Prometheus (2012)

Image from IMP Awards

Prometheus (2012)

"We were wrong! We were so wrong!"

The above line, uttered by Noomi Rapace's character Dr. Elizabeth Shaw in Ridley Scott's return to science fiction in 30 years, pretty much sums up my assessment of the - perhaps unreasonable - expectations the film has engendered. The fact that Scott directed the classic and brilliant progenitor to this film, Alien, makes the disappointment that much more stinging.

Prometheus begins intriguingly enough with a brief prologue involving a mysterious, beefy humanoid alien. This leads in to a second prologue in which Dr. Shaw and her bland boyfriend Charlie (Logan Marshall-Green) discover ancient cave paintings that point to a star pattern, one that is contained in a series of disparate paintings from different time periods and cultures. The implication is that human development, perhaps even our origin itself, was alien in nature. This initial premise sets alarm bells off straight away as to the intellectual level the film is striving for, but it is easy enough to put aside as a flight of fancy if developed in an interesting way. Sadly, it isn't developed in an interesting way at all. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the film is completely glib in the way it handles its ideas.

After the prologues we are transported light years away and in to the primary narrative. The space ship Prometheus arrives at the planet pointed to in the paintings, the crew - including the two scientists, android David (Michael Fassbender), the ship's Captain Janek (Idris Elba), and company overseer Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) - awake from stasis / hyper sleep and brief the remainder of the nondescript scientific grunts as to the purpose of their secret mission. Namely, that they are here to discover the origins of mankind and perhaps to quite literally meet our maker. The ship lands near an 'intelligently designed' structure on the planet, the crew hops out to explore its cavernous interior and discover... well, I won't go into details but in truth, not all that much of consequence apart from some dead aliens, holograms, and things that will be familiar to fans of the original film. From that point onwards the film shifts into horror/thriller mode, the half baked ideas are dropped, picked up again, and then dropped again as the story builds towards an explosive climax.

So what's wrong with the film? To get the obvious out of the way, I'm not complaining that the film isn't enough like 'Alien'. On the contrary, it actually borrows a little too much from that film in terms of story beats. It's also not a knee jerk reaction to expectations - I ended up seeing it twice, and my expectations were out the window during viewing number two.

The major problem is the fairly dire story and script; it should come as little surprise that 'Lost' writer Damon Lindelof was involved in writing it. The whole thing raises 'questions' and 'mysteries' that are somewhat interesting but aren't examined in any meaningful way, and by the end, hardly anything is resolved and we are given the set up for a sequel that teases potential answers. God and 'Darwinism' are name dropped in the most superficial way, with Shaw being a religious scientist who 'chooses to believe' things and regularly clutches her cross. The purpose of 'the engineers' of mankind is raised, but again only perfunctorily. Birth and the creation of life are brought up and lead in to a tangential subplot that feels horribly contrived. The rape subtext from the original film is made silly and overt. And as far as plotting goes, lots of stuff happens that makes very little sense.

The film is in an awful hurry to get from one scene to the next, never allowing one to build up to anything of substance, never allowing any tension or awe to take hold; a serious misstep in a story about first contact with alien life forms who also happen to be our creators. The whole affair is strangely inert and devoid of feeling. The dire dialogue doesn't help at all, populated as it is with repetitive Hollywood blockbuster cliches. Characters behave in idiotic and impulsive ways, incongruosly so for a team of 'expert' scientists. The narrative stop starts, shifts gears, and erupts into violence on occassion but all of it feels disjointed and the characters themselves don't seem too involved in what's going on around them. Most of the supporting cast are forgettable, which compounds the film's problems. To top it all off, the musical score is loud, overbearring, and repetitive.

That's the bad, but there is a lot good in the film as well. First of all, visually it's simply stunning. The effects, sets, costumes, and design work, some of which have their origins in the seventies, are stunningly realized. Scott's camera work is smooth and coherent and his shots are epic, and he does create atmospheric sequences. It genuinely looks and feels like what we are watching could be real. Rapace, though a far cry from Sigourney Weaver's Riply, makes for a decent lead, wonky fake English accent and all. Idris Elba is reliably cool despite having very little to work with. Charlize Theron is excellent as the icy Vickers, ironically one of the few characters who seems like a human being.

And then there's David, the android, played to perfection by Michael Fassbender. David's presence is by far and away the most interesting part of the film. It's the one relatively subtle and intelligent thematic element, paralleling as it does the broader questions about the creation of life and the relationship between creator and creation. Fassbender gets decent words and he makes the most of it, playing David with an undercurrent of sardonic menace, moving with graceful and mechanical precison, and exhibiting a sometimes childlike sense of curiuosity. His motives are never really clear - again, lousy plotting - but he's never anything less than compelling.

Prometheus is ultimately it's a science fiction film whose intellectual pretensions extend well beyond their grasp. It devolves into a horror thriller but is never truly scary, horrifying, or thrilling. It's fairly entertaining and looks good, and is mostly salvaged by one brilliant character and performance. Worth seeing for genre fans and fans of the Alien series. The ill advised final scene, which is truly groan inducing and exists solely as fan service, is a fitting note on which to end what is a poorly conceived film. In an era where almost anything that can be imagined can be realized on screen believably, the fact that this was the end result is nothing short of disappointing.

The Avengers (2012)

(Image from IMP Awards)

The Avengers (2012)

Joss Whedon has gone and done it. He has cracked the barrier that existed between the insanely OTT superhero comic and the silver screen. Whedon, who wrote and directed 'The Avengers', has made what feels like the first near perfect superhero comic adaptation, one that perfectly encapsulates the tone and spirit of 'Earth's Mightiest Heroes'. His film has demolished box office records and good for him - having done his time in TV land and gotten screwed over time and again by studios, mainstream success is a long overdue just desert.

