Perpendicular, Not Straight: A Review of Prometheus

Before digging into a review of Prometheus, I want to mention that yes, there will be spoilers. Make that assumption on every review of mine. But I'll be there to warn you beforehand, should you forget. That said, read on!

Prometheus reminded me a lot of LOST. A lot. While this might be Ridley Scott's movie, Damon Lindelof is all over it. Remember my review of LOST? Substitute Prometheus for LOST and you have an incredibly accurate review. The same problems exist in both, and the same themes are visited, too. How did we get here? Why are we here? Science or faith? I think humankind has been asking these questions since we could ask questions. For some, there is no answer. For others, the "how" and "why" don't matter. It comes down to the individual, and unfortunately for us, the audience, the individuals in Prometheus all suffer from what the medical field calls being fucking idiots.

But what works with the movie? It's not all negative, not by a long shot. Just like LOST, Ridley Scott does some badass things. The ambition is there. Prometheus wants to do big things. It wants to expand on the mythologies of one of the greatest science fiction films of all time (I'm talking about Alien here). I do feel like the ending-ending was kind of shoe-horned on there as an acknowledgement of where this all winds up. I could've done without that (especially since it opens up more questions. There was a mural of the Xenomorph in the giant mound/pyramid, so clearly Xenomorphs have existed before that one). But the Space Jockeys are intriguing. Why did they have a ship full of Xenomorph eggs in Alien? Why do they have a whole ship full of ambiguous black goo in Prometheus? Did they create life on earth, or humans? Have they been around the billions of years necessary to start life? What then happens to evolution? You can see how the ambition can work against the movie, too. Especially when that last question is dismissed by the lead anthropologist/archaeologist with, "It's what I choose to believe." Which then leads to the film's problems with faith and science, and how poorly they try to address religion.

But we're supposed to be talking about positives! Every single frame is gorgeous. The production design and cinematography is probably the best we'll see all summer (at least until The Dark Knight Rises). Arthur Max (production designer) and Dariusz Wolski (cinematographer) deserve all the heap and praise they're getting. I regret not realizing the movie was filmed in 3D, so I don't feel like I really got to experience it like I was supposed to. But I've heard they did great work with depth of field.

You saw how easily the good turned bad, right? Happens that quickly in the movie, too. The only real constant is the beauty of the frame. The characters suffer from serving the plot. Bad, illogical decisions pop out of eggs and attach themselves to this movie and impregnate it like a facehugger (sorry, that was pretty heavy-handed). The plot suffers from not knowing what the hell its doing. Is it a sci-fi horror? Is it trying to answer philosophical questions about the nature of humanity and our relationship to the divine, if such a thing exists? Or is it a slasher? I honestly don't know, because it tries to be all of the above without committing. The writing is the problem. Whether that's on Damon Lindelof for re-writing Jon Spaihts' Alien-prequel script or Ridley Scott for OKing Lindelof's script, I leave that up to you. But bad decisions were made.

