Prometheus [Blu-ray]

This movie gets panned a lot by critics and audiences and I can see why. There are plot holes large enough to drive a semi through. The actions by the crew are like: "Are you scientists or total morons?" I mean, there is no way a group of scientists would be this stupid.That said, the horror that evolves is gripping. I have watched this movie several times. The acting, the music, the drama are all really good. If you watch this movie for what it is, and leave your logic behind, it is great. If you want to pick apart every decision made by the crew, then it will be a very frustrating watch.It does, in a way, fit into the greater Aliens universe but seems to offer a bit of an alternative reality to that series. A worthwhile film on its own, I will likely watch it yet again.

Many have described Prometheus as Ridley Scott's attempt to take Alien to the level of Kubrick's Space Odyssey: 2001, and I think that's broadly a good assessment. However, while I found the film enjoyable, it never quite reaches the heights of either of its spiritual predecessors.MINOR SPOILERS BELOWWhen I first heard about the concept of aliens creating men, I was worried. However, it's important not to take the science in the film too seriously. Even Ridley Scott says this isn't a science class. It is kind of silly that these large humanoid aliens called the "Engineers" (or Space Jockeys for fans of the original Alien) created humans. The film even points out the ridiculousness of the concept when the biologist jokes it would throw out "300 years of Darwinism." In watching the movie, it becomes clear pretty quickly that the plot is a device to answer philosophical questions about the nature of God, creation, and death. The atmosphere and story during the first half of the movie is great.The acting is also surprisingly good. Other reviewers have gone on about how good the big three - Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace, and Charlize Theron - are, so all I'll say is that I really enjoyed their performances. Fassbender's performance as the android is stunning in how calmly chilling he is. Some of his lines were so cruel, yet so innocently recited, that I want to rematch the movie just to see him. Most of the other characters I thought were fine, with some exceptions (particularly Noomi Rapace's character's husband who came off as a lame Ashton Kutcher wannabe).The problem with the movie is that its exploration of these themes and acting are hampered by action/horror scenes that clearly weren't well thought out. As other reviewers noted, many of the deaths are caused by characters making stupid decisions. Many reviewers have criticized the crew for taking off their helmets, which at first is fine because one would expect that alien microbes would not be able to infect humans. However, once it was apparent that the Space Jockey DNA was the same as humans AND that one of the crew members was infected, they still continue to take their helmets off! Other stupid decisions include the biologist's attempt to pet a snake; the captain's decision to open the ship's door when a crew member's signal is detected without receiving audio confirmation from him; and the fact that the characters can only run straight to avoid a rolling ship. Overall, the action scenes seem like they were a symptom of today's brain dead Hollywood.For me, the biggest drawback to the movie was pacing. The beginning was slow, which was fine by me. However, when the action starts, it never really slows down. The audience isn't given time to breathe and absorb. The tension never really builds. For example, after Noomi Rapace's infamous scene, she runs down the hallways and has a conversation with the crew, and then they go try to communicate with the Space Jockeys. First of all, the fact that Rapace's character doesn't even inform the other crew members about what happened to her is ridiculous. But then the movie switches gears so quickly that it's like it never happened. Rapace's character is clearly hurting from the encounter, but not as much as she probably would in real life.Another major problem is that the film leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I'm not an Alien fanboy - I don't need to know every detail about the Space Jockey's origins. However, major plot points that are (deliberately) left open, setting it up for a sequel. I like some mystery, but for most viewers the movie will seem incomplete or ridiculous. For example, as many other reviewers have noted, it seems pretty stupid for one of the Space Jockey's, presumably an intelligent alien species, to simply start killing humans, arguably an intelligent species, when he wakes up after sleeping for 2,000 years. The film hints that there might be a reason why the Space Jockeys hate humans so much, but you'd think he would at least be confused at seeing humans or worried that they were able to travel so far. As it is the Space Jockey's actions look more like Hollywood's attempt to throw in some mindless violence. Maybe it'll all make sense after we see the inevitable sequel, but too much of it just doesn't seem to have been thought through very clearly.Overall, if you like sci-fi, especially the Alien franchise, Prometheus is well worth seeing. Don't set your expectations too high, and be willing to accept some thoughtless plot points. I'd give the movie 3 stars. If Ridley Scott and his scriptwriters had put a bit more thought into the plot, it could have been so much more.UPDATE on Blu-Ray (10/15/12):My initial review was a bit harsh, but upon rewatching the movie I think it was eminently justified. While there are some interesting philosophical concepts, they're buried deep beneath stupid characters and poor scriptwriting. The contrast with Scott's Alien, which I also recently rewatched, is telling. Alien never pulled me out of the movie and the characters seemed utterly believable. It's just a shame Prometheus didn't quite work on that level.The blu-ray set comes with all the standard deleted scenes, making-of documentaries, and commentaries. The deleted scenes are definitely the highlight. As happens so often, I wonder why they were deleted. The deleted version of the Fiefield fight uses a much more interesting Fiefield monster concept than the ugly guy we saw in the film. Also, Vickers has a few compelling character moments in the deleted scenes. Even the Engineer has more character. The deleted scene gives him a very compelling reason for attacking the Promtheus crew, whereas in the finished film he seems like a mindless brute. In short, Prometheus would have been a much better movie with these scenes incorporated.The 4-disc set comes with even more impressive special features, particularly the 3-hour "The Furious Gods". This is the documentary that the ads claim will "answer" the questions left from the film's plot holes. While that goes a bit too far, "The Furious Gods" is rich in content. I enjoyed hearing about the making of the movie, from beginning to end. It is definitely revealing, both in good ways and bad, However, I really don't like the idea of "enhancement pods", which essentially require you to interrupt the documentary in order to watch shorter featurettes. I'd have preferred if the short featurettes were simply part of the feature documentary.

As a fan of the entire ALIEN saga, this prequel is an absolute masterpiece! The essence of keeping in line with original story lines, this action packed dark thriller keeps up with the score. Packed with superb special effects, you will not be disappointed!

