‘Prometheus’ Review

Published 3 years ago by , Updated November 26th, 2014 at 7:21 pm,

Logan Marshall Green Noomi Rapace Michael Fassbender Prometheus Movie Prometheus Review

Regardless of the connections to the Alien universe, Ridley Scott’s Prometheus is a welcome return to form for the director.

For months cinephiles and die-hard Alien fans have been trying to work out the connections between Prometheus and Ridley Scott’s original Alien film. Meanwhile, the filmmakers have spent just as long attempting to put distance between the movie and the notion that it’s nothing more than an Alien prequel, so as not to limit Prometheus‘ potential appeal. Given the state of the Alien franchise (after the underwhelming Alien vs. Predator installments, as well as Alien: Resurrection), it’s no wonder that 20th Century Fox is interested in attracting both the casual moviegoer as well as the die-hard xenomorph faithful.

Unsurprisingly, the movie does offer plenty of tie-ins to the 1979 franchise starter – but does Prometheus find the right balance between loving nods to Alien while also working as an intelligent and captivating standalone sci-fi drama?

Fortunately, the answer is yes – most of the time. While Prometheus delivers a sci-fi experience and story that is nearly unmatched in a modern movie theater experience, its connection to the Alien films is, from time to time, a bit heavy-handed or awkwardly handled – and worst of all, far less compelling than the new storyline unfolding in this film. As a result, Prometheus is going to offer a different experience depending on who is watching it. Both casual audiences and Alien fans should enjoy the core narrative (and breathtaking visuals); however regular moviegoers will likely be confused by some of the time spent addressing Alien universe mythos, and conversely, hardcore fans may be at times equally befuddled by some of the answers provided.

Ignoring any pre-conceived notions about xenomorphs, the Prometheus story follows a pair of archaeologists, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and her partner Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), who discover a series of ancient cave drawings (from different cultures, separated by thousands of years) that point to a single location in space: a distant moon, LV-223. Shaw and Holloway believe that LV-223 is home to an ancient truth about humanity’s origins – a belief that is also championed by billionaire Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), CEO of the Weyland Corporation. After hearing their findings, Weyland agrees to send the pair – along with a fifteen-person crew – to LV-223 aboard the spacecraft Prometheus. However, when the team arrives on LV-223, it quickly becomes clear that Shaw and Holloway underestimated the implications of their expedition, as age-old questions are answered and new horrors are brought to light – horrors with Earth-shattering consequences for humanity.

Prometheus Movie Space Map Prometheus Review

The ‘Prometheus’ Space Map

Moviegoers who have been underwhelmed by Ridley Scott’s non-sci-fi efforts (most recently Robin Hood, Body of Lies, and A Good Year) will be glad to know that the director slips effortlessly back into the genre that he helped define over thirty years ago. Not only does Prometheus feature one of the most captivating and carefully-paced opening acts in recent memory, it also offers a masterful visual aesthetic that easily raises the bar for onscreen sci-fi imagery in modern cinema. In a time when sci-fi/action films snag astronomical box office money (Transformers: Dark of the Moon), it’s easy for studios to rely on a recognizable brand, or visual spectacle, over core filmmaking components – such as competent world building (not just “cool” CGI characters) as well as intelligent scene composition (in favor of non-stop explosions). No doubt some moviegoers don’t want to think about the actual process of filmmaking, but for those who do care, Prometheus should serve as a breath of fresh air (and a welcome reminder) that inspired directing can make a real difference in the onscreen experience.

Similarly, co-writer Damon Lindelof (along with Jon Spaihts) succeeds at delivering a prequel movie that isn’t undermined by later installments and, instead, tells an all-new sci-fi story that (as mentioned before) is much larger and significantly more interesting than its core “source” material. Prometheus provides answers that many Alien fans will certainly appreciate, but at the same time raises much larger (and significantly more relatable) questions about the wonders – and horrors – of creation, and humanity’s place in the cosmos. As a result, the actual connections to the Alien universe are unnecessary to the success of the new story – and could, for less-interested moviegoers, come across as tacked-on.

All of the major players (Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Logan Marshall-Green) deliver enjoyable, or at the very least believable, performances. However, despite solid work from everyone involved, both Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender offer especially memorable turns as Dr. Shaw and David, respectively. Fassbender’s David is easily one of the most fascinating (and disturbing) characters of 2012 – and Rapace holds nothing back in a number of especially challenging scenes (not to mention one especially brutal one). As an ensemble fueled by heavy-hitting talent, there is a definite purpose for each of the characters’ screen time, and few of the players are wasted. That said, a couple of them are short-changed by the end – which doesn’t detract from the overall success of the film, but in a few cases can be somewhat underwhelming in the moment.