First, let's talk about a crew of 17ish. I think that was the number. Do you know how many names I remembered when I left the theater? Two. Shaw and David. Everyone else had nicknames. Like biologist, geologist, captain, pilots, and on and on. Most of these characters were fodder. Which is a gorram disappointment. We get to know precisely 0 characters. I'm talking knowing them the way we do Ripley after Alien. We hang out with this crew, these "experts," but there is nothing to them. Except idiocy. The biologist, who was just part of the first group of people to discover alien life by way of a dead Space Jockey, decides he doesn't want to be there. Has no interest whatsoever in the preserved head of the first alien humans have ever seen. He and the geologist leave and get lost. Fine, right? Wrong, dummy! The geologist is the guy who controlled the mapping drones. Not only that, but the captain is sitting in the ship, looking at a map showing precisely where everyone is. None of the involved parties thought to contact the other? And getting back to the biologist, what person, let alone one that studies life, animals, etc., would treat a clearly aggressive (mutated) worm-penis with a vagina mouth like a cat? That thing was acting like a cobra. Homeboy wants to pet it? Give me a frakking break. Not only did I not care when both guys died, I wanted them to. They were bad characters. I didn't know them. I wasn't concerned that they were lost. They were fodder and nothing more. Repeat ad nauseum, because that's every character in this movie. Poorly developed, if at all, and fodder. Or they just disappear (like the group who took off in the truck thing when zombie geologist showed up). It's just...it was such bad writing. Every character was written poorly. Even David was muddied and poorly developed in the movie. Did he hate his creators? Did he want to kill humanity as implied? If so, why help Shaw at the end? No motivation makes sense, or is ever stated. I know that Holloway wanted to talk to the Space Jockeys, and so drinks himself to death when it turns out SOME of them are dead (over-reaction, much?), disregarding the fact that they just officially discovered alien life and civilization, and have only been exploring this moon for a few hours. You'd think as an archaeologist or anthropologist or whatever he was, he'd be a little more excited. Instead, he's just an asshole to David, for no reason other than we need to get to their exchange of "Because we could." 

What was the black goo and how does it relate to the opening scene? Is it a weapon? Is it life juice? I don't know, and the movie doesn't either. Maybe the director's cut will. But what we saw in theaters didn't know what it was. If that opening scene hadn't been there, implying it creates life, there'd be no question of its nature as a weapon. That would also lead credence to the captain proclaiming to Shaw (as if it's truth, which we can't confirm) that the moon was a military installation. His idea makes great sense but then why the hell would the Space Jockeys put star maps to the moon where they stored it? Why would they want to kill us? The going theory there is that we killed Space Alien Jesus Christ (beware that guy's super creepy picture, also, his assumption that his theory is 100% correct), who might've been an ambassador from the Space Jockeys. That was the original idea, but it's never outright said in the film. So we're left believing the Space Jockeys created us (again, 3.5 billion years ago to let evolution do its thing, or 35,000+ years ago for only man?), then invited us to this moon with black goo, and then wanted us dead. Lindelof's script doesn't even pretend to care about answering why. Why the star maps, why the anger. Yes, a sequel can certainly answer some of this, but that just makes Prometheus all the weaker for needing a part two to flesh things out. Keep in mind, I don't need a monologue explaining all of this. I don't mind rhetorical questions in movies (The Dark Knight makes us ponder what makes a hero a hero, is hiding the truth sometimes the right thing to do?), but that wasn't what Prometheus did. It raised question after question based on poor consistency in the writing. And then ignored answering any of them. That's bothersome.

Also bothersome is spiral-ham-fisted twists, like Weyland actually being on the ship and Charlize Theron is his daughter. This is another way to drive home the whole "children want to kill their parents" thing that David brings up. Or it's another way to bring up the fact that everyone is an asshole to the android, David. I don't know, I don't really see the point of Weyland hiding or being there at all. He wants to be immortal? In that body? If I looked like him, I'd be looking for the fastest way out the door. And I'd probably treat my walking, talking, comprehending creation with some level of respect. But that's just me and I have no plot to serve by being douchey. 

Overall? The writing really brings this down. Inherent in the writing is the lack of logic that leads to the title of this blog (save your life by running 15 feet to the right or left). Damon Lindelof and Ridley Scott shouldn't have to be going into interviews and explaining the movie, or that the sequel will explain it all. That ruins Prometheus's singularity. Characters, instead of being the realistic crew of the Nostromo or the rowdy marines of the Sulaco, are plot pieces. They spout wanna-be philosophy or nothing at all, and die. Or get pregnant (You know I can't get pregnant!) and have an awesome, impromptu c-section. But then forget about the tentacle beast (not to mention that the people who were trying to quarantine Shaw totally don't care she just ran off, and then allow her into the room with the super old, frail, and susceptible to illness Weyland? No logic), and go about running and playing like a serious surgery wasn't just preformed. It's just, this movie took itself seriously. It wasn't a Michael Bay movie, it wasn't a Twilight sequel. Prometheus clearly cares about itself. Just not enough.

