Hugely disappointing!

Rating: 4/10 (5 July 2012)

This started out with so much promise. All the publicity suggested it was going to be a much deeper, philosophic cinematic experience. Indeed the first few minutes of the film, with the Icelandic scenery masquerading beautifully as the primordial Earth, and the "engineer's" spaceship arriving, were great.
But almost immediately after, the problems started. The role the engineers had in creating or modifying humanity was depicted in a way that was altogether too stylized. It did not explain in any way how the later societies, who left the star map artifacts, could have known anything about their creator(s) or learned their language. Shouldn't there have been scenes of the engineers actually interacting with these societies?
Moving forward to the 21st century, should there have been a lead up to the expedition to LV-223? It all seemed to happen far too quickly. The star map itself was a problem. If the maps were as old as they claimed, observations in the 21st century would not have identified the pattern, due to the stars moving in relation to each other over long periods of time (galactic rotation). A pattern depicted over 2000 years ago would have changed markedly in that time. Why, if the engineers want us to find them eventually, do they give the ancients a map to a planet they use as a biological weapons development and testing area? (I suppose it could be argued that the role of this place could have changed in 2000 years. Even so, it does seem peculiar.)
Another quibble - which also applies to just about every modern Sci-Fi film is that weightlessness, the impossibility of faster-than-light travel and other relevant physics are all totally ignored. The distance they travel (over 10 light years), and how long it takes them do not match, even if "Prometheus" can travel at close to the speed of light. If Kubrick could get it so right in "2001 - A Space Odyssey" over 40 years ago, how come most sci-fi films since then have got it so wrong?
Other reviewers have expressed their puzzlement at the composition of the crew, and I won't detail again the many examples of the team's peculiar behavior. Surely Weyland would have done extensive selection processes for such an expensive, critical mission, yet this is a bunch of dysfunctional incompetents who make the most stupid mistakes, deliberately take insane risks and don't communicate vital information to each other. The science performed by the crew is more akin to that of the original "Frankenstein". I mean, trying to reanimate a 2000 year old head by putting electricity through it....please. And on the subject of "science" - correct me if I'm wrong, but surely a 100% DNA match between a human and an engineer would mean they would be totally identical organisms? What about the planet's atmosphere? The crew member reading the analysis says that it contains 3% Carbon Dioxide (I'm sure they said DI-oxide not MON-oxide!) and would thus be poisonous, so suits would be required. In fact, people can tolerate 3% Carbon Dioxide for up to a month and even 4% for a week or so, with the only effect being drowsiness. Suits would not be required.
The climax of the film, where the humans and android meet the engineer, is very disappointing if you hoped for anything inspiring. Considering communication was possible (because the android had skills in the engineer's language) and the engineers had obviously wanted their creation to meet them one day, what happens is all too "human" and disappointing.
The end of the film obviously implies a sequel. Hopefully set on the home planet of the engineers, maybe we will learn more about the engineers and their motivation for creating humanity. I'm not holding my breath, though.
I give this 4 for some excellent set design and special effects, plus good performances from Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender. Other than that, hugely disappointing and IMHO could have been better had it not referenced the "Alien" series at all. Trying to maintain congruence with "Alien" canon probably took the plot in a direction which was too difficult to reconcile with the more philosophical who-made-us-and-why theme of the film.