Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now

Customer Reviews

3.7 out of 5 stars
3.7 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 1 September 2012
Don't be put off by the silly 1 star reviews on here because although prometheus isn't perfect and has flaws, it's still a magnificently crafted intelligent sci-fi film that challenges you to think. The problem was that the hype damaged this film, if you hype something for that long and that hard, then there will always be a degree of anti-climax, it's happened before and it'll happen again. People went in with ridiculous expectations and that's why there are so many stupid 1 or 2 star reviews - they never took it for what it was! to compare this,as some did on here, to "The phantom menace" is pathetic and childish to say the least.

The main problem with Prometheus is clearly it's unanswered questions, my opinion is that this will play better when the sequel arrives as it's really just act 1 of a 2 or 3 act play, that said there's still lots to enjoy here, namely Michael Fassbenders brilliant performance as David the Android, the exceptional design work,stunning fx and Naomi Rapace who is excellent in only her 2nd Hollywood role.

Fed up of silly robots smashing things up,superheroes and vacuous teen vampire movies? want sci fi but with a brain? then this movie is for you, sure it's not perfect but its miles better than most movies out there at the moment.
6161 comments| 541 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 18 October 2012
This is a great film in it's own right, even Ridley says it's not really a prequel, it's just that the idea for this film came about from elements of the first Alien film. Just watch it for what it is, a great piece of Sci-Fi.
Just a gripe now towards Amazon, Why don't you list the extras on any of your DVD / Blu Ray's? This would help many people in deciding which version of the disc to buy. Now originally I was going to buy the film which just came with a digital copy, this was around £15, or I could go for the copy which also had the 3D version, but not having a 3D TV I thought this would be a waste of time and an extra £5. But it wasn't until I read through a load of reviews where someone said to go for the 3D version as it had a film makers documentary which is 3.5 hours long, this I believe does not come with the other version. So I ordered the 3D version (which also has the normal 2D blu Ray version) which does indeed come with a 3.5 hour documentary, but that's not all, there is over 7 hours of bonus features on this disc, which are as follows:

Deleted scenes including alternate beginning and ending
making of Prometheus in depth documentary
Audio commentaries
The Peter weyland files
Weyland corp archive
Plus a Mobile app
Plus more

So if you like your extras then the 3D version is the way to go
88 comments| 197 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 8 October 2012
To put it simply I'm going to review the actual content of the blu ray not the film, there are loads of film sites/magazines you can view if you want a review of the movie i'm going to talk about what seems to get ignored the actual product you are buying!

I will just note, I love the film and think it was way over hyped and this led to people thinking it was going to be the best movie ever so it could never live up to these high standards. Just please ignore all the 1 star reviews, this is certainly not a 1 star movie.

The picture
Prometheus is a good looking film on blu ray, it certainly not the best looking blu ray. Ironcally Alien (A film from the 1970's) looks better on Blu ray. There is some grain but there has been a lot worse in recent years.

The Extras
The Blu ray really shines here. Firslty you get a proper itunes digital copy not a rubbish UV digtial copy. You can also chose to download a Windows Media Player file instead, if you don't use itunes, that will work on msot devices. There is a large handfull of deleted scenes each with a cool little explain of why they were cut and what they add to the film. There is also an alternative beginning and ending. The deleted scenes are separate from the movie and cannot be viewed as part of the film, in say a director's cut format.

There is also a strange feature called the "Weyland files" which gives a deeper view into the "Alien/Promethues Universe". there is also commentaries which are good but really only for Alien/Prometheus super fans, the causal viewer will be bored. Finally there is a really cool dual screen feature.

If you have an ipad you can download a free app on the app store (just search prometheus and you will find it), then you sync the app to you blu ray player (you need a BD live enabled player for this) and then as you watch the movie extra features and facts will come up on your ipad at points during the film. It is an amazing feature that I hope to see more of, I noted in Dutch app store there were dual screen apps for the Avengers and Spider Man, whilst they dont work in the UK hopefully this shows that film companies are going to start using this feature more often. Also note the app at the time of wrtting was only avalaible on iPad but I have been informed that it is now available on other app stores as well.