To sum it all up though, I leave you with Red Letter Media's take on it. Keep in mind, I don't care about all of the questions being asked. I don't think we need all of them answered but...we don't get ANY of them answered. As a pseudo-writer, my writing has left people with questions. Questions are what I wanted out of that particular piece, but not a lot of what I got. It was because I was being too subtle. I knew what was going on, so what I took as subtlety was really vague. That's the benefit of the doubt I'll give Damon Lindelof and Ridley Scott here.

Not-So Random Thoughts: A Sequel's Sequel

I was surfing the information super-highway the other day when I found myself reading a post on Reddit, as I am wont to do. Folks were discussing the rare instance of the third film of a trilogy being the best. I, being a man of refined taste (or being a picky bitch), disagreed with A LOT of the choices. What were these great big disagreements about? Return of the Jedi. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Return of the King. One silly chap even said Jurassic Park III. Now of course, we all know these were based on opinions and film taste, much like taste in music and books, is incredibly personal and subjective. They all just happen to be wrong. Here's why:

Yes, there will be spoilers for all of the movies discussed. If you are reading my blog without having seen any of those movies, I don't really know why you're reading my blog.

We'll start with a topic I'm far too familiar with, and one that you all have read way too much about from me. So I'm going to breeze through why Return of the Jedi is far from the best of the Original Trilogy. It starts with the second Death Star, a rehash of big baddie from Star Wars. That's unoriginality at it's finest, combined with a trap so many sequels are victim to: do the first movie, but bigger. This was taken literally, as the second Death Star is supposed to be bigger than the first. Moving past that, we have the fighting teddy bears and their rocks and arrows beating an armored military. Follow that up with the reduction of characters like Han Solo to one-note copies (Ghostbusters II is the best (worst?) example of this, with Peter Venkman, who becomes a walking one-liner). Truth is, Return of the Jedi does have some of the most powerful scenes of the series (you'll see this again): Luke unleashing all of his anger on Vader, Vader finally turning on the Emperor, Luke burning Vader. The best moments follow the main arc of the trilogy, Luke's journey.

So which of the Original Trilogy is the best? Look no further than this post of mine from a year and a half ago.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, moreso than any other film I'm going to talk about, has endeared itself to so many of my friends. I think it has a lot to do with it being, for my age group, our first Indy movie. It's fun. It's funny. It's adventurous. I get it. I just disagree with it being the best. We'll start at the beginning, most literally. The movie starts with an explanation of how Indy became the Indy we grew to love after two movies. When I say explanation, what I really mean is that as it turns out, Indy got his scar, his outfit, his whip, and his fear of snakes all in one afternoon. Not through years of adventures, misadventures and fedora shopping. Nope, it all happened at once. And he stole his outfit from a graverobber (ironic? No, idiotic). You don't explain every awesome detail of a character. That's a bad idea. I don't want to know exactly how Jack Sparrow got the Black Pearl, or the compass, or his hat and jacket. Nor do I want to know where Han Solo bought that kickin' vest, or anything at all about Wolverine's childhood (those stories are bad). It's a bad way to open. But it makes sense to start with Indy as a kid thematically, since Indy is a man-child throughout the movie. And much like Return of the Jedi (and Ghostbusters II) suffers from "do the first movie, but bigger," The Last Crusade goes back to Nazis and Judeo-Christianity. Except they subvert the idea of Indy as this rugged hero by making him a child in front of his pops. I don't know, I just don't enjoy the complete turn-around of his character for this last movie. I feel much the same way about this as I do about Han Solo's character in Return of the Jedi. What The Last Crusade did right, though, was make Indy proactive. Raiders of the Lost Ark ended with Indy doing nothing. The Last Crusade's third act was all Indy saving his dad. Indy doing, instead of watching. 