I'll get the visceral reaction out of the way quickly. I was disappointed with the movie the first time I watched it, from a director who gave us the original "Alien" and "Blade Runner" plus gripping non-sci fi films such as "Black Rain" and "Gladiator". The best thing I can say for Director Scott is that I believe the primary problem is not with the premise, which had enormous potential, but in the plot and the line by line writing. But, I watched it a second time the next night, and some of the kinks were ironed out by noticing some lines. Also, the relevance of the Prometheus myth became far clearer, and through it, I realized an important back story explanation which was obscured by the characters' ignorance. Read the Prometheus story before watching the movie and pay very close attention to the opening (and think 2001 opening.)One indicator of how incomplete things seem is that the very old billionaire, Peter Weyland, is played by a fine middle aged actor, Guy Pearce, but we never see him younger in flashbacks, which were probably cut from the final editing. Without giving too much away, the Peter Weyland character adds very little to the story aside from being the person who funds the mission.I sensed something was seriously out of joint when the "away team" enters the cavernous artifact. After encountering something just a bit squeamish, the geologist Fifield (Sean Harris) and biologist Milburn (Rafe Spall) decide to return to the Prometheus (the name of the humans' interstellar space ship.) The remaining team does a fair amount of exploring. Among other things, they see a hologram of the intelligent giants, drawings of whom they found on Earth. they are seeking running from some unseen danger. I saw no clue to what triggered the hologram. Following the hologram, they find the decapitated head of one of the giants (as opposed to the 'aliens' we encountered in earlier films).The captain of the Prometheus sends them a message that a serious storm is approaching. The team, with the usual annoyingly distracting side efforts which slow them down, reach the entrance and begin driving their vehicles back to the ship. But, and here the train falls off the track, never to return, we find Fifield and Milburn still in the artifact, when they said they were returning to the ship. They found some kind of life which intrigued the biologist. But why didn't the team returning to the ship notice that none of their vehicles were gone. Why did they leave the other two behind? Somehow, the two truants don't get the warning about the storm, or ignore it, so they become stuck in the artifact.There are loose ends aplenty with the alien fauna on this desolate world. My expectation coming in was that the film would explore the origins of two creatures, the "Alien" and the race of the giant pilot discovered by the crew of the mining ship Nostromo in "Alien". We meet the giants soon enough, but we also encounter at least three other life forms which have a passing resemblance to THE Alien, but their connection to the life cycle of the Alien is never explained.I'm entering dangerous "spoiler" territory now, so I will not discuss any more of the plot except to say that there are a number of unexplained events. Mysteries are great in the middle of the film, but one expects most of these to be wrapped up and revealed at the end of the picture. Many are not, leaving a huge jumping off point for a sequel to "Prometheus".Part of the special attraction of this story is that the audience knows full well what will eventually happen, so there is a lot of mental "don't go there" and "don't do that" moments, because we already know what things that look like that can do. The problem with that is that there is too much "quoting" from "Alien" for my tastes. Most of it is done relatively well, but it becomes more and more obvious as time goes on, and increasingly annoying. There is also ample quoting from other major Sci Fi movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey (both in situations and in dialogue). There are also some subtle cinematic (visual) quotes from "Avatar" and "Jurassic Park".One of the bright spots, aside from the imaginative, well done CGI and cinematography, is the acting, which I always thought was a weak spot in "Alien". The crewmen, such as Captain Idris Elba, are spot on (unlike Yahpet Kotto in "Alien"). Instead of the strong Ellen Ripley character, we have the physically smaller and less imposing archaeologist, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) who sports a convincing English accent as the lead character. Charlize Theron's character is restrained and unlikable. Like both Scott and Cameron's "Alien" and "Aliens", this movie has an android (artificial person) as a principal character, in a role much fuller than in the earlier movies. The only thing which distinguishes 'David', Michael Fassbender's android from Scott's earlier android Ash (Ian Holm, Alien) and Cameron's Bishop (Lance Hendrickson, Aliens)is that David is ever so slightly stilted, somewhat like Data from "Startrek, The Next Generation."I will give this the benefit of the doubt for now, but I found a strong disjoint in the rationale between two early scenes and the climax. I sense Scott wanted to leave plenty of meat on the bone to support a sequel. (In contrast, Avatar is almost totally devoid of preparation for a sequel I suspect I will need to revisit this review after seeing the film again. If my suspicion about gaps and disconnects is born out, I may have to lower my rating to 3 stars.

He loved it!

In response to mankind's three most pressing questions—Where do we come from? What is our purpose? What happens to us when we die?—the empirically minded suggest that we probably arose through abiogenesis out of a primordial ooze, that we exist to propagate our genetic code, and that death simply returns our atoms to be endlessly recycled. The faithful, meanwhile, take comfort in a supernatural creator who has a plan for their lives, culminating in an eternal heavenly reward. But what if neither camp is quite right? What if we were planted here, not by a god, but by a race of corporal beings sufficiently technologically advanced to traverse the universe, seeding the cosmos with life of their own design?This is no new idea, but it first gained cultural traction with the 1968 publication of Erick von Däniken's bestseller, Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past, a work of staggering psuedoscience and blatant anthropological chicanery. If completely bonkers and without any actual evidence, the book still makes for an imaginative flight of fancy, and its key, "ancient astronauts" concept serves well as the basis for Prometheus, director Ridley Scott's magnificent-but-flawed return to the sci-fi genre. Despite what you may have heard, the film is a prequel to Scott's 1979 classic, Alien, although not necessarily a direct one. It's better to think of Prometheus as a semi- distant relative, twice or thrice-removed. The two movies aren't immediately narratively linked, but they share much of the same DNA.And Prometheus is all about DNA. The pre-title sequence takes us over a barren, lifeless landscape, and up to the top of a turbid glacial waterfall, where an alien protohuman—who looks like a buff, living marble reproduction of Michelangelo's David—stands by the shore, holding a cup of black goo. This is an "Engineer," as they'll later come to be called, and he's here to seed what we can presume to be Earth. He downs the viscous caviar-like substance in one gulp, and immediately his cellular structure begins to break down, causing his skin to rupture, his bones to snap grotesquely, and his body to fall into the water, where it dissolves, spreading genetic material downstream. Et voilà! Life. Eons later, in 2089, we cut to a pair of anthropologist lovers—the believer Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and the atheistic Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green)—as they find a 30,000-year-old cave painting on the Isle of Skye, depicting an Engineer-ish-looking figure pointing to a cluster of stars, an image that's been found in numerous archeological sites around the globe. Shaw believes it's "an invitation," and soon enough they're aboard the spacecraft Prometheus—funded by the supposedly dead industrialist Peter Weyland (Guy Pierce)—zipping toward the distant moon LV-223, hoping to find answers to humanity's deepest existential questions.Unlike the Nostromo, Alien's dingy blue-collar mining craft, Prometheus—named after the mythological fire-stealer—is a state-of-the-art research vessel, carrying scientists from pertinent fields, including spectacled biologist Millburn (Raff Spall) and punk geologist Fifield (Sean Harris), along with a substantial crew of ancillary characters. The ship is captained by former military man Janek (Idris Elba), but the real leader of the expedition is Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), a stone-cold Weyland Corp. employee who makes it clear to everyone—Shaw and Holloway especially— that they report to her. Also on board is David (Michael Fassbender), an 8th generation android who's obsessed with Lawrence of Arabia—he even dyes his hair to look like Peter O'Toole—and ironically becomes the very soul of the film, a grown-up Pinocchio who can never become a real boy. Not to demean the rest of the cast, who are generally decent-to-excellent, but Theron and Fassbender are the two acting powerhouses here, the former all icy secrecy and the latter effete and guarded—think a more refined C3PO crossed with Hal from 2001: A Space Odyssey.In a way, Prometheus is a more pop, "genre"-oriented