REVIEW: Prometheus, Big Yet Inelegant, Groans Under Its Own Weight

Movieline Score: 6

People with a strong sartorial sense know the difference between what’s elegant and what’s merely elaborate. It’s not the same in the movie world, where big and overcomplicated is so often mistaken for better, when really it’s only...big and overcomplicated. Ridley Scott’s Prometheus, designed as a sort-of prequel to the director’s 1979 terror-in-space aria Alien, is elaborate all right. But it’s imaginative only in a stiff, expensive way. Scott vests the movie with an admirable degree of integrity – it doesn’t feel like a cheap grab for our moviegoing dollars – but it doesn’t inspire anything so vital as wonder or fear, either. Prometheus has been one of the most anticipated pictures of the summer, but its lackluster payoff is summed up perfectly by one of its chief characters, a scientist who travels a long way from Earth in the hope of meeting the allegedly superior beings who created us humans: “This place isn’t what we thought it was.”

[Some spoilers follow.]

That character, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace), is an archeologist who, in one of the movie’s early scenes, circa 2089, stands hand-in-hand with her partner and beau Charlie Holloway (the exquisitely, painfully dull Logan Marshall-Green) as the two gaze in wonder upon an Earth cave drawing they've just discovered. The pictogram shows a couple of unearthly creatures standing tall and pointing at something-or-other. Are they gods who created us, or just random visitors? Shaw thinks they may be the former, and she's eager for a meet-and-greet. “I think they want us to come and find them,” she says, voicing one of those really bad ideas that make the world of science fiction go ’round. Before long the two have joined a crew of 15 others, all headed to an undisclosed destination in space where they will freely and joyfully act upon yet more bad ideas, including packing a severed alien head into a space baggie and reaching out to touch a slimy tadpole-penis-head thing.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The others aboard the all-too-appropriately named Prometheus include a tall, icy businesswoman named Vickers (Charlize Theron), a representative of the corporate behemoth that’s funding the trip; the ship’s captain, Janek (played by the appealing, casual Idris Elba); David (Michael Fassbender), an android a la Ian Holm’s character in Alien, who has learned a healthy handful of ancient languages as a way of possibly communicating with whatever godlike forebears the crew may encounter; and a random Asian guy who wanders around idly in the background of a few shots until, inexplicably — mini-spoiler alert — he becomes one of the story’s heroes. (This disposable Asian is played by Benedict Wong, who also appeared in Duncan Jones’ 2011 Moon.)

There are a bunch of others – including some dumb geologists/biologists (Rafe Spall and Sean Harris) and a doctory-scientist type (Kate Dickie) – but the cast of Prometheus suggests that 17 crew members on a movie space ship is about 10 too many. (The Nostromo, after all, carried 7, and Scott and writer Dan O’Bannon made it easy to distinguish one from another.) But Prometheus, both ship and movie, is overloaded in every way: Scott and screenwriters Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof have packed the picture full of noble themes, most of them having to do with the way our yearning to understand the unknown jostles uncomfortably against our desire to explain everything through science. “I just want answers, babe,” the logic-mongering Holloway tells the dreamier Shaw, though this is before – and here, take note of another mini-spoiler alert – a wriggly wormlike thing starts poking out of his eyeball.

What do Shaw and the others discover on the mysterious planet to which they've trekked? They make their way into a cave where the air is actually breathable – they lift off their bubble helmets and take in deep gulps of the stuff, which seems inadvisable, but what the heck? Deep in the cave’s recesses they find a magnificent hallway replete with majestic murals and a large sculpture surrounded by a formation of conga drums covered with sweaty spores. Prometheus features a host of effects designed to make you say, “What the heck?” and yet none of it stirs real curiosity, awe or dread.

The crew also encounters, of course, some variations on the magnificent spoodly pinky-gray creatures designed by H.R. Giger for the earlier Alien pictures. Perhaps these thingies are supposed to be bigger, more impressive and more realistic, whatever that might mean. Yet there’s a business-as-usual quality about them, and they herald their presence openly rather than lurk menacingly in the shadows, as if announcing cheerfully, “You expected to see us, and here we are!”

That’s not to say there aren’t some lovely effects in Prometheus, including a sequence in which a group of hologram ghosts appear as shimmery dots and dashes of light – they rush toward and through our intrepid explorers, on their way to, or away from, something. But we never find out who they are or what they’re running toward or from. In fact, there are dozens of loose ends in Prometheus, hanging like so many squirmy, dangly tails. Fassbender’s android commits a significant, malicious act for reasons that are never made clear: We know he has no soul, and thus probably no conscience, but his actions seem like the result of some deeply human traits -- Scott never bothers to explain. The geography of the ship is carelessly delineated: Creatures show up in one passageway or another – it’s never clear what room or area they’re coming from. One of these slimy, willfully malevolent wrigglers emerges at a significant climactic moment, and it’s unclear whether it’s a random critter or a larger version of a baby we’ve seen earlier – the lapse represents a missed opportunity, a possible means of fleshing out some of the movie’s ideas about the relationship between gods and the creatures they create (or destroy).

Scott is trying to make sure Prometheus is about something, and his ideals may have distracted him from the more prosaic task of just getting on with the storytelling. When Brian De Palma presented, with Mission to Mars, a much more passionate, and more narratively sound, version of this sort of interplanetary spiritual idealism, it was treated as a “bad” science fiction movie. Prometheus, on the other hand, is tasteful even in the midst of all its squirm-inducing gross-outs, and that’s a liability: It’s impossible to have tasteful passion. The actors mostly seem lost here: Rapace comes off as a doll-like naïf, pretty but wholly lacking in charisma or even science-fueled ardor. Guy Pearce appears in heavy age makeup which, if you ask me, is a total waste of a perfectly good Guy Pearce. Theron and Fassbender have much more presence: Theron, at least, gets to suit up and fire a flamethrower – the vision of her big bubble-helmeted head perched upon a body that seems to consist mainly of two lily-stem legs is something to behold. And Scott gives Fassbender the quietest, most poetic sequence in the movie: Early in the picture, the robot David wanders the ship while the rest of the crew are still deep in their hypersleep dreams. He busies himself with assorted tasks, and then sits down before a massive wraparound screen, where he watches Lawrence of Arabia with rapturous admiration. David finds a physical, if not spiritual, twin in O’Toole’s T.E. Lawrence, a model for the man he’d like to be, if only he were a man at all.

But Scott doesn’t, or can’t, sustain the eerie, resonant beauty of that sequence. Prometheus isn’t a piece of junk. It feels as if Scott has tried very hard to please us, his audience, in an honest if costly way. He surely knows how high the stakes are: With Alien, Scott gave us one of the great science-fiction films of all time, a picture that was at once glorious and austere; when I looked at it recently, I was struck by how wonderfully slow-moving it was, and yet every minute is taut. But Prometheus is a world apart, a far more unwieldy picture that tries hard to defy this new, noisier age of movies and doesn’t have the agility or the suppleness to do so. You can practically hear Prometheus groaning under the weight of its ambitions; it’s a far cry from the sound Scott was going for, the music of the celestial spheres.

Follow Stephanie Zacharek on Twitter.
Follow Movieline on Twitter.


  • Well written review but having seen the movie twice myself and being very much impressed with it, I feel you have lost the plot a little. From the line 'But we never find out who they are or what they’re running toward or from', I realise that you just didn't quite understand the movie in the way that I, and I'm sure many others did. To reply to that statement you made, The 'who' are the other engineer's and the 'what' is the product of their biological weapons. If these small points were missed by you and presumed to be plot holes, I can assume why you are frustrated with the points specifically not adressed in the movie (which to me are used impressively to create a sense of awe and wonderment, which you say the movie doesn't inspire). Personally I would suggest everyone to see this movie for what it is; a story about the beginnings of life. And after all, wouldn't life itself be very boring if we knew all the answers?

    • Morgan says:

      Re-read the first paragraph of the review - I think you're mistaking elaboration for elegance.

      • stevenmccall says:

        I'm not actually, and where does my comment even suggest to you that this is so. If you don't have anything constructive to add then why reply to my comment at all?

        • Pierre says:

          I think you're using "the understanding of others" a bit liberally. We aren't actually shown what they're running from, as whatever it was wasn't picked up by the scan thing (HOW CONVENIENT, RIDLEY!), so while it is probably some mutation of the black goo, it's not evidenced, therefore all options are still open.

          Likewise, we don't really know where they are running and why that one Engineer chose that room (we don't see any others reach wilfully for any other destination). It could as easily have been just 'a room', any room, to hide in. Not necessarily an intended destination.

          Anything else you read into it isn't fact, so don't assume it is.

  • I don't know why critics feel like they have to criticize this movie. I guess they can go ahead and make a better one. so many people just assume something is a plot hole when they don't understand it - not surprising why there are so many horrible things happening on this Planet.

    • 2+2=5 says:

      Saying "if you don't like it, lets see if you can make a better one" is absolutely wrong. You clearly fail to understand the meaning and the purpose of the criticism. People that can write a valid review and criticize the work of art don't need to be art makers themselves, on the contrary - it is better if they don't.

    • John D. says:

      And thus begins the defensive assault of the Fanboy Vanguard, dedicated to telling everyone who doesn't like this movie that they are wrong - they are soooo wrong...

      LOL. I love watching Fanboys (and Fangirls) in action.

    • MattL says:

      Saying that a negative review of a movie you like is equivalent to the reason that so many horrible things happening on the planet is pretty silly. Consider reassessing your outrage.

    • Doghaus says:

      "I don't know why critics feel like they have to criticize this movie"

      That might be the most asinine sentence I've ever read. Just bewildering. Also the film was terrible, deal with it. I loved Alien too.

  • Lee says:

    I was unimpressed with the film, I found it boring and pretentious. There were far too many unanswered questions (or even questions the director had forgotten to ask - or was too scared to ask) undisclosed facts, and details left unexplored..

    A far more interesting film could have been made which would have explained the events leading up to the voyage of the Prometheus...because it's certainly implied that there's a lot we don't know.

    It appears to be merely a marketing ploy to launch another movie franchise.

  • starsky says:

    horrible boring movie. waste of money. should just have stayed home and watched south park-- better entertainment value and more thought-provoking.

  • Artist-hating Charles says:

    This is very amusing: Stephanie's review has a red tomato on Rotten Tomatoes!

    • val2000 says:

      technically her review is positive (60%), therefore 'fresh'. just goes to show how very strange things in the criticism world are. I am a writer myself and always had immense respect for critics until i realized that many critics wait for a weighty opinion on a work of art to start Greek-chorusing once it's out. before such an opinion is made public it's best to stick to the middle and write reviews like the one above - third gender, so to speak. it can work both ways - not entirely diatribe but not much praise either. extremely shady. but she was a rare critic to give Avatar 50 out of 1000 when everyone was raving about it.

      • Artist-hating Charles says:

        Ha ha. I just checked and it got changed to a green tomato. Which makes sense because a 6-out-of-10 vote by one critic is not the same as a 60% concensus of critics.

    • Quite a few of the "positive" reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are highly qualified: "Looks great but bad plot", "impressive but disappointing", etc.

  • Why does everyone feel the need to attack a reviewer's OPINION? That's what a review is. It's not the end all be all of the film. Disagree? Fine, start your own blog. Don't tell the reviewer that they're wrong because the director failed (upon a single viewing) to properly convey information, or do so in an incoherent or blatant manner, as Scott did with Prometheus.

    For what it's worth, I saw the film, found it visually resplendent but the story is all kinds of a mess, the acting is uneven at best (Rapace is fantastic, Fassbender is ok but inconsistent, and the rest are on a downward slope), and the pace is atrocious. Events happen then have no consequence, there are a lot of scenes of showing the characters going back and forth between the ship and the temple (reminiscent of the Star Wars prequels' need to show every ship arriving and taking off, complete with landing gear), scenes that feel like set pieces come and go without having any sort of impact.... I think more people are giving this movie a pass on nostalgia for Scott's "master" period (those 2 movies from 30 years ago, one of which has been tinkered with more times than Lucas' nonsense) than for actually watching the film.

    That being said, again, it is just gorgeous to look at. I recommend seeing it in 3D, just bring an iPod and listen to some Aphex Twin Selected Ambient Works. (Vol 2)

    • Guest says:

      You must really dislike "Alien" as well then. As I recall there are some pretty lengthy shots of the ship moving in space, landing on the planet where Kane is attacked, and things like that.

  • Brieftaube says:

    A point that a few commenters seem to miss, is, that a movie critic knows a lot about movies. They normally explain pretty clearly why they think a movie is great or why not. They know that you can't compare style and content, but you can compare two movies of similiar style or content. Same with one director's different works; or genres; or directing styles; or script-quality. You wouldn't say "Cloverfield was great" (hell no) but "Prometheus was bad" (not sure) comparing the two. So nobody needs to agree to what a critic writes, right? It's so childish to feel offended by a negative review if one like that movie. And nobody needs to defend a filmmakers's work. The critics do know that it was hard word and good intention. So get over yourselves - everyone should honor that expert's effort to explain his or her take on the subject.

