Dream-Xtractor wrote:

Prometheus wrote:I have already seen it, and been to IMDB, and theres a ton of people calling out plot-holes when they really are not plot-holes. People are pissed off because the movie didnt explain anything! Personally I loved being left in the dark after Prometheus. It had some overly cheesy bits that kinda surprised me, but the "Lore" and visuals overshadowed it all.

Why do you think it will bomb?

The big bunch of creationists over there will probably hate massivly on Ridley's message..to the point where the WBC would be protesting

With the guy who wrote the lost finale do you expect any answers at all?

Just came back from watching it. No disappointments. I actually loved it.

Mindheist wrote:Just came back from watching it. No disappointments. I actually loved it.

How great was Michael Fassbender? I thought he was brilliant.

People who are complaining that the film is a turd because it provides no answers are way off the mark. This film does the opposite. It poses no serious or genuinely interesting questions, and just provides answer after answer. All of them unimaginative. Cribbing from Alien's designs and plot elements, explaining them all in the most rote fashion, and then doing absolutely nothing with them whatsoever. The film has no reversals, no real surprises, and most frustratingly the action is unmotivated, and the vast majority of the characters are extraneous (so much so that there's a scene that seems to exist only to provide a terrible dull action sequence and cull some of these characters).

The cinematography isn't even in the same ballpark as the film's predecessor, boasting that sterile look that afflicts most digitally shot films. Streitenfeld isn't fit to lick the boots of Goldsmith. This is in the same box as the prequels and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - a filmmaker fundamentally not understanding what made their original film so great.

Even Robin Hood was better.

ArmandFancypants wrote:People who are complaining that the film is a turd because it provides no answers are way off the mark. This film does the opposite. It poses no serious or genuinely interesting questions, and just provides answer after answer. All of them unimaginative. Cribbing from Alien's designs and plot elements, explaining them all in the most rote fashion, and then doing absolutely nothing with them whatsoever. The film has no reversals, no real surprises, and most frustratingly the action is unmotivated, and the vast majority of the characters are extraneous (so much so that there's a scene that seems to exist only to provide a terrible dull action sequence and cull some of these characters).

The cinematography isn't even in the same ballpark as the film's predecessor, boasting that sterile look that afflicts most digitally shot films. Streitenfeld isn't fit to lick the boots of Goldsmith. This is in the same box as the prequels and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - a filmmaker fundamentally not understanding what made their original film so great.

Even Robin Hood was better.

ArmandFancypants wrote:People who are complaining that the film is a turd because it provides no answers are way off the mark. This film does the opposite. It poses no serious or genuinely interesting questions, and just provides answer after answer. All of them unimaginative. Cribbing from Alien's designs and plot elements, explaining them all in the most rote fashion, and then doing absolutely nothing with them whatsoever. The film has no reversals, no real surprises, and most frustratingly the action is unmotivated, and the vast majority of the characters are extraneous (so much so that there's a scene that seems to exist only to provide a terrible dull action sequence and cull some of these characters).

The cinematography isn't even in the same ballpark as the film's predecessor, boasting that sterile look that afflicts most digitally shot films. Streitenfeld isn't fit to lick the boots of Goldsmith. This is in the same box as the prequels and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - a filmmaker fundamentally not understanding what made their original film so great.

Even Robin Hood was better.

Sucks for you.

Why? Because I'm judging the film on its (few) merits, rather than just buying into the hype generated by the marketing machine?

ArmandFancypants wrote:Why? Because I'm judging the film on its (few) merits, rather than just buying into the hype generated by the marketing machine?

The thing is, on this forum you'll be attacked if you go against consensus. But keep at it, really.

ArmandFancypants wrote:Why? Because I'm judging the film on its (few) merits, rather than just buying into the hype generated by the marketing machine?

Judging it on it's own merits? Lol, every single negative review besides yours has said the technical aspects and cinematography of the film are brilliant. Every review that says the script and story is flawed clearly states that. Also I have seen Dariusz Wolski's work in Dark City and I am pretty confident those reviewers are correct. All you did was throw out a bunch of negativity, you didn't give a very balanced review. Whatever, it's your opinion.