version of 2001, both concerned with evolution, artificial intelligence, and the notion that something out there gave the fire of human consciousness its first spark. Where Kubrick's film is a slow-burning intellectual exercise, Prometheus becomes a tension-ratcheting affair where the big ideas are couched in stylish big-budget sci-fi/horror action. When the ship lands on LV-223, which is not the moon from Alien, the crew quickly—too quickly to believe actually—spots and enters an enormous pyramid complex with reniform subterranean tunnels and a chamber that houses a monolithic human head and dozens of cylinders filled with that DNA-altering black goop. Nearby are the piled up bodies of several long-dead "engineers," who were obviously trying to escape something but didn't make it. Without getting into spoilers, it's safe to assume to that one or more team members become "infected," and you can also expect to see some aggressive lifeforms that have never before appeared in the Alien franchise, although they share the phallic/yonic, H.R. Giger-inspired qualities of the facehuggers and xenomorphs of yore. There are grotesque mutations, frantic firefights—one involving an actual flamethrower—and even an emergency alien fetus c-section, the film's most white-knuckle, squirm-inducing scene.Does the original xenomorph monster show up? Well, sort of. Let's just say it has a fan-appeasing cameo. Written by Jon Spaihts and Lost's Damon Lindelof, Prometheus expands the universe of the series and unravels a few mysteries from the first film—yes, the "space jockey" in that pilot's chair was an "engineer"—but it also raises a host of other questions that it doesn't have time to answer. (Why do the engineers suddenly want us dead? Why leave us a star map guiding us to what's essentially a biological weapons depot? If the engineers created us, who created them?) With a sequel already in the works, I don't consider the lingering ambiguities a problem—and I love the post-viewing discussions that naturally arise because of them—but Prometheus does have other shortcomings. There are small potential plot holes, and a few scenes that feel forced—inserted for narrative convenience or just to ramp up the action—but the most noticeable issue is that characters sometimes simply don't act in believably human ways. They contradict earlier established behaviors. They make choices only a soon-to-be-slaughtered teenager in a slasher movie would make. They don't express nearly enough awe at the fact that they're not just on another world, but making discoveries that dramatically alter humanity's assumptions about its own origins.Prometheus probably could've used another script revision to tighten everything up, but the pacing flows well—even when some of the events don't exactly make sense in retrospect—and there's no doubt that the film is an experience, the kind of grand-scale, high-concept science fiction that's unfortunately rare. (Although, between Looper and Cloud Atlas this year, sci-fi seems to be making a comeback.) I don't really get the small but rabid cult of haters that's sprung up to deride the film, but I blame the internet hype machine, which skews expectations impossibly. If you're anticipating the be-all-end-all Alien movie, with mind-melting twists and non-stop horror, then yes, Prometheus might be a bit of a let-down. But this prequel really is its own entity and deserves to be seen and evaluated on its own terms. Personally, I think it's a terrific reboot of a franchise that had grown ridiculous long before the dopey Alien vs. Predator movies. Ridley Scott directs the hell out of this thing, the scope is immense—check out those real, predominately non-CGI sets—and call me a heretic, but damn if Michael Fassbender doesn't make a better android that Ian Holm or Lance Henriksen ever did. Onto the sequel, I say, and if Scott isn't going to do it—he's only listed as producer, and he'll probably be busy revisiting the world of Blade Runner—I nominate David Fincher, whose Alien 3 got bungled by the studio, and who definitely deserves another shot at the series. Anyone second that motion?Gorgeous. And that's about all you really need to know. But for the sake of completeness, let's get into what makes Prometheus' 1080p/AVC- encoded Blu-ray transfer so stunning. Using Red Epic digital cameras mounted to 3ality Technica Atom 3D rigs, the film was shot almost entirely on Pinewood Studio's famed—and enormous—007 lot, allowing Ridley Scott and cinematographer Dariusz Wolski complete control over the lighting of the magnificently detailed sets. The combination of a great camera system, high-quality Zeiss lenses, and precise manipulation of the direction and degree of light makes for an image that's often terrifically sharp and nearly noiseless at times. Camera noise does spike a bit during the darkest scenes, but it has a granular quality that looks almost filmic up close, with no digital harshness or chroma artifacts, and it isn't really noticeable from a normal viewing distance. It should also go without saying that there are no compression issues or encode errors on this top-tier release; even scenes where you might expect to see some banding or splotchiness—flashlights cutting through darkness, volumetric clouds of dust rising into the air, fine color gradients—hold up under pixel-peeping scrutiny. The level of clarity is exemplary for a live-action film. Fine detail is ever-present in the textures of the actors' faces, the fabric of their clothing, and the intricacies of the props and set design. The film's distinct color palette is handled with ease too. The inky depths of the pyramid, the yellow LED lights inside the explorers' helmets, the cool fluorescence inside Prometheus, the spatters of blood, the skin tones—everything has a satisfying density and presence.And then we come to the film's use of 3D, which is some of the best I've seen outside of all-CGI movies. If you saw the 3D version of Prometheus in theaters, you'll already have a good idea of what to expect on Blu-ray, namely, lots of depth and little-to-no projection. That is, you'll spend a lot of time looking into your screen—which becomes a kind of portal through which to view a 3D diorama—but you won't find any leap-out-of-the-TV-and-jab-you-in-the-eye gimmickry, which may work in horror films or cartoons, but would only cheapen the experience here. And because there are no objects jutting out towards you, you don't have to worry about the roughly 2.39:1 frame cutting anything off. (No, there's no 1.78:1 "open-matte" version available.) There are a few longer landscape shots where no dimensionality is apparent, but most of the time there's a clear and natural-looking distinction between foreground objects and their backgrounds. There are definitely some "showpiece" 3D shots, like the landing sequence, the silica dust storm, and the engineer holograms, but the 3D effect is most impressively used to add a degree of realism to some of the more mundane scenes, like when Holloway stares into the mirror of his cabin, noticing there's something unusual in his eye. Or Shaw lying on the all-white operating table. Clarity and color both hold-up well, and there are no unusual 3D anomalies to report. Of course, the effect will be better on bigger screens—and the amount of ghosting/doubling you experience will depend on the quality of your TV/projector/glasses—but in general, Prometheus' 3D Blu-ray replicates the theatrical experience rather well. Do note that all screenshots are from the included 2D Blu-ray.Turn off the lights, crank up your receiver, and settle in—Prometheus's lossless DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 surround track is one to savor, particularly if you've got a home theater setup capable of bringing the aural goods. This mix just doesn't quit; from start to finish it delivers room- quaking dynamics, pristine clarity, and polished, realistic, puts-you-right-in-the-middle-of-the-action sound design. From the opening scene on the barren planet Earth we get deep sub-woofer engagement, the lapping, crashing, and bubbling of a massive waterfall, and the thunderous rumble of an alien ship overhead. The sense of all-surrounding immersion is near-constant from here forward. Bleeps and bloops and the hush of processed air aboard the Prometheus. Sirens wailing in the rears. Dripping rain. Convincing cavernous reverb. The whipping of a monster's tendrils. Debris from an explosion rocketing through the soundscape. Silica dust clinking furiously as a storm blows across LV-223. Fifield's mapping "pups" as they zoom off through underground corridors. There's not a scene where the audio isn't lushly and thoughtfully arranged. Just take the actors' voices, which—besides being well-balanced and easily understood—always reflect the acoustics of their surroundings, flatter aboard the ship, slightly muffled inside their helmets, echoing and wet inside the pyramid. All this is backed up by Marc Streitenfeld's enormous-sounding orchestral score, which alternates between quiet uneasiness and sheer bombast.Note that the 3D disc and the 2D disc have slightly different dub and subtitle options.3D: Includes descriptive audio, and Spanish, French, Portuguese, Hindi, Urdu, and Tamil dubs—in Dolby Digital 5.1—along with English SDH, Span, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, Port, and Swedish subtitles.2D: Includes descriptive audio, and Spanish, French, Portuguese, Russian, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Telegu, and Ukranian dubs—in Dolby Digital 5.1, except for the Russian DTS 5.1 track—and English SDH, Spanish, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian subtitles.