Charlize Theron Idris Elba Prometheus Movie Prometheus Review

Charlize Theron and Idris Elba in ‘Prometheus’

Prometheus was shot entirely using 3D cameras, and much like Avatar and Hugo before it, the film once again proves that in the hands of a smart filmmaker, the format can enhance the moviegoing experience. Plenty of detractors will surely assert that seeing any movie in 3D is a waste of money – and plays into the hands of greedy studio executives. However, Prometheus is well-worth the upgraded ticket. The format isn’t distracting and successfully highlights details in the alien landscape as well as internal (yet massive) environments – not “pop out of the screen” jump scares. Scott’s use of the added dimension throws fuel on the argument that instead of decrying every 3D film, we should be sending studios a message about what type of 3D experiences we’ll support, boycotting tacked-on 3D (Men in Black 3) and poorly implemented post-conversions (Clash of the Titans). To make the experience even more potent, go the full distance with a 3D IMAX viewing.

Regardless of the connections to the Alien universe, Ridley Scott’s Prometheus is a welcome return to form for the director – delivering a fascinating sci-fi storyline, gorgeous 3D visuals, and competent filmmaking choices that – especially for summer blockbuster fare – are sorely missing at the box office these days. While less-informed moviegoers might be a little confused about some of the Alien tie-ins, Prometheus finds a healthy fan-service balance that doesn’t detract from Lindelof’s rich (and horrifying) new franchise storyline. In space no one can hear you scream, but 20th Century Fox is going to have no trouble finding moviegoers who, after seeing Prometheus, are eager to scream for more Scott-helmed projects in the Alien universe.

If you’ve seen the movie and want to discuss details about the film without worrying about spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it, please head over to our Prometheus Spoilers Discussion!

Still wondering about how – exactly – Prometheus connects to Alien? Read our Prometheus – Alien Connection Explained’ Article.

For an in-depth discussion of the film by the Screen Rant team check out our Prometheus episode of the SR Underground podcast.

[poll id=”327″]

Let us know what you thought of the film in the comment section below.

Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick for future reviews, as well as movie, TV, and gaming news.

Prometheus is Rated R for sci-fi violence including some intense images, and brief language. Now playing in theaters.

Our Rating:

4.5 out of 5

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. PS: Does Ben Kendrick receive some kind of compensation from the studio for his review of this film?

    • I wondered the exact same thing. The more I think about this movie the worse it seems.

      • Ditto. Glad I’m not the only one. The more I think about it the dumber it gets.
        Blade Runner is still my fav but Ridley really dropped the ball with this one.

        • I couldn’t disagree more. I’ve been twice now and loved it more the second time around.

          • Did you not notice all the flaws in the science and the plot or did they just not bother you?

            • That is rather a broad question. I don’t know what you found difficult to stomach. This sounds like a dick move, but in all fairness, it wasn’t a Nova special. The basic premise of artificial gravity is unprovable at best, and snake oil at worst, ditto FTL. But i went to see a movie set in the same universe as Ellen Ripley, the modern Demeter. There is a lot I will take on face value.

              Second, there is the mythological and social aspects to consider. The film’s namesake is the god that told Zeus to suck moose weiner and elevated humans to give us a more equal footing with the Olympeans. From a purely liberal perspective Prometheus gave the gift of civilization to us, even though this is completely mythological the entity is a hero that stood up against the Man and got stomped.

              There is a reason the show opens as it does, has the title it does. I’m just sad that no one seems to be getting it. From the creation metaphysics, the conversation on the role of belief in a modern world where it seems unfounded, the look at how a superior culture can change, and discussion on the meaning of life and it’s inevitable end, I think Scott and Lindelof nailed something compelling and intriguing.

              I’m sorry you don’t agree..

              • @ Tim/zerogain:

                I’m a little torn, because I think I agree with you that Mark is expecting too much and his negativity is over the top. But if we are going to fault people for their opinions, then you are equally at fault for expecting too little. In a tie like this, I have to give the edge to Mark, because movies across the board would be a hell of a lot better if viewer across the board expected a little more.

