Tag Archive: Ridley Scott

Martian-1Andy Weir’s novel The Martian is a text which has had an interesting development to the screen. Initially released in serialised form online, popular demand saw Weir turn the text into a downloadable Kindle text, where it soon picked up publication and became a Sunday Times best-seller. Fast forward only four years and now there’s a movie directed by Ridley Scott and starring Matt Damon. Pretty impressive turn around, stratospheric is you will. The book is a meticulously researched, witty, and satisfying work, and thankfully Sir Ridley has delivered a pretty spot-on adaptation that captures the triumphant nature of the next, as well as its celebratory spirit towards science and space travel.

Due the Ares 3 mission to Mars, a team on the Planet’s surface, led by Commander Lewis (Jessica Chastain), are forced to evacuate due to the arrival of a violent storm. However, during the escape Astronaut/botanist Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is struck by a piece of debris and presumed dead, with the rest of the Ares crew leaving the planet to head back home. Watney, though, survived the storm, and finds himself stranded on Mars with very little resources to keep himself alive. Using all his scientific knowledge to survive, time is of the essence as Watney aims to prolong his life on MArs, while attempting to make contact with NASA back on Earth. Martian-2

Weir’s novel is memorable due to its wit and attention to scientific detail, and while certain procedural steps have been shortened in its translation to the screen, the spirit of what made the book a sure-fire hit remains within Drew Goddard’s screenplay. If anything, the film is much funnier than the book, allowing Damon to exude his natural charisma through a character who refuses to let the situation at hand get him down, a character who gets down to work and cracks wise at a web-cam.

Visually, this is Scott’s most accomplished work in years (despite my feelings towards Prometheus, I can’t deny that it looks great). Working with his regular cinematographer Dariusz Wolski, Scott seamlessly blends sound-stage and real-world vistas to present a believable Martian landscape hat is desolate, vast, and oh so very lonely for poor Mark Watney. The 3-D cinematography is also grand, emphasising both Watney’s solitude and the hubbub of Houston and the numerous space networks we spend time with back on planet Earth, whilst also showcasing the nigh on perfect visual effects.

Scott is not a director who usually seems all that concerned with focusing on what an actor is doing, he is very much an auteur who populates his film with very naturally talented performers and allows them to work on their character and their craft, and The Martian is another example of that. With Damon leading and a supporting cast which includes the likes of Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Kristen Wiig and Chiwetal Ejiofor (not to THE MARTIANmention Sean Bean as the most unlikely of NASA Mission Directors), Scott has populated his film with strong actors who are more than capable of holding the film together, allowing the scenes back on Earth to buzz as strong as
Damon’s on Mars. The only sour note in the cast comes from Donald Glover as NASA Astronomer Rich Purnell. While he conveys an appropriate amount of nervous energy, his performance is basically him doing his impression of Abed in the Community Season 4 body swap episode. It’s a little too distracting and slightly derails a crucial plot development.

The success of the book relies greatly on the humour that Weir attributes to the character of Watney, who keeps his spirits high on Mars, despite only having 70’s TV shows and Disco music to keep him entertained. The film needed a performer so unquestionable likeable to match the character in Weir’s pages, and Matt Damon is a perfect fit for the role of Watney. The humour feels very natural, while both moments of frustration and perseverance feel a very natural extension of his character. Much of why The Martian is such a successful adaptation is down to Damon embodying Watney in perfect fashion, being a very friendly and warm presence amongst the jeopardy of being left on a planet by one’s lonesome.

This film has unsurprisingly drawn many comparison between the two biggest space movies of the past 5 years, Martian-4namely Gravity and Interstellar, but it is a very different piece. For one, it does not take itself as seriously as those two pictures do, as it very often plays for big laughs as well as nerve-shredding thrills. It is this lightness of touch that both elevates The Martian but also perhaps lets it down a tad. It is incredibly entertaining and will probably prove to be the most re-watchable out of it, Gravity and Interstellar, but I doubt it will hold as much worthiness for discussion as those two films call for. But, then again, I don’t think that’s what both Weir or Scott is aiming for. What they aim to achieve is a film which throws back to the celebratory and triumphant vibes of The Right Stuff and Apollo 13. At it’s core, it is an old-fashioned yarn that just so happens to be set predominantly on Mars. Enjoy the ride.

4/5- A surprising lightness of touch and visual splendour courtesy of  Scott and an impeccable turn from Damon marks The Martian as a successful adaptation that is both thrilling and funny in equal measure.


