Deeply flawed--but a must see all the same

Rating: 7/10 (8 June 2012)

** A FEW MILD SPOILERS **
First the bad news: this comes nowhere near the simplistic brilliance of the original Alien. Not even close. It is overloaded with characters that don't even get a cursory nod in terms of narrative, and just muddle the tension of who will live and who will die. It's more like: "who's that guy??" The script is almost a complete failure: clunky dialog, completely contrary or unbelievable motivations at every turn simply to satisfy the trajectory of a plot that is forced at best. There were moments where I just found myself upset with how "pushed" the narrative became. The thing that made the first two Alien movies so effective was the clearly drawn characters struggling to comprehend and keep up with the unfolding horror around them. Here, motivations change at random to suit a "how cool would this be" kind of mentality. And there's a bit of the kitchen sink thing happening too, where lots and lots of business is going on, but not much seems to be happening. Oh, and there's this odd choice of casting an actor in his forties to play a man in his 90s and making him wear not very believable old-age make-up the whole movie. If there was a scene of him as a younger man, it must be on the editing room floor. They seriously should have considered, with the budget, to re-shoot those few scenes with an age appropriate actor. The sight of it jars you from the film!
And yet, I still recommend seeing the film anyway, despite it's flaws. And seeing it in 3D. Why?
As pumped as I was, and as disappointed as I am with the outcome, I still found myself tense and fairly entertained. I'll certainly own this movie on Blu Ray when it comes out, and may even go to the theater to see it again. A strange contradiction, I agree, and I'm not quite sure why I feel this way. Maybe it's because:
1) Michael Fassbender simply can do no wrong. His portrayal of the android David is a movie unto itself. 2) Noomi Rapace can stand around doing nothing and be more interesting than 95% of the actresses out there. 3) Visually AMAZING. If there's one thing Ridley Scott still knows how to do, it's point the camera in the right direction, and fill it with amazing things to look at. The real locales, rendered in 3D are jaw-dropping. Worth the price of admission alone. 4) For every head scratching moment of ridiculous plotting, there is an equally effective, edge-of-your-seat moment of violence or suspense. 5) A good deal of the effects were done physically rather than CGI, which shows and makes a difference. 6) Despite being convoluted, and raising more questions than it answers, there is a lot of food for thought here. Even though I wanted more from it; or to at least be more challenged by it, I still find myself piecing over what transpired.
I still don't think Scott did justice to the memory of seeing the Space Jockey for the first time, with the foreshadowing of it's exploded chest. I think there was a much better back story to be told with better screenwriter(s) at the helm. But you could certainly do worse. Far worse.