PROMETHEUS - Grade and Discuss

[Admiral2]

Wow...are y'all trying to make me not see this movie?

I just wanna know one thing. Is Charlize Theron in a space suit? (I've seen her in the milkbath. Now i wanna see her in the spacesuit.)

[RoJoHen]

Admiral2 wrote:

---

Wow...are y'all trying to make me not see this movie?

Seriously. I'm kind of regretting coming into this thread. Talk about a buzz kill.

[Kirkman1987]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

I don't understand your point of view. Yes, the movie raises some basic questions about the origin of human life, but it never addresses them in any significant way, except to have a couple of characters tell us that these things are Very Important.

Where do we come from? What does it mean for us to meet our creators? It's not so much that the film doesn't leave us with a simple answer: the film doesn't even bother to explore its premise and it does nothing at all with these questions; it just brings them up and that's it.

So I'd be interested to know what in the movie lead you to think that the themes were handled well. What did I miss?

I agree the ideas were jumbled, but David has a few scenes where he questioned why meeting the creators was so important to humans, and relating it to himself as a robot. Repace's faith was the focus of a few scenes in there, and important to the ending where she decides to "keep searching".

Perhaps what I should of said is "I'm glad this isn't a blatantly dumb movie like Resurrection"...

[banzaiduck]

137th Gebirg wrote:

---

Outbreak - kind of...

Contagion. Soderbergh went out of his way to ensure some semblance of verisimilitude in portraying the scientists and government officials.

Rather boring flick otherwise.

BANZAI!!!

[banzaiduck]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

I don't understand your point of view. Yes, the movie raises some basic questions about the origin of human life, but it never addresses them in any significant way, except to have a couple of characters tell us that these things are Very Important.

What else should one expect from Lindelof? Same shit went on with Lost as well. I refuse to acknowledge that last season and that flash forward/sideways...whatever bullshit.

How congruous that the latter half of this flick was, for lack of a better word, shit.

BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bob The Skutter]

Admiral2 wrote:

---

I just wanna know one thing. Is Charlize Theron in a space suit? (I've seen her in the milkbath. Now i wanna see her in the spacesuit.)

Yes...

[Admiral2]

Bob the Skutter wrote:

---

Yes...

Thank you. Now I can sit through all the muddle and still be happy.

[sidious618]

The film got a solid review from The AV Club, a site that is usually on the ball.

[davejames]

banzaiduck wrote:

---

What else should one expect from Lindelof? Same shit went on with Lost as well. I refuse to acknowledge that last season and that flash forward/sideways...whatever bullshit.

How congruous that the latter half of this flick was, for lack of a better word, shit.

BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!

That seems to be a common reaction, but at the same time I'm noticing that people who actually LIKE the ambiguous nature of Lindelof's storytelling (and who embraced the same thing in Lost), seem to be liking the movie a bit more.

Fortunately I'm one of those in the second camp, so hopefully I won't find the movie quite as irritating as others here...


(crosses fingers)

[Mutenroshi]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

I don't understand your point of view. Yes, the movie raises some basic questions about the origin of human life, but it never addresses them in any significant way, except to have a couple of characters tell us that these things are Very Important.

Where do we come from? What does it mean for us to meet our creators? It's not so much that the film doesn't leave us with a simple answer: the film doesn't even bother to explore its premise and it does nothing at all with these questions; it just brings them up and that's it.

So I'd be interested to know what in the movie lead you to think that the themes were handled well. What did I miss?

I don't remember anyone in Blade Runner saying: "bbbut, Deckard, you are a Replicant!"

Basically, creators are assholes and I'm fine with that.

[Pauln6]

davejames wrote:

---

That seems to be a common reaction, but at the same time I'm noticing that people who actually LIKE the ambiguous nature of Lindelof's storytelling (and who embraced the same thing in Lost), seem to be liking the movie a bit more.

Fortunately I'm one of those in the second camp, so hopefully I won't find the movie quite as irritating as others here...

(crosses fingers)

I like the ambiguity and the film is perfectly enjoyable. The stupid parts are no more stupid than the Joker having time to install enough explosives in a hospital on every level without being noticed to make it explode massively or the molestation of some basic laws of physics for the convenience of the story in NuTrek.

Those things irritate me but don't ruin the story completely. My disappointment stems from the fact that I had such high hopes for something less schlocky than this turned out to be. I was hoping for X-Men 2 but got the Wolverine movie.

[Daneel]

Man, these reviews are all over the place. I gotta say, it's tempered my enthusiasm somewhat, but then, lower expectations may work out in my favour -- if it turns out the film isn't so great, perhaps I won't be so disappointed.

Going to see it tonight at a midnight screening... here's hoping it delivers.

[Capt_Pickirk]

Aragorn wrote:

---

Roger Ebert gives this movie four stars.

Well, that's the same guy who gave thumbs up to The Phantom Menace, Cop and a half and a load of terrible films, and thumbs down to Rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead and a bunch of other decent movies, so I don't really trust Ebert's opinion all that much.

[banzaiduck]

Capt_Pickirk wrote:

---

Well, that's the same guy who gave thumbs up to The Phantom Menace, Cop and a half and a load of terrible films, and thumbs down to Rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead and a bunch of other decent movies, so I don't really trust Ebert's opinion all that much.

I can understand all of that except for Phantom Menace. How could he have possibly looked past that nonsensical walking goat?



BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Starkers]

davejames wrote:

---

That seems to be a common reaction, but at the same time I'm noticing that people who actually LIKE the ambiguous nature of Lindelof's storytelling (and who embraced the same thing in Lost), seem to be liking the movie a bit more.

Fortunately I'm one of those in the second camp, so hopefully I won't find the movie quite as irritating as others here...


(crosses fingers)

Well I didn't mind it on Lost, but I might just be the exception that proves the rule...