                I doubt you meant to be overtly insulting, but you should also take note that many people don’t take kindly when they hear that they “would” have liked a movie better if only they were smart enough, or deep enough thinkers, to understand the mythological and social implications.” I can’t speak for every last soul on here, but I assure you, most of us are not nearly as dim as you think. That’s right, there are actually halfway intelligent folks out there who thought this was a horrendous movie.

                I do give Scott a ton of credit for being ambitious enough to make a sci-fi/horror movie that asks much deeper philosophical questions than any other pulp flick I can think of. I simply give him an F for execution, except for some kick-ass visuals.

  2. wwwwwwwww

  3. Visually fantastic. Special Effects amazing but the story was terrible. As with so many others here, too many questions never get answered and the story was very disjointed. That Geologist on crack was just way over the top! Hopefully one day the big movie producers will ‘get it’ that the story is just as important as the effects

    • So True. The writing got real amateurish. The terrified Biologist that then wanted to pet the alien snake????? Really??? Did this Blooper not get edited out….dumbest scene in all the Alien saga. didn’t have to happen that way if he wanted to have an alien worm showdown. All that money and flimsy scenes like this???? why does this happen??

      • It made sense to me. The biologist was intentionally f****** with the geologist who was all paranoid from smoking pot.
        Also, I think Scott/screenwriters were making a pessimistic statement about the state of mankind. If we’re this backstabbing, hateful and stupid maybe we deserve to be wiped out.
        I’m not trying to make excuses. That’s really how I interpreted it. I thought the script was mediocre, but the direction and effects were strong enough that I really enjoyed it. I hope the extended cut will flesh characters out, though.

  4. Good, but not great. A visual joy-ride, but one that didn’t require 3D, in my opinion. I thought the story seemed a little thin given the movie’s run-time, and I didn’t like how a few of the characters gelled or where “offed”. That said, I like how the movie set the stage for additional Aliens movies.

  5. Saw it last night.
    So many flaws.
    1.) Why the hell didn’t they start the movie, with an alien, popping out of, an “Engineer’s” Chest.
    2.) I don’t care if it is “provocative”
    3.) God made us. There. Now SHOW ME ALIENS !!!

    …okay the star map was cool.

    • While I agree with #3, lol, The movie “ended” with your #1…

      So I don’t believe you actually watched the movie, and can’t take your comment seriously.

      • I know what you mean about no. 3 with the alien popping out, but in the original he wasn’t on the floor, he was sitting in that seat with some sort of gun on the larger ship. That’s what I don’t understand, I saw in interview with cast that that’s why writers chose to set in a time before the original, but if there not sticking to those details then what is the point.

        • Your missing a key elemnt. The engineer ship is NOT the ship that you see crashing. It’s a compeltely different ship. It’s a different planned (LV223 not LV426) so it’s NOT (yet) setting up the start of Alien. Who knows – perhaps he will if a sequal is made. Essentially I think the engineer alien is just to show how the stuff they are using can have comepltely different effects. I imagines like 300 science experiements, all having different results?
          My only gripe is that Idris Elba and the other pilots just took ‘Dr Shaws’ word for it and flew off – surely they need some proof – surely SHE needed some proof? Seemed very rushed that bit.
          All in all – love the visuals, love most of the film, loads and loads of questions – not discussed a movie so much in YEARS!! 😀

          • SOrry – just to clarify that statement :
            “Your missing a key elemnt. The engineer ship in ‘ALIEN’ is NOT the ship that you see crashing in prometheus. It’s a compeltely different ship. It’s on a different planned (LV223 not LV426) so it’s NOT (yet) setting up the start of Alien.”

  6. A bunch of schizophrenics in a zoo! If characters can act more illogically I can’t imagine it. Who cares about pretty landscapes and special affects. By now it is a given, whatever can be imagined, can drawn up on the screen, great, get over it! But can you, the movie makers, come up with coherent script and not just disjointed scenes put together?!

    The guy in charge of mapping the surroundings is the first one to get lost?!!!

    Trained biologist just plays a pet with an unknown life form?!!!

    Two people from the team are stuck in a cave in more than iffy situation and the captain finds it a perfect time for a quicky with his employer?

    See strange black goo, instantly come up with an idea of getting a barren woman pregnant with something, by slipping a drop of it into her lovers drink?!!! But of course, a child would see that coming!

    And why do that? Well, who knows and who cares, cause when she get rid of unwanted present, no one gives it a second thought to it. I mean why would anyone check on an aborted alien fetus left in a “sick bay”.

    Woken up “God” instantly goes mid-evil on everyone with out much thought. I mean, why not, wouldn’t you if woken up early?

