PDA

View Full Version : PROMETHEUS (Ridley Scott 2012)



Chris Knipp
06-08-2012, 09:17 PM
Ridley Scott: PROMETHEUS (2012)

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/7281/prometheusmapsartworkal.jpg

Scott returns to sci-fi with some really good stuff, and a lot of other stuff

Ridley Scott's first sci-fi film since Alien (1979) and Blade Runner (1981) is grand and beautiful, and yucky (more than scary) and much too complicated, to the point of ridiculousness, though a lot of action, dazzling space gadgetry, and spectacular visuals (is Scott really good at anything else?) hold the attention to the end. And it may not matter, because this appears to be the big blockbuster film of the summer of 2012, probably unchallenged. If a full crowd can show up at 10:30 in the morning for the non-3D version, and applaud and cheer at the end, Prometheus has stolen the secrets of the box office gods and the hearts of movie geeks and fanboys. But though it entertains, it still disappoints, and at points it becomes downright silly, not on purpose but because the writing is so dumb at times in its adoption of cheap or irrelevant or tired devices.

Watch it for those visuals, which include an almost excessive use of the designs of previous Scott collaborator H.R. Giger -- those are unique but overfamiliar by now, and best used sparkingly. The most enjoyable images aren't Giger's but the crisp and expensive-looking space ship interiors, the vast semi-fantasy landscapes, and most of all, splendiferous effects by the cyber imaging team to break up things and people into swirling masses of luminous ectoplasmic dots and lines. Those enveloping ectoplasmic swirls are about the only thing that's not over-explained -- or explained at all really -- and hence they're the film's most magic moments.

The writing, not by Scott, is responsible for over-explicitness and corn and cannibalizes too many diverse sources. It borrows not only from Kubrick's Space Odyssey, Scott's Alien and Blade Runner, but from the kind of cheesy back-to-the-past odysseys Nicolas Cage might star in, Saturday matinee B-pictures with sequels where men stagger into vast undiscovered tombs and rub hidden panels and giant green jewels light up. This time the cave-like structure, on a distant planet, contains --- well, better not to say. This movie relies on numerous "reveals" in the latter reels -- to jog us after the clumsy writing has allowed the excitement and freshness of vast space wear off.

An underlying influence, apparently, is the screeds of Erich von Däniken, a seedy Swiss whose books in the late Sixties and early Seventies tried to claim that ancient travelers from outer space had influenced human civilization. Thus Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace), daughter of missionaries, whose desire is literally to "meet" her "makers" -- out in space (don't ask). When things turn nasty, she's a real survivor, as tough as (if far more conventional than) her Dragon Tattoo role, Lisbeth Salander, and people will always talk about the scene in which she uses a giant laser surgery machine to perform a Caesarean section on herself. Rapace has been compared to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in the Alien movies, but Shaw isn't as strong or interesting a character. Correspondingly, the diffuse Prometheus lacks the taught focus and scariness of the Alien franchise.

Then we come to the other characters, the spaceship's motley crew, who tend to be unmemorable as well as expendable. A slight exception is the old trillionaire who funded the mission, who wants to discover the secret to longer life, played by Guy Pearce made up to look like a man made up to look like a very, very old man: you've seen this face only in movies (notably Kubrick's Space Odyssey), but it has a sci-fi spookiness about it, not just the bad-makeup look Leo DiCaprio had as J. Edgar Hoover.

There's a corporate supervisor of the space mission called Vickers (Charlize Theron) who's in charge of making everybody feel like they're still in fifth grade and have got a particularly mean homeroom teacher. To offset her there's the space ship's mellow captain Janek (Idris Elba). Only trouble is he's so down-to-earth and working class he seems more like a security guard than a high-tech navigator. We don't have to get to know Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), Shaw's unctuous and self-satisfied husband, boyfriend, or partner; he like other crew members will be polished off before he's acquired any lasting significance.

The character who stands out, and he's there to entertain us, is an android called David, nicely played by the masterful Michael Fassbender. Fassbender's not deeply challenged here, but is splendid nonetheless. While the ship is traveling for two or three years and everybody is frozen (Shaw vomits a lot when she's awakened, a nice touch, and she's told it's "perfectly normal"), David is awake, memorizing ancient dead languages -- so he'll be ready to talk to the gods, later -- and watching his favorite film, Lawrence of Arabia. The film probably steals something from David Lean's big luminous landscapes; it steals from so many films. But David the android watches it to learn to imitate the accent and manner of Peter O'Toole. Too bad he doesn't get to use his Lawrence shtick more later, but Prometheus is programmed for everything but humor. Fassbender does bring it what lightness and charm it has amid the embarrassing and less than compelling earnestness.

Definitely add Spielberg's A.I. to the host of films Prometheus cannibalizes, and a geeky writer about the film, Curt Holman of the website Creative Loafing, says (http://clatl.com/atlanta/ridley-scotts-starry-eyed-prometheus/Content?oid=5524864) "...Prometheus makes a provocative comparison between the ethics of artificial intelligence and alien influence on human evolution," but I just suggest for that you watch A.I. and skip the Erich von Däniken crap. There must be a better place for metaphysical speculation than a movie where people have giant octopus critters dive down their throats -- yes, Scott plunders Alien here too, hard though it is to reconcile to the god stuff. And besides A.I., of course HAL in 2001 and R2D2 in Star Wars are sources of David, who's also got a touch of Jeeves as well as O'Toole.

Prometheus has an unusual visual gloss on it. But underneath that handsome surface is the writing of Jon Spaihts, whose previous credit was The Darkest Hour, one of the worst films of last year, and Damon Lindelof, whose last screenplay was another clunker, Cowboys and Aliens. And writing matters, always. Scott has produced a lot of good scenes, and amazing scenery. But this needed an editor, a good rewrite man to pare down the cast and the action to fighting weight.


_________________

(From my review of Scott's 2007 American Gangster (http://www.icplaces.com/ridley-scott-american-gangster-2007) : ". . . the director of Blade Runner and Thelma and Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down is not your average crap film director. He is a crap film director who can produce the occasional cult classic, and who awakens disturbed admiration even at times when his effort is somehow revolting.")

Chris Knipp
06-09-2012, 08:02 PM
Box office, reviews, viewer response, summer blockbusters.

BOX OFFICE.
I was speaking carelessly when I said PROMETHEUS would be the big 2012 summer blockbuster. It's one of them. Narrow lead over MADAGASCAR 3 (animation) on the first weekend, yet in the top ten for a first weekend for any R-rated picture. Gross for the weekend, about $22 million US, worldwide, about $67.5 million. But THE HUNGER GAMES has already topped $400 million, and look what's coming:

BRAVE -- JUNE 22 [PIXAR
THE AMAZING SPIDER MAN -- JULY 6
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES -- JULY 20
THE BOURNE LEGACY -- AUGUST 3

One blogger (who knows more than I do or care to) predicted that these plus SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN, MADAGASCAR 3, the already out THE AVENGERS and MEN IN BLACK3, as well as the critically trashed BATTLESHIP, also out, will all top PROMETHEUS at the box office. So I'm reduced to saying only that PROMETHEUS is the big sci-fi geek film of the summer, bar none. Or as a Box Office Mojo writer put it, "Prometheus has assumed the mantle of 'most anticipated non-sequel of Summer 2012' among fanboys, though that isn't enough to translate to major box office success." But geeks will be out in force for the DARK KNIGHT installment, and I'm pretty excited to see Andrew Garfield in the new SPIDER MAN. Pixar fans will be excited to see BRAVE. But I think PROMETHEUS is performing commercially up to expectations, not disappointing its producers. The $50 million promotional campaign -- which will take a while to pay for -- was a great success. The film looked mysterious, exciting, and beautiful to me in trailers and teasers I saw, and I'm not easily conned. I definitely wanted to see it. I'm disappointed that Jeremy Renner -- or anybody -- is replacing Matt Damon in the Bourne series, but I'm a fan of this series, so I will want to see it, and hope for the best. However, it is predicted to gross more than PROMETHEUS.

Chris Knipp
06-09-2012, 08:47 PM
http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/182/90496018.jpg
An H.R. Giger tableau from the film


REVIEWS.
The Metacritic rating has gone up to 64, helped by Roger Ebert's rave which the site gives as a 100
A magnificent science-fiction film, all the more intriguing because it raises questions about the origin of human life and doesn't have the answers. On Rottentomatoes, which grades higher, it has a 73. The French review aggragator Allociné gives it a quite good (but not rave) 3.4. However, Cahiers du Cinéma and Les Inrockuptibles don't seem to have reviewed it, and some of the more prestigious French publications, Le Monde, Liberation, and L'Humanite, were unimpressed to scathing. I don't think any writer who analyzes the film carefully will come up with a rave, though. It's a beautiful looking film but far from a great or even a memorable film.
“Watching Prometheus is like opening a deluxe gift box from Tiffany’s to find a mug from the dollar store,” wrote Ty Burr of the Boston Globe, and that's a smart comment.

Ebert is one extreme. This is him at his most undiscriminating. To rave over this film as if it were Kubrick's SPACE ODYSSEY is a travesty. At the other extreme, Armond White has now had his say, and he's angry again. (lLike Wlater Chaw, another maverick I like to consult, he's often angry.)
Scott [Armond White writes] reveals himself as little more than a production-design freak; Prometheus (convincingly shot in 3-D) lacks the atmospheric awe of the first film, the undeniably well-paced tension of James Cameron’s sequel and the rich, evocative splendor of Jeunet’s capstone.

Instead, Prometheus is marked by Scott’s typically shallow characterization, narrative confusion and disrespect for movie history. Not since the atrocious Wall-E has one movie so thoughtlessly trashed a superior film. This time both David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia and Steven Spielberg’s A.I.: Artificial Intelligence are dishonored through the characterization of an ominous automaton, David (played by Michael Fassbender who quickly has come to emblematize crap cinema). David models his hair and speaking voice after Peter O’Toole’s classic enigmatic Lawrence and David’s lack of “soul” refers to the conundrum of Spielberg and Kubrick’s neo-Pinocchio conception–scoffed at here as “not a real boy.”

Just as Wall-E demeaned the spectacular movie-musical romance Hello, Dolly! to the delight of ignorant film geeks, Prometheus plays with our culture’s most profound artistic expressions of human ambition, merely for a series of unpleasant thrills: Noomi Rapace performing an abortion on herself, various decapitations, dispirited ruminations on religion and, finally, Guy Pearce in ludicrous Halloween make-up. It’s a foul repeat, a noxious burp. If you swallow Prometheus, you’ll swallow anything.--Armond White in City Arts. (http://cityarts.info/2012/06/07/a-noxious-burp/) Ironic, because I don't think Ebert literally can swallow anything. I don't share White's detestation of WALL-E. Pixar sentimentality led to poetry in the first half of it. And I would never say the versatile Fassbender has come to "emblemize crap cinema": White scattershoots when he's on a rant. But his anger is valuable. Too few care this much. His comments on David Lean and A.I. are well taken. There is a debasement here, a stealing (I called it cannibalizing) in the interests of technological show and box office glitz that shows Ridley Scott, who was the crap movie director who could occasionally produce a cult classic (not unique in that role), has not run out of money or technique but has run out of creative steam here. And joined the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink school of current movie-making that you get in THE AVENGERS: slap all the Marvel comics together in one movie, more people will buy tickets. Slap knockoffs of ALIEN and 2001 and A.I. together, add 3D, make more money.

