Awful Pretty -- Pretty Awful

Rating: 1/10 (13 February 2014)

Hoo boy, what a mess.
The problem is at least partially due to the editing. Important facts and motivations were left on the cutting room floor. Apparently telling a coherent story wasn't as important as getting every penny spent on CGI up on the screen. It's like a prideful CGI artist did the editing.
Another major problem is the script. The characters are 2D, with no character development, no story arcs, no consistency or character integrity. Characters do things for no reason other than to move the plot forward. The script raises 100 questions while answering only 1 or 2 -- apparently a favorite technique of Lindelof (of "Lost" infamy).
The film is supposedly in the "science-fiction" genre, but many scenes can't work without assuming that something "magical" happens. Deus ex machina contrivances are everywhere. Very basic laws of physics and biology are violated time and again. Did 3rd-graders write this? Being generous, one might consider it to be "fantasy", but even that conceit is still a stretch as the movie violates the rules of its own universe.
Action scenes are sometimes so ludicrous that they produce laughter. Some action scenes could have (and should have) been left on the cutting room floor. Some were apparently included for no discernible reason other than some novel CGI was employed. You literally do not care about who lives or dies. There are some jumpy moments, but they are momentary, like somebody jumping in front of you and yelling "boo".
The movie is set in the "Alien" universe, but the monsters are all new: zombies, snakes, squids, shark-topus, etc. Supposedly these are new variants of the classic alien, but they generally aren't very scary or realistic. As a result, the tightly-conceived life-cycle of the xenomorph (displayed in "Alien") is now an unrecognizable mess. I think the Alien franchise was harmed by this "creative" decision.
The musical score is largely forgettable.
Then there's the direction. Scott presumably had creative control. Was he handed a weak script but didn't realize that? Did he spend all his time on CGI and give the direction of actors over to new assistant directors? Did he approve the bad edits? Did he lose control to the corporate suits? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Scott is limited by his staff and is clueless about that fact. So maybe Scott's great films were just a matter of luck, i.e., he had better teams back then but never realized their critical importance.
Prometheus is just so much eye candy wrapped around a cluttered and highly derivative plot. Effectively it's visual porn with no redeeming value (unless you consider "philosophizing" copied from motivational posters -- "Because We Can", "I Choose To Believe", etc. -- to be redemptive.) If your brain shuts down while watching movies, this flick will work for you. Otherwise you'll need a lobotomy or a heavy dose of something to enjoy it.
Rating: 1/10
P.s., I've read reviews here that are largely a list of complaints or acknowledgment that other viewers have legitimate complaints, but still give the film a 7 or 8 or 9 rating. What's up with that? And then there are the reviews that read like they were written by a novice advertising copywriter. (". . . a sweeping epic of ground-breaking proportions"). H-m-m-m . . . curious.