Beautiful visuals almost wasted on uninspiring writing and poor characterization

Rating: 5/10 (14 June 2012)

If you are visually orientated and /or a fan of Ridley Scott, or Micheal Fassbender go see it now. Go. If however you like a bit more kick from your drug of choice, you might end up leaving the cinema with no more than a slight buzz..
Personally, I found the writing and structuring to be pretty bad. It feels like a rushed lukewarm patchwork of a plot, held together by largely disinterested actors. And I don't blame them. Micheal Fassbender does indeed stand out, and I am a big fan of his. His portrayal of the tragic Bobby Sands was both moving and visceral, and I always get a strong sense of professionalism from him; a kind of controlled efficiency that may or may not have helped land him the part of David.
Idris Elba, another excellent actor, capable of deep intensity, who has had two seasons of the British detective TV show Luther under his belt, completely wasted and unchallenged by his cookie cutter role as captain Janek, bewilderingly sporting a fake American drawl that took with it, the last chance for his character having any kind of possibility for the expression of depth, facilitated by his tough East London accent.
I thought Noomi Rapace was very good and stood out, but nothing like her form in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo trilogy. When she is more comfortable with English speaking roles, I think her confidence and self expression will make her shine once more.
The characterization as mentioned above, sometimes slapped logic, feasibility and believability right in the nut-sack almost from the get go. I just felt very little for them and it barley changed for me all the way through the movie. So why am I so hard on this? It is just a movie right? It's because I don't like snake oil salesmen; they are far too numerous in my opinion and I certainly don't approve of one of my favorite directors working in their employ. Prometheus has been touted to be something it very much is not, what with the hyped deep philosophical nature of its subject matter, mass marketing, like Guy Pierce doing the Ted Talk, and clever trailer manipulation, (* but all movies do "the pitch"*) yet it fails to even come close to living up to said hype.
Instead, what we get is stilted dialogue dressed in all these metaphorical/pseudo intellectual fortune cookie snippets of wisdom and weak introspection tacked onto weird episodic structuring that sometimes, folds back on itself rather unnecessarily lending a feeling of repetition that keeps reemerging during the movie,(remind you of "Lost" anyone?).
And then there is the science...
In conclusion, If you are a fan of hard sci-fi from the likes of Ian. M. Banks or Isaac Asimov, Sagan or Clark you may be more critical and less forgiving than most. My rant about the writing is fuelled by my love of this hard sci-fi that unfortunately, I thought this was going to be. So it's probably my fault. I was after all, a willing participant in the con.
I give this 5/10 I hate giving any movie attached to Ridley Scott such a low score.