Film injustement sous noté par la presse spécialisée se revendiquant d'être la seule a comprendre ce qu'un film se doit d'être, elle a été relayée dans son propos par une frange de fans boys aigris idiots qui n'ont cessés de clamer ci et la, que promotheus trahissait son oeuvre d'origine. FAUX!N'écoutez surtout pas ces imbecilo-reac' du cinéma qui souhaitaient que le film soit une redite du 1er. Car le résultat a pour mérite de se réinventer totalement dans on histoire, et sa contruction tout en respectant son propre univers. Avec une grammaire cinématographique au diapason, Ridley Scott nous sert un film absolument maîtrisé scénaristiquement, porté par une réalisation à son zénith et servie par des acteurs judicisieusement choisi, pour distiller un récit s'enfonçant de plus en plus, à mesure que les minutes passent, vers un discours nihiliste et destructeur qu'aucune conclusion ne viendra sauver...Fuyez les aigris qui auraient voulus un copier / coller débile des deux premiers films, ou les limités cinématographiquement qui auraient voté pour une succession de scènes d'hemoglobines: prometheus est un film froid, remarquablement pensé et réalisé pour étoffer et installer un univers imaginé il a y a 40 ans, par celui SEUL qui l'a imaginé. Et non quelques fans boys idiots perdus et frustrés derrière leur écran de smartphones

oo boy. To understand my response to this film, you have to go back, way back, to my earliest experiences of horror, my earliest experiences of cinema in general. The likes of Alien and its sequel were as much a part of my childhood as the Transformers or Ducktales or any cartoon; horror has always been available, and never restricted. As such, I have a sentimental attachment to that material, but also a renewed respect from revisiting it in adulthood and finding it to be sublime on a number of levels (the original Alien still stands in terms of direction, story and design as one of the finest examples of science fiction horror in existence).You can therefore understand my anticipation when it was announced that Ridley Scott would be returning to the franchise (albeit tangentially); that it might potentially be revitalized by the man who originally coined it. For me, the excitement at least equaled that which many experienced in anticipation of The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. This film was the event of the season; the cinematic high point of the year. Not only potentially a resurrection of one of my favourite franchises, but possibly also that film which could revitalise mainstream horror in general; make it fresh and inventive and intelligent again.I recall clearly stepping out of the cinema, heading home in a kind of daze, confused as to my own response, until it finally began to crystallise:I hated this film. Not just finding it disappointing or lack lustre, but hateful. It's rare indeed that any media can arouse something so strong in me, positive or negative, but this film managed it, and not in some fan-boy “betrayal of the franchise!!” way; this was always going to be a very different film from what came before; I anticipated that, and was prepared for it.What I did not anticipate was a rambling, contradictory and often brainless to the point of B-movie script, entire plot and characters arcs that went nowhere, an entire gaggle of characters that can be ripped out of the film with no ill effect (Charlize Theron. Love her work, generally, but what is her character doing here?; Next time you watch the movie, mute or fast forward all of the segments in which she occurs. You'll miss nothing. Nothing.), pretentious, pseudo-philosophical babble that so wants you to take it seriously but doesn't want to do any of the leg work to make itself profound or engaging (merely referencing ideas or schools of thought is not profundity; you need to provide analysis and potential interpretations for that), and a story that only exists because the characters involved, despite being described as “scientists” in various fields, are the stupidest on or off Earth.This film...this travesty of a film; it's the equivalent of someone who has pretensions of particular lifestyles or identities, but isn't interested in doing any of the work or activity required to fulfil them; it is that person who prominently displays philosophy and lifestyle books around their home, but never actually reads them, and would never understand them if they did. It so wants you to think that it's clever and profound and is saying something of moment, when, in point of fact, it is utterly, utterly brainless; a swollen, conflated, nonsensical B-movie with a budget. The original Alien contains more profundity in a single scene than this entire movie and communicates it more subtly; via its design, its symbolism and the natural situations that the story requires. All of the wonderful uterine and sexual imagery; the male rape and giving birth etc etc; all communicated without burden, without self interest or ego; allowing the viewer to engage and interpret as they see fit.Here, the characters can't resist sitting around talking about how apparently profound everything is, despite practically line that comes out of their mouths being awkward, unnatural exposition or the kind of rank pseudo-philosophy one would be kicked out of a high school debate team for. And that's the rub; the film is almost aggressive in its desire for you to find it weighty and clever and profound, but it isn't; it doesn't even try. It broaches potentially profound subjects and dichotomies, then quickly shies away from them in favour of (albeit well framed and directed) action set pieces, as though terribly afraid that it might alienate (a ha ha) its audience whom, it clearly feels, have the intelligence and attention spans of mosquitoes.As for the subjects in question, the central dichotomy is one of scepticism versus faith, of established ideas being broken down by sudden revelations. Not a bad subject for science fiction to tackle at all, and certainly not in this universe, but the film does not even come close to exploring those issues outside of the most throw away, superficial commentary. Characters that describe themselves as “of faith” in particular areas emerge from experiences and situations that should see that faith shattered and dissolved to nothing still intact, their convictions unshaken, their characters unchanged. They are effectively static, making the story and their inclusion in it impotent. The fact that they described as scientists makes it all the more galling, as they are nothing of the sort, save in terms of what the script proclaims of them. It's infuriating, it's condescending and it's impotent on a narrative level; despite revelations that turn notions of humanity upside down and inside out (potentially), the characters learn nothing at all (those that survive). There's also a potentially brilliant tension involving the relationship between creators and their creations; the discovery that human beings and, indeed, much of what is deemed life on Earth, might have been cultivated (either by accident or design) by an alien species, that said alien species might not be pleased or satisfied with how humanity has turned out; may in fact despise our existence, is an interesting one, echoed reasonably well in the relationship between David, the ship's android (and, incidentally, the only interesting or sympathetic character out of the entire bunch, despite being essentially an antagonist) and his human compatriots/creators, who treat him with a degree of indifference verging on contempt.But it doesn't go anywhere. It isn't explored in any great depth; only touched upon in one or two fleeting and expository conversations, then abandoned. This is how the film works throughout; concepts are broached, paddled in just enough to arouse audience interest, then wrenched away, the film taking no time to appreciate one shiny thing before being distracted by another. The result is confusion; a hotch-potch of half ideas and barely realised notions that feel flimsy and ragged; barely knitted together by a semi-coherent narrative driven, it seems, by the stupidity of the characters (“...don't be a skeptic.”).Sticking with the characters, for the moment, beyond David the android (beautifully played by Michael Fassbender), not a one of them is even remotely identifiable. I'm not the kind of viewer who needs characters to be likeable or sympathetic, but I do need to believe that they are acting as they do because that is how they would naturally act. That isn't the case here; most of the characters are utterly superfluous to the story, those that are not entirely slaves to it; more thematic vessels than characters in and of themselves, not to mention telegraphed in terms of their ultimate fates from the first instant they open their mouths (if you can't tell which characters are going to survive and which aren't by the end of the fun time from their earliest scenes, I despair). Many are briefly introduced and disappear for great reams of the running time, turning up again later when it is convenient for them to do so, which leaves the audience scratching their heads and asking: “Who is that and why should I care?” They also act and speak contrary to their advertised natures, contrary to their professions; even the experiences they have on screen. Bear in mind, that these people have been chosen for this illustrious mission (the possibility of first contact with extra terrestrials and, potentially, the creators of humanity) because they are supposed to be the finest in their fields (ranging from biology to geology).They are idiots; the stupidest, most ill considered, impetuous, Darwin-award potentials you will likely find in cinema, and the plot is driven by that fact; everything that occurs only does so because the characters engage in utterly baffling idiocy from the moment they set down on the alien world's surface.A particular example hits even before they leave Earth, with a line which was the first of many which made me groan out loud: briefing this collection of malcontents, our protagonist, Elizabeth Shaw, played by Noomi Rapace, is asked the only intelligent question any of them will ever ask in the entire run time: does she have any evidence whatsoever to support the hypothesis on which this entire, multi-trillion dollar mission, hinges?Her answer: “No, but it's what I choose to believe.”Staggering. Let's unpack that, shall we? This woman is marketed as a scientist; a considered, analytical entity. Scientists do not speak this way, scientists do not reason (if you can call it that) like this. Most barely people don't reason like this. It is certainly no basis whatsoever for a mission that is likely the most ambitious, expensive and potentially the most epoch making in all of humanity's history. It is ridiculous, and self contradictory: people generally don't “choose” to believe anything; belief is a complex matter, involving perception, individual interpretation, bias, desire, but also a significant amount of visceral, gut reaction. This makes it sound as though belief is a super market, in which you saunter along reading the packets of various positions and ideologies to see which flavour you like. It is absurd, and demonstrative of the kind of pseudo-profundity that infests this entire God damn film.This only gets worse as the film progresses, another example occurring with a couple of characters whose names I'm not sure we even learn, but are basically dead men walking from the first instant they occur (one of them is the heretic who dares question Shaw's chosen beliefs, resulting in a great, big target being tattooed across his face from that moment onwards). Ignoring for the moment that these characters get lost in an alien super structure (despite the aforementioned stoner-geologist guy having a holographic map built into his wrist), ignoring for the moment that, having come across a pile of dead aliens, they react with terror and disgust, ignoring that they left the main crew to return to the ship yet get lost while the rest make it back without too much trouble, they find themselves in a room containing seeping, sweating cannisters of alien goo; some sort of bio-chemical material whose properties are questionable at best (why they choose to set up camp there is another one of the more baffling mysteries of the plot). Having seen a particularly Giger-esque entity rise out of said goo, the first reaction of the ZOOLOGIST is to approach that entity, extending his hand toward it, even when it flares out wide and hisses at him. Alien or no, flaring out wide and hissing is a universal sign of threat even amongst animals here on Earth (cobras being the most overt example). Nevertheless, the ZOOLOGIST doesn't seem to take that under consideration; not until the thing is clamped on his wrist and burrowing inside his suit. It's a classic B-movie set up; overly curious idiot ignores the sounds in the dark, ignores the warnings of those around him, gets his comeuppance. And in a classic B-movie, it would be fine. In a movie with this specimen's budget and pedigree? I think not.Earlier, we witness Shaw's husband removing his helmet inside the alien ship, after the most cursory assessment of the air inside the vessel; an act for which the rest of the crew (rightly) condemn him. Even though the computer reads that the air is breathable, this is an alien ship on an alien world. Who knows what contaminants, what diseases, what fungal spores and micro-organisms he might be inhaling? It is one of the moments of sublime, suicidal stupidity that makes these characters not only unsympathetic, but baffling. When said character eventually (and inevitably) starts to demonstrate symptoms that might be described as disease-like in nature, it is no surprise but it also lacks any relevance; we don't care because no reasonable person would have acted the way he did; no real, non-written person, would have acted the way he did in the circumstances in which he found himself, and therein lies the rub: the film lacks any weight or engagement beyond the most superficial because you can feel the writing, the appalling script, in every scene, every word, every situation. The contrivance, the forced nature of the responses; everything, conspires to rip the audience out of the fiction, resulting in something that is confused, flaccid and profoundly frustrating; not just a disappointing instalment to a franchise that now consists of more disappointments than hits, but a terrible piece of work; shoddiness the like of which you'd expect from a first year film student who's been forced to take a few psychology modules to fill out their timetable.Positives?; The film is beautiful. Aesthetically, staggering. Almost as much as the script and content are idiotic, but not quite. Visually speaking, it is easily one of the most well designed, the most brilliantly framed and shot pieces of work in the genre; stylish, atmospheric, disturbingly alluring. Taken in that context; merely as a superficial work, I can well understand people taking some enjoyment from this. But if you want even an ounce of something more, forget it; you're going to go away confused, baffled and, potentially, quite angry at its conflated sense of itself, at its condescension and its awe inspiring stupidity.

