|
On May 31 2012 09:40 RowdierBob wrote: Are there actually any aliens in it (i.e face huggers, brain munchers etc)? This is definitely a spoiler, so read at your own risk even though I don't go into too much detail ,-)
+ Show Spoiler +There is a kind of face-hugger, but it's different from the one in Alien (you'll see in what respect). Basically the humans come across a similar kind of organisms but with some differences. The main similarity is the way they end up using hosts to reproduce, but there are enough differences to keep the alerted viewers (I mean those who have seen the Alien movies) in the dark as to what is going to happen next. It's also not as uniform across the different organisms as in Alien/Alien 2.
|
On May 31 2012 10:01 Aerisky wrote: Okay, that's fine, I guess. Boo at title ;P
Hm...now that I think of it, I actually do enjoy the universe, nothing really wrong with it or anything. I was just sort of surprised.
Originally, Scott wanted to make it a prequel, but he later decided not to. Fans being fans speculate it that Scott was afraid that the film will not live up to Alien standards since Alien is a classic to this day. Scott and co. said that if Prometheus does well, they will make a sequel or a possible trilogy.
Ironically, the early reviews of Prometheus are mixed, which is what happened to Alien and Blade Runner when it was first released. It wasn't until a couple of years later that many changed their minds saying that the film was good, but mainly because of the VHS/DVD releases with extra content later on. I think this may well be the case for Prometheus.
On May 31 2012 10:03 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 09:17 zoLo wrote:On May 31 2012 08:54 kwizach wrote: It's out in Belgium and I went to see it tonight. Ask away if you have any questions - I'll reply with spoiler tags. Overall I thought the movie was good, but with a few flaws. I saw it in 3D and it was definitely worth it, very good use of 3D and great visuals. 1. Regarding the 3D, is it really that great? I'm "meh" when it comes to 3D and the only good 3D movie I've seen was Avatar. Was Prometheus better than Avatar in the 3D department? 2. Is it true that Prometheus was more amazing in visuals than story telling? A lot of people say that it is practically a rehash of Alien and is not really original compared to what Ridley Scott and the cast say it is. 3. Any easter egg or references from past movies (minus Weyland and what we know)? 4. Is the movie gory? 5. Is the movie scary? Tense? Eerie? Disturbing? Using a spoiler tag just in case, even though the questions are not really spoiler-ish and you will find no spoiler regarding the scenario in my comments. If you want me to go into more detail regarding the scenario, don't hesitate to ask. + Show Spoiler +1. I personally enjoyed the 3D very much - it was one of the very rare occasions I felt it was extremely well used and fitted the movie perfectly. I can't compare it to Avatar since I did not see Avatar in 3D, but I strongly advise anyone interested in seeing Prometheus of seeing it in 3D, it was quite spectacular :-)
2. The visuals were indeed quite spectacular, and I have mixed feelings about the story - but it was possibly me expecting too much. I basically left the theater with a kind of "empty" feeling in that regards - I kind of wanted to know more about some of the elements that appear in the movie. There are, of course, some elements from the script that are similar to what went on in Alien, but the focus of the film is still very different.
3. I have to say that none come to mind, but it's probable I missed some. There's a particular element in the script that can be directly compared to something that happened in Alien, but it's rather minor. I can't really think of anything else except the basic stuff (for example the alien ship and the "command chair" that appear in the Prometheus trailers and that are equivalent to those seen in Alien).
4. I wouldn't really call it gory, although there's a quite disturbing scene (you'll immediately know which one I'm talking about) involving an opened body, and there's also blood spilled elsewhere.
5. It indeed gets tense after some time, but it's not really the kind of tension I felt with Alien. In the latter, the entire tension came from there being one Alien in the ship without knowing where it was - here, it's more complicated than that, and you alternate between moments of tension and moments of simply wanting to know what's going to happen based on what we've seen previously (not the best way to phrase it I guess, but I can't really find better words :-D).
There you go, I kept it vague to avoid spoilers, but if you want specifics I'll be happy to reply.
Thanks. I was interested in seeing this in 3D or IMAX since the scale of the movie looks big.
|
I've just seen it, here's what I think (guaranteed without spoilers).
I was expecting a lot, being a big Alien fan. The first half didn't disappoint. It's just a really beautiful film, very well done. One actor in particular+ Show Spoiler + did a tremendous job, and no one seemed particularly bad. The stakes are high from the start, and the main theme, the origins of humanity... well pretty interesting to say the least.
