A team of scientists have embarked on a perilous journey to investigate the origins of a poor script.

Rating: 5/10 (27 June 2012)

Prometheus Review (Warning: Contains Spoilers)
I'm going to start by saying I both enjoyed and didn't enjoy this film. I enjoyed it for its grand, sweeping vistas and its unmatched visual aesthetic, but equally, I did not enjoy the story, the plot or the scripting of what I believe could have and should have been a much better film. The generation of film makers I grew up loving throughout the 70s and 80s, seem, in my opinion to have largely missed the mark in recent times and appear not to have engaged with or listened to the huge fan-base to which they owe their fame. In saying that I am not presuming their fans know better, just that they know what they want. Whether it's George Lucas, Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg or Ridley Scott, I feel that they have missed the mark in recent time, aiming to please both the ratings board and the whims of the easy-to-please broader cinema-goers.
Plot: I have never seen a more ridiculous idea executed so poorly as the plot of Prometheus. Pseudo-science aside, the plot is so obviously flawed both in its ideas and its execution that there is no getting around it, nor is there any excuse for it. It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's just pointless. It appears that Ridley has sacrificed great story telling and a simple, but engaging premise, for grandiose spectacle and that, in my view will never satisfy fans of science fiction. The film is neither intelligent nor original, borrowing heavily from texts which are both flawed and irrelevant. In this I feel Ridley has made the shift from hard science to science fantasy. The story at its core reminds me of the very disastrous and unwatchable Battledfield Earth. That's not that the stories are similar, but the ideas which drive them are quite ridiculous.
Acting: Michael Fesbender is the one redeeming character in the whole movie and he isn't even human. Yet even here some of the things he does and decisions he makes are completely at odds with his journey as a character in the end. Here, as elsewhere in the film, Ridley has not only missed the mark, but even more incredibly, has missed an opportunity to explore the relationship between the created and the creator. Chalize Theron gives another good performance, but her character is restricted in ways I cannot understand. More should have been made of her history with her "father" and his relationship with Meredith. It's inexplicable that she would lead a mission half way across the galaxy which is apparently not only at odds with her unstated philosophy, but diametrically opposed to her father's beliefs. Here again Ridley has missed a golden opportunity to explore the nature of the relationship and though there is a suggestion that Meredith is possibly herself a creation, the story merely brushes over it as irrelevant. It would have been far more interesting if there was this reason why she is so at odds with Weyland and her "brother" David. It is simply implausible, without so much as a suggestion as to why she would make such a journey.
There is so much missing in the story that you cannot forgive Ridley for choosing to ignore or leave it out, even if he covers the background to these characters in more detail (assuming he finds a way to revive Meredith's character) in a sequel/prequel.
Noomi Rapace give a credible, but not brilliant performance as Elizabeth Shaw (I can't understand why people are saying that her performance is anything other than competent). There are moments when her character is believable, but she does not, in my mind, carry the same weight as Sigourney Weaver in her tremendous portrayal of the out-of-sorts Ripley and her character does not develop beyond the sometimes appallingly sulky person she appears to be at times on screen. She should have become a lot stronger than her screen presence suggests in the end, given that she is now alone and heading into uncharted space in search of "answers".
Visuals: The one enduring and redeeming feature of this film is the incredible beauty of the stunning visuals, which in my view are unmatched in any science fiction film to date. Without the aesthetics of the cinematic experience, this film would have been as dull as any C grade effort.
Script: There is no excuse for clunky, uninspired dialog between characters, most of whom are scientists that one would expect should have a higher intellect than most. It is bizarre, to say the least, that one of them would have a bong embedded in his space suit. The only reason for it even being there is for comical effect and that wouldn't be so bad if it was actually funny. I did not laugh at this, but was left thinking why? What's the point? It only serves to detract from what otherwise should have been a clinical experience in space. This film is largely a paradox for me. It reminds me of the worst aspects of Mission to Mars and yet some of the visual aesthetics are reminiscent of the best elements of 2001, a film which, despite being almost completely devoid of action, still stands out as the best, most accurate depiction of man's endeavours in space to date.
I enjoyed moments of this film and I will certainly catch up with any extended version to see if the film can be partially rescued with more story, but in the end I was left bewildered, frustrated and at times completely confused.