Red Letter Media has released their own unique take on Prometheus, and it's appropriately just a series of questions that point out the logical flaws in the film. It takes them four minutes. Yep.
Even after all those (extremely valid) questions, there are still yet more logical problems that I wish had been addressed. Like, why did they never mention the whole squid-alien-baby thing again after the sequence except in an off-hand line in which Michael Fassbender mocks Noomi Rapace for still being alive. That really bugged me. A simple "Holy shit! That was a really horrible thing that just happened to me! Maybe the most horrible thing that's ever happened to anyone ever!" would have sufficed. One line of dialogue, that's all I ask...
Adam Quigley over at /Film has written a great review of Prometheus. You should avoid it like the plague if you have yet to see the film, but it says just about everything I felt coming out of Ridley Scott's latest... thing...
I don't completely agree with Adam's read of the "big reveal" at the end of the movie, nor did I feel that the android David was the most interesting character in the film, but that said his overall take on the movie is 1:1 with my sentiments. As such, I'm ripping a few of his larger and more on-point quotes to help give my take on Prometheus. Spoilers and unbridled negativity abound from here on out.
Prometheus may seem like more sophisticated fare, with a promise of greater significance deeply entrenched in the oft-mentioned subject matter (i.e., uncovering the origin of human life), but the movie utterly fails at tying its ideas and its monstrous happenings together. Despite feigning interest in probing life’s most pertinent mysteries, the film has nothing to say. It asks — literally asks, aloud — weighty questions without any interest in exploring the answers. The film expects you to do the heavy lifting, as though it should be rewarded for even daring to ask the questions to begin with.
...
Oh, what, you have a problem with the lack of meaningful plot resolution? You’ve completely missed the point! It’s about the desire to find answers, not the answers themselves! Why try to satisfy you with answers when life doesn’t have any satisfying answers to give? Check mate, motherfuckers!
Is this seriously the point of Prometheus? We’ve waited this long to have our questions about the Alien mythology answered, only to be told that expecting satisfying answers to those questions is actually reflective of the folly of mankind? That’s it?
How profound. Nevermind that I only sought the answers to those questions to begin with because Ridley Scott chose to make a movie that asks those questions.
This might be the thing that bugged me the most about Prometheus: the movie pretends to ask big philosophical questions about life and creation and faith, etc. ad naseum, but then says literally nothing substantive about anything. Seriously, there's a line right at the end of the movie where David asks Noomi Rapace basically "Why do you want to know the answer to [insert big question here]?" and her response is, verbatim, "I can understand because I'm human but you can't because you're a robot."
For fucking real?!
The movie's big point is that we should be curious about the big questions or else we're just robots, and that's ostensibly bad now? Never mind that this message is thematically and literally incoherent since the entire movie has poised David as the most "human" character of the bunch in terms of his (flirtatiously hinted at) desires to be loved/accepted/not treated like part of the decore. He has one of Prometheus' rare great moment earlier in the film when he confronts a human scientist who's frustrated about not being able to meet and speak with his creator (it makes sense in context). When the man tells David that humanity made androids "Because we could," David retorts by asking "Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for you to hear the same answer from your creators?” It's a moment of sheer brilliance and seems to point towards a thematic structure that interrogates both the reasons for human existence and our vain desires for lofty rationales BUT NOPE. We get nothing of the sort and none of that matters by the movie's end! Instead the big conclusion is that it's bad and inhuman that David doesn't have a higher level dissatisfaction with unanswered questions about existence, which is ironically my major takeaway from Prometheus!
But I digress. My apologies, Prometheus is an all-over-the-place kind of affair and so I'm sure this review must read that way too. Back to Adam:
Stripped from its Alien roots, Prometheus barely has a story to call its own. A lot happens in it, but the events play out with so little thought or urgency that almost nothing seems to happen at all. By the time it hits its third act, the film has completely devolved into generic sci-fi drivel, rushing through each incongrous payoff without bothering to properly root them in any sort of intellectually or emotionally substantiated context. Scene after scene, the film subjects its expert team of stock horror dummies to inactivity and death, completely devaluing the inherent thoughtfulness of the themes at hand, and in doing so removing any trace of intelligent design in a story that’s all about tracing back the roots of intelligent design. But then, maybe that irony is not lost on the writers, who treat the film’s actual gods like dummies, too.