Greetings all! It is time for a catch up of the films I have seen since the start of the New Year. In order to make it more reader friendly (and tidier on my old blog) I thought I’d split them in to two, starting with this collection of three small reviews. The three films in question; Exodus: Gods and Kings, Into the Woods, and Big Eyes. All three of these features were not particularly ones I was itching to see (most of those are in part 2), but none the less, they made it on to my radar and proved to be interesting, if not entirely successful, cinematic endeavours. 


Exodus: Gods and Kings (Dir: Ridley Scott)

Much has been discussed about Exodus, particularly in the build-up to its release. Much of this discourse regarded the white-washing of the cast in a film which concerns Ancient Egypt, an issue which was somewhat exacerbated by Sir Ridley’s rather ignorant and flippant response. The film itself was very quickly dismissed, failing to make a great impression at the box-office (currently it has made slightly under $250 million on a budget of $140). This is somewhat of a shame, as the film, while certainly problematic, is an ambitious epic, with a scope and confidence that only a Ridley Scott motion picture can muster and project. Scott’s re-telling of the story of Moses is rather bold in the tone it strikes. Despite the 12A certificate, Scott ensures that the violent and sinister moments of the Biblical tale are all there to witness in their entire wrath of God glory. What is also an intriguing aspect of this re-telling is the interest taken in rationalising the acts of God, providing some logic to the origins of the plagues, Moses’ visions, and even the parting of the Red Sea. It follows in a similar fashion to Aronofsky’s Noah, if in a more traditional fashion, and arguably more successfully. The film succeeds as a visual spectacle, with utterly stunning production design by Scott’s regular collaborator Arthur Max, and exceptional visual effects, aided by a refreshingly smart application of 3-D, which truly aids the scope and detail of the Ancient world on display. It is never dull to look at, but what proves detrimental to the technical brilliance on display is, indeed, the actors chosen and the performances delivered. Christian Bale is terribly mis-cast, and seemingly lacking in any direction, as he shouts and barks his way through with a fluctuating London accent that leaves his Moses rather colour-less and lacking in charisma. Joel Edgerton fairs better as Ramesses II, but is not given a great deal of screen-time in what is predominantly Bale’s tale. Much of the supporting cast range from either offering very little or to be being down-right ridiculous, namely a criminally under-used Sigourney Weaver and an out-of-place Aaron Paul. This film is a pure visual treat, with the acting either getting lost in the vast landscapes or doing too much to be heard within them. A pleasure on an aesthetic level, just lacking in a truly compelling drama, with characters that were drawn out far better in The Prince of Egypt. 3/5 


Into the Woods (Dir: Rob Marshall)

Stephen Sondheim’s musical Into the Woods is not a property that I am that familiar with; I am more aware of the concept than I am the musical numbers. Taking well known fairy-tales and extending them beyond their happy endings, Into the Woods promises a farcical take on the fairy-tale genre and its generic happy endings. For the most part, that is very much the case, as we join the Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) on a quest to break a Witches’ curse (said Witch played by Meryl Streep). As they head into the woods (so that’s why it’s called that), they run in to a number of fairy-tale characters on their own adventures, including Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) and Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford). The first half of the film is a more traditional fairy-tale musical with a farcical bent to the lyrics and the way in which certain characters are portrayed and performed. It feels energetic and driven, moving between characters smoothly, with most of the songs achieving great levels of satire. The highlight would have to be the ballad between the two handsome Princes (Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen), entitled ‘Agony’. The two actors strike a perfect chord in terms of tonality and deliver utterly hilarious performances. It is a shame that they aren’t in it more (particularly Pine) as nobody else quite manages to strike the right balance between playing it straight and being satirical. The closest to them has to be Emily Blunt as the Baker’s Wife, turning in a giddy and spirited performance. Elsewhere, Streep hams it up all the way to an inexplicable Oscar nomination, Kendrick sings beautifully but struggles to make that great an impression, and Corden seems a little lost in the mix, often playing a bit too seriously. The film suffers in its second half when the tales take a turn for the macabre. It does not follow all too smoothly from what we’ve seen before, and while this is kind of the point, it makes the film feel disjointed, poorly paced, and far too long. The musical numbers become fairly routine, bland and lacking in distinction, while the cast appear to be making it up as they go along in-between each song leading to the ending coming off as a rather bum note. It was rather a relief for the film to end in all honesty, despite a few colourful performances and a spirited opening, it quickly descends into a cheap-looking, somewhat forced adaptation. Still, it is quite refreshing to see Disney once again support a subversive take on the genre which has made its fortune, yet Enchanted remains the more successful endeavour. 3/5 

big-eyes-posterBig Eyes (Dir: Tim Burton)

