gift in this film tha transcends the film. In another ten years it will have its place amongst the great SCI-FI epics. It deserves it now in my opinion. I really think one needs to be careful in declaring a film 'Stupid or Crap' solely because it wasn't understood, didn't meet a misplaced expectation or follow a certain genre formula.

    I love the allusions to genetic advancement/perversion as a metaphor to a spiritual condition. WOW! A ton of deep stuff in this film and I will need to watch it a few times. That alone makes this film brilliant.

  • bobbdogg | June 17, 2012 11:08 PM

    Excellent insight. The unfolding is coming and the detractors have left the majority of the meal on the bones. Of course, our self-righteous smirking will go unnoticed when the decade vindicates us. Alas.

  • Steph | June 15, 2012 4:53 PM

    I agree wholeheartedly. I think most of the people who hated the film didn't see the original "Alien". That movie also brought up questions that weren't answered in the course of the movie (but answered in sequels), such as what the alien was, where it came from, and what it wanted. And those characters also made stupid decisions (i.e. Veronica Cartwright standing rigid and screaming at the alien instead of running away). You have to understand the Alien mythology to understand "Prometheus". I thought it was epic and thought-provoking. It also had it's suspenseful moments and gross-out scenes, just like the original. Ridley Scott and the cast did a fine job.

  • Brutus64 | June 13, 2012 11:28 AM

    You are correct sir. This movie took me someplace I can never go. I'm a big fan of the first 2 Alien movies and a big fan of History Chanels' Ancient Aliens. This Masterpiece blends the two and gives one plenty to ponder.

  • Jarod | June 13, 2012 2:11 AM

    I concur 100% with your review. It seems most people who go to the movies willingly reduce themselves to the sitting dead, and use the whole movie experience just to escape the misery of THINKING. As great as it is, Prometheus deserves much more from its audience than mere idle defamation.

  • Marge | June 12, 2012 1:04 AMReply

    What do you mean by Prometheus' "DNA" and the obvious contradiction this represents?

  • Scott | June 12, 2012 12:13 AMReply

    I wanted Prometheus to deliver on what the trailers promised us. It did in one regard, it is a visually stunning film. However, the poorly constructed story,
    lack of focus, logic, and continuity act in concert with poor acting to give us Ridley
    Scott's "MESSterpiece". Like a sculptor attempting to make a beautiful cake
    but with no knowledge of the ingredients, the cake looks fantastic, but ultimately tastes
    like sh**. I'm glad I went however, the popcorn was excellent.

  • CJ | June 13, 2012 5:15 PM

    I agree on all points.

  • Dylan | June 11, 2012 7:55 PMReply

    I freakin loved this movie, damn good job!

  • Will | June 16, 2012 2:04 PM

    Can't speak for the popcorn, but agree with the rest.

    Trying to explain the plotholes by speaking of incomprehensible future technologies or future human reactions misses the point of being able to write a good comprehensible script with characters who have a place in the story (other than cannonfodder) and who have depth and intellect. These qualities were absent in Prometheus.

    Suspension of disbelief is something that the writer should create, not something the audience should use to accept the movie's flaws. The writer must create a universe with a set of rules. Those rules need not be realistic (Superman flying, aliens having acid for blood, or humans traveling interstellar distances), but they need to be explained and adhered to.
    When you write a story where the human body is as vulnerable and fragile as a real human, invasive surgery should incapacitate a person (unless you can explain how this person didn't get incapacitated, for instance through regenerative surgery).
    When you use human DNA as a plot point, then there cannot be a "match" if the alien creature looks so different from humans. A better plot device would have been to prove that the alien creature has DNA, and that it has similarities with DNA found on Earth.
    And when you compose a team of scientists, you need to have them follow basic scientific protocols.
    As soon as a writer starts breaking all the rules he's set, the plot comes apart.

  • Mike | June 11, 2012 10:49 AMReply

    Prometheus is one of those films that needs to be digested over time. Like Stanley Kubrik, there is a method to his madness. This will hold up just as "Blade Runner" and "Alien".

    Maltin mentions "Alien" as a groundbreaking movie. Funny, his review only merited 2.5 stars back in 1979. Is he back peddling?

    Sadly, no mention of Jerry Goldsmith's absence makes me very sad, though I was pleased that about 30 seconds of his music from the original "Alien" was used in Prometheus.

    Finally: stop whining about the guts and gore. This is a horror/science fiction film. We all knew that going in. If you don't care for blood and guts, go rent "Driving Miss Daisy".

