The Suicide Squad - No Homework Required

Comic book movies and TV shows are very complicated these days. There are multiple universes, reboots, remakes, director’s cuts, and TV shows. It’s hard to keep up with everything, much less follow along. Because of this, a film like The Suicide Squad should be one movie too many due it being a sequel/soft reboot filled with obscure characters that even the dorkiest audience member would have trouble recognizing. Instead, it ends up being the most singularly focused and entertaining comic book movie in years.

The first Suicide Squad was a bit of a mess. It was meant to be an R-rated, subversive response to the Marvel movies, but studio interference turned it into a forgettable PG-13 cog in the machine. When the DC universe failed to equal the popularity, and focus, of the Marvel movies, it appeared that the film would be a one-off. But when Marvel fired writer/director James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy), DC immediately hired him and told him he could make whatever he wanted; it turned out he wanted to give the Suicide Squad another chance. 

(NOTE: I won’t be writing any major spoilers in this review, but even being vague about certain things may spoil them, as this movie contains a few big surprises.) 

The Suicide Squad is kind of a sequel in that four characters (Amanda Waller, Rick Flag, Captain Boomerang, and Harley Quinn) return, but it’s also a bit of a reboot in that the focus is largeley on new members of the squad, like Idris Elba’s Bloodsport, Daniela Melchior’s Ratcatcher 2, and John Cena’s Peacemaker. Other members and events of the 2016 Squad are not referenced, which is kind of nice because that movie is so forgettable anyway (and I didn’t want to watch it again to prep for this movie).

Because the first film is largely ignored, The Suicide Squad is able to be refreshingly simple, and the tone is changed. The first film was slightly comedic, but overall it was a joyless affair. The Suicide Squad, on the other hand, is pretty much an action comedy. Some of the funniest moments occur between Bloodsport and Peacemaker as they develop a bit of a Gimli and Legolas rivalry during the mission. But the bulk of the humor is due to the self-aware nature of the film. This is a film that features a humanoid weasel and a talking shark (hilariously voiced by Sylvester Stallone); rather than try to come up with some reason for characters like this to exist, the film just makes fun of how ridiculous comic book characters can be. 

Speaking of ridiculous, there’s no need to get into the plot of this film. There’s a truly weird big villain at the end, and it needs to be taken care of. What more does anyone need to know? The story moves at such a fast and carefree pace that you don’t really care about how crazy the characters are or if all of the plot makes perfect sense because it’s simply a fun time. 

Most of the credit is due to James Gunn’s writing and direction (the action is brutal and easy to follow), but the perfect casting all around is key, as well. Idris Elba makes for a great anti-hero because he’s naturally charismatic enough to not be hated for being a jerk. Margot Robbie is now the official face of Harley Quinn and for good reason. Joel Kinnaman gets to have a lot more fun as Rick Flag this time around. Daniela Melchior provides a surprising and much-needed bit of heart to the film. Viola Davis is even more bureaucratically menacing this time around. And John Cena is the revelation of the film. His sincere delivery of silly dialogue is consistently hilarious. 

The cast in general seemed to be enjoying themselves, and that translates to the film. The Squad, flawed and annoying and crazy as some of them may be, is fun to be around. Scenes of them just hanging out are just as entertaining, if not more, than the action set pieces.

Perhaps this new Squad only seems great in comparison to the old one, or perhaps it’s easy to love a comic book movie that doesn’t require research to make sense. Or maybe it’s simply a great James Gunn film. One thing is for sure, The Suicide Squad is one of the only comic book movies in recent memory that I wanted to watch more than once, and not just because it’s a standalone story, separate from any complex “universe.” The Suicide Squad is rewatchable because behind all the gore and dark humor, there are interesting characters. And good characters can always carry a movie, no matter how silly it gets.

Random Thoughts/Favorite Quotes

James Gunn is known for his excellent music choices and the streak continues with this movie. Love the use of “Folsom Prison Blues” to start things off.

Michael Rooker should have to wear that wig in all future roles.

I love how Joel Kinnaman says “Weasel.”

Always cool to see Pibb represented.

“All names are letters, dickhead.”