    And why was he sleeping when stuff was going down in his ship? Apparently nothing was damaged, cause the ship was able to take of in a second. Guess he decided to take a nap before long journey and his alarm did not go off.

    And then when his plans of quick getaway aborted, why not go after a human chick instead of going to the next ship.

    Basically why characters did what they did escaped me completely. What I saw was a bunch of pretty scenes, actors following their script, and some special effects here and there. But that does not make a movie.

    I call it a complete BS. Shameful really that seemingly experienced film makers are unable to tell a story./

    PS. That’s the last 11 bucks this franchise got out of me.

    • AND……
      More important than all of what slivka just wrote;

      There was no Starbucks on The Prometheus!!!

      What the @#$$$)*(&^ were they thinking!!!!!

      Nuff Said!!!

    • Couldn’t agree more. Well said.

    • “What I saw was a bunch of pretty scenes, actors following their script, and some special effects here and there. But that does not make a movie.”

      That’s actually the definition of a movie

    • I agree with the whole thing about impregnating shaw. I was thinking mainly what was the whole agenda of Michael fassbenders character. There seemed to be no need for it and also to kill shaw’s boyfriend and then he comes back for no particular reason as well.

    • Yep, this is an insulting film. There’s no such thing as a film with no flaws, but when the flaws are so obvious, it’s just insulting. I guess they didn’t bother to get a single science consultant for the film. How 1950’s of them.

    • At least you didn’t pay the $20 I paid to see it. Ugh. That still hurts over a week later.

    • @White Glossy/Dr. Dave/Illegitimate Review Site/Whatever you are:

      I went to your crappy homemade blog site and read your sophomoric review. Your crappy homemade blog site has no comments section, so I’m forced to reply here & cross my fingers that you’ll somehow see it. Unfortunately, that’s unlikely, since you only posted here to drive traffic to your crappy homemade blog site. Please keep your spam to yourself from now on.

      I don’t take issue with you liking the film. That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. A hell of a lot of smart people on here would certainly disagree with your assessment, but it boils down to opinion. My issue is that you “guarantee” that if someone loved Alien, they’ll like Prometheus. Personally, I’m not a huge Alien franchise fan, but I have read user comments on this and other legitimate review sites, and I can tell you, Dr. Dave, that Alien fans are by and large angrier than anybody else. They’re angry for a good reason. Alien, whether you’re a fan or not, created a genre. It was special in its own way. Prometheus, trash that it is, degrades that legacy. Fans of the Alien franchise are rightly upset.

      Since you’re a reviewer on a crappy homemade blog site, nobody should expect you to know what you’re talking about, and I’m safe from reading any of your reviews in the future. It’s certainly not much fun to read a review by somebody with such low standards anyway. But since you saw fit to reach out onto a legitimate site’s message boards to spamvertise your own, you need to be told about your shortcomings. By the way, what gives you the right to spoil another site’s comment section, when your own crappy homemade blog site doesn’t allow user comments??

      Stick to being a doctor.

      • @White Glossy

        At first I was going to come on here and defend you and lecture Michael a little bit about being nice. But then, I clicked on the link and read your “review” and now I can no longer do that.

        • Ink, there’s no doubt I could stand to learn a thing or two about niceness. I admit my shortcomings in that regard and I apologize to any poster on any review site that I may have disagreed with in the past, if I came across as not nice. I enjoy debate & love movie critiquing, and I often forget to do it in a friendly manner. I just leave my thoughts and I forget to compliment how nice the other person’s hair looks today.

          All that said, I have no mercy for spammers. Quite frankly, I don’t even care if White Glossy’s review was brilliant. In my book, spammers are no better than telemarketers, and they all need a stern talking to any time any of us have the chance to give it. It just so happens, as I think you figured out, that White Glossy’s “review” actually wasn’t brilliant… by any stretch. That made it a hell of a lot easier to be mean. : )

          By the way, I eventually found a small comment section on a different part of their crappy homemade blog site, and I left an even less nice reply there.

        • Not spam… I swear, please read our reply.

          • @WhiteGlossy: Ummm… yes, of course it was spam. It was a link advertising a product, strategically placed somewhere it was not invited. That’s spam. The product doesn’t have to be porn or snake oil for it to count as spam. You have a negative connotation of spam in your head, and you’re a good dude and can’t imagine being associated with it… but, yeah, that’s spam.