  • Andy | June 11, 2012 10:46 AMReply

    Very poor indeed, I was hugely disappointed. I expected so much better from Ridley Scott. Whilst the visuals and special effects were outstanding the plot was rushed and made too many jumps. The worst feature though was the plain stupid B-movie behaviour. "plenty of oxygen and Low CO2, I'll take my helmet off then" "No don't" "See its fine", " Oh, OK then" . Ever heard of viral infevtion ?
    "What has happened to Fifield and the other one?" - Dunno, maybe you should check the video record of them being attacked, maybe....
    "Fifield's beacon just appeared outside" So why not talk to him ? If he doesn't answer why not take a look on the camera ? On the other hand, just open the damn door so he can kill 3 of us.
    Had a Caesarian Section ? Had your abdoninal muscles severed ? Then jumping out of bed and running down the corridor should be no problem (alternatively it might be impossible). And seriously does she get to run around the whole ship without anyone noticing ?

  • Rob | June 16, 2012 10:29 PM

    Wow, Andy, you are right on the money with your critique. Those were exactly the things that rattled me as I watched this film. Here's some of my issues: they decent pretty much randomly onto the planet and within seconds the doctor yells "right there!", and of course that happens to be the most important spot on the entire surface. Then, this guy who's supposed to be an archeologist is thoroughly disappointed after a *couple hours* of exploring this incredible new world and examples of artifacts including writing. What kind of archeologist is he? Gee maybe you could give it one more day doctor? Then, the main character manages to escape somehow from this underground labyrinth while the ship is taking off and comes up right in front of her own ship. Then leaps across these chasms opening up in the ground pretty much right after having her abdomen cut open. Then she shouts to the ship's captain to take out the alien ship, and he manages to get this done pretty much immediately, with no issues (i.e. don't you have to kind of i don't know rev up some thrusters, etc., or get into position first? he just acquiesces and heads for it and bam!). Finally, the second ending pretty much ruined anything that might have been good about the film. It really made the whole thing look like a joke.

  • cj | June 13, 2012 6:14 PM

    Agree, it just doesn't measure to good sci-fic...sigh.

  • johny | June 10, 2012 2:55 PMReply

    Unbelievable funny Amazing Fruits In The World, Must See Only For Laugh . http://www.funnyblips.com/2012/06/unbelievable-funny-amazing-fruits-in.html

  • Rick | June 9, 2012 7:39 PMReply

    I was greatly looking forward to seeing this movie after all of the advertising buildup on YouTube. I enjoyed Michael Fassbender's role as David especially after seeing him as Magneto in the latest X-Men movie. Still, I agree, there was something missing. The planet and ship were polished and clean and missing the edginess from the first Alien film. The special effects were beautiful with the holographic projections but the grotesque out scenes and the super bulked up aliens did nothing for me. A lady in the audience pretty much summed up the disappointment I felt in the movie. She turned to her husband and said 'that was stupid'. I found myself having to agree. The two characters that get killed were so over the top, they may as well have given them red shirts to wear like the away team security detail from 'Star Trek' that usually get killed off on every episode of the original show. The confusion for me was the combination of polish then slime of the aliens. I like the actors in the movie but felt overall the film fell flat for me and was disappointing at the end.

  • Faye | June 10, 2012 10:30 PM

    I agree with you totally and also the lady that turned to her husband and said "that was stupid" because that is exactly what I said. I am left clueless. This was one of the worst movies Ive seen in a while. A waste of money and I should have asked for a refund.

  • Cathy | June 9, 2012 7:34 PMReply

    The diaglogue in this movie was sophmoric from the start. Scientists and doctors do not say
    "shit" and god damnit" every time something goes wrong. And when they did have something to say, it sounded like something a high school kid might say,. I couldn't find anything remotely cerebral about this movie. And for a group of scientists, they had no trouble touching anything that moved or oozed. How about the engineers talking to the disgusting, dripping wet bone of saliva as if it were a puppy? Are you serious?
    And what about Charlize Theron. Same stance as in the perfume ad when she strips off her god lame.
    I don't know who this movie was pandering to but it wasn't somebody with half a brain.
    Two thumbs down.

  • Scott | June 12, 2012 12:16 AM

    Very estute observations, I'm adding them to my list of what made this movie a highly polished piece of you-know-what!

  • chuck b | June 9, 2012 4:47 PMReply

    You are being very kind LM. This movie falls flat in many areas. The most glaring were the actors and screenwriters' choices. We have scientists that are not scientific at all. One is getting drunk like he is in a vegas hotel room, one is a geologist that comes off as a military specialist in the beginning, and then the biggest wimp, where as the biologist is not interested in biology. Let's not forget Charlize melodramatic interaction with overdone makeup job father. Just cast an old person. Is that so unbelievable these days...I am not comparing this movie with any others...it has some cool moments, but most of it is flat. The one area that is missing the most is the audience liking anyone on this crew. I guess we like captain, but the rest of them could have been robots for all we cared. I like reading your blog and I expected a much more critical review from you, LM.