The story boils down to this - the evil demigod Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is setting out to take over the Earth with an alien army at his command. The threat is so great that Agent Nick Fury (Sam Jackson) is forced to set the Avengers Initiative into action, which involves bringing the greatest of Earth's heroes together. These are Iron Man / Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America / Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), and Hulk / Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), and they are supported by Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). The problem - they all each have their own baggage and aren't exactly keen on working together. There's more to the plot than that of course, but that's the gist of it.

Marvel laid the foundation for this movie with the five individual outings of the main heroes, so in a sense this movie is the culmination of those early adventures; indeed it doesn't work on its own without at least some passing knowledge of those earlier films, which were admittedly of varying quality and never quite attained greatness. Still, it's worth watching those in order to experience this, and I'm actually keen to revisit all of them with the foreknowledge of what they lead up to. And while they weren't perfect, they each (bar The Incredible Hulk) did one major thing right - they achieved near perfect casting.

Robert Downey Jr is the biggest name, and he continues his limelight hogging, charismatic turn as Tony Stark. Hemsworth is imposing, regal and cocky as the 'godlike' Thor. Evans is stoic and noble as Captain America, donning the star spangled tights without a hint of irony. Renner made a brief and uninspiring appearance in Thor, but he's incredibly badass here as Hawkeye, and I can fully understand how he was chosen to headline the Bourne Franchise. There are two surprise packages as well - Johansson is terrific as Black Widow - cool and crafty but with guilt bubbling under the surface, she's more than just eye candy (though she does that well too). The biggest surprise though is Mark Ruffalo, who almost steals the show as the nerdy but oddly charismatic Bruce Banner, struggling to keep his dark passenger under control. Also deserving of praise is Hiddleston who, improbably, comes across as an effective and menacing villain despite being a whiny pawn in a grander scheme. Sam Jackson is, well, Sam Jackson; he could do this in his sleep, but he does it well.

Great actors need great words to work with, and the Whedon touch truly comes to the fore here. Despite being marginally Stark-centric, the script balances the characters perfectly and gives all of them their moment to shine while imbuing them with depth and personality. It's full of humour through both dialogue and action, and there are loads of laugh out loud moments. The interplay between the protagonists is fast and witty and conveys familial bickering to a T. There is a lull in the action in the middle, but this is more than made up for by all the banter!

Which brings me to the action, which is the one area where Whedon hasn't exactly established his expertise. Well, consider him established now as the action is, to put it mildly, spectacular! It helps that there is a great deal of variety in terms of the characters and their powers, but to envisage scenes utilising them in ways that make sense, with each hero fighting according to their abilities without giving anyone the short shrift is no small achievement. It's all coherent and flows without resorting to insane close ups and quick cuts, and everyone gets their moment of glory. It's truly epic in a way that no other superhero movie has achieved, and it's also unabashedly comic book like with wave after wave of aliens being dispatched by our heroes in imaginative ways. It helps that the special effects are nearly flawless - not once was I taken out of the film by a dodgy effect. The Hulk steals the whole show during the climactic battle with some of the funniest and most memorable moments.

Recommended? Hell yeah! I loved this movie and will almost certainly catch it again on the big screen (in 2D). It's the second Whedon film this year that I can say that of - the man's on fire! Avengers is a near perfect superhero comic book film and a bloody good action/adventure film to boot. It is a shame that you need to do some prep work before watching it, but that's a small price to pay in this instance. The Avengers 2 has a lot to live up to!

Troy (2004) - Director's Cut

Image from IMP Awards

Troy (2004)

Since this is a fairly mainstream and well known film I'm going to make this quick. Director Wolfgang Peterson released a very compromised version of this film theatrically back in 2004. Based on Homer's 'The Iliad', it told the story of the Trojan War, of the armies of King Agamemnon with the heroic Achilles as his trump card battling against the Trojan armies of King Priam led by his son Hector, and of the war sparked off by Priam's younger son Paris stealing a Queen, Helen of Sparta. It was a historical epic that depicted a massive battle and larger than life characters fighting for territory and power, for personal glory and immortality, and for love and honour - it was grand in scale, epic and operatic.

The original film was certainly well made with magnificent sets and costumes and an impressive cast, but it was marketed on the back of some massive and thrilling battle sequences. As a result the film was heavier on the action than the drama. This version restores many of the character moments while also making it bloodier and more brutal, resulting in a significantly better film than the already pretty good theatrical version. Brad Pitt and Eric Bana are both superb as Achilles and Hector, and the supporting cast including Peter O Toole, Brian Cox, Sean Bean, Orlando Bloom, Rose Byrne and Diane Kruger are all very good (yes, even Bloom).

The storyline ignores the Gods of the source material and is, in my opinion, better for it. I'm not certain how accurate it is as an adaptation - certainly the length of the war is significantly reduced from a decade to what seems like a few weeks - but it works on its own terms. It is broad and theatrical and not very subtle, but it never pretends to be anything more than it is, and the end result is a very satisfying film that is entertaining without being stupid and full of mindless action. The re-edited score, sadly, is still severely lacking and remains the main weakness of the film, but it isn't too offensive - just bland and derivative.

If you hated the original this version won't change your mind but if you thought it was passable but could have been better, then the Director's Cut makes the film worth revisiting. For people who've never seen the film before this is the version to watch, and if the genre is of even a passing interest then you can do far worse than spend three hours watching an excellent interpretation of an ancient tale.