            I do not see the reply you’re referring to. I looked here. I looked on your site. When you say “please read our reply,” are you referring to that exact same sentence, “please read our reply?”

            Anyway, I was irritated mostly because I was duped into following your link and finding an extremely amateur “review” when I got there. I don’t usually click on random links like that. So, really, I was just mad at myself, and Ink’s post made me ashamed, and I am actually sorry for being so nasty. I sincerely apologize for the nastiness. But I still stand by the advice I gave you on your website: if you’re going to spam other sites, make sure you have a great product when people arrive at yours.

  7. 2nd week in, Prometheus is losing bigtime to Madagascar 3 at the box office–tells you everything you need to know. People are not stupid; no matter how many so called movie “critics” keep giving Prometheus 5 star reviews, it’s clear that most people did not enjoy the movie and the negative word of mouth (THE most potent form of marketing) is getting around. Fox studio has to make around $400 million just to break even, and they are not going to get even close to this figure, based on falling box-office receipts.

    C’mon Scott, you can do better. First and foremost, make sure you get a good script. Stay away from Damon Lindelof, I think this guy is going through a creative drought–first Cowboys and Aliens, now Prometheus…

    • you have seen rotten tomatoes right? most people are NOT disliking this. if you don’t like it, that is fine but stop looking for acceptance with others just to show disdain for a movie.

  8. glad some ppl agree with my opinion of the movie…apart from looking nice it sucked…majorly dissapointed!

  9. liked the movie till the God like” guy seems to be a bad guy, he or they should have been the starrings.. wanted to see more action from some one like that,then al of a sudden Alien” what is going on? who is/are the bad guys, hopefully part 2 will be better and stays rated R give us some men movies like Spartacus t.v. series….. sorry for the comparison

  10. 2 hour’s of foreplay

    Everything about this film was great , Actor’s , Acting, casting , SFX ,

    But , it just didn’t work, as a prequel it had to satisfy all our questions , as a stand alone film it just didn’t work .

    I came out today feeling like I had watched part 1 of 2 or 3 ,


    • You were. Scott had pointed out in numerous interviews before the film’s release that this was the first of at least 2 movies.

  11. the c section scene was INTENSE!!!

  12. Did this reviewer and I see the same movie? From the size of the ship to the size of the crew to the ridiculous amount of open space on said ship and the fact that it landed on that alien planet there were so many flaws in this movie. There were all kinds of plot holes, the science was terrible, the story implausible at best, the characters two dimensional, the relationships between the characters unbelivable and unconvincing. The only redeeming character in the whole film was David. What was Charlize Theron’s purpose in this film? The surprise factor that she was Guy Pierce’s daughter (oh big surprise!)I could see no other reason for her character to be in this film.
    The technology was terrible. We are to believe they can send little flying probes to map out the network of caves but yet they all have HANDHELD flashlights! The characters did not behave like scientists in any way imaginable. And how is it that on a planet with so little oxygen they could use a flame-thrower (what?) to set someone on fire. The internal logic of this movie made no sense at all. Huge Disappointment. Ridley Scott should be ashamed of himself for making this horrible piece of tripe.

    • Marti, you are spot on. I’m glad you mentioned Theron’s character, because it bothered me too but I don’t think anybody on here has mentioned it in depth. That character was there for two primary reasons: #1 Name-recognition/box office draw, #2 so that she could say the line “don’t all children hate their parents.” Apart from that, she served absolutely no function on the mission. It was completely implausible that she’d be there in the first place, since her father would never jeopardize the mission by hiring his bitter daughter to lead it. As with most problems in this film, creative writers/directors could imagine a plausible explanation for why she was a necessary component of the mission. That didn’t happen here. Just one more example of Ridley Scott insulting the viewer’s intelligence.

      • She didn’t say the line “Don’t all children hate their parents” David did to Shaw….Did you see the film?

        • @ RWMendez: Yeah, but it’s been a few weeks. Sorry, what I meant to say was that her purpose was to BE a character who hated her parents, or at least her father. This is, of course, every bit as weak as if she was the one to say it. David says it, and as a viewer all these question marks are going off in your head, because, obviously parent/child hate is extremely rare. We wonder, why on earth would David say such a thing? Then we have this convenient character Vickers, who serves no function on the mission, who we discover hates her father. Ah. Ok. Whatever.