DES ++ ET DES --Commençons tout d'abord par parler du packaging :le Boîtier métal est d'une honorable qualité ,sans atteindre des sommets.. Les quatres disques sont bien rangées mais nous n'avons pas droit par exemple à un petit livret de photos. Bon,ce boitier métal, édition limitée, contient les 2 Blu-Ray 2D et 3D , et autant le dire tout de suite ,... Les scènes alternatives et (ou) scènes coupées , ne changent pas vraiment la donne ...!!Rien , de vraiment fabuleux du côté des scènes alternatives. Pas de version longue !!! et le coffret est donc sympa , mais bon rien d'exceptionnel.Côté IMAGE BLU-RAY 2D : C'est bien , contrastes acceptables , belle image dans l'ensemble ... , mais bon ; je l'ai vu dans d'excellentes conditions et je trouves tout de même la compression "perfectible". C'est du bon niveau , mais je trouve que nous n'atteignons pas des niveaux aussi élevés que sur certains titres récents ( THOR ou The Avengers). Les images sont belles mais il "manque" ce tout petit quelque chose .. le (WAOOUHH...EFFECT).Bon,je ne suis pas vraiment spécialiste des Blu Ray 3D... donc sur ce point,je n'en ferai pas mention.( d'autres en parlerons bien mieux!).Le Film : eh bien voici la partie la plus délicate.. , car commenter le travail d'un réalisateur aussi chevronné que Ridley Scott , réclame toujours un minimum de sérieux dans l'argumentation:- Au niveau de la REALISATION et de La MISE EN SCENE: nous sommes malheureusement, malgré toute l'indulgence que nous devons à un réalisateur de cette trempe,contraint de nous résoudre à dire que la mise en scène est plutôt très moyenne... Non pas,que le rythme soit mal choisi , car bien au contraire , un film de la sorte doit prendre son temps , et la Sciences Fiction nécéssite souvent une rigueur dans la mise en place du suspense et de la grande variétée des éléments.-La première heure est plutôt réussi !!-Les acteurs sont tous FORMIDABLES !!!!.... Michael Fassbender est vraiment magnifique dans son rôle D'androïde,Etre complexe, à la recherche de "la perception", de la compréhensssion de "l'Humain" ... Androïde fantasque et énigmatique et scientifique en quête de réponses...Noomi Rapace (Elizabeth Shaw),quand à elle , est débordante d'énergie ! pleine de vie, ... et Idris Elba (le capitaine Janek) nous compose un personnage de capitaine COURAGE vraiment EXTRA!!!...Charlize Theron en Meredith Vickers , est tout à fait juste et impériale !!!!.... Comme à son habitude , elle est subtilement extraordinnaire...-Nous débusquons,souvent,d'un bout à l'autre du film,tout un tas d'influences diversses: Il y a un peu de ci , un peu de ça , je citerai dans le désordre , qu'il y a un peu dans les influences de :Mission to Mars , qui date de 2000 ( le bien trop sous-estimé film de Brian de Palma ), un peu de "Planete Rouge"( avec la très belle Carrie Anne Moss , pour les DESIGNS vaisseau et des combinaisons... ), un peu de "HALO COMBAT EVOLVED"(Jeu video)( véhicules)... ( moyen de locomotions vaisseaux etc...)... grandes scènes ressemblant à certaines cinématiques de REACH (jeu Video)( BUNGIE), un peu du film "Sunshine" de danny Boyle,(Grand méchant mystérieux etc ...)...,Un peu du design venant de chez CRYSIS de chez Crytech (jeu video)... ,... ENORMEMENT de références , parfois extrêmement maladroitement ménées ... Aussi, un peu de "THE THING" à la John CARPENTER ( lances flammes et humain tranformées en curieuses bestioles)( transformations étranges ),... et aussi les liens de parentées(relations familiales complexes et parentées obscures)font aussi penser à la fameuse déccadence et folie de la famille du fameux Lord Aschley(rencontré dans le légendaire RESIDENT EVIL ,"Code VERONICA" une des aventures les plus mémorables jamais raconté de l'univers des jeux vidéos ( jeu vidéo Dreamcast...) ... 1998.En fait, ...nous sommes en présence avec PROMETHEUS , d'une sorte de gigantesque dirigeable !!! , un ENORME COMBO multi-influencé , à la croisée de différents UNIVERS visuels et référentiels.La galette cinématographique est t'elle pour autant réussite ???En fait la réponse est complexe, .... MAIS.... et LE MAIS est de TAILLE , ce film comporte d'énormes faiblesses...- Certaines scènes capitales , sont térriblement baclées ...-La musique est anecdotique ...-Les dialogues sont court et très peu travaillés ...- La mise en place des scènes primordiales est poussive...- Au deux tiers du film , la dynamique et la cohésion esthétique, part en miette,et alors qu'il semblait que nous pouvions espérer quelque chose de grandiose, sur les trentes dernières minutes ,...un drame,... du mélodramatique ,... une tragédie à la tonalitée Sheakspearienne... et bien.... A QUOI AVONS NOUS DROIT ? .. ,le soufflet se dégonfle peu à peu vers un final incroyablement prévisible, sans grande éloquence , ni splendeur particulière, ... et tout comme par un triste enchantement , Ridley Scott semble trocquer son talent naturel et son style habituellement visionnaire et enflammé !! .., par plus du tout de style !!! et une espèce de ""final minable"" Avorté...! "QUI A BIEN PU TROUVER LA SCENE OU LES DEUX VAISSEAU SE PERCUTENT IMPRESSIONNANTE ???....",par l'approximation évidente ,la précipitation,... Scott amoindri de toutes part les trentes dernières minutes , et certaines scènes qui frisent fréquemment, le presque ridicule.-Malheureusement : Et toc , voilà le compagnon de Noomi Rapace qui était mort , qui se transforme en bébète ridicule !- Etces scènes d' actions , dans le Cargo hall ? qui sont térriblement mal filmées !!! et ferait passer certains autre réalisateurs acceptables pour des génies ...- Et puis , voilà la césarienne de L'alien Bébé ... !!! On n'est pas loin du ridicule ... tout de même ,( On y échappe fort heureusement , grâce au talent de l'actrice !!! )!!!- Et plouf Plouf , Ridley se débarasse du personnage de Meredith vickers(écrasée)...-Et Toc , le méchant est très méchant ! et PAF ,voilà bientôt le moment du sacrifice des suppliciées , les héros vont affronter le vaisseau géant ( et que ce moment dramatique est filmé à la truelle !!!... aucun sens esthétique n'est associé à ce moment !!!... Ridley Scott n'a aucunement pris de pincettes et soigné le style pour nous fimer ça ...)