And finally, the don't-call-it-a-money-shot summation:
To call Prometheus inconsequential would be a severe understatement. This movie is a trifling blip of narrative disarray, so lacking in anything resembling an intelligible throughline or purpose that I can’t help but wonder why there was any incentive to tell this story at all. Prometheus isn’t just bad; it actively detracts from the very mythology it’s trying to enhance, reducing the Alien legacy to little more than an accidental byproduct of a mind-numbingly stupid expedition.
Yep. That's pretty much the gist of it. When asked what I thought of the movie, I've summed up my thoughts as "What the fuck did I just watch?" and "I'm frustrated." Because really that's how Prometheus left me: frustrated that a movie with so much going for it (strong cast, strong crew, strong franchise roots, a legitimately interesting premise) does so little and purports to say so much. It's thematically scattered, it's plot is nigh incoherent, it expressly refuses to address its most interesting facets, and worst of all it has a self-righteous attitude about the whole thing. It's very tone poises Prometheus as a critic-proof endeavour along the lines of Tree of Life, though even mentioning the two films in the same breath has me mentally gagging.
People often ask me why I'm so down on so many movies here on this blog, and I think it's a fair question. I'm critical of movies because I love them, and I expect a lot from them. I don't want everything to be high art, but when I sit down to give a film a few hours of my life I expect more than just a way to pass the time. I expect it to give me something interesting, something thoughtful, something that knows what it wants to do/say and does so competently.
I expected Prometheus to do what every piece of its advertising promised it would: tell me an interesting, intelligent, high-brow sci-fi horror story about the origins of mankind and somehow tie it into the Alien franchise. The movie we got wasn't intelligent or high-brow, and I'd barely call it interesting. The first words that come to mind are "stupefying," "infuriating," "insulting" (although that might be the Alien fanboy in me lashing out), and above all else "frustrating." After all the hype, all the "it shares some DNA with Alien" nonsense, all the spoiler-filled trailers and incredible viral marketing, and all the sublime mystique that fans have enjoyed since 1979, Prometheus is mess of a film that's less than the sum of its parts.
Continuing right along on the Cabin in the Woods love fest, below is a video review of the film by Movie Bob, who longtime readers will recall is one of my favourite critics. It's a solid and somehow even more glowing review than my own, but and likewise does its best to shy away from spoilers. Give it a watch, particularly if you've seen the film and are in on the jokes.
Just five college kids in an old abandoned cabin in the woods... Oh yeah!
I've been on a bit of a Joss Whedon tear of late, so you'll have to excuse me as I continue the trend with a glowing (albeit short) review of Cabin in the Woods. Written by Whedon and Drew Goddard (of Cloverfield fame) and directed by Goddard, Cabin in the Woods is a loving "spoof" of the horror genre. It begins with the typical horror movie set-up of five college students heading off to a cabin in the woods for a fun filled weekend of youthful shenanigans (I feel so old typing that), but what unfolds is anything but ordinary.
I'm going to be strict with myself about avoiding spoilers here because the less you know going in the more you'll enjoy Cabin in the Woods. I won't even post the trailer or the film's poster here because frankly they give away too much. All I'll say is that this film is a loving send up of the entire horror genre that engages in an intelligent, creative, and hilarious analysis of the acts of both making and watching horror movies. It's incredible, see it.
Beyond that it's hard to know what to say without spoiling things. In terms of the cast, numerous Whedon regulars are featured here including Kristen Connolly and the always amazing Fran Kranz (Topher!), as well as Chris Hemsworth (who continues to impress me with every role he takes on). There are also some additional roles that I won't mention here but are played by some fantastic actors, and once you see the film you'll know exactly who I mean. Everyone involved does a great job and understands their roles, which all include elements of horror and humour alike. It's a delicate balance but everyone pulls it off elegantly.
I should also clear up the whole "horror movie" thing. Cabin in the Woods is a horror movie more in spirit than effect, which is to say that it has a horror movie premise (kids go into woods, people die, there's blood, etc) but it isn't really horrific per se. There's only one shot that I would qualify as "gory" and it's really pretty tame. More than that the movie just doesn't focus on/feature the horrific elements: terrifying things occurs, granted, but they're more often played for laughs. Also the movie isn't shy about critiquing itself, both for depicting horrific events and for enjoying them, explicitly or otherwise. As I said, it's a delicate balance and I'll leave it for you to see it to understand it, but trust me: it works.
