My issues with the cinematography are a personal preference. I think that digital photography rarely hits a level that is comparable to film. Whilst I think Wolski does nice things, much of it is largely derivative of what Vanlint achieved in Alien, in terms of the ship interiors and building suspense around these lethal creatures, except it misses out on some of those fundamental aspects that made Vanlint's work great - the strobing lights, the crushing, pitch blacks, the fact that you can be looking at something that you assume is one thing, but is actually another.
I'm not saying that Wolski had to do that, but there are enough parts of the film that are clearly trying to be Alien, like David wandering around the Prometheus early on, the scene at the dinner table, even the look of the bridge, that means that the comparison is inevitable. I like Wolski's work quite a bit, and this is probably one of Scott's better films photographically in recent times, but it doesn't hold a candle to what it's trying to be. That's just a product of digital photography though, and as I say, much of that boils down to personal preference. I also hated how The Muppets looked - that cold, unforgiving digital image that lacks the luminous quality of film does many of these films no services, and I think it's a great shame that film is progressively being abandoned, especially when 3D's charms are limited.
As for my point being invalid because it disagrees with every single reviewer, are you honestly telling me that if you see a film and you think something in it stinks to high heaven, are you going to doubt yourself when you read the reviews and find out people disagree with you? Are you all of a sudden wrong because consensus, when it comes to art, is allegedly king? That's a boring and limited outlook to have, I think.
I will agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that Fassbender's performance as David is phenomenal. Deliberately cribbing from the work of O'Toole and Olivier, providing us with all kinds of intruiging emotions (or, interpretations of emotions as it were) and bringing more to the table than Lindelof actually allows him in the plot - that guy is a dead-set star, and quite honestly the only actively engaging thing in the film.
Forgive my harshness with the film, but I found it to be a completely dejecting and disappointing experience, given the scope that the idea had to do something really special and memorable, and instead the product is entirely derivative and to be honest, pretty dumb, especially when stacked up against the film it spawns from (which is inevitable, given the direct links).
I don't mean to whinge though, and don't take this the wrong way, but I think it's a little bit rich to pillory someone for expressing a negative opinion on the film, and yet if people just come in here and say "Wow, it was awesome, best thing ever," then everything's hunky dory with them and they're a bona fide legend for doing so.
Ah, böwakawa! Poussé, poussé...
Ah, böwakawa! Poussé, poussé...
Ah, böwakawa! Poussé, poussé...
