They're Remaking 'Alien' -- the 'Prometheus' thread

That's not what I'm reading there but ok

"Everyone but Dr. Morbius will love it."

rotten tomatoes has it at 89% positive based on 9 reviews, but some of those "positives" are pretty carefully hedged
metacritic, otoh, has it scoring only 63 of 100 possible points based on 4 reviews
imdb hasn't opened it to user reviews

the B in IMDB doesn't stand for Belgium, then.

Gah. Removing bookmark from this thread.

Yeah, the reviews have been pretty mixed so far. To be honest, that's probably better for schmucks like me who let themselves get overhyped. Lowered expectations can be a good thing for movies like this.

Okay, Ponies is gone, what's the movie REALLY like?

"what may be most interesting about this particular campaign is the emphasis on reevaluating, or perhaps more to the point, demanding appreciation for Ridley Scott as an auteur—the sort of appreciation many cinephiles would be more willing to grant his brother, Tony."

what the shit, who the hell thinks this?

Tony Scott, darling of cinephiles

lol

Tony Scott, cinema's top gun

actually many cinephiles i know do sorta think this

you can certainly make way more of a case for TS in the last 25 years than his brother.

Holy crap - just going through the TV channels here and Club RTL (TV station from Luxembourg) is playing Alien at the moment. Notable details: there's a "HD" logo on screen (right next to RTL's logo) but this is the most low definition version I've ever seen, forget about the DVD and BluRay remaster/reissues, this looks hardly better than VHS. Oh, and it's dubbed in French. Oh, and in French, it's "Alien - Le Huitième Passager"

("the eighth passenger")

That's not what I'm reading there but ok

? those quotes from early reviews are hardly glowing, most of them are negative

Rorschach tomatoes

you can certainly make way more of a case for TS in the last 25 years than his brother.

True enough. Over the weekend I was home; one evening my mom noticed Kingdom of Heaven was on and watched it, first time I'd seen it myself. It's technically accomplished, very well shot, but was otherwise felt pretty flat, besides Edward Norton acting behind a mask as a leper (so, a documentary).

"not as imaginative as Alien" is p damning from my chair

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2403/2225424418_4f129c368e.jpg

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/53755/53755,1325613911,1/stock-photo-uncle-sam-dunce-uncle-sam-sitting-on-a-stool-facing-a-corner-wearing-a-dunce-cap-political-91886444.jpg

yeah my expectations for this are loooooooooow

the odds of someone coming out of a 25-year career slump to make a decent (to say nothing of great) film strictly because of the tangential relation of the material to something previously great are, um, not good.

OTM, this sucking wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Also seeing tomorrow, tho.

I mean I guess it's probably happened but I'm at a loss for precedents

xp

that was p good 'rizer

had no idea R Spiralli was still alive tho

I am treating this like any other big budget serious sci-fi film i.e. I'll watch it just because but expectations are low

that said I am intrigued by this observation in the guardian review: In place of scariness there is wonderment

wonderment = avatar

in place of scariness there is avatar

actually many cinephiles i know do sorta think this

― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:49 PM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark

ironic appreciation of tony scott has definitely been on the rise in recent years (myself included), but very few people are prepared to make a serious argument for a reassessment of his work. i guess that could easily change if enough of a consensus builds up...

Armond probably likes Tony Scott, right?

wait he probably hates Denzel though

never change, Armond

this thread is going to kill my dreams like the Community thread did, isn't it. Just tell me now, it's cool

I don't want this movie to suck ;_;

"unstoppable", "true romance" and "crimson tide" are all pretty well regarded, both by critics and fans. not much else of note though. he's made quite a few tough-guy action thrillers, and that kind of genre consistency appeals to "reappraising" auteurist types.

The Last Boy Scout is a better brainless POS than True Romance.

what i really want to know is what do dr morbius and shakey think about this movie

I think.... they love it

Tomorrow, Imax, South Bank, industry screening. I've never been to the Imax before; apparently I should go "as high up and as far back as possible". That sounds rude, sorry.

Tony Scott is very highly regarded in mirrors/feathers/gunfire spheres

imax? That's like seeing it in 4D!

IT'S LIKE GOING TO SPACE

Yeah, I should probably get my optic nerves rewired or something - I'm not sure I have the visual bandwidth for this.

I need to get a space helmet and breathing apparatus

oops not I = u need to

"not as imaginative as Alien" is p damning from my chair

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:18 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Is that the chair from which you think "Alien" is a boring, overrated snoozefest?

I mean just let us know which side you're playing here so we know exactly how much to ignore you.

Morbius in his chair

http://images.wikia.com/headhuntersholosuite/images/e/e9/Space_Jockey_001.jpg

Part of the reason the Tony Scott movies of the 2000s are disliked by many—and intensely loved by others—is the total lack of "big" gestures in his current approach to directing. These movies consist entirely of small moments, off-the-cuff images, strung together into something massive yet lacking an "obvious" grand design. No big plans, just hidden smiles. This makes Scott a harder sell than similarly-concerned directors like Michael Mann, who anchors his intuitive moments to grand ones, or Claire Denis, who presents them as the directorial gestures that they are. The party line on Scott is that he's an "empty stylist," a man who makes "technically accomplished" and therefore insubstantial films with too much editing. On the one hand, I probably wouldn't be here defending Scott if his movies consisted of shots that ran for minutes instead of seconds; on the other hand, I wouldn't think they were worth defending if that were true.

You've probably figured this one out: I don't intend to brush off Scott's style, nor am I going to defend it as candy, as sugary, calorie-free style, as "pure color" or "style-for-the-sake-of-style-get-over-it-and-have-some-fun-why-don't-you." Scott's recent films are beautiful, but beauty is not a question of surfaces (contrary to the old saying, it's "prettiness" that's merely skin-deep). I am here to defend the substance and morality of Scott's recent films, and a defense of the recent Scott is, at its core, a defense of his editing: the jitters, the saccades, the 250 BPM intercutting, crashing and burning that are integral to the hidden-in-plain-view heart of Scott.

http://soundsimages.blogspot.com/2010/12/scotts-metaphysical-romances-pt-1.html