While not one that has proven to be an Awards contender, Tim Burton’s Big Eyes still had a lot of promise. For one, it reunites Burton with the screenwriters of Ed Wood, my personal favourite of the oddball auteur’s rather mixed back catalogue. This, along with the energetic trailer, promised a more reserved Burton, both dramatically and visually, relying more on bright pastel lighting than the over-use of CG characters and environments. And no Johnny Depp. Extra plus. The story itself is also a curious one, telling the true tale of Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) an artist whose portraits of big-eyed children became popular in America during the 50’s and 60’s. Yet, no one knew it was her who painted them, as her husband and con man, Walter (Christoph Waltz) took all the credit for her work. With a secure home and vast income, Margaret feels trapped, desiring to let her talent be known, but aware that telling the truth would see the collapse of her stable home. This story may not be one that you would think to assign to Burton, as it requires a great attention to character and inner emotion, something which Burton has never been too astute at (he’s always been more interested in exteriors than interiors, arguably). And while he does seem to do his best to convey Margaret’s pain, there is still a niggling sense that his heart is simply not in this tale. Much of the execution is fairly routine and restrained to the point where what he has presented is somewhat un-engaging. Bruno Delbonnel’s high key lighting makes the environment look inviting, and harkens back to the pastel-hued suburbia of Edward Scissorhands, but the script and the pacing itself lacks drive and purpose, meaning that by the end of the ordeal there is not a great surging sense of accomplishment that one should feel. The most successful component of the film is most definitely Amy Adams, who turns in a delicate and sympathetic performance, conveying Margaret’s desires to be both the best mother and artist she can be at torturous odds with each other. Waltz, however, is in a completely different film, often dissipating any drama from a scene by acting like a pantomime villain playing for an audience who isn’t there. It is a rare turn from Waltz, one that is so irritating and uncontrolled that it’s a joy whenever he is off screen. A bizarre and bewildering turn from an actor who is usually such a charismatic presence worthy of holding the screen. Quite a disappointment for a film that seemingly had a great deal for potential, meaning that all we are left with is an interesting story told in an un-inspired fashion, containing a worthwhile Amy Adams performance. 2/5 

Come back later today for Part Two, in which I shall review four Oscar contenders!

Snack Time – Review Round Up!

I have let you all down again. I’ve dropped the ball considerably in regards to my blogging, a combination of seeing a lot of things and busying myself with the ever surmountable University work. Once again, it is not from lack of watching, please never attribute such a thing to me. Here are my mini reviews of some of the films I have caught in this late-Autumn period.

bad_grandpaJackass Presents: Bad Grandpa

The prospect of Bad Grandpa was not one that immediately thrilled me. In my opinion, Jackass died with Ryan Dunne. And I have not missed the films or the TV series, it had run its course. The idea of taking a sketch, Johnny Knoxville in prosthetics as a foul-mannered  OAP, and fleshing it out to a feature run-time was not one I initially warmed to. Frankly I thought it was stupid. But once the first trailer came out, my cynical mind was slightly swayed. The hybridization of traditional narrative and the Jackass aesthetic looked to be an interesting mix of styles, and it looked like the film had many a laugh to spare. I did eventually find myself in a cinema screen taking in the latest offering from the MTV grown Jackass. Much of what is worth seeing of Bad Grandpa has already been shown to you within the trailers, leaving a lack of many great surprises. But when it hits, it strikes the funny bone hard. Nowhere near as funny as it thinks it is, but most definitely good for a far few chuckles. 3/5

counsellorThe Counsellor

Ridely Scott’s foray into the world of Cormac McCarthy is much less successful than the other stops we have made in the fever pit world of the Pulitzer Prize-Winning author. Lacking the wit of No Country For Old Men and the narrative power of The Road; The Counsellor none the less is one of the most bizarre and hypnotic films I have seen all year. But I would by no means recommend it. Following Michael Fassbender as the titular Counsellor, the film dives into a dark world of the US/Mexican border, as Fassbender finds himself on the wrong side of a powerful Mexican Drug Cartel. The performances rage from the dull (Cruz and Pitt), to the absolute down-right bonkers (Bardem and Diaz), but the power of the film comes from the strange atmosphere generated by the script. It never reaches its full potential however due to the haphazard way in which Scott chooses to stage the rather dialogue driven scenes. The film improves when it begins to work on a more visceral, shockingly violent level, but before that the film becomes a drag. However, the power of the screenplay (and it is exquisitely written) makes this film an intriguing oddity, but ultimately one that should have been a great deal better. 3/5  

