Skip to main content

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus
(2012)

Post-Gladiator, Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.


While I’d level that charge at this, his latest, there’s a sense that at last the filmmaker has engaged with his material in a more than purely dispassionate manner. I don’t mean the garbled gubbins Scott has spouted in interviews about von Daniken. Rather, there’s a viscerality, a vitality, that has been lacking in the commodified Scott Free production line.


Quality-wise, there’s no danger of Prometheus being worthy to touch the hem of his previous forays in sci-fi. But that’s more a reflection of how his approach to filmmaking has changed than (necessarily) the subject he has chosen. Alien and Blade Runner have endured, at least partly, because Scott was willing to linger on the world he created. And that approach ensured the creation of atmosphere and resonance, heart even, something beyond obeisance to mechanically telling a story. Because Scott has become a technically proficient but uninvested director. I don’t think he really understands why his early films are so venerated. Hence his view that Alien wouldn’t be so “slow” if he made it today or his desire to draw a line under the “Deckard as Replicant” debate.


He is ill-suited to making a film with designs on the philosophical or thought-provoking. He’s no intellectual, and the depth he once achieved could almost be seen as a consequence of drenching his characters in glorious art direction. Which sounds like an insult, but it’s meant as a backhanded compliment. It’s slightly saddening to see Michael Fassbender’s David obsessing over Lawrence of Arabia, as the wonder and intelligence imbued in that film highlights that Scott won’t achieve profundity through characters talking about profundity.


Moving past Ridley of yesteryear, the film isn’t so far removed from what I hoped today’s Ridley Scott might be capable of at best; a solid event movie, accorded a return to a genre he’s given a wide berth. And by that I mean horror, more than sci-fi.  The superbly edited trailer turns out not to have been a false tease of the final movie, except that it is consistently more dazzling in its snapshot. And perhaps through the conscious echoing of Alien in its score.


Because of his change in approach, the flaws in the scripts Scott picks are more unforgiving. You aren’t so immersed in the environment that problems don’t stand out.  Aspiration becomes pretension. The lofty comparisons to 2001 by the filmmakers are so much bunkum. This script is no less cynical about its audience than a standard “monster in the dark” movie. The origin of mankind is little more than a MacGuffin to drive the plot. Except that it doesn’t have sufficient confidence in even that, divesting itself of mystery from the first (fortunately, there are other plot threads that elicit intrigue).


Lindelof/Spaihts are particularly at fault with film's opening and closing. The prologue is plain unnecessary. It spoon-feeds the audience a premise that is adequately explained when Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway discuss the mission with the crew. Added to that, it’s not particularly impressive effects-wise (CG that never looks like anything other than CG). I don’t think we really needed the Isle of Skye sequence either. It doesn’t carry with it the impact of discovery that we will later experience on the alien planet.


Better to have begun with David, whose solitary activities are our first introduction to the Prometheus. (Perhaps this was resisted as it would evoke the opening of Alien.) You can tell Scott is engaged by the character. As with Roy Batty, it’s not the main protagonist with whom the audience most empathises.


Fassbender is riveting in the role, and the various comparisons that have been made to Jeeves, Bowie and Lawrence are all appropriate. He combines a slight effeteness with an unsettling stillness and the occasional reaction of delight. His motives are the most thought through of any character in the film, and comprehensible even when they are questionable. The character only stumbles on the occasions where he’s called upon to deliver crass stimulation to the motivation and background of Shaw.


Dr Shaw is a problem for the film, as she’s less interesting both in character and performance than a number of the cast given substantially lesser roles (including Theron, Elba, Marshall-Green). As far as I can tell the only reason to have David monitor the crew’s dreams is to give her backstory-by-committee. On the couple of occasions it is referenced you cringe at how ham-fistedly it’s been inserted. Noomi Rapace was such a formidable presence as Lisbeth Salander that I half-wondered if her failure to impress here was because she spent all her time trying to approximate an English accent. Her motivation is particularly rickety in the later stages of the film where, having endured some particularly emotionally wrenching and physically incapacitating experiences, she opts to head out of the Prometheus on another expedition.


Charlize Theron’s Weyland executive fares much better. There are a couple of scenes, one with Fassbender and the other with Elba, which are more memorable than any of the interactions between Rapace and Marshall-Green. Elba doesn’t have a whole lot to do as the blue-collar captain but he does it agreeably. For some reason he’s a much more commanding screen presence when he plays Americans. I cringed at his “weapons of mass destruction” line, though. I wonder if Ridley couldn’t get Tom Hardy so he cast look-a-like Logan Marshall-Green. He’s fine, though. Rapace is the only casting bum note (Theron apparently had the Shaw role originally, but fell out due to Fury Road; I have a feeling no one could have made her into a great character, but she’d have been a better fit).


The back and forth between locations has been criticised, but I wouldn’t agree that it diffuses tension as has been suggested by some reviewers. However, it does lend to the sense that there needed to be more structural finessing. There are more than enough twists and plot developments to maintain interest, but at times there isn’t enough care in laying them out. At one point I wondered where Theron’s character had disappeared to, as she hadn’t been seen for a significant period. There’s also an extended (quite nerve shredding) set piece involving an automatic medical unit where it dawns on you that the rest of the crew all seem to disappear when the plot requires it. I’m also not sure about the reasoning for picking a flamethrower to kill someone with (not the least painful of methods) when other weaponry is to hand. Because it’s a call back to Alien?


The lack of clear answers from the script has also been taken issue with, as either a cynical ploy to eke out a sequel or a fault of the Lindelof Lost factory-style. It’s not an aspect that bothered me (perhaps as I was reluctant to see a prequel and any demystification of the Space Jockey in the first place), nor was the alien “life cycle” as seen here (my assumption being that the rules for the xenomorphs have not kicked in).


I mentioned horror, and there’s enough body horror (or the implication thereof) to make David Cronenberg envious. This is where Scott is at his strongest, and it’s a more pervasive ingredient than in Alien (where, once released, the threat to the characters is from without).  Rather than the limp Chariots of the Gods quest, what resonance the film has is in themes of infiltration and possession. The body is revealed as pathetically corruptible and, by extension, so is the soul (as Holloway realises). If the characterisation of Shaw weren’t so lazy, this would be even more effective. The themes of womanhood and fertility that are touched upon have more potential than was explored with Ripley, but there’s no substance to Shaw. She should provide a contrast to her “male” opposite, David, but we find ourselves identifying more with him. He cannot be possessed or defiled, sees clearly through the mystical longings of his human masters, and is imbued with nuances that (great characters though they were) both Ash and Bishop lacked.


On the technical side, the film looks gorgeous. This is Scott’s first film with frequent Gore Verbinski and Tim Burton cinematographer Dariusz Wolski, and he brings out the best in the director (they are collaborating again on The Counselor).  The production and costume design is striking and aesthetically appealing, if more self-consciously “designed” than the “lived-in future” look of Alien. For the most part the special effects are well-integrated, but the creature work is underwhelming. The humanoid aliens resemble Mark Strong in a muscle suit, while the more Lovecraftian element has presence but lacks a strong visual signature.


My most consistent issue with the film is Michael Streitenfeld’s score. This chap has composed for all of Scott’s films since A Good Year, and I can’t recall any of them. In this case his work is memorable for being inappropriate and derivative. He fares reasonably well when called upon to deliver suspense or action motifs, but every time his main theme appears it is intrusive in all the wrong ways. Sub-Star Trek and sub-JFK, the orchestration is designed to stir the emotions and evoke awe but instead distracts from the proceedings.


Prometheus attempts to strike out in its own direction in a way that the recent The Thing prequel didn’t (I make no apologies for enjoying that film), but the two are comparable as effective thrillers that can’t live up to their legacies. Taken on its own terms, this is is a flawed but fitfully first-rate movie and consistently more rewarding than the average summer blockbuster.


(SPOILERS) Regarding the climax of the film, the fates of Elba and Theron seemed ill-conceived. The former is righteously motivated, but his gung-ho attitude seemed far too broad. And having his co-pilots cheerfully accompany him to his doom for no good reason at all was a head-shaking moment. Theron’s exit was unnecessary and uninteresting after the effort made to get her to where she ended up. Her survival might have made Prometheus 2 an enticing prospect. I’m not that eager to see a sequel with Rapace (I have doubts that a film this expensive will make enough to warrant one anyway), but the potential conflict between Shaw and David over what he did earlier in the film has some juice to it. Add Theron into the mix and it becomes more compelling. As for the credits reveal of a not-quite xenomorph, it just made me want to see the original and best Giger design. This wasn’t the sacrilege of Alien Resurrection’s hybrid, but the wee fellow wasn’t that impressive either.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

When primal forces of nature tell you to do something, the prudent thing is not to quibble over details.

Field of Dreams (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s a near-Frank Darabont quality to Phil Alden Robinson producing such a beloved feature and then subsequently offering not all that much of note. But Darabont, at least, was in the same ballpark as The Shawshank Redemption with The Green MileSneakers is good fun, The Sum of All Our Fears was a decent-sized success, but nothing since has come close to his sophomore directorial effort in terms of quality. You might put that down to the source material, WP Kinsella’s 1982 novel Shoeless Joe, but the captivating magical-realist balance hit by Field of Dreams is a deceptively difficult one to strike, and the biggest compliment you can play Robinson is that he makes it look easy.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…