A Good Performance of a Familiar Piece

Rating: 7/10 (10 June 2012)

Ridley Scott's film promotion for "Prometheus" would have you believe that the film is a not-quite-prequel to his 1979 "Alien". Forget it- it is a straight prequel, with snazzier (but look how the effects of the '79 flick stand up!) special effects.
The new film simultaneously impresses and disappoints (at least this viewer). A Ridley Scott film always has the production design and photography share top billing with the actors and screenwriter. A director in the American mode- he directs and produces, but never writes- Scott is as much aware that he is creating product as any semblance of art. Yet, his actors love him, and reward him with often wonderful performances. Susan Sarandon, Sigourney Weaver, Russell Crowe, and now Michael Fassbender. It is the actors' performances, even if they are acting fearful, that bring the audience in as much as the visuals do.
Pet peeve: with all the actors sporting exotic accents, why is Idris Elba's lovely English one subsumed by an American accent? Answer: Scott always has his fingers on the pulse of his perceived market, or sub- market in this case, complete with the cliché of boffing uber-blonde Charlisse Theron's character.
There are many plot elements from the original "Alien" in this film. There are also plot elements from "Alien Vs. Predator", a film that the Scott publicity machine would have you believe cheapens the franchise. 20th Century Fox owns that franchise, of course, and as much as Scott is the original architect of the restaurant, food has been served in other designs as well, and Fox wants patrons to visit all venues. So, just as in "AVP", we have a Weyland escorting a mismatched group of experts and adventurers on a quest for immortality- historic or otherwise. I'm not complaining- I happen to think that AVP actually exceeds expectations, especially with the luminous Sanaa Lathan.
Like almost all films today, "Prometheus" is edited to within a hairbreadth of incoherence. Since I have no intention of seeing the film a second time in theatres, I will say that at some points it is incoherent. I will have to wait for the inevitable "director's cut" and subtitles to see if I can make sense out of what at first glance seems unintelligible. Perhaps you, my reader, will have better luck!
I went to see a "3-D" presentation of "Prometheus". I have tried to avoid 3-D like the plague since "The Last Airbender" (which I saw on a date- it was her fault!)- most films are 'converted' into 3-D after principle photography is completed with standard cameras. It isn't quite stereoscopic; the images are manipulated to bring 2-D aspects to the forefront, and other aspects manipulated to the background, giving only the illusion of stereoscopy. In "Prometheus" case, Scott and his DP employed "stereoscopic" cameras for every aspect of the shoot, and the results are there to behold on the screen. I can't tell you whether the same system was used on "Avatar", but this is the way 3-D should be employed.
There is nothing original in this film, with even major plot points to be found in several "Star Trek" episodes, with nods to Erich von Danniken and that uber-marketer Steven Spielberg. With most SF, though, visual or otherwise, like classical music, it is the performances of the players that are to be appreciated, not just the audience's familiarity with the piece. "Prometheus" is a good performance of a familiar piece.