Watched it yesterday - my first ever 3D film (had planned to IMAX it but we all agreed after a boozy afternoon at a mate's gig it was as good a time as any to go) and I thoroughly enjoyed it - not because of the 3D mind (which was only really noticeable in incidental details like the dust/debris, title sequence, and "clever" bits like the holographic tracer, and I can't help but think any decent cinematographer could capture that) but because, well it was a good movie. Not great, by any stretch of the imagination, nor a particularly captivating addition (in it's first half efforts) to the franchise (it actually smacked a little of AvP "over-confusion" of the plot)

I felt some casting was "excessive" - Theron wasn't nearly as fiesty enough as she should have been and although I kind of like Fassbender, his wooden-acting working well in the role (as did his angular features echo Henrikson quite well) there wasn't in any way the sense of brooding malice that Holm conveyed - despite efforts in the script to make David "test" the crew.

I was also upset to see Sean Harris forced into another hammy role (like he was in Harry Brown) and underused... and Idris Elba could've been stronger (although gave me good reason to discuss the role of a pilot later on at dinner - having been learning about it reading Clavell's Shogun) - and is it me, or was Logan Marshall-Green a poor man's Tom Hardy?

I guess my biggest gripe is the film has no sense of scale - it all felt very contained in one "scene" the back-and-forth between the two principle locations (ship and the structure) did nothing but enforce the feeling there was no greater scope to what was going on (at least with the others there are constant referrals back-and-forth to other colonies, other companies, etc) - there also wasn't the element of time, that the previous films always seemed to capture well.

Still, I look forward to the next installment.

How can a cinematographer capture holography?

You know what I meant!

Just back from seeing it.



Scientific curiosity? Or more because of a "company" edict to get the organism back via an expendable crew - like in the other films.
Quite agree with this.


I suspect they must have known that it was nearly ready to birth anyway, so what's the hassle? They have their sample now.


I don't think it's an inconsistency - this is an earlier evolution of the beastie that lays down the template for the xenomorph of the later films. We know that it has a very aggressive development. I don't think this is apologising for the shortcomings (which were?).

All in all I really enjoyed it. My only obvious niggle was....
...how mobile she was right after a caesarean. I appreciate that we're in the future with all sorts of funky space medicine, but the human body just doesn't work like that. Ask anyone who's had one!

Looking forward to the sequel.

Quite agree with your last point Prof, I even said as much in the cinema!

We need a new word for prequel sequels if they're going to keep doing this... It's like finding the right tense when you time-travel. Future past imperfect?

Seprequel?

This made me laugh - comment on a friend's facebook status:

RE the 3D. I thought it was by far the best 3d I've seen in a movie.

The parts where they were in the cave at the beginning were almost like I was watching people on stage. Never seen anything like that before.

I've seen Avatar and UP and several other 3D movies but none were as good as this.

Generally speaking, I think they're getting better at it.
The last couple of films I've seen in 3D weren't at all bad. (Avengers and Prometheus). There's less of the 'Whoo! Look it's coming right at you!' these days it seems.

Indeed. But is it really worth the inflated price? Or is it a new tool to distract from a less that stellar script?

So did nobody else experience dark corners of the screen compared with a bright central circle?

Not that I noticed. This was on a Real D 3D screen.