I think that's just about all I can say about Cabin in the Woods without giving anything away. It's an intelligent, hilarious, and endearing ode to the horror genre and film making/watching in general. It's definitely my favourite film of 2012 so far, and I can't wait to see it again. It's just an amazing movie. Don't go in expecting a slasher, it's so much more than that, and don't look into it because the les you know going-in the better. But definitely see it, because Cabin in the Woods is brilliant.
Who woulda thought they'd be able to pull this off?
The Avengers is a summer blockbuster unlike anything we've ever seen. Featuring an all-star ensemble cast, the movie is the cumulative product of five films worth of world-building and ground-laying. Over the course of the two Iron Man flicks, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America: The First Avenger, and Thor, Marvel Studios has effectively crafted an onscreen comic book universe in which four larger-than-life heroes can believably join forces to save mankind. They've been doing this stuff since the '60s in comic books but never before has such a monumental task been attempted in film. With that in mind, it's more than a little reliving to say that The Avengers succeeds, thanks in no small part to the brilliant mind of Joss Whedon.
When Iron Man came out in 2008 I was pleasantly surprised to find it was an enjoyable super hero origin story. The movie played to its main strength in Robert Downey Jr. and presented a funny and charismatic hero that was fun to watch and easy to root for. And in the end it made us a promise: that Marvel would give us something more, something bigger than we'd ever seen. Based on how great Iron Man turned out to be I was excited, but after Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk ended up being mediocre at best, I worried that The Avengers would prove to be a disappointment. My fears were abated somewhat when Marvel brought Joss Whedon on board in April 2010, but then last summer's Captain America ended up being kind of shitty despite Whedon's additions to the film's script. As much as I adored Whedon's prior work (particularly the short-lived Firefly and the troubled Dollhouse), I wasn't sure he could pull together something as big as The Avengers, especially given Marvel's heavy-handed approach to the franchise with Iron Man 2. My fear was that Marvel would restrict Whedon to the film's detriment, and force him to make their movie as opposed to his.
The movie's trailers have made no secret of the fact that The Avengers concludes with an epic battle sequence that literally takes up almost half the movie. However, in a rare example of restraint in Hollywood marketing, the trailers don't give away the scene's most incredible moments. All of the heroes come together for an epic battle for Earth against an (admittedly underdeveloped) alien enemy, and it ranks among the most rewarding action sequences ever put on film. Not only are the action shots effective and awe-inspiring, there is also a character-driven sense of humour to the scene that was unlike anything I have ever seen. It's strange to say but there were moments during the battle where I laughed as hard as I can ever remember laughing in a theatre. It's a rare and wonderful thing for a fight sequence to succeed so brilliantly in this kind of way.
The Avengers is a unique and worthwhile experience, almost solely on the merits of the final battle sequence, and I wholeheartedly attribute it to the talent of Joss Whedon. What probably happened with the movie is that Whedon came onboard after the overall premise of the film (ie the villain, the basic plot, etc) had already been set by Marvel and the original script writer, Zak Penn. The fact that Penn was ultimately only credited with the story backs this theory up, and indicates that Whedon was probably only able to flesh out the characters, dialogue, and minor happenings within the film's larger preset framework. It makes sense then that although the characters are strong throughout, the film stumbles through its own plot until the final battle. At that point Whedon undoubtedly had a lot more room to stretch in terms of his contributions to the script, so long as the heroes still had an epic concluding fight.
The Avengers succeeds against all odds on the strength of its director and the talented ensemble cast. It's not a perfect movie by any stretch, but it doesn't suffer from many of the problems you might expect. Each of the actors involved does a great job, their interactions are pitch-perfect, and the movie is far from a mindless action-fest. All of these are common characteristics for Whedon's work, and it's unsurprising but also a little relieving to see his talents on display. Somehow Joss's personality is able to shine through and The Avengers doesn't crumble under the weight of the five lead-up films or Marvel's franchise crafting.
I urge you to check out The Avengers while it's still in theatres. It's not intellectual, it is a super hero movie through and through, but it's some of the most fun I've had in a theatre in a long time and that's worth a lot. If anyone feels differently then I'd be happy to discuss the movie's relative merits and flaws over a shawarma.
