It is safe to say that Prometheus is one of the most anticipated movies of the summer, if not the year. After all, it is a movie which has its roots in the Alien franchise, and it is the first science-fiction film that Ridley Scott has directed in quite some time. With these gargantuan expectations, along with the fact that truly exceptional, adult science-fiction seems to become rarer with each passing year, could these expectations ever be met?
Well, yes, I suppose they could, had one avoided all the hype and marketing prior to the film's release. Unfortunately, for me, the film arrives a little half-baked, with what starts off as a promising film, devolving by around the midway point. Our story begins in 2089 when archaeologist couple Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) uncover a pattern scattered among numerous prehistoric artefacts all pointing to a particular cluster of stars (referred to as a star-map). Funded by Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), founder of the Weyland Corporation, the duo and a team of astronauts and scientists follow the map to the distant moon, LV-223; where they believe that the star-map could point to the answer of human creation. However, things do not go to plan when the crew find a cylindrical, alien structure on the moon's surface. As they start to explore, Elizabeth and the crew discover that what they are looking for may be a threat, not only to them, but to the entire human race.
Firstly, this is not a prequel to Alien. It is true that it exists in the same universe as the original film, but other than starting a few story threads which will be brought up in Alien, the two are not directly linked. If that were enough to make it a prequel, then by that same logic, The Wire and Homicide: Life on the Street are sequels to The X-Files, simply because a character from one shows up in the other two. Whether or not one has seen either Alien or Aliens should not hinder one's enjoyment of Prometheus. I only say that since most of what I have read about the movie, be it on internet message board posts or reviews, have tied themselves up in knots talking about the "prequel-continuation" debate.
I believe it is best to open this review with my reservations, of which I have a few. I am afraid to say that the script is extremely clunky. While the concept of meeting the being, or beings, which are responsible for all human life is not a new one in science-fiction, it is still interesting and with the right execution it could have been handled very well. Although, where Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey handled this feat with overpowering, breathtaking imagery, Prometheus handles this with lots of characters giving speeches. Unfortunately, this means that there never feels like there is much weight behind this quest, as it merely becomes a debate. Characters argue, but the gnashing of teeth is never particularly interesting, especially since in reality people do not talk like this.
I hate to make comparisons to the Alien franchise, especially after my sermonising about how Prometheus' connection to Alien was loose, but there is a strong contrast, at least in terms of writing, between the two. Dan O'Bannon's screenplay for Alien did not need to have characters talk about the themes that the film conveyed for those themes to be apparent. In fact, the characters generally spoke about the smaller issues while the subtext worked to make the big picture so powerful. In stark contrast, Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof's script is unbelievably shallow, with people talking about the big picture, but little else.
This also means that several of the characters are little more than ciphers and mouthpieces for the themes, and they are never really fleshed out. For example, nerdy botanist, Millburn (Rafe Spall) represents Darwinism, to contrast Elizabeth and Charlie's insistence on the search for a higher power, and that is all he is there for. Although, Millburn's thin characterisation is still a luxury compared to Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) or Janek (Idris Elba), who do little more than represent their roles on the ship (Weyland Corporation employee and the ship's captain, respectively). Only David (Michael Fassbender), the ship's android, escapes this, and seems to have been where the film concentrates all of its subtleties and nuances. I wish I could say some kinder things about the screenplay, but it is irredeemably stupid at times, and only shows flashes of excellence with the characterisation of David.
Ridley Scott's direction fares better, and most of what is effective is through his hard work. I do not think his direction is perfect, or anything approaching excellence; but it is solidly effective filmmaking from an experienced director. Firstly, the visuals are exceptionally imaginative, which I can credit to Scott and his crew of visual artists. Secondly, for a filmmaker who is considered by some to be past his prime, he delivers enough standout scenes which shall be remembered as some of the best scenes of any film of 2012; despite the mediocrity of the narrative around those scenes. Although, I do hope that his next foray into science-fiction is an improvement on this one, and that he is simply using this film to find his footing, as it were. Unfortunately, where his direction becomes dull and repetitive, is in the scenes which rely most on spectacle. Meaning, the films relies too heavily on computer-generated effects, which to me, always looks slightly rubbery when used for large scale set-pieces. For example, there is a scene towards the end of the film where two characters are running from a big, destructive force, and it never feels genuine; instead the green screen behind them is all too apparent.
Ultimately, apart from a few scenes, including a scene where Millburn and mow-hawk sporting geologist, Fifield (Sean Harris), are trapped within the alien structure, little of the film is tense or even scary. Although, there is one scene which is horrifyingly tense involving Elizabeth performing an emergency operation on herself, which I shall not spoil. However, these are also the scenes which require the least amount of computer-generated effects, and instead rely more on the performers' talent to convey fear. I am trying to imagine how the film would have looked had Scott decided to shave 30, or even 40 million dollars off his budget from the start, allowing his team of writers and his crew to come up with ideas that were not so grand or vast in scope. I would like to think that everything would be contained and things would feel much more claustrophobic and up-close, but that is mere speculation.
In regard to the performances, everyone does, at the very least, do an adequate job. In the leading role, we have Noomi Rapace playing Elizabeth Shaw, who does a fine job. Her attempt at an upper-class, British accent slips all over the place, but she does a fine enough job of anchoring the movie. One scene in particular, which I have already mentioned, but won't spoil, shows the brilliance she showed in her breakout role, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but is over all too briefly. Logan Marshall-Green as Holloway is a little flat, but he is not served well by the script, which calls for him to lurch from an idealist to a drunken cynic in a single scene. Rafe Spall and Sean Harris share a believable, easygoing chemistry together as Millburn and Fifield, and they anchor some of the film's tensest scenes. Idris Elba squeezes every last bit of charisma he can muster to pull off his underwritten role as a 'spit-and-sawdust' military type, Captain Janek. He even manages to seduce Vickers in one scene, which is made believable due to Elba's charisma and charm. Speaking of Vickers, she is played well by Charlize Theron, who manages to steal some scenes from the leading lady, due to Theron's steely determination to make the character work.
It is Michael Fassbender as David, the ship's android, which steals the show. It is a performance reminiscent to Rutger Hauer's performance as Roy Batty, the replicant robot from Blade Runner, in the sense that it hints at whether artificial intelligence can develop a soul. It is a wonderfully subtle piece of acting, and it is really the only point in the film that the writers, and Scott, get consistently right.
In conclusion, Prometheus is a well meaning, if misguided science-fiction film from Ridley Scott. Little about it is spectacular, and the little that is, is over far too quickly. It is well directed and well designed, but it is let down by a shockingly dumb script, which is so poor that the talented cast cannot save it, apart, of course, from Michael Fassbender. In the end, it is a forgettable piece of work.
5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment