Messages

Obviously Shaw is set up as the natural successor to Ripley

Predecessor.

I meant in film historical terms obviously! 

Saw the film again today and it improves on a second viewing, though some previous criticisms still apply.

Obviously Shaw is set up as the natural successor to Ripley and if they can improve the writing on any planned sequel then I'll be there.

Those pictures are fucking brilliant!

As been said before little by little, just the facts first. Nail the character, the environment, the system then add the extras.

Its all about the character first and foremost.

Exactly. All the background stuff is just window dressing. Get the character right and you've got yourself a movie!

My feelings of utter contempt after viewing AvP certainly weren't replicated after watching Prometheus and that was a considerable victory in my opinion.
The film looked stunning in IMAX 3D, particularly the opening waterfall shots, but as stated the plot and script were the real problem- Dan O'Bannon's and Ron Shusett's writing skills was severely missed.
Characters appeared to make great leaps in logic to reach certain conclusions-maybe an extended cut will address these issues.

As a techno and Sci-Fi fetishist, I loved the ship, technology and alien design work and while the film is flawed, it did have some stand out moments of tension and horror and some exploration of big ideas.
The film's major achievement, in my opinion, was not to sully the other films in the series as the two AvP movies did and still create an interesting film-something a certain other series of prequels failed to do.

If this all sounds like damning with faint praise I still enjoyed the film and will probably go see it again even if it failed to match the brilliance of Alien, but then with so much expectation and history how could it of ever have?
As for Blade Runner ?. At least Scott has got original Blade Runner writer Hampton Fancher on board, which bodes well.

[/quote]

Did someone say intrusive cameo?
By mrosborn at 2012-03-30
[/quote]

If Strontium Dog is announced for adaptation, that's four by Wagner.

Pat Mills needs a bit of filmic love about now.

Come on! Someone's got to pick up The ABC Warriors once those shit Transformer movies have died a death? Shirley?

Also sorry for swearing.

Yes, you should be!

It's not big or clever! Unless you're Danny Dyer of course, in which case it's really manly and hard!

Relax, Empire haven't reviewed it yet. Wait for the backlash.

Empire will give Dredd two stars and say it was better than Pluto Nash and Wild, Wild, West but would of benefited from more Rob Shneider!

[There Will Be Penis]

Don't worry, There Will Be Penis.

Great choice of director if it comes to pass!

I hear Michael Fassbender isn't shy of dangling the meat truncheon!

Early reactions are starting to trickle in across the interwebz. So far, early signs are good.
Critical reaction seesm to be waffly, useless, and a bit sniffy. Which is most likely a sign that the film is great.

Not according to the 'Empire' review - http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137119 - they basically take a rubber hose to it, and then give it a kicking for good measure...

I can't remember the last time I paid any attention to an Empire review. They gave The Hunger Games a 4 star rating and the film's a pile the also gave the far inferior Sherlock Holmes sequel 4 stars.
It's very fashionable to bash Scott, as it was Kubrick years before, so I don't pay attention to those dissenting voices either.
I'll be making up my own mind when I see it at the London IMAX tomorrow. But yes it's very likely it will live up to expection. How could it? It's Scott revisiting the Alien franchise after 30 years-the weight of expectation is just too great. However if it's worse than those deplorable AvP movies I will be very, very suprised.

Damn typo! Of course I meant it's very "unlikely" that it will live up to expectation. Doh!

My Scott/Kubrick comparison was based on their creation of seminal movies and their influence, longevity and standing in the business. Also the accusation by many that their movies are concerned with aesthetic perfection over narratice and humanity.

Early reactions are starting to trickle in across the interwebz. So far, early signs are good.
Critical reaction seesm to be waffly, useless, and a bit sniffy. Which is most likely a sign that the film is great.

Not according to the 'Empire' review - http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137119 - they basically take a rubber hose to it, and then give it a kicking for good measure...

I can't remember the last time I paid any attention to an Empire review. They gave The Hunger Games a 4 star rating and the film's a pile the also gave the far inferior Sherlock Holmes sequel 4 stars.
It's very fashionable to bash Scott, as it was Kubrick years before, so I don't pay attention to those dissenting voices either.
I'll be making up my own mind when I see it at the London IMAX tomorrow. But yes it's very likely it will live up to expection. How could it? It's Scott revisiting the Alien franchise after 30 years-the weight of expectation is just too great. However if it's worse than those deplorable AvP movies I will be very, very suprised.

[1962]

In all fairness you could just as easily say that Russian film had ripped its look off Alien, which Prometheus is visually following.

In fairness, I wasn't aware the crew of Alien chronologically-back-flipped before 1962- when the Sovs made Planeta Bur -Planet of Storms.

See! Proof that time travel does exist! 

I'm going to sit on the fence and state that I like the movie and GN equally.

How does the mighty one intend to exploit the release of the forthcoming movie?