For the record an Afghan Hound looks nothing like Weasel.

“He’s harmless. I mean he’s not harmless; he’s killed twenty-seven children. But...you know...we got him to...I think...he’s agreed to do this.”

I’m kind of indifferent towards Pete Davidson, but you know Gunn made a lot of people happy by having him get shot in the face less than ten minutes in.

Normally, I’m all for Jai Courtney getting killed off as immediately as possible, but I sincerely enjoy him as Captain Boomerang. He was one of my favorite parts of the first film. I think of him like Gerard Butler: just let the guy speak in his native accent in every role.

The reveal that all the soldiers the Squad kills are actually allies is my favorite twist of the film, but the beginning fake out of the first Squad being a diversion is a close second.

“Who the fuck is Bloodsport?” I love that I have no idea who most of these characters are, and it doesn’t matter. If watching Marvel feels like you have to do enough research to complete a dissertation at this point, then watching The Suicide Squad is the equivalent of forgetting that you had a test on a subject you already know nothing about, so you say “fuck it” and guess on every question. 

“Book read.”

King Shark is “reading” The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James.

Sylvester Stallone doesn’t know he’s in this movie. The filmmakers secretly recorded all his dialogue by just following him around...like in Bowfinger.

Seriously, though, Stallone’s voice acting is hilarious throughout.

“Who knows why mad men do what they do?”

“I can’t believe this thing had a bullet.”

If there’s one lesson to be learned here, it’s “don’t kill birds.”

But seriously, with the birds and the rats, there’s a real message about innocent, natural creatures and the repercussions for those that do them harm.

“Fake mustache.”

I really dig Daniela Melchior as Ratcatcher 2. Her sincere line delivery and nearly comatose energy make her this weird heart of the film.

It kind of sucks that Gunn is going back to Marvel after this. He seems like he should have been with DC the whole time, just doing whatever the fuck he wanted. Oh well, at least we have this movie.

What makes this movie amazing is that halfway through all this crazy shit, there’s a quiet bus ride of character development.

I shouldn’t care about any of these obscure-ass characters, especially since they’re technically supposed to be villains, but I ended up caring more about them than I did in any of the bigger movies of either DC or Marvel. For instance, the party scene in the club is great. It’s funny and endearing (and sad when it cuts to King Shark by himself on the bus), and if they attempted a similar scene with the Justice League or the Avengers it just wouldn’t work. (Aside from the shawarma scene, I can’t think of another scene with either group just hanging out and enjoying themselves for a bit, but I could be wrong.)

I love that a dude named Bloodsport talks about the “Death Touch.” If only Van Damme was playing the guard he said it to…

I don’t want 3-D to make a comeback or anything, but I bet that Harley Quinn flower sequence would look awesome in 3-D.

“All right, who ate all the fucking empanadas?” 

“I am walking back and forth!”

Always good to hear the Pixies in a movie.

Much like Harley Quinn, I forgot about Milton the first time I watched the movie. But upon a second watch, his background involvement is amusing. Here’s this regular-ass dude running along with all these fucking weirdos.

The Thinker’s fucked up lab is right out of Dr. Logan’s in Day of the Dead.

I get the need to kill off nearly everyone from the first film (sort of rebooting the series while also creating real stakes), but it still sucked to see Flag die.

“New dumb friends!”

“Oh, fizzlesticks. Hold on.”

“What was Milton going to do?”

“Get on a satellite, Dale, you fucking dickhead!”

“If they have purpose, then so do we all.”

What a beautiful and disgusting way to kill the monster.

“I was happy, floating, staring at the stars.”

..

Who Needs the Avengers When You Have Thor, Loki, Elves, Spaceships, Lasers, a Sort of Hulk Monster, a Hammer, and All Kinds of Other Cool Crap?

Thor: The Dark World - Directed by Alan Taylor, written by Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus, and Stephen McFeely, story by Don Payne and Robert Rodat, starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, and Tom Hiddleston - Rated PG-13

This gets a Kurgan simply because if the Kurgan showed up in the middle of a scene, no one would bat an eye.

Thor is certainly the strangest character in the mainstream Marvel universe (or at least he is for someone like me, who is not well read when it comes to comic books).  He is equal parts Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and, well, superhero. Because of this, Thor's standalone films can be quite different from the other Avengers' more Earth-related adventures.  This is a good thing because in a film like Iron Man 3, you wonder just what all the other Avengers are up to as the world comes to the brink of annihilation.  In Thor: The Dark World, Earth factors in very rarely, so it's conceivable that the other Avengers wouldn't even be aware anything was happening until it was too late.

The new Thor movie is entertaining for many more reasons than simply its setting.  The first film was surprisingly, and appropriately, comedic as it was essentially a fish out of water story.  This film retains that comedic spirit while not relying on the same gags from the first film.  To be fair, there are still some easy jokes made with Thor's scenes on Earth, but the majority of the humor is earned through character moments, especially those between Thor and his brother-turned-nemesis Loki.

Loki steals the show as one of those villains you love to hate.  During his first appearance in the first Thor movie, Loki didn't seem all that amusing or menacing.  Somehow that changed with his role as the main baddie in The Avengers.  He still seemed a little bland as far as super villains go, but credit Tom Hiddleston for breathing some real life into the character. His constant smirk and witty banter make him an honestly likable character, despite his goals of world domination and whatnot.  Apparently his role was initially smaller, and Hiddleston was brought in later for some additional scenes.  That turned out to the correct move as he is one of most enjoyable parts of the film.

The focus on Loki doesn't mean that the titular character is any less fun.  Chris Hemsworh picks up right where he left off as Thor.  He's a bit more somber in this film, since his love interest is stuck on Earth, so there are fewer fun scenes with him this time around.  The performance is fine; it's just that the character required a quieter performance, which is why Loki picked up the comedic slack.

As for the rest of the cast, all the returning players perform admirably.  It was nice to see Idris Elba, as Heimdall, get a few more scenes this time around, although he is still the most underutilized aspect of the franchise.  The new faces are few, but serve the film well.  Chris O'Dowd produced a few laughs in his few scenes.  And Christopher Eccleston is decent as the villain, though that was more of a prosthetic performance.

Of course all of these characters are involved in a plot, but that doesn't really matter in the Marvel universe, does it?  Some strange being is threatening to use some vaguely described powerful substance to destroy the world for even vaguer reasons.  That isn't meant as too much of a dig against the film (or entire Marvel universe for that matter), but let's face it, these plots are mediocre at best.  It's a good thing the characters are so great because the stories for these movies just keep getting more and more nonsensical and boring.  Not to mention the fact that shadow of the next Avengers looms over everything as if to say, "This is all well and good, but just wait until you see me!"  It dramatically lowers the stakes of all the standalone films  because you know the real threat and all the coolest stuff is being saved for the group effort.

Thor manages to rise above all of that, though.  The movie works on its own and is just as entertaining as the first.  As action movies go, Thor should keep you happy.  The beginning was a little on the weak side, with a lot of exposition and bland battles, but it picks up in the middle and has a thrilling climax.  Director Alan Taylor (of HBO's Game of Thrones fame) turned out to be the perfect fit for the franchise, providing a straightforward action movie devoid of all the random Dutch angles (which I actually liked, despite their randomness) of Kenneth Branagh's previous entry.  Although it would certainly be interesting to see what Taylor would have done if he had been allowed to be as graphic with this film as he is with Thrones.

Thor: The Dark World is yet another solid movie in the Marvel franchise.  It doesn't take any risks with the storytelling or anything, but it doesn't really need to.  Thor satisfies the craving for that specific character (and a few of his friends and enemies) that will keep you sated until Thor teams up with the rest of the gang again.  It is a bit troubling that the film feels less important now that the Avengers are around, but the movie is just fun and outlandish enough to make you forget about those other guys for a little while.

"Pacific Rim" Really Reminded Me Of...

...Independence Day.  I know most people have been comparing it to Transformers, which I suppose makes sense on the giant robot level, but I found that there were more story connections with Independence Day.

