Prometheus: Or Ridley Scott remakes 2001 Space Odyssey in his own image

Rating: 9/10 (13 February 2013)

Prometheus is less a prequel to Alien - although it is - than it is a remake of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Albeit one that may ultimately deny 2001's Nietzschean origins and philosophy . It is certainly a film in Scott's image rather than that of 2001's original creator. I was going to call to this review, "Prometheus: or 2001 for the ADHD Generation" but thought it might suggest I did not like the movie, although I do. Or even that it was a lesser movie , which it is not. Its just a very different type of movie. But why then this comparison? Not only has Scott himself compared his film to Kubrick's undenied masterpiece, but he has filled Prometheus with references to it: in the script, visually and even in the dialogue (Scot steals dialogue directly from 2001). It is even possible that Scott references Kubrick's movie more times then he does his own "Alien" - and he does that often enough as one would expect from a film set in the same universe. However, Scott's film is a very different beast, both to 2001 and Alien, and people going to see it for its similarities to either maybe very disappointed.
Firstly, while Kubrick takes his usual leisurely approach to his narrative, Scott packs as much into a few minutes as any summer blockbuster. Much more so even than in Alien. Here the "action" is relentless. Special affects abound, as do explosions, "chase scenes" and out and out "gore". Add to this, that much of the movie takes place in a vast alien exterior (or should that be interior?) means not only faster pacing then Kubrick but faster pacing even than Alien. Given this and that in Prometheus we lose the claustrophobia of the Nostrama together with H.G Giger's wonderfully, claustrophobic, Lovecraftian set designs and it would be easy to conclude that in the hands of even a good director we might have a poorer film. But this is not so. Whatever Scott's faults in this movie - and there are certainly some - this is not one of them. And somehow, during all of the explosions, chase scenes and gore, the film manages to throw enough ideas around to have lead to an entire industry of websites dedicated to investigate and argue them.
Also, whereas Kubrick's film seems to be an exploration and endorsement of Nietzsche's philosophy of the Übermensch, Scott's film may very well - especially I would suspect in the next parts of the expected trilogy - turn out to be an out and out rejection of it. The film starts with self sacrifice, in this case the first "Engineer" who, by giving up his own life, generates life on a new planet. And this is a theme that runs throughout the movie. Self sacrifice is central to Prometheus' narrative structure and forward momentum. There are also persistent references to Christianity - the Prometheus lands on the alien moon LV-223 on Christmas day, The "Engineers" seem to have started their final plan (which for those have not seen the film I better not revel) just after the Christian crucifixion (in an interview Scott has stated there maybe a connection) and this film's Ripley wears a Crucifix to which constant reference is made. And similar references abound
Nietzsche of course was famously critical of Christianity and its impact on civilisation - especially in the area of ethics and notions of sacrifice. Although people that insist Prometheus is ultimately a Christian work maybe sadly disappointed. In an interview about the movie Scott called religion "the greatest evil". If this trilogy is in anyway about religion or Christianity then it may turn out to be closely aligned to Gnosticism or the Christianity found in Richard Wagner's Parsifal (interestingly, the films central character, Elizabeth Shaw, has a childhood memory that is to suspiciously like the Buddhas first encounter with death to be more than co-incidence.
But enough of the comparisons, and on to the movie itself.
Overall, the film has a solid cast although I have some reservations about Noomi Rapace's Elizabeth Shaw. Her transformation from "mild mannered" archaeologist (yeah, I know but I didn't write the script) to Prometheus' answer to Ripley is simply to quick and unbelievable. Whether this is the fault of the script or Noomi Rapace will no-doubt become apparent in the next instalment although I suspect the former. However, at this stage her character simply lacks the "toughness" or "presence" of Sigourney Weaver's Ribley to fully carry the expectations of the movie in its final act. Another concern is Guy Pearce's Peter Weyland. Why on earth take a 45 year old actor and cover him in rather obvious prosthetics to make him look like an 86 year old? Is there a shortage of older actors in Hollywood at the moment? And a note to Mr Pearce, when an actor plays an elderly character shuffling while bending over slightly is not convincing anyone.
However, the "star" of this movie is Ridley Scott. Time and again Scott has shown himself to be a master creator of believable worlds. From Blade Runner's dystopian film noir inspired future earth, to Gladiator's Rome to Alien's "space Truckers" and the original Engineers space craft.While at the same time being able to generate ideas that leave academics in film to continue to write books about them. Hollywood has many fine directors in its service but few with the artistic vision and mindfulness to mise-en-scene that Scott has. Given that he has cited Milton's Paradise Lost as a major inspiration for this series I for one cannot wait to see where his imagination takes us next.