Nevertheless, this film won't be mentionned in the same breath as Alien or Blade Runner. In the second half the film's script gets... weird (to be nice), and some things just didn't make a lot of sense to me. The characters decision making and motivations, in particular, seem unrealistic, or at the very least not explained enough. Some sci-fi elements are very obscure, I still don't understand a lot of things, although it might've been done on purpous. Don't expect the same clarity as in Alien as to how things "work".
Overall I'm not sure what to think. Too many things are wrong to consider it great (although if you have a high tolerance to plot holes you might love it), and too many things are good to consider it bad. It's not "just a good film" either, but the kind of film that some will love and others will hate.
|
The last part of the movie moved way to fast, it tried to lose up plot holes which made it a huge mess. I really liked the movie, but it should have had a better explaination of the various plot holes it was trying to lose up. The first 2/3 of the movie was really well done tho.
The movie did not really feel like it had much to do with the alien series, but the universe it tries to open up could be very interesting to see more of.
Fassbender really played david well tho
|
This movie is a gem, people who can't think properly will have trouble enjoying this movie.
EXCELLENT !
|
Has anyone watched the 3D version of it yet? is it worth?
|
On June 01 2012 22:07 henjebenje wrote: Has anyone watched the 3D version of it yet? is it worth?
It's very good 3D, I definitely recommend you watch that version.
|
Saw it last night in 3D. The film is worth the 3D price, it does look very good although it's a very strange experience.
The rest of this, my review of the actual film. It contains major spoilers about the film so please ******* DO NOT CLICK THE SPOILER UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE FILM ********: + Show Spoiler +Loved the Alien films, loved that this was not another, was so looking forward to it but left feeling annoyed at an average sci-fi film. Having been almost at shooting the Alien film and then scrapping it for a new story over the past years I had very high expectations of a story that would shine, that this would be a masterpiece, sadly I didn't think it was anywhere near that.
Leaving Alien out for a minute the parts that were good: - David's part and the way his character was developed, very nice indeed. Very dark and I had hoped for something like that, a more psychological horror. That said his method of contact with Weyland, wth? Other than that his character is the best part of this film.
- Visuals, nice to look at which at times the 3D did work a treat.
- Tension, a few parts were just as tense as some of the good horror films. The drive back to the ship, the nod to Alien with the impregnation and removal scene, again nicely done (again).
- The story, promised so much at the start but as soon as they entered the 'tomb' it just fell on its face and didn't really know what to do. A somewhat save by David's character but then it careers off into being another AvP film I think in the hope to bring some sort of conclusion to a plot that at this point has so many holes in it that it becomes hard to care about any of it.
- Timeline, due to when this has been made there is a lot more technology floating around, there would be no getting around this but adding items that would have clearly helped other victims in other films fight the Aliens, well that could have been handled a lot better I think. Leaving them out actually may have helped Prometheus.
------------------- In comparison to the Alien franchise, it's exactly what the rest of the films have been since Alien 3, which for me was the last good part of the story. A pretty average film that has best intentions but cannot deliver the claustrophobic horror of sealing six people in a room with a welding torch away from certain death outside the door (or was it? ). It's a franchise that was defined at a time when less was more, sci-fi and horror went hand in hand, the stories were simple, more focused. This film had none of that, it found it hard to raise much tension let alone fear.
The plot holes, where to begin, so there's talk of a sequel, I can't really say I care for watching it to be honest even if it was sat next to me just now. The Engineer suicide at the start, to introduce life to Earth(?), that was destroying DNA, it was snapping the strands, I mean it was degrading DNA, not making life breed or mutate. Why go to all that bother to make life on Earth but then want to kill it again? So say that Engineer was a 'rebel' something the rest of the race didn't want life on Earth, I guess then they need a weapon to destroy, fine. None of that is eluded to in the film. In fact we have to watch the film for about 90 minutes to find out in a few lines from Prometheus captain that LV-224 is a bio installation where the Engineers made weapons, that's a pathetic method of story telling. Cameron didn't force feed us like that in Aliens with the Queen chamber, are audiences that dumb these days that the only method to convey part of a story is to have someone blurt it out half way through the film? Know your audience Mr Blade Runner….
The planet, LV-224 (I think?) is not LV-426, so it's a different planet where Prometheus lands. So let’s treat this as a different planet for now, the derelict we see crash can't be the same derelict in the Alien film. Crashing Prometheus into the side of it and making the ‘entry hole’ may come in handy for Kane and crew later on, but this is a different planet. The distress signal, also handy but this is a different planet. The Engineer has left his seat to go after female doctor, again handy it is a different planet after all, so how can any chest burst happen? There's what closely resembles an Alien running around, I guess that could be a queen, different planet though, remember?