 

Before I go any further, let me say that I love this movie.  This is in no way a slam or an accusation of Pac Rim being a rip off (see, I even used Pac instead of Pacific, like a real fan would).  I don’t put much stock into rip off accusations these days since everything can be tied back into some influence on the filmmaker.  I just want to point out some similarities I noticed.  And, for the record, I like Pac Rim much more than Independence Day.  But I do have a lot of fond memories of ID4 since it came out when I was 12, and it’s one of those movies I’ll always remember seeing in the theater.  Anyway, in no particular order, here are some things I noticed.

 

(Of course, MASSIVE SPOILERS ahead for both Independence Day and Pacific Rim.)

 

1. A leader of a desperate group of people suits back up to join the fight AND he gives a rallying speech before he does so.

"Today, we are cancelling our Independence Day!  Wait...what?"

In ID4, the President, played by Bill Pullman, continues to lead the country even though it appears increasingly hopeless.  Idris Elba's character may not be the President of the United States, but he is certainly the man in charge of the jaeger program.  Both Elba and Pullman give thunderous speeches, and then go on to join the fight personally.  Although Pullman does survive (but Elba's sacrifice connects with another aspect of the movie...

 

2. A pilot(s) sacrifices himself so the mission can succeed.

Cousin Eddie (can't remember his character name) AKA Randy Quaid plays the sad sack of ID4 who is able to redeem himself by going on a kamikaze run to help save the day.  Elba and his Australian co-pilot also sacrifice themselves to the overall mission can succeed.  Honestly, this is the weakest of the connections since Elba and the Aussie aren't in need of redemption as much as Quaid.  Sure, the Aussie is a bit of a punk throughout the film, but he's hardly as reprehensible as Quaid's deadbeat dad.  But I still count this as a connection.  Especially since there is the father-son dynamic in both films as there's a tearful goodbye when the sons know their fathers have made the ultimate sacrifice.

 

3. A piece of alien technology is needed to reach the aliens to destroy them.

They're both wearing glasses, so that means
they look alike...

Big Willie Style and Goldblum couldn't just fly an F16 up to the mothership to blow it up (or infect it with that super hi tech laptop that can somehow sync up with alien technology...), they needed to use alien hardware to get there.  Jax Teller and his new girlfriend couldn't just take a jaeger through the portal, either.  In the case of Pac Rim, the kaiju are basically genetic hardware created by the aliens, which the humans can use to transport into the alien world.  In both cases, the humans are successful and return to a hero's welcome.  Oh, and it seems like the aliens in each film looked similar.  I guess all of the good designs were gone by the time they got around to the actual alien masters on the other side.  No big deal, though; they only get a few seconds of screen time.

 

4. A crazy scientist is used for comic relief AND for communicating with the aliens.

I saved the most obvious connection for last.  When I saw Charlie Day pop up with Burn Gorman, I immediately thought of Data in ID4 (Brent Spiner for you non-trekkers, and that crazy scientist guy for those of you who have only seen ID4).  The scientist in ID4 serves the same basic purposes as the duo in Pac Rim.  First and foremost, they are all the main comedic relief of the film.  Sure, with ID4, it's pretty much just, "Look at how crazy this guy is!" while Pac Rim is only a little bit of that (since Charlie is as obsessed with aliens as Data), and there's more plot elements with the scientists.  But it's still a fairly obvious connection.  What seals the deal is the fact that the scientists are used as vessels of communication for the aliens.  In ID4, it's just used for threats and whatnot, while in Pac Rim it's more like humans spying on the aliens.  The point is the scientists of both films connect with the aliens.  Oh, and doesn't Charlie even look a little like Data's scientist?  Maybe I'm stretching it too far with that...

 

That's it.

 

So there are my connections.  Are there more?  Probably.  These are the most general and obvious ones, in my opinion.  What do you think?  Am I completely reaching here?  Did I miss some obvious ones?  Let me know.    

Another Way Too Late Review: "Pacific Rim"

Another late review. In this one, I pretty much just geek out over how much I love Pacific Rim.

Directed by Guillermo del Toro, written by del Toro and Travis Beacham, starring Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Ron Perlman, and Clifton Collins, Jr. - Rated PG-13 

Any movie that makes me grin like a little kid during every action sequence deserves my highest rating.