  • Charles | June 9, 2012 2:11 PMReply

    The one thing I missed is the terrifying look of the future itself that you got in "Alien" and "Blade Runner". The settings and technology in those movies had a more dark and worn out look that frighteningly realistic. The spaceship in this movie looked almost a little too neat and "comfy". It's funny that while this movie takes place before "Alien" the technology almost looks more advanced. Perhaps that's because this was a scientific mission and the spaceship in the original was a mining ship. But still, I never felt completely pulled in to this world. It was pretty to look at, but it did not have the moody, suffocating atmosphere of "Alien" or "Blade Runner".

  • Capt. Mitch Witt | June 9, 2012 12:00 PMReply

    As a devout follower of all things Alien I can appreciate many comments on the Prometheus website as well as Mr. Maltins review. I liked the film, I can accept the various little inconsistencies between Prometheus and Alien (LV322 vs 426, the final creature's form and mouth vs that trade mark double mouth in Alien, etc) BUT, I have not read anywhere that anyone realized that the surreal background music that I heard throughout the film was none other than the them music (slightly altered) from STAR TREK !!!

  • Michael | June 9, 2012 9:49 AMReply

    A transporting 3D entertainment if you turn off your brain for the second half. A bit sad premiering the day after Ray Bradbury's leaving this reality into nothingness, the father of thought-provoking, well crafted fiction and science. Given the priorities of Hollywood will a writer/director ever be able present such science fiction on a big screen? There certainly is enough out there in print.

  • Mark Laurent | June 9, 2012 5:47 AMReply

    It was boring? I just expected more from Ridley Scott(which was the reason why I wanted to see it so bad). It does no justice to the first "Alien" movie which he directed also! *Remember that old Eddie Murphy joke(from the comedy classic, "Delirious") about white folks always want to investigate sh%t when they shouldn't? But when Black folks hear: "Get Out". Oh! Sorry we can't stay!! Well, you know they stayed and kept going back to check things out? Duh?
    All throughout the movie. I hate dumb ass people in films!

    Mark Laurent(your former Intern @ E.T. 1986)

  • Mark Laurent | June 9, 2012 6:04 AM

    One positive note for me. Possible Academy nomination for Michael Fassbender , as the android David.

  • capt | June 9, 2012 2:40 AMReply

    I'd rather more of these " Well made and directed/acted, but didn't live up to expections" type movies than abortions like Battleship/Transformers...

  • Wes4Les | November 20, 2012 7:46 AM

    Well-made, directed and acted? All I expected was some fairly intelligent entertainment. This turkey was sloppily directed, lazily scripted, and over-under acted by nearly everyone who was bothered to be given a character that wasn't stupid and/or one-dimensional. Fassbender was "ok" in this, not great. Ian Holm was memorably calm, yet sinister and then frightening as Ash in "Alien." Fassbender's character was icy-cool, and...nothing, other than sickening for what it did to Holloway. I'd rather not see "abortions" like "Battleship," either but I certainly didn't expect this rotten film to be as bad as those kind of films usually turn out to be: insulting to my intelligence, and substituting CGI effects for humanity and clever story-writing.

  • Rob | June 9, 2012 12:51 AMReply

    Naw, you can say it. It's a farce. An abortion. An insult to Alien fans everywhere. It sucks. This movie should have been terminated in the womb via robotic C- Section.

  • John | June 9, 2012 4:08 AM

    I'm afraid you'll have to speak for yourself, Rob. I don't think this movie sucks, but I will concede that there is a vaccum. Coming out of the theatre, I haven't had that much fun at the cinema in about 10 years, but I still felt hungry. The writing's connection with Lost is telling; I think more was bitten-off than chewable here. The theme of choosing to believe something, for example, just felt completely underserviced. I also rolled my eyes at a lot of the cinema tropes going on. That said, I felt the cast was very strong and delighted in getting to know the world of Alien better, not to mention a glorious return to practical effects in Sci-Fi. Leonard really sums it up; that this is but a minor success just seems to really bum some.

  • Norm | June 8, 2012 8:19 PMReply

    I do have an idea for Sci-Fi, kind of a S.King ripoff, "Spellcheck" will not work on any computer in the world, can mankind survive the chaos ? Then , machines start to think, but can't communicate...Already been done...darn...

  • BC | June 8, 2012 11:44 AMReply

    In recent editions of the movie guide, Leonard has changed his original Alien review from 2.5 stars (fair) to 3.5 (excellent). Would love to know more about his reassessment.

