Some very poor editing resulted in a lot of inconsistencies but overall I really enjoyed it. Scott didn't manage to recapture the tension of Alien or populate the cast with likeable characters I cared about but all was not lost. I enjoyed the exploration scenes, the alien scenes and the characters of David and Vickers. I'd love to see an ultimate edition with the deleted scenes restored. It feels like half a movie. I'm eager to see the next chapter in the tale if there's a sequel however.
Some very poor editing resulted in a lot of inconsistencies but overall I really enjoyed it. Scott didn't manage to recapture the tension of Alien or populate the cast with likeable characters I cared about but all was not lost. I enjoyed the exploration scenes, the alien scenes and the characters of David and Vickers. I'd love to see an ultimate edition with the deleted scenes restored. It feels like half a movie. I'm eager to see the next chapter in the tale if there's a sequel however.
I give it 6.5/10. Which would be OK, but I was hoping for a 9/10 film.
On the positive side, I think it failed because it was too ambitious, which is better than failing for the opposite reason. I also suspect that it could be much improved with a longer edit.
so many things wrong with this film, though when you watch the deleted scenes some of the characters' lame decisions do make more sense. whoever edited this is an idiot. didn't they watch it and think "oh, that makes no sense?"
And call me cynical but hearing (yet again) that it was all down to bad editing, I'm beginning to be suspicious that that was deliberate to make even more money on the director's cut editions ect.
I mean what did the editors do?
Completely remove Charlize Theron from the film deliberately?
Because she was a complete waste of time in the film I watched. As were most of the rest of the cast.
And call me cynical but hearing (yet again) that it was all down to bad editing, I'm beginning to be suspicious that that was deliberate to make even more money on the director's cut editions ect.
I mean what did the editors do?
Completely remove Charlize Theron from the film deliberately?
Because she was a complete waste of time in the film I watched. As were most of the rest of the cast.
Didn't like the main character either.
Agree with this. Charlize Theron was a waste and her role not used to the full. Shame really.:yawn:
There are some good ideas in the film but, not fully realised. Poor characterisation as well, especially compared to the first film, which had 'blue collar type' workers in space.
The Engineers could have been this era's Darth Vader, in creating a really cool-looking and menacing sci-fi antagonist. However, they were too small and their screen time was too brief.
Vickers death scene is hilarious:D I'd love to see her return somehow in the sequel as a clone or have it turn out she was an android with no GPS system installed:D
Vickers death scene is hilarious:D I'd love to see her return somehow in the sequel as a clone or have it turn out she was an android with no GPS system installed:D
Even when Bishop was cut in half in Aliens he had more sense than she did.
Vickers death scene is hilarious:D I'd love to see her return somehow in the sequel as a clone or have it turn out she was an android with no GPS system installed:D
I was thinking "run side ways....run side ways....run side w....*splat*...oh dear!"
The clone idea is a good one. Weyland has multiple copies of daughters and sons to run the company when he dies. Means she could be in the sequel.
Horribly written, poorly developed ideas, but damn if it didn't look spectacular. Basically the birth scene is outstanding, the rest is something out of a poor slasher film.
There are some good ideas in the film but, not fully realised. Poor characterisation as well, especially compared to the first film, which had 'blue collar type' workers in space.
But who acted in a more professional and scientifically accurate manner when dealing with a potential contaminant.
The gung ho behaviour of the Prometheus crew was totally unbelievable - especially considering they are supposed to be professional scientists. The blue-collar crew of the Nostromo were much more methodical and measured in their approach - and Alien was no less exciting for it.
And call me cynical but hearing (yet again) that it was all down to bad editing, I'm beginning to be suspicious that that was deliberate to make even more money on the director's cut editions ect.
Tempted to agree. Certainly, somebody let this out of the door fully knowing it was a pathetic mess in terms of characterization, motivation, sense etc. The worst examples are well documented out there. But are the producers really so Machiavellian? Scott said in an interview that he was told to get it in in less than two hours, on the basis that the suits 'knew' that more than that would turn audiences away.