...-Les plans se succèdent et peu à peu on n'y croit plus ... Vous y CROYEZ VOUS ? ...les éffets de caméras sont catastrophiques et absents , et là GRANDE IRONIE ,on aimerait bien que ce fusse Spielberg !!!( Minority Report , La Guerre des Mondes ... entre autre ...)qui eut été là pour sauver la situation !!! et filmer laction acceptablement ......-Par moments on se demande alors... s'il demeure quelqu'un derrière la caméra ...Et l'on se dit ... sommes nous bien dans un film dirigé par un Artiste comme Ridley Scott ??? ou dans une série B ou Z comme Alien VS Prédator ??? ...-Et plouf...Fassbender est coupé en deux et la tête va dans un sac , ...-Et toc !!! ça continue ... on y croit ??? à tout ça ??? et le suspense est si malmené !!! ... Et l'on se dit , que la bataille entre le GROS ALIEN METAMORPHOSEE et le COLOSSE EXTRATERRESTRE ... est un des moment sans doute , parmis les plus raté ,parmis ceux filmés , depuis ces dix dernières années ... Et d'un coup, un Alien , bleu... sort du corps de l'extraterestre amorphe.- Et la musique ... AIE ...- Alors que la splendeur et le côté mystérieux ??? , du film "Alien" et la présence extraordinnaire de Sigourney WEAVER nous subjuguait alors ...Enfin , nous finissons abassourdis ,par nous demander , mais qu'est t'il donc arrivée au réalisateur d' Alien pour qu'il nous ponde """un oeuf""" comme ça.Si,l'on compare cette préquelle à "ALIENS" de 1986 , de James cameron , ou à "L'alien" de david Fincher de 1990 , ou encore à L'alien de jean Pierre jeunet de 1998... On se demande ce que PROMETHEUS II nous réserve ??? ""NOOMI RAPACE , ALONE "in the dark" AVEC "LE BODY" ET LA TETE de FASSBENDER"" roulant a vive allure avec son QUAD tout terrain ...Et l'on se demande si cette fin en est une ?.... ET PUIS : Charlize écrasé sous un vaisseau gigantesque , Fassbender trimbalé dans le sac de Noomi rapace , Guy Pearce , un acteur de si grand talent , la tête hématommée sur le carrelage en résine de synthèse du vaisseau...BON...AVEC LES quelques 143 millions de dollars que le film à couté ,... la classe incontestable !!!! des acteurs pour les premiers et second rôles . OUI les acteurs méritaient mieux que ça !AÏE , et quand je pense qu'ils ont laissé notre Très Chère Charlize se faire "écrabouiller" ...,!j'en suis triste! ,... Meredith Vickers (la plus intéressante ,... son personnage aurait tellement mérité d'être plus développé...)...TRES CHER Ridley SCOTT , mais qu'avez vous fait à vos personnages ... Et de ce film... qui aurait pu être fabuleux !!!!....Vraiment Dommage....Bon..., Même le film "Sphère" de 1997 de Barry levinsson , et qui est largement moins prétentieux !!!!.... à l'époque , est bien plus subtil.

Dies soll keine Beschreibung oder Bewertung des Films sein (davon gibt es schon reichlich), sondern der Versuch, eine Erklärung für die Widersprüche und Ungereimtheiten des Drehbuchs zu finden. Immerhin geht es hier um ein Werk von Regielegende Ridley Scott! Das kann man nicht einfach so mit der Bewertung: "Schwachsinn" abtun, wie viele Rezensenten das tun. Diesen Deutungsversuch werden die meisten vielleicht nicht sonderlich hilfreich finden (obwohl unsere Wissenschaft, ja unser ganzes Denken auf nichts anderem beruht, als auf dem Wunsch, das Unerklärliche zu erklären), aber für den Einen oder Anderen mag er doch von Interesse sein.Als erstes möchte ich sagen, daß ich mir nicht viel aus Logik und Wahrscheinlichkeit mache, darauf kommt es in einem Film nicht unbedingt an. Wenn ich mir einen Film ansehe, versuche ich immer vollkommen abzuschalten und mich dem Film völlig hinzugeben, ihn mitzuerleben. Will sagen: ich gehöre auf keinen Fall zu den Pedanten und Nörglern (wie hier einige die Ein-Stern-Rezensenten nennen).Wenn allerdings die Handlung zu widersprüchlich ist, die Protagonisten zu unwahrscheinlich agieren, dann kann man das oftmals einfach nicht mehr übersehen und fällt unfreiwillig aus der filmischen Fiktion heraus.Und das ist bei diesem Film leider ständig der Fall! Wenn man dann hinterher über den Film nachdenkt, um evtl. eine Erklärung für die überdeutlichen logischen Fehler zu finden, stellt man fest, daß alles noch viel schlimmer ist: denn in diesem Film stimmt fast gar nichts! Unlogik wohin man nur schaut, "im Minutentakt" wie ein Rezensent sich hier ausdrückt. Darauf will ich aber im Einzelnen gar nicht eingehen, es sind ja in den Rezensionen schon reichlich Widersprüche aufgezählt worden (obwohl ich noch einiges hinzufügen könnte).Fast noch auffallender, als die Ungereimtheiten, sind die dramaturgischen Ausfälle. Jeder Ansatz in dieser Richtung verpufft nach nur wenigen Minuten. Jede Figur, die anfangs mit einer gewissen Wichtigkeit eingeführt wird, erweist sich letztlich als völlig bedeutungslos. Hier verläuft wirklich alles im Sande! Mal ganz davon abgesehen, daß sämtliche Situationen und das gesamte Personal Standards im Sci-Fi- und Horror-Genre sind. Um nicht zu sagen, Klischees. Selbst filmische Fehler sind auszumachen. Ich sage nur: Liegestütze! Oder: Rose!Wie fast alle Fünf-Sterne-Rezensenten über diese auffälligen Mängel einfach so hinwegsehen können, bleibt ihr Geheimnis!Also entweder haben die Drehbuchautoren und der Regisseur völlig den Verstand verloren, oder: Es ist alles Absicht!!!Für letzteres spricht so einiges. Hier nun meine THESE:Es fallen in dem Film einige sehr auffallende Sätze, die bezüglich der Handlung nicht besonders viel Sinn machen und daher als Kommentar zum Film selbst verstanden werden können (bzw. zu seinem eigentlichen Thema). Und die fast alle von dem Androiden David gesprochen werden oder mit ihm im Zusammenhang stehen.Zum Beispiel wird ein Ausschnitt aus dem Film "Lawrence von Arabien", den David sich ansieht, gezeigt. Darin löscht Lawrence ein brennendes Streichholz mit den Fingern ohne das geringste Anzeichen von Schmerz zu zeigen. Danach gefragt, wie er das mache, antwortet er: "Man darf sich nichts daraus machen, daß es weh tut." Ein Satz von besonderer