          The problem Scott faced is that he was trying to develop this theme of hatred between parent and child as if it is somehow a universal law that we all experience. He wanted to extend it past the Engineers, who really DO hate their offspring, and he wanted to somehow show that we inherited some of this from them. Ultimately, Vicker’s presence in the film only serves as an attempt to advance this theme. The obvious error is that parent/child hate is exceptionally rare, and our species never would have gotten anywhere in the first place if it was a part of our makeup.

          By the way, for me personally, it would have been way more compelling if this brand of parent/child hatred had developed between David and Old Man Guy Pearce. That is much more analogous to the hatred the engineers have toward us, their artificial creation. Vickers could still be allowed to hate her daddy, but she wouldn’t be part of the film because no way in hell would daddy let hate-daughter jeopardize his trillion dollar mission.

    • You know, I was nodding my head in agreement as I was reading some of your points only to reconsider a couple of things.

      1) We assume that Theron’s character dies (thought I heard a crunch). Perhaps this is not the case.

      2) Flamethrowers use catalysts(fuel)to assist in throwing fire. This was not a ZERO oxygen environment, just not enough for a human to sustain itself for long. It is plausible that a device like that could work.

      There have been some scathing reviews about this film. I consider myself a diehard fan of the Alien series with the first and second being the only great films in the franchise. That being said, I did enjoy most of the other films. Even the bad ones.

      Let me explain this in words that even I can understand. :) I liken this to my love for gourmet pizza. Now while I can make better homemade pizza (with wine glazed apples and pancetta) better than most pizzarias in the hood, I know for a fact that if there was NO pizza and I had to break open some frozen sacrilegiousness from the feezer I would prefer THAT pizza than a world with no pizza.

      My point (by way of china) is that I LOVE sci-fi and this is better than no Alien genre films for me.

      So while I play a food and film snob sometimes on TV, the truth is that I LOVE these movies. And while I agree ad nauseum with all of the criticism (for the most part) and I can hold my own in digging deep int xenomorph trivia; this was not a HORRIBLE film. Furthermore; I do not embrace the outrage of most of the jaded cine-snob crowd.

      So was the character development light? Sure,
      Character flaws? of course,
      Not a direct prequel? They said it wasn’t
      Could they have explained sh*t better? Holes left? No Question!
      Is it still better than 90% of the crap that has come out this year?

      Will I spend my hard earned $$ watching the next two films? Most Definitley..

      Funny thing is that I don’t really disagree with any of the criticisms out there; it’s just that in spite of that, I was excited and happy to see it all the same.

      My sneaky suspicion is that most folks will pay to see the others as well.
      Just my opinion…

      Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts!!!


      • For all you guys who wanna know WHYYYYYY…

        This is hilarious…

      • @ Amos:

        Loved your pizza analogy, and I agree 100%.

        Despite my major criticisms, I’ve said on here that I enjoyed the ride, that I didn’t regret paying the money, that I love sci-fi, and that even a bad sci-fi movie is AOK in my book. I think this movie was absolutely terrible when you analyze it as a dramatic film and ignore the fact that there’s cool sci-fi stuff going on. It annoys me that a seasoned director like Scott can’t pay just a little more attention to the story, for a movie that he wants viewers to take more seriously that a typical sci-fi/action/adventure movie. If you want it to be taken seriously, treat it seriously, that’s my view.

        But………… I STILL liked it! Frozen pizza!

        • @ Michael:

          Let me first thank you since I will now use your post as vindication over my wife for making so much fun of my “pizza” reference.

          I quote: “why do you always have to be so goofy when writing your opinions, I don’t think anyone will get it”.

          Nothing like the better half to bring us down to right size.

          As I have mentioned, I agree with you and was thinking about what I would say to Ridley if I somehow found myself standing next to him on a bread line.

          In considering this, I came up with LOTS, but one small detail that I found particularly annoying was the storyline of the science team. John framed this in his post as well and I agree.

          How could you drop a biologist in the mix who was afraid (not curious) of a 10,000 year old DEAD alien body? Wouldn’t one think that a four year mission costing a trillion clams would have a “NO P**SY” clause in the employment contract?

          Ironically, this is the same guy who then goes and tries to play coochie coo with a mutant worm with it’s menacing “cobra like” posture. This character was at the BOTTOM of his graduating class for sure.

          And what was with the mercenary like disposition of the geologist? I mean, he’s a rock guy! How hard core can he be?! It seems like it was for nothing as his self-serving demeanor never manifested itself into the plot in a meaningful way at all.

          I guess I would have like to have cared about those characters a bit more and if they were more believable, perhaps I would have. The plot gods just were not in our favor on that one.