By the end of the film we have a fifth generation evolution into the Alien we all know: Male doctor > female doctor > squid? > engineer > Alien. So any Alien, a Giger Alien would need to evolve in a similar set of jumps, no? Well for one there won't be that same cycle even if there are other living Engineers on LV-224.
So, female doctor (and that reflects how much I'm not interested, I can't even bring myself to Google her character name) is off on one with David, so she might end up on LV-426, but there are no other humans alive to have the five stage jump like we just saw. So the impregnation/human mutation won't happen again.
Leaving how we got where we did out of it for a minute and going back to just Prometheus. The (all too handy storytelling, but didn’t story tell) holograms that were running around, sure they'd have been handy as hell for Kane and Lambert (who by the way would have had superior tech to anything on Prometheus, see above), they were running into the tomb, why was the Engineer running into a room full of stuff that would kill him? What about the head high pile of Engineer bodies? What killed them? That elusive 'ping' to the west that we never see of again? Why waste all that time to show these two plums running around getting ‘information’ that is never used, impregnated with a worm mutation, again which is never used after showing it pop out of his mouth. Why is the tattooed rock geologist guy smashing up the crew? I mean going on what happened on Earth with the suicide and the reformed exploding pilot head this bio weapon destroys by degrading DNA, not by turning things into zombies. Why did we have a ten minute fight on Prometheus deck for what seems like no reason?
In the tomb there is a clear carving of an Alien on the back wall, if that mutation took five jumps away from what is in the pods how the hell was that predicted? Why even bother to make the worm mutation if it’s only purpose is to kill a few folks but not kill as many as geologist rock hippie? -------------------
So yes, I’m off on one (unless you've been in hypersleep for the past 50 years, you can tell I'm a bit of a nut over Alien films) judging by what I’ve typed so far my opinion/interpretations yup they are. Gave more questions than answers, yup, it did and I’d have been totally content with that but the massive problem I have is that none of this makes any sense so the film ends up being so disconnected through bad storytelling and irrelevant sequences that the last ten minutes of here is the evolution Alien lovers that you’ve got to even question why the hell that was put in place also.
It’s an okay sci-fi film with action in it for action sake, it crutches on Alien franchise because really that’s the only true thing left for it to do. Scott might not have wanted to make another Alien film, he succeeded, I’m rather glad it is so detached. Give me Alien to watch any day of the week over this, the next time I do watch it I’ll be doing my very best to forget about Prometheus.
This is annoyed person, last remaining survivor of average Hollywood films signing off.
|
On June 01 2012 22:41 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 22:07 henjebenje wrote: Has anyone watched the 3D version of it yet? is it worth? It's very good 3D, I definitely recommend you watch that version. Does it have 3D as in things flying out from the screen towards the audience or things being in front of the audience? Or is it more like other 99% of so called 3d movies that only have you see 3d effects when you look at what is behind the character/item that the momentary focus on the screen (give the illusion of depth of field)?
|
Just seen it. Enjoyed the film itself, but it's really left me with more questions/confusions than before I watched it I'd guess that's done deliberately, to not give everything away at this stage in lieu of further movies.
|
On June 02 2012 00:18 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 22:41 MilesTeg wrote:On June 01 2012 22:07 henjebenje wrote: Has anyone watched the 3D version of it yet? is it worth? It's very good 3D, I definitely recommend you watch that version. Does it have 3D as in things flying out from the screen towards the audience or things being in front of the audience? Or is it more like other 99% of so called 3d movies that only have you see 3d effects when you look at what is behind the character/item that the momentary focus on the screen (give the illusion of depth of field)? Yeah I wanna know to, because I am actually really conflicted with 3D. I mean, for one thing, it can certainly make an immersive experience (see: Avatar, which although I hated it as a story, drew me in visually), but also then directors abuse it and try to make all this shit fly at the screen to the point where it is annoying. It's like if Wachowski brothers made half of the Matrix in bullet time: it loses its merit, and is just annoying.