So far this year it has been a disapointing year for Blu ray releases most have been pretty poor, The Avengers and The Hunger Games were a little lacking but Prometheus bucks this trend and gives a truly great bly ray package well worth your money and time.
3737 comments| 198 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 August 2012
Let me start by saying that Prometheus is a bit mess of themes and plot points not helped by some poor editing choices (this should have been Terry Rawling's gig), but it's an admirable mess that attempts to open the Alien series up to a much bigger sci-fi canvas. The series has been stuck in the formula of attempting to ape the action and pacing of James Cameron's Aliens since Alien Resurrection "graced" our cinema screens in '97 and any potential expansion of the universe since has been merely hinted at rather than properly explored.

When making Alien, Ridley Scott and writer Dan O' Bannon originally intended for the universe to be far wider in cinematic scope. Unfortunately a constrictive budget held them back from exploration beyond the bare essential. This forced Scott and crew to cut back, even bringing the then unfinished fossilised Space Jockey set in to question with worried studio heads (a battle Scott fortunatly won). Paul WS Anderson's later Alien vs Predator may have shamelessly ripped off a few of these lost story elements (resulting in a begrudging story credit for Dan O'Bannon) but they were wasted on poor direction and a narrative more interested in WWF style alien on alien wrestling. With Prometheus Scott has finally managed to take the series back to the places he originally intended to explore, resulting in a film that, much like 2001, tackles the relationship between men and their makers amongst many other things (like who the Space Jockey was, why was he transporting those eggs and what they were originally intended for). And now the door has been left swinging in the wind, wide open for any kind of imaginative or ghastly sci-fi tale or landscape.

Where Prometheus fails is in the single mindedness of it's main characters (not to mention the stupidity that some display in serving the plot). The narrative is also somewhat bogged down with attempts to provide moments between the obvious cannon fodder background characters when it should be affording its leads with depth. Despite this Prometheus succeeds in providing the series with its most interesting character since Ripley bowed out in Alien 3. Micheal Fassbender's David is a revelation. One part Bishop, two parts Ash and a mystery throughout. Both an enigma and a pleasure to watch. Unfortunately like many characters in the film, the editing betrays him and we're left with a couple of half developed but nonetheless interesting sub-plots (like the love triangle between himself, Shaw and Holloway). The film reeks of the feeling that much like Kingdom of Heaven, there's a great film bubbling under the surface of a merely good one.

Because of these half developed sub-plots, Prometheus feels as if half a film. Not only does it ask more questions than it answers (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) it ends as if part one of an ongoing tale rather than as a self contained narrative. All setup, primed and ready to pay off in later instalments to the franchise. The parting shot also translates as a poorly judged fan service, squandering potential for a significant beastie in the execution. The primary problem being that Scott and the writing staff had built the creature up to be the film's big bad, hinting at the kind of devastation it rained down on the race of Engineers 2000 years before. Unfortunately they only provide the creature with a scant few seconds to shine. It's another halfway developed sub-plot waiting to be expanded in an inevitable sequel. And yet despite these misgivings Prometheus manages to entertain and engage throughout.