  • dina says:

    There is a HOT and big dating place(blackwhiteplanet.c~0~m),it is welcome every single.More than 90% gold members have found their soul mates there.And it is true and free for sign up.If u wanna seek___ a____ true___ love,please check ____out____ it. Meet your the lover of dream through it.U can dating, marry successfully with beautiful,handsome,successful and rich singles.
    What do u hesitate? Many pretty girls and handsome guy have found their soul-mates and millionaires there. If you don’t have a try ,you will not know what is happiness and success.Well,have a nice day,best wishes to u.

  • F U says:

    Dear Movieline/PMC

    Is it true that you have eliminated Stephanie and her position at Movieline? Evidently you are incredibly out of touch with your readership. Reading Stephanie's reviews are like drinking a cool glass of water in a desert wasteland. This must be part of your "Race to appease the studio's bottom line" strategy. Then again what do you expect from a company that is run by the likes of a two faced, self enjoying Medusa called Jay and Alyson.

    Live long and prosper Stephanie. You will be missed.

    • Yorick says:

      +1 indeed. Shame on you, movieline!

    • trendon0 says:

      What sad news. Stephanie's reviews were the only reason I visited this website in the first place. Good luck on your next venture, Stephanie!

  • Bill Gregg says:

    I thought the film was visually stunning, but the creature effects laughable! I mean, the cheapest shot at the very last thirtyseconds...something out of the B-movie genre. The alien creature emerges, looking like a cute dinosaur. Why not have that final frame have a wickedly sinister Geiger creation that is woefully horrific emerge instead of another cliched visual. That last scene took all of the wind out of my sails...sorry.

  • Bill says:

    Remember the scene in the end of Scar face, when Al Pacino has 1000 holes in him, and he's bleeding from every orifice?

    That's the plot in Prometheus.

  • Jerry says:

    I found the movie delightfully mysterious in the things it left ambiguous. Some of your review feels like you're picking on little parts of the movie in the way one would if the film were a shoddy production ("conga drums with sweaty spores"?) just to try to take it down. Also your very clever "groans under it's own weight" line was also used in your Avatar review, which I agree is a film most worthy of being mocked.

    I agree you have points regarding Holloway being dull and the geologists reaching for the "penis thing" being a bad idea, but when you start picking on the movie's production value and creative design, which is a breath of fresh air in a time where every other movie relies so heavily on distracting, lazy CG to do it for them, your few critical points, which I was actually interested in, begin to groan under your need your want to take the movie down.

    Anyway, high five on taking big shots at Avatar. Down low to slow for your review here. I think we need more big studio movies with the worth ethic of Prometheus.

  • jt says:

    Having just seen the film, after looking forward to see it for so long, I must say that I am left disappointed.

    Yes, it is pretty to look at. However, it really wasn't a great film. It was only an "ok" film.

    While I don't need answers to every question, some of the questions needed an answer. The part that bothers me a great deal is the Android's actions. What was the point of infecting the scientist? What possible agenda could it have had to do that? It felt like it was put into the story randomly just because it could be.

    I agree with this review on just about all points. The wooden acting, the lack of "awe", the feeling that the story was so elaborate, that it got away from them.

    This could have been a great film. But, while not as bad as movies like Avatar, it seems to rely more on being visually appealing than having a full thought out story.

  • jim says:

    Really boring movie. Another "Hugo", if you will. People want to be entertained when they go see a movie--on this point alone Prometheus fails miserably.

    The worst part of this movie is that the story is so stupid and riddled with plotholes that it insults your intelligence and just kills your suspension of disbelief.

    Ridley Scott hasn't made a good movie since Black Hawk Down. I think part of the problem is that he has not chosen good scripts lately. Visually, Ridley Scott is a genius but movie audiences want a story and characters they can relate to--Prometheus is such a huge disappointment in this respect. Nice visuals but no heart. Prometheus never connects with the audience at any point, and this is a real problem. Even the corny Dances with Smurfs by James Cameron was miles better than Prometheus because audiences could relate to some aspects of the story and characters.

    Honestly, since 1986's Aliens, there hasn't been a truly great sci-fi movie. Aliens just hit all the right buttons--great characters, solid plot, great suspense and thrills, and great action. Who can forget Ripley in mum mode kicking the alien queen's ass? It just connects instantly with audiences--there was no need for tons of meaningless semi-mysterious dialogue like in Prometheus. Everyone understands how ferocious a mum can get when defending her child, people get this instantly. There is nothing like this in Prometheus, just emotionless dialogue and characters doing stupid irrational things.