          In the end, I still thought the mutant worm was cool and so was the melting mask of the geologist. Simple pleasures.. :)

          Another thing I remember is that when the first Alien came out (Showing my age a bit). It got clobbered by many critics only now to hold its place as one of the greats. I personally liked Cameron’s Aliens a tad more but for different reasons.

          Don’t be surprised if this film held its own in sci fi history on some level.

          I would actually watch it again (when it’s on cable) :)

          Thanks for reading!

          • @ Amos: I’ll watch it when it comes on cable, too. Frozen pizza forever!

            It would not surprise me if it finds a place in history as you suggest, but I think it does so for different reasons than you. If there’s one good thing Scott did with this film, it’s that he was incredibly ambitious with trying to marry so many genres and themes together. Alien created a genre, and this film may find a place in history for creating another genre.

            I absolutely applaud Scott for swinging for the fences. I want serious sci-fi movies. I want sci-fi movies that probe the most profound philosophical questions we face. I want multi-dimensional movies that make me laugh, cry, cringe with terror, and keep me thinking long after the experience was over. It just didn’t work here. It was just too ambitious, and every grand attempt at each different facet of the movie only served to diminish the overall product, because the inevitable result was that each facet didn’t get enough individualized care. Each different facet needed TLC, and instead each different facet got zero TLC. (I take that back. The visuals got plenty of TLC.)

            So yeah, it might find a place in history for creating a new genre, and I desperately hope it does because I’d love to see that genre take hold. But I can’t see it finding a place in history for being a good film standing on its own.

  13. Interesting how the Star Vote rating above (which skews very favorable) does not at all match these mostly negative comments. My two biggest problems with this otherwise beautiful-to-look-at film, is that if this was a “trillion dollar” mission not that far in the future when space travel is still relatively new and exotic, how could the company hire these cretins to crew the ship? They’re either angry, cowardly, or just not team players who don’t resemble in any way the astronauts of today as far as temperament and character. These idiots belong on an oil rig in middle of the Gulf of Mexico, not on a trillion dollar space mission. Second, why did the alien at the end of the film look nothing like what the Nostromo finds many years later? The aliens from the ’79 film were far more endo-skeletal than this blobby thing, yet there is no generation of alien in between to have changed its look. Or was there?

  14. Has anyone wondered why all the ancient cave drawings on earth are leading humans to a horrible death on a biological weapon moon? If you really delve into it one might conclude that humans were created from the start to be breeding vessels as a necessary step in the evolution of the alien weapon. It’s also possible that it’s just a flaw in the story. I guess we’ll find out in future films.
    Sure, the film has it’s obvious flaws…Shaw running around and leaping across gaps just hours after an emergency c-section where she rips the umbilical cord out of her body, that there is gravity on Prometheus although it has no centrifugal motion, or how Janek laughs it off when members of the team are stranded inside the alien vessel, among many other problems with the story. It’s mildly annoying that because our FX technology has improved the technology in the film appears to be more advanced than in “Alien”, which takes place hundreds of years later…Just like in “Phantom Menace”.
    Despite all this I enjoyed this film because of it’s link to the Alien films, Ridley Scott’s superb skill and visual grandeur, and because it’s just so much fun to watch. There’s an overall quality of film making that is unsurpassed by most sci-fi films today. I’ll buy it on Blu-ray for it’s sheer visual spectacle on my 67″ TV. I’m sure it will remain one of my favorites even with the plot holes.

  15. It cracks me up how pissed off people are about this film. People that are insulted to be bothered with such garbage? Oh dear I think you have too much time on your hands or need to take up a new hobby to focus all this energy! People complaining about the characters having flaws…their flaws are what make them human. If the ships crew was devoid of flawed characters and simply a bunch of androids would that make it better?

    • @Mateo: You’re missing something pretty basic. We’re on the comments section of a movie review site. We love movies! We love discussing movies! We love critiquing movies!

      Too much time on our hands? I’m sure some of do and some of us don’t. Everybody makes choices about how to spend their leisure time, and everybody here has made a choice to spend some of that time talking about this movie. Whether we loved it or hated it, it’s just fun!

      As for the flawed characters, you’re not exactly on point. Good films actually require flawed characters. Static characters are boring! You’re confusing character flaws with implausibility. We WANT flawed characters that are compelling and believable. We DON’T want caricatures that are so outlandish that they would not have been included in the mission in the first place. Great flawed characters add tension to a story and drive it forward. Implausible character flaws distract the viewer from his state of suspended disbelief and make the story progress in a disjointed way.