DonJonDon Jon

Joseph Gordon-Levitt needs to stop being good at things. Seriously. He’s making us all look bad. The young actor, who with his easy going charisma, has charmed us many a time on the screen in the past, tries his hand at the writing and directing game with one of the most confident directorial debuts of recent memory. The story: Jon (JGL) only cares about a few things in his life; his ride, his body, his family, his church, his boys, his girls, and his porn. When he begins to want a relationship outside of the realms of his laptop, he hopes the answer lies in the curvaciously sexy Barbara (Scarlett Johannson). But is she really the person who will give him the connection he craves? A lighter take on the subject of porn addiction, Don  Jon is an incredibly witty, hilarious and super stylish film. It may not do anything more than you’d expect it to, merely hitting beats very effectively, but hey, sometimes that’s all you need a film to do to impress. It is fun, breezy, and driven by a sharp satire on the modern man, while also being incredibly sexy to boot. And it also features Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch on the soundtrack, extra points should always be given for that! 4/5


It is hard to know what to write about Gravity without it sounding like a regurgitation of what most people have said. It has been hailed as one of the greatest cinematic achievements of modern times, and without a doubt it is. Alfonso Cuaron’s space odyssey is beautiful and an innovation in every technological sense. Every movement and stunning long take is planned out meticulously and it is all rendered with gorgeous care and realism. Story-wise, it is less innovative. There is no innovation at all to be honest. It works with thread-bare, cliched details that offer you just enough to stay hooked, and enough for Sandra Bullock and George Clooney to wrangle with. This is a story about survival, and is more about the visceral experiences that come with that, rather then caring about narrative progression. I must say though, I have no desire to see this film again. For the simple reason being, I cannot see me enjoying it anymore than I did watching it in I-MAX 3-D. I think watching the film in any other format will merely diminish my love and respect for it as a film, and will only cause me to criticism its narrative workings more.  A profound film, that proves you do not need to have a 3 hour long running time to be considered epic. Gravity is a must-see experience. Just make sure you see it the right way. 5/5

CatchingFireThe Hunger Games: Catching Fire

I, for one, was not the first Hunger Games’ biggest fan. As well as it did to establish the world, it suffered a great deal from cheap special effects, awkward direction, frustrating use of shaky cam, and rather dull performances. Fans of the book consoled me though in the fact that apparently the second book was much better than the first. That doesn’t always mean the film will be, but with The Hunger Games that is thankfully the case. With a more politically driven plot, Catching Fire does what a sequel should do; improve, improve, improve. Following Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) on their victory tour of the Districts, we begin to see the revolutionary inspiration Katniss’ actions have had in this dystopian world. Wishing to destroy her image, President Snow (a suitably menacing Donald Sutherland), makes the 75th Annual Games a competition between previous victors of each District, throwing both Katniss and Peeta once again into a battle to the death. It is a good half an hour too-long, but it is a film of much more confident style (this time directed by Francis ‘I Am Legend’ Lawrence), which makes it much easier to sit through. The games themselves are much more insane and vividly designed, but it is the build up that impresses most, crafting a genuine sense of dread and tension as we move towards the games. I still have a problem performance wise; J-Law at times looks positively bored with the rather dull Katniss, while Hutcherson is once again lumbered with a one-dimensional role as Peeta. But there is plenty here to make one excited about the upcoming installments, even if it is another case of splitting one book needlessly into more than one film. 4/5


I was tempted to write a full review for this most-recent take on the Stephen King novella, but I really do not have enough things to say, and frankly, it doesn’t deserve it. Telling the story of poor loner Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz), shielded from the world by her overtly-religious mother (Julianne Moore), who develops telekinetic powers, director Kimberley Pierce squanders our hopes of a (for once) decent horror remake. Instead, what we have is an uninspired retread of the Brian DePalma original, lacking any sense of originality, freshness, or reason to be in existence. You can tell you are in for a rather terrible movie at around the ten minute mark, which was when I decided to just kick back and let the train-wreck form. And hell, I’ll say it, I ended up having quite a bit of fun. It is a terrible film, make no doubt about it, but this 21st Century Carrie can join the ranks of films so terrible that you can’t help but laugh at them (the deal clincher has to be when Vampire Weekend crops up on the soundtrack). Despite stylish lashings of gore, the film is simply just a bit pointless, and surprisingly safe update of truly great material. Moretz, though she tries, is mis-cast, Julianne Moore hams it up so much you expect her to be walking around with a ring of Pineapple on her head, while the supporting cast are laughably atrocious (I’m looking at you Portia Doubleday). Uninspired, dull-looking, but rather fun to laugh at; Carrie 2.0 joins the steam-pile of horror remakes that are not worth your time. 2/5

