Just plain bad. My take is even harsher than most critics'. I am tired, tired, tired of the constant refrain, "but the effects were so good, it was worth it . . ." that some folks dutifully recite. No, it just looked good. No, do not feed me a turd and tell me it is chocolate ice cream. So what was wrong? The actors (most were gawd awful . . . the one real complaint I had before the opening was the casting. And the few bright spots, Elba and, and, and, well Elba was given such stupid lines and just plain wasted), the script and story (Alien transcended its B movie roots. Prometheus? I think I'll take Planet of Vampires). Yes, the basics. I wanted to like this, I truly did. But Scott made a movie that is just not good. Yes, Fassbender is reliably watchable. Rapace is good but her character's survival is so ridiculously unbelievable that I have to wonder if self professed fanboys like Linderfroe never be allowed to touch the franchise of their affections. I had hoped that even if it faiiled, the movie would try something interesting, but it didn't. Every cliche in the book. 2001 on steroids???? More like Battlefield Earth on Zima. But the effects were fantastic!
I agree dallas, the effects really did nothing for me and I am still in disbelief at how truly awful the movie was.
top cast in this . l loved it .must have watched a different movie !
I had no problem with the cast, but I had problems with the characters and the story execution. I never got sucked into the story at any point
Sign in to add a reply to this topic!