Plus I actually have a really hard time with 3D. It hurts my eyes, and causes me to tear up, sometimes even giving me a headache. I think it has something to do with the fact that most movies are still shot in 24 fps. I don't know though. Pretty much, I am asking if anyone who shares similar opinions about 3D as I enjoyed this movie in 3D.
|
last exam on 21st T_T, so long to wait
|
On June 02 2012 03:30 CyDe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 00:18 -Archangel- wrote:On June 01 2012 22:41 MilesTeg wrote:On June 01 2012 22:07 henjebenje wrote: Has anyone watched the 3D version of it yet? is it worth? It's very good 3D, I definitely recommend you watch that version. Does it have 3D as in things flying out from the screen towards the audience or things being in front of the audience? Or is it more like other 99% of so called 3d movies that only have you see 3d effects when you look at what is behind the character/item that the momentary focus on the screen (give the illusion of depth of field)? Yeah I wanna know to, because I am actually really conflicted with 3D. I mean, for one thing, it can certainly make an immersive experience (see: Avatar, which although I hated it as a story, drew me in visually), but also then directors abuse it and try to make all this shit fly at the screen to the point where it is annoying. It's like if Wachowski brothers made half of the Matrix in bullet time: it loses its merit, and is just annoying. Plus I actually have a really hard time with 3D. It hurts my eyes, and causes me to tear up, sometimes even giving me a headache. I think it has something to do with the fact that most movies are still shot in 24 fps. I don't know though. Pretty much, I am asking if anyone who shares similar opinions about 3D as I enjoyed this movie in 3D. I sincerely think you won't be disappointed with the 3D in this. The problem with 3D movies is that they usually also feature shaky cam, which leads to a VERY blurred vision of what's going on and possibly headache. Here, it's handled extremely well and there are some spectacular shots that really let the 3D shine. I was actually planning on seeing it in 2D before I read that Ridley Scott shot it for 3D, and I'm happy I changed my mind.
|
Extremely disappointed. Nothing interesting happened at all, or more precisely, they didn't do anything with it. Totally uninteresting characters, none of which is explored in any kind of depth except the lead role which was one of the most boring characters to begin with. It is just a big mess but I hope there will be a directors cut since there is a ton of stuff they could have (and probably already have but it got cut) expanded on but everything just gets dropped in loose ends. My only positives in this movie is the setting is beautiful, the effects are cool, best use of 3D I've seen in a while and Fassbender is total boss. Otherwise the movie is disappointing which is sad because I saw a ton of potential.
|
On June 02 2012 10:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 03:30 CyDe wrote:On June 02 2012 00:18 -Archangel- wrote:On June 01 2012 22:41 MilesTeg wrote:On June 01 2012 22:07 henjebenje wrote: Has anyone watched the 3D version of it yet? is it worth? It's very good 3D, I definitely recommend you watch that version. Does it have 3D as in things flying out from the screen towards the audience or things being in front of the audience? Or is it more like other 99% of so called 3d movies that only have you see 3d effects when you look at what is behind the character/item that the momentary focus on the screen (give the illusion of depth of field)? Yeah I wanna know to, because I am actually really conflicted with 3D. I mean, for one thing, it can certainly make an immersive experience (see: Avatar, which although I hated it as a story, drew me in visually), but also then directors abuse it and try to make all this shit fly at the screen to the point where it is annoying. It's like if Wachowski brothers made half of the Matrix in bullet time: it loses its merit, and is just annoying. Plus I actually have a really hard time with 3D. It hurts my eyes, and causes me to tear up, sometimes even giving me a headache. I think it has something to do with the fact that most movies are still shot in 24 fps. I don't know though. Pretty much, I am asking if anyone who shares similar opinions about 3D as I enjoyed this movie in 3D. I sincerely think you won't be disappointed with the 3D in this. The problem with 3D movies is that they usually also feature shaky cam, which leads to a VERY blurred vision of what's going on and possibly headache. Here, it's handled extremely well and there are some spectacular shots that really let the 3D shine. I was actually planning on seeing it in 2D before I read that Ridley Scott shot it for 3D, and I'm happy I changed my mind. Oh that's great to hear! Yeah I guess the shakiness really does piss me off, or at least contribute. Well now I really am lookin' forward to it :D
|
On June 01 2012 22:03 Boertie wrote: This movie is a gem, people who can't think properly will have trouble enjoying this movie.
EXCELLENT !
Seriously? The movie was average in all aspects except visuals which seem to be the trend nowadays. There was nothing to actually understand from the movie, maybe you're just imagining things that just arent there (nice thing about movies i guess).
The characters were awful and had no depth at all and some of the dialogue was face palm worthy imo (the first briefing anyone?).
|
I hope that people who didn't like this movie are the same people who didn't like Drive.
|
Jesus christ Michael Fassbender is a genius.. He totally stole this movie with his acting.
|
On June 02 2012 20:14 Manit0u wrote: I hope that people who didn't like this movie are the same people who didn't like Drive.
Sorry to disappoint but i really liked Drive.
|
The plot is maybe not the best, but the animation and quality is sooooooooog frking goood!1! easily worth the money.
|
|
|
|