This is clearly so stupid as advice (as Avengers, TDKR and many others demonstrate) that you have to think. To be in their position they cannot be stupid people. But can they really be so on the case as to be looking to Director's cuts etc to make the numbers look good? Or is it that they just know that these days, over time, high investment films tend to be very profitable regardless of their inherent worth? (Scott is very clear on this in another interview.)
My own suspicion is that the producers couldn't care less about the details of how they will get their return, and less again about the film itself. They just know it will be payday, now and down the line.
This is of course Hollywood business as usual. It only annoys me because the film was based on a great original and showed signs of having the potential to develop it really well.
(My sympathies to posters who thought it was good, but...have you actually thought about it? At all?)
I really, really, really want to like the film, but I just can't find enough positives about it and the negatives MASSIVELY outweigh any positives found.
If everything else in the film was kept the same, but an extra 15 minutes was added onto the beginning of the film to aid characterisation, etc., the film would have been MUCH better for it.
Comments
I expected to be intrigued. I wasn't.
I expected it to make sense. It didn't....etc, etc
Terrible things, these expectations we have on mainstream releases, eh?
Is this all it boils down to then - cinema as an instruction manual? And not even a cohesive one either.
Talk about easily pleased...
Yeah i agree with you on this.
On the positive side, I think it failed because it was too ambitious, which is better than failing for the opposite reason. I also suspect that it could be much improved with a longer edit.
And call me cynical but hearing (yet again) that it was all down to bad editing, I'm beginning to be suspicious that that was deliberate to make even more money on the director's cut editions ect.
I mean what did the editors do?
Completely remove Charlize Theron from the film deliberately?
Because she was a complete waste of time in the film I watched. As were most of the rest of the cast.
Didn't like the main character either.
Agree with this. Charlize Theron was a waste and her role not used to the full. Shame really.:yawn:
However I'm tempted to give it another go as it might be one of those movies that is better on second viewing.
Even when Bishop was cut in half in Aliens he had more sense than she did.
I was thinking "run side ways....run side ways....run side w....*splat*...oh dear!"
The clone idea is a good one. Weyland has multiple copies of daughters and sons to run the company when he dies. Means she could be in the sequel.
Its almost as if someone should have handled them a manual called "Top 10 things NOT to do on an alien planet (Dummies Edition)".
But who acted in a more professional and scientifically accurate manner when dealing with a potential contaminant.
The gung ho behaviour of the Prometheus crew was totally unbelievable - especially considering they are supposed to be professional scientists. The blue-collar crew of the Nostromo were much more methodical and measured in their approach - and Alien was no less exciting for it.
Tempted to agree. Certainly, somebody let this out of the door fully knowing it was a pathetic mess in terms of characterization, motivation, sense etc. The worst examples are well documented out there. But are the producers really so Machiavellian? Scott said in an interview that he was told to get it in in less than two hours, on the basis that the suits 'knew' that more than that would turn audiences away.
This is clearly so stupid as advice (as Avengers, TDKR and many others demonstrate) that you have to think. To be in their position they cannot be stupid people. But can they really be so on the case as to be looking to Director's cuts etc to make the numbers look good? Or is it that they just know that these days, over time, high investment films tend to be very profitable regardless of their inherent worth? (Scott is very clear on this in another interview.)
My own suspicion is that the producers couldn't care less about the details of how they will get their return, and less again about the film itself. They just know it will be payday, now and down the line.
This is of course Hollywood business as usual. It only annoys me because the film was based on a great original and showed signs of having the potential to develop it really well.
(My sympathies to posters who thought it was good, but...have you actually thought about it? At all?)
If everything else in the film was kept the same, but an extra 15 minutes was added onto the beginning of the film to aid characterisation, etc., the film would have been MUCH better for it.