  • Wes4Les | November 20, 2012 7:37 AM

    Compared to "Prometheus," the original (how I hate to use that word, in relation to what was a great, stand-alone film) "Alien" is "Gone With The Wind." Of course he would boost it's rating, other-wise he'd be ridiculed for making the prequel seem like the "better" of the two movies (his review above states this movie "falls short of greatness," making it what, 3.5 stars as well, is he suffering from dementia?) when in fact "Prometheus" is so poorly executed, it drags down the unique original (guilty by association, in other words.) I would give "Alien" 3.5 stars and "Prometheus" a well-deserved "BOMB" rating. (1.5 stars, for what? Don't tell me, the "visuals.")

  • GOO6ER | June 28, 2012 11:20 PM

    Did you know it was originally 2 stars?

  • Rick Curzon | June 8, 2012 6:05 AMReply

    I take your points Leonard, but I found the whole thing disappointing. None of the charachters made much of an impression and the script was perfunctory at best. It felt like much had been edited out to appease the short attention spans of today; can you imagine anyone making a blockbuster as deliberately paced as Alien (1979), or as intelligent? When I first caught A
    In back in '79 the tension was palpable, and the suspense built up slowly. The Space Jockey was a truly weird creation whose seemingly classified presence left things open to interpretation. When we see what they look like their pasty WWF wrestling appearance just robs the original of any mystery.

    Picking up on scenes that seem to be missing; how did Idris Alba's captain come to speculate that the alien building was a military installation? He hadn't been to see it for himself, and at that point in the film the heroe / heroine hadn't had those thoughts yet? It seems to have been cut to increase the pace which is a shame. I also found the whole thing terribly derivative of many other much better films like Quatermass and the Pit (the fact the human race were created by aliens), The X Files (the black oil that infects folks is a direct crib visually and in concept) and Doctor Who which has dealt with many pompous alien races down the years, but specifically the 1971 serial The Daemons which posits that an alien race who appear devil-like created the Earth as an experiment and have arrived to destroy what they deem a failure. Sounds awfully familiar....

  • graham | June 10, 2012 9:32 PM

    Upon second review here, I must reinforce my counterargument, as well as what was clearly seen in the movie: the Captain DID GO into the military installation, second time around, to look for the missing crew (biologist and geologist) - he even went to the sacrificial, worship room - whatever you want to call it. He raised numerous questions with Dr. Shaw, saw the dead biologist, the canisters & black liquid everywhere, & was suspicious about Charlie's condition. Not long after, the geologist came back to the ship, all wacky and genetically altered - he wiped out like 3 of the crew and the Captain witnessed much of it and ultimately helped put him down. Put it all together, it's pretty obvious some military bio-engineering is going down. Thus, the Captain makes his case to Dr. Shaw, and I believe that's after he noticed on the hologram that there was a ship within the facility., he ultimately tells Shaw he'll take everything out in a worse case scenario.

  • graham | June 8, 2012 11:34 PM

    Nonsense on at least one of your points. You might of fallen asleep during the film. The Cpt could easily detect a military presence, just as many I went to the film with concluded half way through the film. Everything the crew and the probes saw inside the installation was being continuously recorded and displayed back to the ship via an interactive visual display. Remember? Even if the Captain missed something, it was being recorded. Further, he's a Captain for Weyland, helloooo, a company that has an obviously shady military slant within its greater mission, this film, and all other Alien-Predator versions. Furthermore, we are ultimately left with no choice but to see the real Space Jockey, it makes sense in the grand scheme because its obviously a prequel & Earthlings are clearly tied to these super beings. The ending, I believe, absolutely leaves Alien fans begging for more and highlights a much more compelling mystery than what the Space Jockey represents at this point.. Yes, these super humans are chiseled and WWFesque, which should have clued you or anyone else watching this film that greater conflicts exist in this story now. The beings are obviously required to be militarily trained, hence the muscular bodies, and these humans are obviously at war with one another, and I'm sure subsequent films will reveal the underlying socio-political conflicts with greater detail. God, even the opening scene, and I don't say this in hindsight, eerily symbolized military tone. I mean really now: bad ass super human standing on the brink of super bio engineering creation while ship monitors the mission. That scene alone pretty much tells you we're dealing with some freaky evil forces.

  • Hunter | June 8, 2012 5:53 PM

    Could not agree more.

  • Norm | June 8, 2012 4:52 PM

    Nice critique, very well thought out...It seems that Sci-Fi has hit a trough, and is in need of a boost.

Email Updates

Latest Tweets

Follow us

Most "Liked"

  • Paramount Theater Ad from 1932Throwback Thursday: Stanwyck, Crosby, ...
  • Sex Tape-Jason Segel-Cameron Diaz-10680Sex Tape
  • Wish I Was Here-Kate Hudson-Zach BraffWish I Was Here
  • I Origins-Pitt-Berges-FrisbeyI Origins
  • Mike Kaplian's Gotta DanceGotta Dance! Movie Musical Posters


leonardmaltin