    Wish that movie directors in general would study Aliens and get back to basics. Seriously folks, this is not rocket science--people just want to be entertained. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions on a movie, (1)don't insult the audience's intelligence and (2)make sure the movie is entertaining. Look at Avengers 2012, not a classic by any means but entertaining and it cleaned out at the box-office.

    Heck, even The Artist 2011 was way more entertaining and thought-provoking than Prometheus--and it was made on a $15 million budget in black and white! If Blade Runner 2 is going to be more drivel like Prometheus, seriously Scott--don't bother.

    The best science fiction movie in the past 3 years remains District 9--made on a small budget yet was superbly entertaining and thought-provoking. Even "Moon" by Duncan Jones (another sci-fi movie made on a small budget) kicks Prometheus' ass bigtime.

    • uoffry says:

      Jim, you probably didn't like 2001 A Space Odyssey either. Aliens is #3 behind Alien and Prometheus. Yes Aliens had a bad ass Ripley vs Queen Alien scene, but really that's about it. I just re-watched it and it's bubble gum pop comparatively. Bubble gum pop is also good, but on lower story level to Prometheus. The acting in Aliens is laughable and a cartoon (watch Bill Paxton) compared to Alien or Prometheus. Every thought in Prometheus was carefully considered and has meaning behind it. After a second viewing you can connect most of the dots. And some things are best left for us to fill in the blanks.

    • Al says:

      Jim, I must largely agree with you. My first reaction upon walking out of "Prometheus" was that it had no arc; it seemed to be a series of loosely connected scenes.

      However, was not "12 Monkeys" a great post-"Aliens" SF movie? Alas, there have been few if any others.

  • Robert says:

    Ms. Zacharek is, I think, actually too generous to this film. The general critics' consensus has been positive --- so I went to the theater with this in mind, as well as retaining a great fondness for ALIEN --- one of the finest films of any genre ever made. But PROMETHEUS, certainly visually stunning, in every other way simply blows --- plot holes, inconsistent characterizations, vanishing plot threads, ridiculously stupid dialogue --- and aliens of several different types ... are they all mean, incessantly violent and really, really strong? I am aware of two recent, brilliant, science fiction films: DISTRICT 9 and MONSTERS. Most film-goers know DISTRICT 9, but MONSTERS (2010, Gareth Edwards) slipped under my radar until I stumbled upon it at the local library. It's quite surprising what can be accomplished on a tenth or a thousandth the budget of PROMETHEUS.

  • Paul says:

    First of all we were robbed by this movie.
    The Alien is not an Alien anymore if it comes from the same genetic stock as us.
    And we have still never addressed the poor science of the first movie, namely how did the chest burster get from being a small lizard sized thing to being eight feet tall without eating anyone?
    So its been bad science right from the beginning. But the original had an interesting political element that just got thrown out the window in favor of quasi alien god garbage.

  • Mundo 361 says:

    First off people need critisism so the dont waist there time and money and honestly to tell someone its stupid to have a negative opinion is wrong every one has a right to say what ever they want idc if its dead wrong fair is fair i personally enjoyed the movie it does leave u hanging a little at the end but the fact is that it was probly ment to be like that probly to leave u thinking multiple possiblities i personally hope she goes back to there planet and drop there own weapon of mass destruction on them it would be a bitter sweet ironic victory for mankind lol if u dnt like movies that leave u hanging thats were reviews come in lol i agree the android had to many feelings he shouldnt hve care he acted someone sinister and if he didnt have feeling why would he even care to leave the planet at the end that dude started to care and he screwed over those people why idk if he didnt have feelings he shoulda acted straight well the movie was alright not bad ass or n e thing

  • Wes4Les says:

    I am curious why the author of the above review gave "Prometheus" a six, when clearly her review sounds like that of a three, maybe less. Personally, I gave it a one at Rotten Tomatoes.

    "Prometheus" is a thoroughly detestable film. It is indeed a "Fanboy/girl" film, for only those rabid yahoos could watch this and not snort w/ derision at every turn or opportunity for something interesting to happen (instead of more CGI "ooh! ahh!" effects which add little to the story.)

    I thought the premise of this film was interesting, but the way it was handled certainly wasn't. "Ooh, they're asking us to go there, yipee let's scoot!" Sure, saddle up on a trillion-dollar pony and visit w/o bothering to send salutations first. None of the characters behave w/ any emotion, save for Fassbender. Which is odd, considering David is supposedly an emotionless android, or was he Data w/ his emotion chip? Questions like that spring up, not one gets so much as debated, save for hokey platitude answers like "That's what I believe, and I'm-a stickin' to it!" in response to an honest query like "Why are we out here?" or "Why do you think those painting were an invite, and not an Astronomy lesson?"

