Tag: Ridley Scott

Prometheus

By إبن البيطار (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsAfter a bit of indecision, we decided to save £25 and skip the IMAX version. Probably for the best – no pointless 3D and more money to spend on the Burger King we wolfed on the way to the cinema to see Ridley Scott‘s latest:

Prometheus

“My God, we were so wrong…”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: In the near future, we discover a message from the stars… and head off to see what lies on LV 426.

See it if you like: the first two Alien films

It’s been a while since the last Alien film. Thankfully, as Resurrection was dreadful. Also, Ridley Scott hasn’t had much to do with them since the original back in 1979. A long time to wait for the creator to revisit his work.

Thing is, was it worth the wait? In my personal opinion, yes. Not because it’s an “Alien film”, but precisely because it really isn’t. It just happens to take place in the same universe and, despite what anyone says, it is a prequel to that 1979 classic. However, it’s not told as an Alien film but more from the point of view of the human race. It sets up the first film wonderfully well (I couldn’t spot any inconsistencies), yet still leaves questions unanswered.

That’s been the beauty of the franchise to date. Alien was a tense horror. Aliens was a balls-out action film. Alien 3 straddled the line and, once the studio got their bloody hands off it and let Fincher re-edit it the way it should have been, ended up being more than watchable. Resurrection, as mentioned, is best left forgotten. Variety has been key in keeping it interesting.

Prometheus continues this trend with a film that probably has more in common with the first instalment, but on a different scale and with quite a lot of expectation sitting on its shoulders. It bears this well.

Kicking off in the not too distant future, a group of archaeologists led by Doctors Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a series of cave paintings, murals and the like which all contain a similar pattern. After some research, they realise they are effectively a map pointing to a planet that’s reachable using space travel of the day and argue that it’s a chance to meet whoever created the human race.

Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), or at least his globe-spanning company which plays a fairly major part in the earlier/later films, funds the expedition out there where the group discover… well, I don’t want to give away any more than the trailer.

The film has all the familiar aspects of a member of the franchise: an android (this one called David and played by Michael Fassbender), an untrustworthy “company (wo)man” (Meredith Vickers played by a rather sexy Charlize Theron), huge sets (Scott prefers to build in real life rather than digitally), great Chris Foss-like spacecraft, tension, a strong female lead, and so on.

The story moves quite slowly, in honesty, but when the action kicks in it’s with a shock factor. There’s definitely a horror element, both because of the tension followed by a jump, and in the gore stakes. While not as outright violent as the second movie, and not as edge-of-the-seat scary as the first it manages to have elements of both while focussing on a very good story that tries to give a sound basis for what was to follow.

Performances all round are excellent, though I’d pick out Fassbender in particular as what is effectively the first Weyland android. Quirky, cool and mysterious you wonder if the Alien universe has ever been party to Asimov’s Laws of Robotics.

Visually, it’s a treat from the gorgeous sets to the costumes and creature effects.

It seems to have been getting some mixed reactions which is to be expected. I, personally, think it’s a great slice of classic science fiction. It takes a core question – “where do we come from” – and drops a nice little dollop of “what if” in there. The technology may be a little too advanced for the era during which it’s meant to take place, but that’s the only real slip I could see… and one I’d love to have proven right as it would mean there’s a possibility of me just about seeing the beginnings of it in my lifetime!

I can understand why some people won’t have liked it. On the other hand, I’d recommend it highly because I enjoyed it and Gillian reckoned it was pretty good also.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Robin Hood – no Bryan Adams in sight

Robin Hood 2010 poster
Robin Hood (2010)

Well, I had a pretty awful day but I’m glad to say that I passed at least a little of it with some escapism in the form of Ridley Scott‘s Robin Hood – a film better than the trailer would have had me believe.

Robin Hood

“Rise, and rise again. Until lambs become lions.”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Random longbowman becomes knight, then outlaw. All in a measly 2 hours and 10 minutes.

The first thing I really liked about this film was the fact that it was hugely different from any Robin Hood film I’ve seen in the past. The main reason is that Robin isn’t an outlaw in it until the very end. This is the story of how Robin Longstride becomes Robin of the Hood. And a very interesting tale it is, too.

If you’re expecting an update of Kevin Costner‘s Prince of Thieves then you’ll be disappointed. However, if you found that to be a Hollywood-ised mess full of historical inaccuracies and geographical nonsense then you may well prefer Scott’s vision.

There’s no way a truly historic tale could be woven, simply as there’s not even any proof that the man existed. Even if he did, the stories about him vary so hugely that we don’t even know if he was a commoner or aristocrat, or if his name was indeed Robin. Perhaps that came about because he wore red. Or was it Lincoln green? The stories can’t even agree on the colour of his clothes!

Historically, and based on the facts we do know of this period, the version here is definitely far more accurate than Costner’s. Certainly, it’s got one simple fact right – that Richard the Lionheart died in France so his appearance at the end of a film (portrayed by a Scot…) to make everything right again is hardly going to happen. Hell, Scott’s even managed to factor in the fact that the person who killed him was (possibly) a cook. And that he was shot by an arrow in the left side of his neck. In one five minute segment, Scott (and scriptwiter Brian Helgeland) have more historical accuracy than Costner managed in his entire movie.

In the interests of balance, it must be said that this version isn’t as “entertaining” at Prince of Thieves. After all, it hasn’t got Alan Rickman in it. However, it is a very different type of film. Both have their merits – the older one is more fun, frankly, whereas this has a much superior story.

Russell Crowe isn’t bad as Robin. At least he tries at an English accent. Which one, however, is anyone’s guess. One moment he’s Yorkshire, then more Scouse. At times he even drifts as far as having an Irish twang. To give the guy some credit, though. He’s a Kiwi who’s been putting on an American accent for years.

The film certainly doesn’t have the scale of the pair’s earlier Gladiator, but there’s no taking away from the impressive sets and scenery. I’m sure historians would happily point out a thousand discrepancies, but it looks alright to me.

I genuinely had no hope for this film based on the trailer. However, the film advertised certainly isn’t the one I saw. It’s far better written and more interesting than the action-fest I was ready to tolerate.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]