Big summer movies can and should be fun movies to watch.  Since I now watch movies with an admittedly amateur critical eye, I sometimes forget to just sit back and enjoy the movie.  But it’s not just that.  Hollywood more often focuses on darkness now (e.g. Star Trek into Darkness) because it’s cool or something.  There was a time when serious subject matter, like the possible end of the world, was treated a bit lightheartedly.  Roland Emmerich (Independence Day) has made a career out of this, but lately he’s lost his touch (White House Down is a step in the right direction, albeit a small step).  Enter Guillermo del Toro to save the day with Pacific Rim.

 

Del Toro is most famous for his Hellboy films and his visually stunning Pan’s Labryinth.  Despite the comic-book or fairy tale nature of those films, they were mainly focused on telling an entertaining and fun story without worrying too much about reality.  Pacific Rim is exactly the same.  It’s insanely visually impressive (more on that in a bit), but it never takes itself too seriously.  Pacific Rim is about giant robots (called jaegers) fighting giant inter-dimensional monsters (called kaiju).  How serious and dark could you possibly make a film like this?  Thankfully, del Toro just wants to have fun.  Pacific Rim isn’t a cartoon or anything, but it expects the audience accept the world of the film and enjoy it. 

 

The story isn’t completely carefree, however.  The world is still ending, you know.  Pacific Rim focuses on American jaeger pilot Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam), but it is truly a global story.  The focus is on humans, not nations.  This is almost like the ending to a trilogy in that the war between the humans and monsters has been going on for years, and this is the story of the last chance to defeat the monsters for good.  Some critics have made the end of a trilogy comparison as a negative aspect of the film, but I have no problem with that.  Don't we have enough long, drawn out franchises?  Pacific Rim is the rare blockbuster that doesn’t feel like the beginning of a long series.  There might be sequels in the future (although the film is not exactly tearing up the box office), but this works as a satisfying stand-alone story. 

 

A film that can be boiled down to robots vs. monsters isn’t all that worried with plot, or at least I'm not that worried about it.  This is a sci-fi action film, and it features awesome set pieces.  Each battle between the jaegers and kaiju is different from the last.  It’s very easy to tell what’s going on in each fight, and even though it is obviously done with special effects, the action has impact that feels very real.  Also, the destruction of major cities doesn’t make you feel awful because in the world this film is set in people are used to sudden evacuations so you know that you’re not seeing thousands of people die in each scene (unlike Man of Steel).  Most importantly, each fight scene had me grinning like a little kid.  I lost myself in the action.  Normally, some issue with the action (camera movements, CG quality, etc.) would distract me a bit.  That didn’t happen with Pacific Rim.  The only bad thing about the action is that it eventually had to end.

Del Toro just has a way of creating worlds that I never want to leave.  Pacific Rim certainly doesn't have as vivid a world as Pan's Labyrinth or the Hellboy series, but those films lend themselves to a more complex world.  Pac Rim still feels very much like a different world since it takes place well into the battle for the planet.  The most important aspect of the design of the film isn't so much the world as it is the jaegers and kaiju.  I liked the designs of all of them, though it would have been nice to see more battles in the daylight without rain. 

Pacific Rim is just a movie that works for me on every level.  I loved the world, the jaegers and monsters, the cheesy comic relief, the action, etc.  Obviously many people will disagree with me.  That's fine.  I do take issue with some people who start to dispute the science of the film because, well, why would you take a scientific approach to a movie about giant robots and interdimensional monsters?  It's like judging Call of Duty in a negative light because it doesn't treat bullet wounds in a realistic manner.  It is what it is.  For me, Pacific Rim was completely engrossing, and it allowed me to simply watch and enjoy a movie in a way that doesn't happen very often.  In fact, this review is so late because I've had a hard time thinking about the movie in a critical light at all.  I just want to tell people that it's awesome and they should check it out.  It's all kind of pointless now that it's been out so long, but I started writing this a couple weeks ago, and I don't feel like just trashing it.  Anyway, Pacific Rim is awesome.  You should check it out.