So which of the Indiana Jones saga is the best? Before there was nuking the fridge, there was "closing your eyes while the mystical power of God burned holes into Nazis and melted faces." Raiders of the Lost Ark takes it. Great set pieces, stunts, villain, damsel, and on and on. It's as close to a perfect action-adventure movie as I've seen. All of the fun of The Last Crusade, minus the cheese. 

Return of the King. Oscar-winning end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. A mostly badass film. What this film does, which I find a hard time forgiving, is undermine a lot of what the prior two films set up: the time is now for men to take a stand and step into their role as protectors of Middle Earth. Gandalf and Elrond chat about it, and I'm thinking Gandalf and Aragorn, too. The Two Towers shows the capabilities of men, their heart and valor, and skill when led correctly. We see Aragorn step-up and show King Theoden how you handle the Uruk hai of Saruman. We see faith in allies rewarded, when Gandalf shows up at dawn of the fifth day with the Riders of Rohan. So come Return of the King, Gondor is in dire need of the Rohan to come mess up the army that is wrecking them. The beacon is lit, dramatic music plays, Rohan will ride. Awesome. Man coming to aid fellow man. Except that a day before riding to battle, Aragorn, the true king of Gondor, rides off to go get a ghost army that we just found out existed. Rohan rides without them, and does some damage, but the numbers are to much. Just then, Aragorn shows up with the ghost army and wins the battle. Let's go over that last bit again: Aragorn's ghost army wins the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Ghosts of men, not actual, living men, nor the alliance of Gondor and Rohan, but ghost men. I get the idea: Aragorn is the true king, he can unite and lead any man or group of men. But what this actually does is make the men who live in Gondor and Rohan, the men who will be fighting for Aragorn once he releases the ghosts from their oath, it makes them look weak. It makes them look incapable. It's bad storytelling. Especially the way it was told in the movies. I won't pretend to know how it was in the books, as I'm yet to complete the series, but all of a sudden, we hear about this ghost army. No real set up, no foreshadowing, just Elrond telling Aragorn to go get them. This is one aspect that should've been changed. Make it men's victory, not ghosts'. That said, much like Return of the Jedi, this has some of the best scenes of the series: Gandalf talking to Pip about dying, Aragorn kneeling before the hobbits, Sam being Sam. But the ghost army hurts the movie too much for me. Especially since, as Gimli suggests, maybe they should've hung onto them. Why not take them to Mordor to finish the job? Leaders need forethought, Aragorn.

So which of the Lord of the Rings movies is the best? The open, The Fellowship of the Ring. Our introduction to these characters, and the only time we lose characters we've come to enjoy being around. Between the time we spend in the Shire, Gandalf the Grey being the greatest wizard ever, Boromir destroying Uruk hai by the dozen, and the over-the-top cheese of the Council of Elrond, the first entry in the trilogy nails it. It's not as scattered as the next two films, due in large part to the characters later being scattered, but it's here that the tension that lasts the remainder of the trilogy builds. It's here that we see the stakes. Thus, I say Fellowship takes it.

We won't even get into why Jurassic Park III is the wrong answer to this question. There is no way of looking at that movie that won't make me sad and angry.

Satisfying third acts are hard to pull off in a movie, let alone a series of movies. It's commendable to get good, conclusive third films. I enjoy all of the above movies immensely. They all work excellently as the third and final stop for these characters (what's the Prequel Trilogy? Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Never heard of it. The Hobbit? Mostly different characters...Mostly). They just aren't the best of the bunch (here's hoping Chris Nolan can come up with a great third act to his series). 

Yep, so that's that. Think I'm wrong? I know some of you absolutely disagree about The Last Crusade, so let's make a discussion out of this! Leave a comment and I'll make the attempt to see things from your (deranged) point of view! 

Next post WILL have something about Prometheus, and the new Batman trailer, Spider-Man trailer, new Batman footage, and an update on how much ass The Avengers is still kicking a month into its release! Until then, reading amigos.