    Sloppy, sloppy film. Pointless, not even close to entertaining. And what is esp. galling is to see excellent character actors like Wong and Harris (menacing and excellent in "Harry Brown") so absolutely wasted in this pompous, comic book-mythology mess. Never mind watching Guy Pearce's constipated performance under pounds of terrible make-up, and a bored Charlize Theron playing the role of an angry Stepford wife in spandex.

  • Wes4Les says:

    Excellent review by "Jim" up above. And naturally, it's followed by one chiding the first.

    Probably didn't like "2001: A Space Odyssey?" Well, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but where did that poster come up w/ that ridiculous tidbit? Maybe "Jim" liked it, maybe not. Maybe "Jim" felt that way about "Battle Beyond the Stars," or "Saturn 3," or even "Leonard, Part 6." What does A have to do w/ B, just because they're in similar genres?

    And how about this laugher: "Every thought (sic) was carefully considered and has meaning behind it." What was the thinking of having the crew believe that Weyland was dead, when he was secretly on-board? What was the "meaning" of that? There was no need for pretense, there. I'm sure the C.E.O. of any major company is up to something they don't want their "blue collar workers" to find out about, but they don't pretend they're dead to accomplish their goal. Please explain the thought that went into Pearce's casting, Theron running right into the path of a boomerang-shaped alien ship, or why the alien has to play a flute to start his own vessel, when key-less entry is available to us humans now. He may as well have played an oboe, a muffled trombone, a tuba, or clapped for Tinkerbell while he was at it.

    What was the "meaning" of having David shoot baskets? To work on his game if he encountered an alien version of Allen Iverson? Let me guess, to "hone his hand-eye android co-ordination." Fans of this down-right dumb film always offer up snort-worthy answers like that to fill in enormous logic gaps.

    As for "Aliens" was bubble-gum pop, and on a "lower story level" than "Prometheus," you have got to be kidding (sadly, I'm sure you are not.) I say again, WHAT STORY? You mean the one about a bunch of one-dimensional dolts masquerading as intelligent doctors and scientists who whisk off to "meet their makers" and instead run into a bunch of slimy-looking creatures w/ goofball names like "Xenomorphs," "Space Jockeys," "Nickelbacks," etc. who apparently make holographic documents of everything they do in case foreign explorers go spelunking down there, such as running away from what-ever was chasing them in that sooty-looking cave w/ black ooze dripping everywhere? That story?

    What else do you consider a high-story level, those "Left Behind" series? "Battlefield Earth?" No one could watch "Prometheus" and consider it anything but a mildly thought-provoking fantasy that was given a rushed-off and out "Made for human mass consumption" treatment. Bzzzt! Whizz! Whoosh! Slurp! Eek! "Here, have an alien sperm cocktail, Holloway." Grade-F entertainment for the Oh I Get It Crowd, Everyone Else Is Wearing Blinders.

  • Good review.
    There is almost no science in this science fiction movie. Example, they set down on the planet, decide to have a race against the sunset, don't seem to even map out the area well, don't seem to bring food or much scientific equipment. No one seems to be in charge. No guns are brought. Not even a tent is brought with them. Helmets come off, of course. When you are near alien life for the first time, on a foreign planet, it's just plain obvious that you need to take your helmet off, and enjoy the fresh air. The robot sticks his finger in anything he can find. Oh and that's just the opening.
    As a horror movie? Maybe it works. The white snake thing wasn't really that scary. The baby squid birthing scene was definitely the best scene in the movie, but a squid? Really? It wasn't even very interesting looking, a real squid would of been better to see. The humanoid alien, well he doesn't talk much. He does like to rip off heads, which is a good thing for horror movie fans. Too bad it was a robot head, and too bad he decides to warm up his ship's engines and buckle in, at the same time he IGNORES all these human visitors running around. Those would be the ones running around on his own ship by the way.
    Oh and the plot. Ahem.... let's see here (takes a swig of beer). Humans did not evolve, nor did God make us, instead, some very tall angry bald white guys from space made us with their space juice, which comes from a plain looking jar, that jar being prone to leakage. Yea the aliens need a little work on the whole 'Tupperware' technology thing. Being the angry sort of sleeping pale aliens with fancy space ships, they intend to come back to earth and just kill us all with more space juice which they apparantly like to drink while relaxing near a river. Why do they care about earth? Oh let's just say they need more planets for their jars of space juice.