Greetings all! Mr. Andrew Gaudion here, bringing back the blog which has been left unattended for nearly four months! I do sincerely apologize for the lack of reviews, film news, film features and the sort, hopefully you’ve managed to keep up to date in my absence. But, now that my first year at the University of Warwick, exams all completed, I thought, why not kick start the old blog again, now that I have the time to give it the attention it deserves as it approaches its two year anniversary (ah, 2010, so long ago). During this four month hiatus, I have indeed seen a great many films, some of which I am disappointed not to have gotten round to sharing my views on them, bar a Facebook status. These films included the much anticipated Avengers Assemble (review coming soon, to coincide with the Alderney Cinema’s showing of it in August), the sprawling madcap-ness of Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows (expect a review around the DVD release). But, two films I have seen very recently and that are still doing the rounds in the cinemas (both in first and second positions at the UK Box office at the time of writing) are Ridley Scott’s sort-of-but-not-quite-Alien prequel and the second sequel in the Men in Black franchise. Both films have divided critics and audience members alike, but none more so than Prometheus. Many of you, if you follow me on Facebook, will be fully aware of my reaction to these two films, again Prometheus in particular, but the blog was always a perfect chance to elaborate and test my skills as a critic. So here’s my chance to elaborate on two very diverse Sci-Fi movies, one that asks big questions, and one that has Will Smith threatening to, and I quote, ‘pimp-slap the shiznit’ out of Andy Warhol’. Enjoy, and welcome back.

Review: Prometheus- Big things have underwhelming beginnings…  

*SPOILERS ABOUND* Ridley Scott marks his return to a genre he truly did help define in terms of how modern Sci-Fi is conducted (it is hard to find a Sci-Fi movie these days that doesn’t owe something to Alien or Blade Runner). The fact that Prometheus marks Sir Ridley’s return to the genre was exciting enough as a prospect, but it truly is the content of the material that raises expectations. Beginning life as a full-on prequel to Alien, Scott, with a re-write from Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof, saw enough potential in the concept to embark on developing Prometheus into its own Sci-Fi epic, that shared a universe with the Alien franchise, while also exploring questions that have been around since  John Hurt and co. first entered that derelict spaceship and found the huge and mysterious, and dead, Space Jockey. Then the trailers arrived, and we were led to believe that this would be more of an Alien prequel than Scott had initially let on. We were finally going to discover who and what the Space Jockey was. And we do. Just, perhaps not in the way that many of us may have hoped.

Prometheus follows the expedition of a group of scientists, led by Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), who have discovered the exact same star-map at different Archaeological digs across the world, from different cultures separated by thousands of years. With funding from the Weyland Corporation (ring any bells), Shaw and Holloway and a handful of scientists, and an android named David (Michael Fassbender) go on a voyage to the location of the star-map. What they discover is beyond what any of them ever imagined, as they come face to face with man-kind’s creator and the possibility of their own extinction.

Prometheus aims to address what the scope of Scott’s 1979 Alien alluded to with the introduction of the Space Jockey. One of the main aspects that makes Alien such a fascinating film is the way that it can feel so small yet so large; it is essentially a haunted-house movie with a monster chasing some unfortunate souls, yet it seemed to be ingrained within a much larger scope, as suggested by the derelict and the Space Jockey. An exploration into that scope is somewhat of a intriguing premise, and the intention for Prometheus to be a movie with its own mythology is something that I find very commendable, I just wish that they went for either a stand-alone film, or a full-out Alien prequel, as this film very much aims to be both, but fails to engage on both accounts.

*MAJOR SPOILER PARAGRAPHS AHEAD*There have been many theories regarding the nature of the Space Jockey’s over the years, and while what Scott presents us here is undeniably bold and promising, with them being revealed as the ‘Engineers’ of the human race, aspects of both their motives and nature simply perplexed me. What is it that we did that would force them to want to kill us? Why do they have these vials of black goo, which seems to have somewhat of an unpredictable nature? And why does the script allude to them being a higher being, only for them to become simple-minded antagonists, that merely embark on killing everyone? These are just a few areas that the script fails to justify and explore.