"Prometheus"

Directed by Ridley Scott, written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof, starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron, and Idris Elba - Rated R

"Big things have small beginnings." 

The main discussion concerning Prometheus is whether or not the film is a prequel to Ridley Scott’s classic, Alien.  The cast and crew have been vague about it, at most admitting that there’s some Alien DNA in the film.  I think they’ve been dodging the question not because of spoilers but because of revenue.  If Prometheus had been billed up as a straight up sequel to an old sci-fi film, then interest in it might lessen.  The big question, then, is if Prometheus can be enjoyed by someone who has never seen Alien.  The short answer is yes.  This film does stand on its own.  But only Alien fans can fully enjoy it because no matter what the filmmakers have to say about it, this is a prequel. 

Prometheus is great without any prior knowledge, though, because of the questions asked within the film.  The main question is the age-old question of humanity, “Why are we here?”  That question takes on different variations as the film continues, but it is that initial curiosity that sends the crew of the titular spaceship Prometheus to a planet light years away from Earth to investigate a message left by multiple ancient cultures.  Asking a loaded question like “Why?” can make or break a film because it has to deal with religion and science and how it can co-exist.  Not to go into spoilers, but the film dodges the issue in a satisfying way.  But anytime an issue is dodged there will be complaints.  Could Prometheus take a risk and answer the question in a definitive and dividing way?  Yes, the film could have done that and made a small group of obsessed fans (myself included, most like) extremely happy, but instead the filmmakers left it open.  That not only makes the film more accessible for the population; it also allows the viewers discuss the film.

That is what makes Prometheus truly great.  I am writing this review twelve hours after I watched the film and I am still rolling ideas around.  If all my questions had been answered then I would have very little to write about.  Instead, I am left with so many questions and theories that I can hardly focus on just one.  I find that exhilarating.  I’m usually happy if a film simply makes me feel something.  When a movie makes me think deeply about life: that’s special. 

I realize that I have not given a proper synopsis for this film yet, but I don’t intend to.  Prometheus is science-fiction and it’s about the origin of life.  If that interests you (and it should), then watch it.  If that sounds like a bit too much for you, then skip it.

But Prometheus is still a movie and should be judged as other movies are judged.   First, the visuals.  Sci-fi films are typically the most impressive visual films and this movie does not disappoint.  Director Ridley Scott insisted on using as many natural landscapes and practical sets as possible and the film benefits from it.  The locations are otherworldly and impressive because most of them are real.  The title sequence is so beautiful it seems like Werner Herzog or Terrence Malick took over directorial duties for it.  As for the sets: they were great.  The ship looks polished a bit, but it still fits into the technology of Alien in a very satisfying way. 

Of course, a sci-fi film has to feature some CG effects.  It’s all handled very well, though.  The film is in 3D, as well, and it is better because of it.  Prometheus is a visual spectacle and it should be presented in 3D.  I have decided that all science-fiction films should be in 3D because the vastness of space is best shown in the third dimension.

“Prometheus” also works thanks to the amazing cast.  Noomi Rapace is tasked with the leading role and she does a fine job.  She doesn’t make quite the tough heroine that Sigourney Weaver did in the Alien films, but she certainly holds her own, especially late in the film.  Idris Elba has some interesting scenes as the benevolent captain of the ship, and there are a few questions raised by his actions.  Charlize Theron makes for an effective and emotionless corporate minder.  Sean Harris provides some lively moments as a disgruntled geologist.  And Logan Marshall-Green does fine in a slightly boring role.

It’s Michael Fassbender, though, who steals the show as an android named David.  Who better than Fassbender to play a robot?  Not to mention a robot that watches actors like Peter O’Toole and emulates them.  Fassbender constantly propels the film and every scene he is in is instantly better than those without him. 

But the real star of the film is director Ridley Scott.  I am a huge fan of his work, most notably his sci-fi efforts, Alien and Blade Runner.  A lot has been made about Scott’s return to his best genre, so I don’t need to add much to that discussion apart from saying that I am glad Scott is back in sci-fi.  He has always been an ambitious filmmaker and sci-fi is the perfect place for lofty ideas and questions.  Scott has tried to insert themes and ideas about life in general into recent works like Robin Hood and Kingdom of Heaven to mixed results.  The vastness of space is a much better place to present ideas about humanity than historical settings are. 