Bedeutung, denn er wird von David zwei mal wiederholt. Ein Hinweis auf die Subjektivität unserer Wahrnehmung? Es ist nur das von Bedeutung, dem wir Bedeutung verleihen. Kein Ding ist an sich, sondern wird nur durch unser Denken oder Empfinden zu dem, wofür wir es halten. Tatsächlich ist da rein gar nichts!Beim Anflug auf den Mond zitiert David einen weiteren Satz aus dem DAVID-Lean-Film: "In der Wüste ist rein gar nichts, und kein Mensch braucht gar nichts." Wiederum ein Hinweis darauf, daß es da nichts zu finden gibt.Am Ende des Films sagt Herr Weyland sterbend: "Da ist gar nichts." Und David antwortet: "Ich weiß."Immer wieder also der Hinweis auf die Leere und die Bedeutungslosigkeit und Banalität aller Dinge.Einerseits bezieht sich das natürlich auf die Geschichte selbst: Man zog aus, um den Schöpfern der Menschheit zu begegnen, Götter zu finden, die unserem Dasein einen Sinn verleihen usw. Man trifft aber nur auf Wesen, die sich von uns nicht allzusehr unterscheiden und möglicherweise nur ein Genexperiment durchführten, mit der Erde als Petrieschale. Man hat so einiges in die historischen Zeichnungen hineininterpretiert, kam mit soviel Hoffnung, nur um am Ende vor banalen Dingen zu stehen, die nichts bedeuten. Entmystifizierung, Banalisierung ist das eigentliche Thema des Films! Daß es keine Bedeutungen gibt, nur die, die wir den Dingen beilegen. Daß es tatsächlich nicht einmal Dinge gibt, wenn wir aufhören ihnen Namen zu geben. Dazu passt auch das Verblassen der Deckengemälde (das übrigens ein Zitat aus Fellinis Roma ist): Laßt die Dinge ruhen in ihrer Vollkommenheit und Schönheit; rührt der Mensch daran, zerfallen sie zu nichts.Diese inhaltliche Prämisse manifestieren die Filmemacher nun auch auf formaler Ebene. Auch hier heißen die Schlüsselworte: Dekonsruktion, Banalisierung, um dem Zuschauer klarzumachen: nichts hat einen Sinn, alles ist völlig bedeutungslos. (Allem voran betreibt Ridley Scott hier eine Entmystfizierung seines eigenen ALIEN-Mythos.) Daher all die Widersprüche, die Un-Logik. Standardsituationen aus Sci-Fi- oder Horror-Filmen werden zum Beispiel so übertrieben oder unwahrscheinlich dargestellt, daß sie ad absurdum geführt werden. Die üblichen Figuren dieser Art Filme entpuppen sich als absolut überflüssig oder dienen lediglich als Statisten für an den Haaren herbeigezogenen Actionscenen (wie die Zombiesequenz), Spannungsmomente werden unmittelbar aufgelöst, Handlungen der Protagonisten führen meistens zu gar nichts oder haben deren Tod zur Folge.Alles, was die Drehbuchautoren und der Regisseur uns hier vorsetzen, ist seltsam leer, sinnlos übertrieben, unlogisch, bedeutungslos: so wie das Ergebnis der Expedition! An einer Stelle im Film sagt David: "Damit man etwas erschaffen kann, muß man erst einmal etwas zerstören." Es ist fast so, als ob Ridley Scott hier erst einmal die Regeln des Sci-Fi-Horrors untergräbt, um dann in späteren Filmen etwas völlig Neues schaffen zu können. Hierzu würde auch der Satz passen, den wiederum David in einer Szene spricht:"Alle großen Dinge fangen klein an."Die Ansicht über die Bedeutungslosigkeit des Seins und die Leerheit aller Dinge wird hier von David vertreten (auch vom Regisseur?), die Gegenposition vertritt Dr. Elisabeth Shaw, die "wahrhaft Gläubige"! Sie steht für Glaube und Hoffnung und ist ja auch die treibende Kraft bei dieser Reise. Als Symbol für ihre Anschauung trägt sie ein Kreuz an einer Kette. Als zwischenzeitlich die ganze Mission zu scheitern droht, verliert sie ihren Glauben, das Kreuz wird ihr von David!!! abgenommen (unter dem fadenscheinigen Vorwand, es könnte kontaminiert sein). In dieser Zeit wird sie mehrfach gefragt, ob sie ihren Glauben verloren hätte, z.B. von Weyland. Aber ganz am Ende des Films holt sie sich das Kreuz von David zurück: sie gibt die Hoffnung nicht auf, kann ohne ihren Glauben an ein höheres Wesen offenbar nicht existieren, will nicht allein sein im großen Weltall (geht möglicherweise auf den frühen Tod ihrer Eltern zurück). Obwohl gerade ihre Suche es ist, die allen, die mit ihr waren, das Leben kostete! Solange David im Besitz des Keuzes war, trug er es an seinem Werkzeuggürtel! Für ihn ist der Glaube nur ein Werkzeug, um damit den Menschen die Wahrheit näherzubringen, nämlich, daß alle Dinge leer sind, wenn wir nur aufhören über sie nachzudenken. Wir sind es, die die Realität erschaffen. Wir sind unser eigener Schöpfer. Ellie kann das auch am Ende ihrer Reise und obwohl alle dabei getötet wurden, nicht erkennen, weil sie den Glauben braucht, sie klammert sich daran. Es ist David der völlig klar sieht, weil er ein Roboter ist. Der kein Ego besitzt, das durch seine Wünsche und Meinungen der Wahrheit nur im Weg steht.Ich hoffe, ich konnte mich einigermaßen verständlich machen. Über Kommentare würde ich mich jedenfalls sehr freuen.Einigen scheint meine These etwas weit hergeholt zu sein. Zu philosophisch für einen Ridley Scott. Aber erinnern wir uns doch mal an den Film Blade Runner: mit seiner christlichen Symbolik, den bedeutungsschwangeren Dialogen, dem Geheimnis um Deckarts Identität, den Replikanten, die auch ihrem Schöpfer begegnen wollen (der ebenfalls in einer Pyramide lebt), die ihn töten ("Wollen nicht alle den Tod ihrer Eltern" fragt David in "Prometheus") etc. Was ist nicht alles über diesen Film geschrieben worden. Und die oben von mir zitierten Sätze wirken doch nun wirklich wie Fremdkörper in diesem an banalen Dialogen reichen Film! Könnten sie vielleicht nicht doch etwas bedeuten?Zum Abschluß noch drei Zitate aus dem Zen-Buddhismus, die zu Scotts Filmaussage passen:"Es benennen, heißt es verfehlen. Schaut nur in euer eigenes Haus. Kehrt vor eurer eigenen Tür. Kümmert euch gründlich um euch selbst. Was gibt es denn sonst noch?""Namen steigen von innen aus dem Meer des Atems auf, und ihr heftiges Trommeln läßt eure Zähne klappern und diese stottern Bedeutungen hervor. Erkennt ihr denn nicht, daß dies alles Vorstellungen und Täuschungen sind?""Selbst bei konzentriertestem Denken kannst du nicht einen Ort für Entstehen und Vergehen, für Geburt und Tod, finden."(sic!)