The script is simply the biggest problem with this movie. It appears to be incapable of juggling these themes whilst also presenting a certain degree of Sci-Fi nastiness that is expected of this type of genre movie. While Scott certainly still knows how to gross-out an audience, we find it hard to appreciate his craft due to the lack of connection towards much of the characters. I really should stop comparing this movie to Alien, as it was, realistically, never going to match up, but that film had perfect and unique characterization, as we spent the run-time with a crew of only seven people. In Prometheus, there is a crew of 17. There is no way that the film can allow us to care for all the characters involved, most are simply there to be disposed of rather quickly. The characters that we do pay particular attention to, from Charlize Theron’s Vickers and Idris Elba’s Janek, while performed well (bar Rapace’s questionable English accent), are far too threadbare in their characterization to really care about what happens to them. It is ironic, then, that the most interesting character isn’t even human. If you are familiar with Damon Lindelof’s work, namely Lost, you will be well aware that he likes to throw questions into the mix without necessarily having the answers for them. While this may be an intriguing way to keep television audiences interested, it simply does not work as well for a cinematic audience. Certainly, raise questions which thoughtfully invite us to question our origins and faith, but don’t you ever expand questions so much so that they do not make sense. There is no reason as to why these star-maps would lead these scientists to this planet, which simply turns out to be a hanger for the Engineers spaceships. And why on Earth do the scientists only find out why they are in space once they are out of hyper-sleep and the mission is about to begin? I would certainly want to know where I was going and what I was doing before I boarded a spaceship where I’ll spend the next five or so years of my life living on. Glaring plot-holes such as these distract the audience from embracing the large themes at play in the movie, and the course of the events of the movie are likely to anger Alien fans, as for a large part, the movie doesn’t fit into the timeline  and does not lead into the events of Alien, as we were supposedly promised.

Michael Fassbender as the ship’s Android David is easily the best thing about this movie. An incredibly well-drawn out character, and superbly performed, David represents most of the key themes of the film, particularly concerning the questions of humanity. His motives are questionable (despite some rather un-subtle foreboding dialogue) and you are never quite sure whether he is being sincere or simply following orders. He provides much of the films intrigue and the best connection with the Alien franchise, that being its exploration of android characters. And Fassbender shows incredible range, particularly during an early sequence as he occupies the spaceship alone as the human crew members rest in hyper-sleep. He more than shows why he is one of the most in demand and watchable actors in Hollywood today.

While the script may be flawed, there is no denying the awe-factor of the world of the film; the production design is flawless. Once again taking a leaf out of H.R. Giger’s sexually mechanized Necronomicon book; Scott has orchestrated sets of jaw-dropping beauty and surrealism. From the ships of the Engineer’s to the Prometheus ship itself, you truly believe that this world exists (until, someone, once again, drops a horribly cliched line). The world of the Engineer’s ship and caves is fascinating, which is why it is particularly frustrating when the script takes us away from its exploration after merely spending five minutes inside of it.

Prometheus presents a beautiful and awe-inspiring world set within the framework of a poorly written script. It does not know what is good for it. The audience wants to explore these new worlds for as long as possible, you would have thought the scientists would too, considering, you know, that they are scientists. Instead they merely pop in for about ten minutes and decide that they have had enough of answering the biggest questions of the universe for today. It asks big questions, yet ends up resorting to a big slimey monster; it wants to be its own film, yet caters to fan-boy needs in a hack-job fashion. It is by no means a terrible film, the world is too beautifully realized and Fassbender too awesome for it to have no merits (the 3-D as well actually immerses you for a change). There is the sense that a sequel could answer some of the films glaring questions, and may in fact lead into Alien (although Lindelof has stated they would move further away from the Alien-verse), but some plot holes just can’t be filled. Audiences and critics alike have been split, and it is a highly recommendable cinema experience if only for the debating factor. But, if you truly love it’s heritage and believed in the hype, you will leave the cinema feeling wholly empty, with a void that only a certain Xenomorphic embryo from 1979 can fill.

2/5- While certainly awe-inspiring and creatively alive with ideas, the script is just too darn awful to truly engage. Certainly not terrible, but disappointing none the less as we were promised so much more.

Tomorrow (or maybe this evening) come on back to check out my review for Men In Black 3.