It was also nice to see Scott return to the Alien universe for both his style and his attempt to shock.  Scott emulates the style of the original film with his long tracking shots throughout the ship.  It’s pretty much mimicking Kubrick, but who better to copy?  Also, Scott doesn’t turn the camera away when things get gory.  Prometheus earns its R-rating (something fans were worried about for a while) by featuring some truly gruesome moments.  Is anything as shocking or iconic as the chest burst scene from the original?  No, but it is definitely some disturbing, cringe-worthy stuff. 

Overall, Prometheus is an incredibly ambitious film made with great style by one of the best working directors out there.  The film doesn’t answer many questions for the viewer and, honestly, a truly great film never tells the audience much.  Prometheus is an excellent film to discuss and think about.  Just check out some message boards and you’ll find multiple complex debates going on about this film.  Even if you hate it, you have to respect that it presents some interesting ideas about humanity, technology, religion, abortion, faith, and…well, life.  It helps that the film is absolutely beautiful and features some great performances.  It’s my favorite film of the year thus far and will certainly be near (or at) the top of my list by year’s end.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Okay, I have a lot more to write about on this one.  First: all the potential issues this film raises.

I loved that the question changed from the why of our origin into the why of our attempted annihilation.  And I am okay with our why simply being because the Engineers could.  It ties into our issues with technology.  Why do we create a lot of the technology we have?  Because we can and we want to make things better and better.  In the world of the film, it is brought up in a very effective scene between David and Holloway.  It is also extremely interesting when you factor in the timeframe when the Engineers decided to destroy humanity, which is roughly the time when Jesus walked the earth.  Scott has made this reference himself in an interview, going so far as to say that Jesus may have been an Engineer (i.e. alien).  But they strayed from that idea, for better or worse.  (If you want to check the interview, just Google "Ridley Scott moviefone interview.")

Religion is definitely a major factor in the film, though it isn't given the main focus.  It's more about faith and how someone can still believe after being put through trials and the answer given by Shaw is that she simply "chooses" to believe.  Not a groundbreaking answer and really kind of a boring answer, but it doesn't make it any less logical and it is still a statement about belief systems. 

The religion aspect is what I had in mind when I mentioned that Idris Elba's character, Janek, raises questions.  It is almost out of nowhere, but Shaw talks to Janek near the end of the film as he was God.  She asks how he can just sit back and watch horrible things happen without getting involved.  If you think back before that scene, we get to see Janek watching over all of the characters and even though they appear to be in imminent danger, he is very nonchalant and even uncaring a bit.  Kind of sounds like a certain deity who gets prayed to but seems to never intervene, right?  Of course, this changes a bit when Janek decides to care at the end and basically saves humanity.  So God was finally forced at act, basically.  Hey, at least this deus ex machina didn't simply magically show up...

Now, looking into how the technology of this film matches up with Alien.  An issue with a sci-fi prequel is that technology is better today so even though the film takes place before the original, the ship looks much better.  This has been explained in an interview I read a few weeks ago (so I don't remember who said it), but the basic idea is that the Prometheus is filled with scientists, which explains why they would have all the bells and whistles that the Nostromo does not, since that ship was basically an 18-wheeler in space.  Aside from that, the corridors still look similar and the ship does fit in nicely within the franchise.

Lastly, there is the issue of where this film takes place.  At first, I just assumed this took place on the same planet that the first film took place on.  That is not the case.  This is a completely different planet, but it is very similar in that it is also used as a cache for the Engineers' deadly weapons.  Presumably things went bad at all these locations which is why such a similar ship and issue occurred on an entirely different planet.  I know, I know, wouldn't it have been much easier just to make it the same?  Yes, but the story can go in more places if it isn't, so I'm cool with it.  Plus, it still explains the origin of the Space Jockey in an interesting way.  So Prometheus didn't end up being a true prequel, but it's still pretty damn close.