Thirty years after his prestigious "Blade Runner" Ridley Scott returns to his science fiction roots with "Prometheus" in 2012. But is it also a return to form? What is proposed to be a prequel to Scotts 1979 sci-fi-horror classic "Alien" was one of the most anticipated films of the summer. While I think those two early films are still his best I was not quite as excited about Prometheus as many others as I have not been the biggest fan of Scott's work in the past years and still feel the loss of the two hours that the unworthy "Robin Hood" stole from me.
In one of my most anticipated films of this year, Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained, there is a line that may help me explain my feelings about Prometheus. Leonardo DiCaprio, who is the film's villain, says "You had my curiosity but now you have my attention". Since I first heard about Ridley Scott's new project it certainly evoked my curiosity as well. But while sitting in the theater I was wondering until the very end if it was worth my attention. The film begins with a mysterious sequence in which a tall manlike creature appears on screen on a lush planet with no explanation of what it is or what it is doing there. After this first hook we jump in time to year 2093 where a team of scientists starts off on a quest to find answers to nothing less than the existential questions on the origin of mankind. Far away from earth they try to find those unknown creatures that, so they believe, were our makers. The name of the space shuttle is Prometheus, refering to the titan Prometheus who is the creator of mankind in greek mythology.
The group consists of a quite usual mix of stereotypes. Aside of the sympathetic young couple who came up with the idea after having discovered a hidden message in old cave paintings, there is the tough, dubious space captain played by Charlize Theron, whose decisions are rarely on behalf of the group as she is sceptical about the mission anyways. Of course there are other good guys and bad guys to find in the crew, also there are the obvious candidates who will be the first victims. But along with the two human protagonists, the most important and interesting character is David (Michael Fassbender). He is a loyal robot created to support the men on their long travel through space and to guide them with the huge knowledge he acquired. Like the replicants in blade runner he mirrors the human characters and raises questions on what makes a human being ... especially if you consider humans to be also just a creation by some other life form. In that respect the film also touches briefly on the religious issues and consequences that this undertaking could arouse.
It's quite an interesting approach again somewhere between 2001 and Blade Runner. The first act is going by quickly and the adventurers soon arrive on a planet where they believe to find what they have been searching. But of course they discover more than they wanted. They find a huge cave system and start their exploration. But there is something wrong in the dark corridors that really remind us of the creepiness of the first Alien movie. Ridley Scott builds up an overwhelming amount of tension in the second act. The dense atmosphere is also supported by the quite impressive look of the picture. I've seen the film in 3D. Some of the digital effects are really stunning but I think most of the time you will be just as fascinated by the visuals if you watched it in 2D. The plot kept me interested all the way through. There are quite some intense images and scary moments. While there is an evil threat terrorizing the group from the outside, we are always suspicious about what's going on inside the ship. We don't know who to trust and as the sitiuation gets more out of control, some of the crew members may not be the only ones to suggest to dismiss the plans and leave instantly.
It's the last act of the film when I started to realize that there won't be no answers. When the film gets to its climax it's certainly a thrilling even if familiar sequence but there are no revelations. Rather you are left with more questions than the project initialized. Why listen to someone who, in the end, despite an inspiring surface, has nothing to say? I think this is where the movie will split some audiences. Is it an ambitious, philosophical journey or just a pseudo-intellectual trip that leads into dead ends ... or no end for that matter? Well neither one and a little of both maybe. But what we definately have is a director back in his comfort zone and you can really see and feel the routine and experience in this work. Disregarding its unsolved riddles the film works fine as a spectacular blockbuster with horror edges and will certainly satisfy most of the mass audience. For all the critical viewers there might be some thought provoking impulses floating around beneath the movie's surface that you might be pleased to work out yourself. And for all the people who think they were cheated, deprived of some sort of epiphany besides the action climax, let me tell you this. I, too, felt like there was an empty spot somewhere that was demanding to be filled up. But on the other hand, what explanation to such an existential question could have been more than just a downer? Could an answer to this mystery in any possible way ever be satisfying at all?
TRAILER:
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen