Shea’s Thoughts:
The
very first word most people would use to describe Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus”
would probably be prequel. The year was 1979 and it was an exciting, if not
bizarre, year for movies with films like Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Apocalypse
Now, Manhattan, Mad Max, Caligula and The Life of Bryan all making their mark
in cinemas. It’s doubtful that Scott knew then that he was creating a cult
classic when he began shooting Alien the previous year, he probably couldn’t
have fathomed that he would be revisiting the same subject matter 33 years after the fact. But after
watching the new film for the first time it doesn’t feel very much like a
prequel. Certainly there are similarities and allusions to the original; even
interconnected plot points but whereas “Alien” was Jaws in Space, this is more
along the lines of a philosopher riffing absently on the toilet as he drags on
fat roach. But I don’t believe it’s fair to critique this movie as though it
were a prequel. It portends to stand on its own and thus it will be judged
solely on the merits of a standalone film, with or without the aids or
hindrances that come with being a prequel.
It’s
a fact that Ridley Scott is a master of filmmaking. He’s given us many gems in
his time and if there were one adjective that can be used to describe his
method of filmmaking, then I would choose “perfectionist.” Not many directors
have the opportunity to release cut after cut of their films long after the
original release date. Scott believes in getting it just right, even if that
means tinkering away for years after everyone else has been paid and moved on.
That gives me good reason to suspect we will see many directors cuts of this
film as well. More than that though it tells me that when he signed on to do
this film he wasn’t just interested in making more money or re-living his glory
days; he was genuinely interested in telling us a story that he thought was
important enough to dominate his time and talent. Thus we have “Prometheus.”
Prometheus
takes place in 2089 before the events of “Alien.” It follows the travels of
scientists Elizabeth Shaw (Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Marshall-Green) as they
attempt to uncover the origins of mankind. Their discoveries take them to a planet
deep in space (2 years away in fact) where they hope to find their makers, and
here is where the mayhem ensues. Scott takes quick control of the helm and
guides the story patiently through its paces with great purpose and the
ever-unsettling undertone of the unknown. As a director he seems to thrive in
this atmosphere, collecting details seemingly at random but with such poise that
it’s almost magnetic. The eye is glued to the screen and he spares not a single
frame in the vast running time. “Prometheus”, then, is straight sci-fi; it
isn’t action or horror or thriller but pure science fiction without the long
inexhaustible dialogue that often takes place at a large council table. Here
also is the story's weakness, its writing.
Damon
Lindelof has no idea how to end a story. His series “Lost” ended with giant
disappointment for most of its viewers and the most notable things he’s
written before now has been “Cowboys and Aliens” and episodes of “Nash Bridges”
and “Crossing Jordan.” The thought
was that since he created “Lost” then he would be a perfect fit for the taut
and eerie tone that “Prometheus” was striving for. Instead he comes off looking
embarrassingly pseudo-intellectual by posing questions that he never intends to
answer himself. The film’s premise is wonderful and intriguing and involves the
audience almost immediately. He teases the mind with hints and what appear to
be clues as he drops crumbs of information while holding most of it back, but
ultimately it’s just a tease, in the end it feels like it was a half-baked
universe and the whole premise of the film suddenly feels like cardboard. It
seems that there is potent talent writhing just behind his inability to commit
to an idea. Some dialogue comes off as stilted and flat but not because the
cast is wooden or lacks talent. The conversations are minimalist and feel
largely inconsequential. The 3rd act is a cacophony of
disappointment and spoiled opportunities as giant question are sewn up with
commas and “To Be Continued’s” while the audience is punished instead of
rewarded for their patience.
It
seems like some of the plot points are unclear as well. Meredith
Vickers’ (Charlize Theron) sudden and random relation to Peter Weyland (Guy
Pearce) made all the impact of a wet rag hitting hot pavement. Even if that is
supposed to mean something more in an undeclared sequel then why not wait and
reveal it then when it matters more to the audience? As it stands now it just
appears to be some lame attempt to create a Shyamlyan twist late in the film.
It also seems unclear to me why David seems to want to destroy Shaw and
Holloway and why it’s such a necessity to hide Weyland all that time. Shaw and
Holloway want to find their makers and so does Weyland. He gave them the money
to do it so why would they have a problem with him being on board if he funded
their trip and wants the exact same thing that they do? Killing them does
nothing for his goal, in fact it hinders it since they are the most qualified
to help him achieve it. The logic seems false and poorly thought out if that is
the case. A film that asks you to pay close attention should gird the loins of it's plot points with more than lame dialogue and unmotivated actions.
The
films saving grace is its visual deftness and the guiding hand of Ridley
Scott. The cinematography by Darisuz Wolski (Pirates of the Carribean, Sweeney
Todd) is celibate and restrained and entirely unobtrusive, which is remarkable
because the tendency with sci-fi is to sometimes go for flash, so thank God
Janusz Kaminski didn’t shoot this. Most of the time he is simply accenting the
work of production designer Arthur Max, (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down) who is a
frequent collaborator with Scott. Together they manage to accomplish a sense of
scale that I haven’t seen done that well since Star Trek (2009). The overall
aesthetic is a mix of Neolithic architecture and art with a pinch of the almost
organic, sinew type technology that we recall from the other Alien films; the
technology that almost seems to be alive itself with bulbous buttons and vein-y
cabling.
Scott
directs fantastic performance from Rapace and Fassbender and even a very
pleasant turn from Idris Elba as the reluctant and dry humored captain of the
ship. The same cannot be said for Charlize Theron as Meredith Vickers. From the start she was an extremely
pointless character who seems to be dropped in to the plot only to cause
conflict in the story through no obvious motivation. For this reason she becomes infuriating to watch. However, there are whole sequences
that succeed extremely well, the "c-section" scene in particular jumps to mind and that is when you are
suddenly reminded that a master is at work behind the camera. He orchestrates
action and plot into one dizzying sequence that leaves you nearly exhausted
from wincing. But it is all in vain, because of the slipshod writing the 3rd act feels
rushed and ultimately the audience feels cheated.
The
film, as a whole, is not a bad one. You just get the sense that you were about
to watch something wonderful only to then have it all taken away from you in a greedy
moment during the final minutes of the film. I’m sure they are planning another
film should this one perform well at the box office and who knows what we will see there. They may attempt to give us
everything we hoped to see from this film or in the more typical Lindelof fashion we could get an annoying
continuance of the plot until it all comes to an extremely unsatisfactory end. Needless to say I wasn't completely disheartened but
I had hoped for better.
Rating. 3.0 out of 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment