OvomorphMember1 XPJun-03-2012 7:21 PMIt's official: Ridley Scott is another George Lucas. OK, that might be stretching it slightly but damn, what a disappointment this movie is. Yes, I am a zealous Alien fan and I had personal desires for the film - none of which were met, so I am distraught.
Let me start right at the deep end and with the plot; IMHO, some of the fake plots that surfaced were actually so much better - relatively speaking. I'm seriously going to have to search out every draft of the screenplay to figure out exactly where this all went wrong - do I focus my blame on Spaights, on Lindelhof, or on the execution itself by Scott?
I've kept radio silence for the last couple of months as I could sense too much was spilling out before I saw the movie, but now that I've seen it I just need to get a lot off my chest - and apologies if other reviewers have already gone through the same stuff, I've not been patient enough to read every other review before opening my own mouth.
I've read a few people enjoyed the opening sequence. I'm afraid to say, I did not like it for a few reasons: the Engineer's cloak looked like it was picked out from a department store - why there was a sewing seam on the hood, I do not know; the bowl of "bioforma" - just didn't like it; Engineer consumes the bioforma and disintegrates - why? a simple blood sample mixed with the stuff isn't potent enough?; The ship - why is it a saucer and not derelict-like? Yunno, maybe all this was to dramatise the creation of mankind, and maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I just couldn't buy into it.
The dialogue was absolutely dreadful, which is a shame because there was some good actors to leverage. Shaw, Holloway and David were doing well until the plot lost the plot. Why is David such an ******* and f**king with people? Why is Fifield an even bigger *******, such that you're eager for him to die soon. Why is everyone so laissez-faire about Shaw's auto-caesarean - even herself?
"What is the point?" is a question I find I'm asking quite a lot - especially around the menagerie of alien lifeforms. The beauty of Alien (and Aliens) was the concrete purpose of a definitive lifecycle, which is completely devoid in this cesspool of rubbish ideas. Fifield, Holloway, and the other guy (I forget his name): why did they all have differing results - and then Shaw has a completely different result again.
I realise I'm asking a lot more questions than providing answers or opinion - but that's the problem with the film: it answers nothing and forces you to ask a bunch of other questions which is annoying. BTW, if anyone figures out how any of the story ties in with the Prometheus legend, let me know (both Scott and Lindelhof talked of a deeper metaphor).
The aliens were lousy and stupid, IMHO - and even the "proto-xeno" as people are calling it was just another cheap imitation you'd expect from a b-movie. But that's good because it helps me to detach it from anything to do with Alien - I'm even happy the original Derelict has nothing to do with this film (assuming the second ship is not the Derelict in later sequels).
Let me summarise by saying this film is garbage and should be treated like garbage - it doesn't even stand on its own two feet, let alone as any relation to Alien. As a film, I rate Alien Versus Predator 1 as a better film, oh yes. Damn it I hate them for destroying what was the enigmatic Space Jockey and turning it into just a "suit" for some over-grown humanoids whose steroid intake seems to have gone to their head as they throw around weaker lifeforms rather than engage in dialogue. But enough - I must stop.
This is my fresh, bruised mind dump but I stand by all of it. You may not agree with it but it's just my opinion.13 Responses to Ridley Scott is another George Lucas! (spoilers-inside)
OvomorphMember0 XPJun-03-2012 7:28 PMI saw that you had posted a lot of ideas and hope for the film so I'm genuinely interested in what you and others would change. I would hope that with enough input, maybe if there is a sequel they will take some notice of what people are asking.
OvomorphMember1 XPJun-03-2012 7:36 PMI'd improve the motivation for doing the trip - Betty and Barney Hill came up with the star formation (incidentally, that was also pointing to Zeta Reticuli), but it's just too weak to spend a trillion dollars with no guarantee of any return. I would have had a substantial discovery on Earth - perhaps the Big Head chamber should have been on Earth.
Keep Lance Henriksen as CHARLES BISHOP Weyland. Sure, Guy Pearce is a good actor (and I think he is wasted in this thing) but Lance Henriksen's Weyland (yes, in AvP) is much better IMHO - Peter Weyland just ends up like a pantomime villain.
And just what the hell was the point of the "I am your father moment"??? a.k.a. Vickers and Weyland - I saw it a mile off and was just urging it not to happen, but then it did - absolutely redundant subplot (which went nowhere).
That's just a few things.
OvomorphMember0 XPJun-03-2012 7:38 PM''I saw that you had posted a lot of ideas and hope for the film so I'm genuinely interested in what you and others would change. I would hope that with enough input, maybe if there is a sequel they will take some notice of what people are asking.''
This is what I thought about SW Episode I. And then 2 & 3 proved me wrong.OvomorphMember1 XPJun-03-2012 7:40 PMBut I should qualify all my arguments with the fact that I was anticipating an answer to Alien, and my negativity gravitates around that - but of course, it's a terrible film in it's own right.OvomorphMember1 XPJun-03-2012 8:01 PM@Rubirosa, check my posts, I've been around a while.
It wasn't that I didn't like the saucer shape, my irritation was the lack of consistency - we go from saucers to derelicts. You might say, "Well duh, technology moves on over a period of 30,000 years" but is that an important point to portray when you're trying to convey the same civilisation? The damned Engineers don't seem to have evolved in that time; Either all "Derelicts" or all saucers, just be consistent.
BTW, UFO flying saucer sightings only began with the advent of flying machines (go figure).
"That just goes to show that you do not know the history of the first two movies, so in the process have little respect for it."
I haven't a clue what you're talking about - if you mean there were flying saucers in them, then yes man you've caught me out cause I missed them.
With regard to AvP1, I put in on a par with Alien 3 and Resurrection, and I don't count them as "Alien". But I do not hide the fact that I thought Lance Henriksen as Weyland was excellent casting and an intriguing character.OvomorphMember0 XPJun-03-2012 7:57 PMHeustess you are probably right! i can dream can't I LOLOvomorphMember0 XPJun-03-2012 8:05 PMThere reason should have an explanation somehow, so that a discussion can proceed after that. But to be honest with you everybody on this site is enjoyable to read. It doesn't matter if we agree or not. Disagreements cultivate conversations. That is how we learn
Rubirosa that is a quote from you I had just read before coming back to this thread
Starbeast said why he didn't like it and he even answered my question on how he would make it better. I just think you are being a bit hard on him. 
OvomorphMember0 XPJun-03-2012 8:05 PMStarbeast is a long time contributor and i respect his opinion even if i dont agree with what he say ( well in some parts hes right ) . He motivate his hate and have to be respected for that .
How course i will not put JAr JAr binks and kid's racing in the same pot with Prometheus . You follow Prometheus with attention even if some parts are flawed ....with the phantom menace or the avergers you feel ashamed to be called "adult" and sitting in a theatre watching them .
OvomorphMember0 XPJun-03-2012 8:18 PMUFO sightings didn't begin with the advent of flying machines. 
OvomorphMember0 XPJun-03-2012 10:44 PMGreat review Starbeast, I like that you voiced clearly what you didn't like about the film. 
OvomorphMember0 XPJun-04-2012 3:55 AMI've actually calmed down, but the feeling of having been had (again) by a big budget film is pretty awful.
Its not Phantom Menace bad (god I find my self agree with Frantz!), but it hard to reconcile what RS said in his interviews with what he actually delivered.
I don't see anything original, it is not a groundbreaking new mytholody its just a rehash, containing some weak ideas.
The shame is that less capable directors have copied Alien and done it better than this film. Thats a bit ironic. OvomorphMember0 XPJun-06-2012 6:16 AMWhy oh why did they choose this cliche Earth BS? Ruined the whole thing IMO. Cut the first 15/30 minutes, including the horrid "get you up to speed" in-brief. That cloak killed me too, btw.
Anyway, start with the ship, leave it at that. Cut the "dream" helmet, cut Shaw's dream. Half this film should have been left on the cutting room floor. There's more to Sci-Fi than explaining trinkets.
Writer's were total hacks, and bad on RS for signing up on the project.
Add A Reply
Log in to Post