    • @Mateo: Nothing like someone coming to a movie discussion site and complaining about people spending time on a movie discussion site because they’re passionate about discussing movies. And you’re telling us to “get a hobby”? This is your hobby? Funny. Sad, but funny. I thought I left the likes of you back at CNN.com.

  16. I agree 200% with Amos P D. This movie is far better than many of sci-fi flicks inxluding some famous disaster sh#t flicks.
    Atleast it is much more than what you paid for tickets. The very reason this movie is generating so much review and postmortem implies something +ve for Prometheus. I shall certainly look forward to the upcoming sequels!!! :-))

  17. I agree 200% with Amos P D. This movie is far better than many of sci-fi flicks including some famous disaster sh#t flicks.
    Atleast it is much more than what you paid for tickets. The very reason this movie is generating so much review and postmortem implies something +ve for Prometheus. I shall certainly look forward to the upcoming sequels!!! :-))

  18. Didn’t want it to end. Unlike some reviewers above, the unanswered questions kept me interested. Stunning visuals. Best movie since Winters Bone……..

    • So the astonishingly bad science didn’t bother you?

  19. This review is either a very distorted opinion or catering to the director and production company. Prometheus lacked in story telling, character development and pretty much anything not visually related. Not since the movie Solaris have I ever nodded off in the theatre. The Deacon appearing at the end was just eye candy for us alien fans. But I did not appreciate connecting the Alien Trilogy to this movie at all. Sad.

  20. I thought good science fiction involved some science and some good fiction?

    Am I missing something?

    This was rubbish on so many levels it must be deliberate, or Scott was devoting none of his time to it.

  21. I can’t believe all the negative comments I’m reading about the movie. I just saw Prometheus and thought it was great.
    I’m an avid si-fi fan who saw the original Alien in ‘”79″ but didn’t think any of the sequels lived up to it. For me Prometheus did. I don’t even care that it is a prequel, it stands well on it’s own. “Weak story line”? Did we see the same movie? 3,000yr old cave drawings identify a star system invisible in the night sky without modern technology as the

    • @George

      “I’m an avid si-fi fan who saw the original Alien in ‘”79″ but didn’t think any of the sequels lived up to it. For me Prometheus did.”

      Wait, so let me make sure I got this straight. Based on that statement,the sequels to Alien included Aliens, which didn’t live up to it, but Prometheus did. So, you’re saying that you thought Prometheus is a better movie than Aliens right?? I mean, I know it’s your opinion, but just wanted to make sure that’s what you’re saying. I won’t criticize, just kind of hard to comprehend the concept that’s all…

  22. Big thumbs down Ridley Scott, not original, just a varyiation of the original theme. Came away from the theatre feeling cheated. Borrow it on dvd when its available and you’ll see what i mean. We should be calling him ‘Diddley Squat’ now, ha ha

  23. I’m sorry, but there was almost nothing to like about Prometheus. It was a complete hot mess. At least the film looked good. But the story was crap; the science was crap; the characters were crap and the whole concept was crap. It was just a crap movie with the crappiest science every. It’s an embarrassment to the Alien franchise.

  24. Just saw it the film looked amazing but the plot was terrible and the writing was so bad it ruined the film for me 3 stars.

  25. SHOCKINGLY bad film.

    It feels like there are huge chunks of the film missing, like relationships between each character, wtf were those marblemen, and why bring them into an Alien film? (fantastic effect on those though!)
    Some of the acting was bad – overacted in parts, which I found to be irritating.
    I liked the idea of the whole Prometheus theme and creation theme, it was clever but what ruined the whole thing for me was not knowing wtf was going on from scene to scene!!!! Nothing was explained!
    I’m deterring all my friends from watching this and wasting their money and time.

  26. Has nobody seen ‘Contact’ with Jodie Foster (1997)? If Carl Sagan had been asked to write an ‘Alien’ prequel script, then this would have been it. In fact, the more I think about it, I think he did write the script and deserves a credit as so much of content of this film was lifted from his book/film ‘Contact’.

    Definite warning in there though for us not to mess with nature, i.e. genetic engineering. I guess even Carl Sagan couldn’t have imagined how quickly mankind would have made progress in this area.

    I also loved the comment to Charlizen Theron: ‘Are you a robot?’ and her reply: ‘My room, 10 minutes.’ Brilliant!