Refreshingly the film doesn't pander to audiences by over explaining each and every plot point. And though the film does provide a few answers to key questions fans have about the Space Jockey characters and their race it does well not to destroy the mysticism surrounding them and their culture. Not to mention that the production design is top notch, rivalling the aesthetic excitement and intrigue of sci-fi films twice Prometheus' budget. Scott is truly a wizard of aesthetic pleasure. The entire look, feel and atmosphere is exactly what you would want from an Alien film. Prometheus is flawed but pure sci-fi and demands a second viewing. It harkens to a time when sci-fi films explored big themes and dared to delve beyond popcorn visuals. Overall, Prometheus is a solid sci-fi tale that offers further promising and exciting places to explore in the Alien universe. Now, I can't remember the last time I felt that about a film related to the Alien series.
3232 comments| 140 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
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.
66 comments| 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 27 September 2015
Well this film might just be the biggest disappointment I have had for a long time. I suppose I should have expected the "dénouement", but I had not realised that Ridley Scott's bank account was so empty. The film promises much and delivers little, despite brilliant cinematography. It is no more than a rather expensively wrapped "prequel" (I hate that term) to the Aliens films and I didn't like those much either. A grand adventure with much potential, very little of which is realised.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 27 January 2013
I'm a huge sci-fi fan and we've tended to be on the back burner for some time with decent new films of this genre.
So getting stuck into the film it's certainly not bad by any means, but it's confused and rather than take a clearly defined "real Alien" prequel it merely skirts around the edges unsure if it's a new film or a re-treading pre Alien.

There are undeniable nods to Alien, from the actual seemingly abandoned "Alien ship", right down to the Aliens themselves which are very close to the ones you find in the original Alien film (ie the long dead ones which were wiped out by the well known Aliens)...clearly intended on the Director's part. But it stops short of being the prequel it should have been, and leaves more questions than it does answers.

Visuals are excellent as you would expect from a modern sci-fi with the power of up to date computers and talented CGI artists you won't be left wanting here.
Cast is overall quite good with Michael Fassbender taking the part of the android "David" and probably the best performance of the film. Charlize Theron stunning as ever, and decent acting but probably not quite the role I would have picked for her. Noomi Rapace, not a well known actress but does quite well with what she has role wise (I would have picked Charlize for her role). Few other cast members really stand out though, but that's not the real issue of the movie.

If Avatar was all CGI and not much story (which in my view it was, great visuals but predictable corny story/plot) Prometheus is a bit of a let down in it's conclusion, it doesn't deal with the questions you want, it fails to be the full blown no messing around prequel it should be. The ending clearly leaves things open for sequels which one hopes explains things (can we smell cash cow?). But as a stand alone movie you will probably be a little let down in the overall package.

It's great to see Ridley Scott back in the Director's chair, I only wish he'd have had the guts to do a proper prequel rather than too many nods and winks to Alien, but never taking the risk to really push the genre a bit more. The plot is decent enough (but with some padding in places) despite the lack of conclusions (it's at least more interesting than Avatar) Scott is famed for the original (and probably the best) of the Alien series (only Alien and Aliens were worthy IMO), and Bladerunner another cult classic. This doesn't live up to either movie either in tension or story, or dare I say cast (both films had superb casts this one merely decent), despite the stunning visuals it can't match the moody atmosphere of Bladerunner, not build the tension as well as Alien managed.

Overall I can't say it's a 2 star movie (clearly it's not awful or bad), but it's not really up to more than an "ok" 3 stars overall. I did quite enjoy the film the first viewing, but felt little incentive to watch it again. I can't hide my disappointment with the ending which explains little and merely leaves the door open to numerous sequels.

Had Scott sat down and done a full blown no fluffing around "Alien Prequel" this could have worked very well, esp since there is much to work with material wise, but we want answers and a proper prequel not a half way house! As it is it's not likely to satisfy Alien fans (and I'm one of them), and it's not departed from that title enough to stand on it's own as a (non Alien prequel) Worth a watch no question, but this isn't going to find a place in the sci-fi classic collection.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 6 December 2012
Prometheus is mindless nonsense. The plot can be summed up like this:

Find a ship

something bad happens

So return to their ship

something bad happens

so go back to the other ship

something bad happens

Go back to their own ship

something bad happens

Go back to the other ship: surely their luck must improve?

something bad happens

Quick, run back to their ship. Surely it must be safe now?

something bad happens

Go back to the alien ship. Maybe the neighbourhood has improved?

something bad happens

Maybe their ship wasn't so bad after all? Let's go back and find out

something bad happens

Did I leave my coat in the alien ship? I'll be back in a minute

something bad happens

Back again!

something bad happens

and so on until something really bad happens to both ships

so ... let's find another ship. Which they do.

