Incomprehensibly convoluted, yet far from a let-down - Good stereoscopy

Rating: 7/10 (11 June 2012)

First off the writing takes a few points away... it seems to have produced a story just about as convoluted and erratic as the series LOST was... courtesy of Lindelof. From having seen him work on the worst series finale in the history of television in all the world (LOST - which surprisingly was in its entirety one of the best series, brought way down by its own finale), I had a slight worry that this might interfere with Scott's work. Turns out that worry wound up being an all out premonition.
Not enough viewer submersion into the vast and complex environment... the important facts are so left aside and very slowly, progressively given to the viewer that by halfway in the movie you're not even sure of the character's names, let alone have developed any empathy for them. This stinks of Lindelof's mixed up convoluted story shenanigans that, as with the finale of LOST, did not end up anywhere. It develops many questions to which there are no answers. On the character's level, it simply makes a gigantic but shaky build up of personalities only to let the viewer completely down as there is no point behind build up. The same mistake as in LOST. Photocopied.
If a sequel is to be produced, fire this clown, Ridley! Anyone could have written something smoother and more comprehensible - not to mention it's such an important aspect for viewers to develop any attachment to the characters - which in this movie there is none.
The next thing that pushes this movie away from ten is the fact that too few details are given to the viewer as the story moves forward. It's as if the answer to something is always given to you five to fifteen minutes late. The story unfolds slower than the content on screen. This gets really confusing and keeps you constantly wondering if you've missed something. This is indeed something I find more characteristic of Alien and not as much an issue like the one I've described with the characters. It's annoying, but it's now a show stopper since by about three quarters through the film, they make sure your storyline compass is reset so you have a clue what's going on.
I'll admit I'm not crazy about the super-demanding scoring habit IMDb reviewers have, where even great movies sometimes only get away with an average in the low 7's, so this might be the first reason I'm giving a 7.
That being said I want to give it a push for its creators being brave and venturing into stereoscopy - something that many even today still think is an "effect", while it is actually a difficult-to-master art of providing the viewer with a realistic illusion of depth. It's just as much a property of the film as the image and its colour would be; it's not an add-on... it's a core part of the content's cinematography. 3D only becomes an "effect" when it's faked like in the Titanic and Star Wars re-makes. When it's shot in 3D, what you get is an illusion of the camera's actual configured field of depth. The same goes for the CG, where the render is simply done using two perspectives. That being said Prometheus delivers. It's not perfect: The lens flares seem to be off between perspectives - a common issue with a lot of 3D content, sometimes the live action doesn't blend in well with the CG... put aside these minor issues - non-prominent - and the 3D adds this element that I both love and dread in any type of horror: when the going gets rough the viewer gets stuck in the same place as the characters, having to live through the horrible things happening on screen, or in this case, halfway in and out of this "window to another world" that is 3D. It really submerges you into the action, horror and despair that much more than a flat-imaged movie. If you've seen this film in 2D, you probably feel a sharp let down, as I can easily recall hundreds of decade-old titles than can provide the exact same viewing experience with a less convoluted story.
This is one of these movies that gets its butt saved by stereoscopy. The fact that you get transported deeper than ever into Scott's crazy universe compensates well for the story and the writing's shortfalls. By the time you're trying to wonder why that last part of the plot had this strange convoluted twist in it, you're taken into another impressive, imposing environment that gets you gazing in awe once more. Gimmick 3D is not what you'll remember the stereoscopy of Prometheus for. You'll remember landscapes, creepy caverns, you'll feel like you've walked a few halls of Scott's spaceship designs and you'll definitely remember encountering his creatures up far closer than you would enjoy in real life. You know the stereoscopy is good when your memories of the film have depth in them. This is no Avatar or Hugo, but then again using Avatar (or Hugo) as the par for 3D is holding your standards WAY too high. This movie truly delivers a good stereoscopic experience with most of it sticking to realistic depths and practical uses of distances, going through lots of high action scenes without making the viewer feel sick.
Badass is the word you can use for this movie. While the story is convoluted and there' a lot of holes (craters, actually, not holes) in the film's progression, the overall experience is satisfying. The 3D brings the viewer intimately closer to the terror. The artwork and visuals are stunning and the basic plot line (putting aside many of the WTF details and stupid character reactions/behaviour) is somewhat simple to follow. This movie was pretty bad-ass. Not an award winner, but a great view. Leave Lindelof out and a sequel will work well.