Chris Knipp
06-09-2012, 08:47 PM
VIEWER RESPONSE.
I think the response is ennthusiastic, and the appeal could be greater than THE HUNGER GAMES'. ALIEN is a sci-fi classic (why do I think ALIENS is better? Am I crazy?). Ridley Scott is a director whose name the average moviegoer knows. That helps. Geeks and geek-friendly people love this movie. All the things that I dislike -- its everything but the kitchen sink approach to plotting -- don't bother a lot of the geeks at all, nor do they seem to mind that corporate hi-tech software-driven beauties have replaced the simpler, more visceral visuals of the space ship and its occupants of 1979. People do have fun debating about the search-for-my-maker theme, whether I find it meretricious or feel (as many critics do) that the an action film can't accommodate it, or not. For the geek and maybe for the average fan, aesthetic and structural considerations are not primary.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2066/prometheusr.jpg
MICHAEL FASSBENDER IN PROMETHEUS

I just want to point out though, that the reason why Kubrick's masterful 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is so fascinating and thought-provoking, is because it's so mysterious. It does not explain itself. It moves slowly. It has many empty spaces and strange transitions. They stay with you. It stops and lets itself breathe. That lets you think. PROMETHEUS lacks the confidence or the style to do that. BLADE RUNNER gets under your skin in a completely different way, because it's a space film noir, and it doesn't follow any other template as the deep space travel operas do but dives into its own unique world and keeps us there so we forget what kind of film we're watching. One thing about PROMETHEUS though, or two things. Though I was disappointed in Noomi Rapace's Shaw, this role marks her entering into the big time, even though she's better in smaller things like MONITER and may never have a better gig than MILLENNIUM, a role she totally owns (somebody being Oscar-nominated for a knockoff of it was another travesty). The other thing about PROMETHEUS is that this is going to make Michael Fassbender famous to a large audience for the first time. Of course fanboys and fangirls would remember him perfectly well in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS and X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, but this android role is likely to be remembered, as much as the religiosity or the swirling luminous ectoplasm, just as Sigourney's Ripley is remembered more than the creepy invasive glop thingies, which keep coming up in inferior imitations like DISTRICT 9 or SUPER 8.

But I think the viewer response to PROMETHEUS, on a ticket-holder to ticket-holder basis, is going to be consistently good. And don't forget I said it's "grand and beautiful." I don't mean grand and beautiful like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, though.


The social media tracking firm Fizziology points out that in the past week, the “geek chatter” has quieted as reviews and word of mouth from previews and an early European opening have taken over. The growing social buzz in the past week has been mostly positive, according to the firm.--FORBES (http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2012/06/07/can-prometheus-box-office-live-up-to-the-hype/)

tabuno
06-11-2012, 02:16 PM
Not since Event Horizon (1997) have I experienced a movie that began with the dazzle and fascinating premise of discovery only to descend into some different, horror-laden, two-dimensional, almost mindless stereotypical conclusion, though in this instance it took longer to become aware and understand what was happening (as what happened to a lesser extent in Avatar, 2009) and the ending was more hopeful than the Event Horizon with the Ripley (from Alien, 1979) touch. The 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Hal 2000 element was much more subtle in Prometheus and while perhaps more authentic, it was also too well done to appreciate the performance and understanding of Dave's (the robot's) character to appreciate it with all the rest of what was going on, thus Ridley Scott failed to balance the movie out and definitely weakened the potential of this part of the movie. There were too much unnecessary side stories, and the fusion and melding of Alien (1979) crew and Aliens (1986) military suggestiveness didn't work well. There were too many characters to develop to care about like in Alien and the action wasn't sufficiently intense nor compelling to make up for all the people running around like in Aliens (1986).

So far, with disappointment, Prometheus has been the worst movie I've seen so far, perhaps more likely due to high expectations being unfulfilled.

Chris Knipp
06-11-2012, 04:06 PM
I agree on all counts. Good point about the android theme and how it is wasted or overwhelmed by other material.