Surely nothing can go wrong with that one?

Well you will have to wait for the sequel to find out. But I'd be willing to bet something bad happens to it.
88 comments| 29 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 9 November 2013
This is a good SF film, with concepts, mysteries, and strong action. However, after so much expectation, it disappoints. The story takes place many years before Alien, when a privately funded group makes an exploratory inter-stellar voyage to investigate some intriguing archaeological clues. They are on the track of the "engineers", an exemplar of whom died mysteriously at the beginning of the film and whose whereabouts were hinted at in cave paintings found all over the world by Shaw and her partner, Charlie. What they discover is not what they expect, to say the least. Also, there are many secret agendas revealed, adding nuance. In the end, as a survivor, Shaw continues her quest.

Now, this is intriguing stuff, full of possibility. Unfortunately, the execution of the film, its uneven acting, and problems with the plot combine to make a mediocre viewing experience. I do not want to give away the plot details, but some may slip through.

First, the quality of the acting was a constant problem. While Rapace was great in Dragon Tatoo, she is supposed to be English but can't get the accent consistently. While she does a good job with the complexity of her character's motivations, her intimate relationship with Charlie (who is terribly acted by Logan and never cogent as a character) makes little sense. The other crew members were clearly fodder for destruction and the few with any character seemed rushed in their actions and motivations. Theron is an exception to this, but David the android is perhaps the best - he is clearly not human, has inscrutable motives and emotions that are consistent, and is somehow always menacingly creepy. Alas, the character chemistry doesn't quite hang together.

Second, the explanation for the monsters was disappointing, indeed much of the logic of the film is wobbly. While the engineers were very well done as beings of superior intelligence and seemingly incomprehensible motives, their behavior and what they were doing were unconvincing to me. In addition, the resulting monstrosities were not conceived with much care, but just seemed hideous and violent, without interesting constraints and clear powers. The development of the monsters appears too magical: how could they develop so quickly, live so long and be so overwhelmingly strong, without a source of energy or food? Take, for example, Shaw's aborted monster: it continues to grow to monstrous proportions in the med lab with nothing but itself. Even worse, after Shaw undergoes major surgery, she just gets stapled up, and then with some futuristic pain killers is fine running around and fighting baddies. How could she do so without hemorrhaging? Also, the way that David deciphers the alien language and writing and instrument panels smacks me as contrived. As others have pointed out, the behavior of the scientists is also incomprehensible: if one of them saw an alien worm slithering out of the cornea of one of his eyes - and experiencing no pain? - would he not quarantine himself or bring it to someone's attention? Would the biologist not fear a snake-like creature rising out of some primordial muck? Would the scientists not fear infection in an unknown atmosphere, but instead instantly take their helmets off? These things are so ridiculous that they strain all credibility.

Third, the effects were not entirely convincing. This is a high budget film, but much of it seemed clunky, such as the creature that drags itself to the ship and offs, like, half the crew in a few instants - it looks like a flailing rubber doll. Or take a creature that emerges from a character's stomach - it comes out bigger than it could have been. I did enjoy the alien technology, and the engineers themselves - gigantic beings of super strength and superior minds - are splendidly mesmerizing. Again, this speaks to the unevenness of the film, where much of it feels rushed and ill conceived.

Anyway, I recommend this for fans of the series. But hopefully better is yet to come. It grows on you, but that is because I have learned to ignore the flaws.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 21 July 2016
This was so anticipated- and well .... Disappointing in so many ways. It has all the alien genre tensions and the film begins well but there are too many unexplained issues. Fasbender is excellent. Try the extended addition.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse