Great movie which is easily one of the better Sci-Fi films ever made

Rating: 10/10 (7 June 2012)

This is a great Sci-Fi movie! In fact, it's a brilliant movie just short of being a masterpiece in the Sci-Fi genre. The cinematography, direction, art direction, sound, and acting are top notch. The script has some flaws but is overall very good.
Any disappointment people get from this movie is most likely due to their own expectations or the simple fact that this beautifully crafted movie is just not for them. I know many people who thinks Bladerunner is just slow and boring as well..
After a first viewing I was not sure what to think really apart from admiring the stunning visuals. However at the second viewing I managed to totally emerge myself in the movie which totally blew me away. This is a movie you have to see more than once!
So is it really worth 10 out of 10? Well, yes, sort of. I would say 8 in comparison with 2001 and Bladerunner, that both would get 10 from me. But I really think the low scores given by some need to be balanced. It's definitely on par with Alien (and probably better taking into account all aspects of film making). Other than those movies, I honestly can't think of any other Sci-Fi movies that are better!
The film could have benefited from being a little longer with better character development and I really hope that there will be an extended version.
I wont retell the story since it's been done so many times already but here are just a few thoughts I had about the plot. Looking at the script I understand the reason for not including a medical doctor on the crew, making the medical pod necessary to bring along and setting up the abortion scene but they must have struggled with what kind of scientist Shaw was. It seems she's mastering many fields of science from archeology to biology and medicine and there's a reason the biologist has to be removed from the main story arc early on, since he would be the natural authority on these matters. Also, a real biologist would never refer to the theory of Evolution via Natural Selection as "Darwinism" – Was this on purpose or just badly written?! A movie taking on both Science and Faith should at least know who would use a term like that, and it sure isn't the Scientist.
There are the normal problems with dubious science, as is normal in Science Fiction movies, but I think some could have been avoided with a real scientist, or even better, a real "hard" Science Fiction writer on the screenplay team (think Arthur C. Clarke or Carl Sagan quality). A small part of the audience will have some problems with the premise of this movie – Life seeded by Engineers seemingly resulting in the same genetic code and mechanisms in humans – how does that fit in with the overwhelming fact of evolution and that all life on earth are unambiguously related on a genetic level? This is never explained and maybe it doesn't need to be (the only biologist on-board is dead by this time). But again, it's Science Fiction and don't forget that we have forgiven Alien and Aliens for worse violations of the Laws of Nature: Sound in space, gravity in non-accelerating or non-rotating spacecraft, Faster-than-Light travel etc.
What many has not picked up on though, is that this premise actually solves one of the big scientific problems from the Alien movies – How come that an Alien organism, seemingly having evolved completely apart from life on earth, is adapted to parasite organisms from Earth (us) and even fuse with the genetic structure? This is an elegant explanation to something that was completely implausible. Well done.
I'm also surprised that so many people seem to miss that what Scott is doing is taking on the question of where humanity's' creation myths are coming from (even though the title kind of gives it away) and that this obviously adds to the layering of the movie. If you consider that deep or not I don't know, but it surely means that it gives viewers a lot to think and discuss about (and Google).