Only though this may indeed be the biggest disappointment of the summer, it still is just a mediocre movie, not a terrible one, and the visual elements are sometimes great. I just rated BEL AMI, PROMETHEUS, and PEACE, LOVE, & MISUNDERSTANDING and gave them all a C.

tabuno
06-11-2012, 08:10 PM
Chance by coincidence, I have a pre-designated category I use for my evaluating movies that includes Disappointments and Terrible. So far, Prometheus is the only movie that has fallen into my Disappointments category and I have yet avoided seeing any movie that are terrible.

Chris Knipp
06-11-2012, 08:22 PM
Yes, of course I shouldn't have used the word "terrible." PROMETHEUS some might think is bad, hardly terrible. But it gives hints of something better if only because the trailers were such tasty teasers and showed such superb visuals, so it is a disappointment. Some think of Scott not without reason as a hack anyway and expected nothing. He would never make something "terrible." More often the critic's stance is to say he's primarily a technician with a visual bent, whose oeuvre is hit-or-miss, mostly miss. Example:
Walter Chaw ]['Film Freak Central (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/06/prometheus.html)']It's time, probably long past time, to admit that Ridley Scott is nothing more or less than Tim Burton: a visual stylist at the mercy of others to offer his hatful of pretty pictures something like depth. If either one of them ever made a great film (and I'd argue that both have), thank the accident of the right source material and/or editor, not these directors, whose allegiance is to their own visual auteurism rather than any desire for a unified product.

Johann
06-12-2012, 02:46 PM
Those trailers were indeed tasty teasers Chris.
Ridley Scott making another Alien film is enough to get fans into a theatre, but it hurts to know that the movie doesn't live up to expectations- I wondered if the best bits were in the trailer. I might not go see it now.
It looks great, but reviews are all over the place. Ebert gave it a thumbs up, didn't he?

Walter Chaw's comments ring true...

Chris Knipp
06-12-2012, 06:49 PM
"The best bits were in the trailer" is meaningless in this context, because the trailer was only tiny bits, and there are no "best bits" really.

A.O. Scott, NYTimes:
The virtuosity on display makes the weakness of the story all the more frustrating.

I cannot stress enough how foolish this shows Ebert to be. Johann, stay away. Don't waste your time. But if you do, don't blame me. As I just said above:

I just rated BEL AMI, PROMETHEUS, and PEACE, LOVE, & MISUNDERSTANDING and gave them all a C. And the other two have the advantage of not being disappointing or boring or presenting a former cool punk icon as a goody-goody God-hunter.

Chris Knipp
06-13-2012, 01:02 PM
Interesting breakdown of the "god" ideas in the movie in the June 10, 2012 NYTimes Science section:


" 'Prometheus' Offers a Creationist Indulgence for Science Geeks" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/science/side-effects-in-prometheus-creationism-with-a-science-fiction-twist.html?_r=1&ref=ridleyscott)by James Gorman

Gorman writes:
Creationism? Yes, in a way, but creationism for geeks, of the sort that science fiction writers and scientists have long indulged in. It does not run counter to the idea of the process of evolution; it just sets the beginning of the whole business somewhere and some time other than the Earth. Interesting distinctions, but I'm not sure this is true of PROMETHEUS. Though Gorman appears to be right in saying that the various "geek" theories (which he gets from Hoyle, Crick and Watson, Arthur Clarke) do not conflict with Darwinian evolution, I would not be convinced that this movie won't be taken as a trailer for creatonism. And I definitely don't think the movie's introduction of these ideas makes it a "better" sci-fi picture as Ebert apparently concluded.

tabuno
06-14-2012, 12:26 AM
Without having read any of this geek creationism stuff, I'm assuming that 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) has already covered this topic decades ago. I don't know what the deal is here. Sounds like ancient, unenlightening stuff that doesn't offer Prometheus any real additional points for introducing or being original.

Chris Knipp
06-14-2012, 01:03 AM
Oh yes. Absolutely right.