UKC

Went to watch this today with the kids and I came away a little disappointed as well as being confused by a few things. The film did seem to make things more complicated than it needed to I think.

My Summary - Please Correct if you think I have got it wrong
White bubble-head guys seed earth with DNA before life had really formed. Some time later (around 0 AD I think if the "he's been dead for 2000 years" quote is right) they decided to destroy all life on Earth (reason not revealed in this film) and went to a new planet to develop really nasty virus thingy. The virus got out of control and bubble-head guys all died (except one). There is slightly tenuous connection with some cave paintings corresponding to a constellation arrangement which prompts the Sigourney-Weaver-replacement-woman to go searching. They find it and set it all off again - boom, squiggle, stomach scenes etc.

What I am slightly confused by is this virus thing. It appears to mutate things in a I am Legend/Omega Man kind of way. Are the big killer worms mutations of the little worms we see in the soil? (Curious that this wild mutant aspect isn't present in later films but hey-ho, neither were the hologram screens). Is this rampant mutation thing part of the virus hence why the thing eventually turns into the Aliens we know and love?

Back to plot questions:

Why did Smooth Android David poison Sigourney-replacement's man?

Did Sigourney-replacement realise that Smooth David had poisoned her man?

What did crazy old guy Wayland really want to do?
ie. did he know that there was a nasty virus there all along?

(Wayland said something late on when they were approaching the room to wake up the sleeping bubble-head guy and Smooth David revealed that he knew there was no contamination - I didn't hear what he said though).

... and silly plot questions:

Why didn't the two women run sideways when the big cartwheel space ship was rolling towards them?

Why did Ridley Scott run three key scenes - Caesarian, returning mutant-man, and waking up Wayland - all concurrently?

Why do women stay in hospital after Caesarians if you can run, jump and abseil after your stomach muscles have been cut through?

... and it looks like it is going to be at least 80 years before we get a Gri-gri 3!

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: could this film be called Aliens Episode 1 ?
and that belayer needs to learn how to use a Gri gri properly.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


I TOOK IT THAT THE PLANET WAS A STIRAGE FACILITY FOR DANGEROUS WEAPONS, THIS WAS MENTIONED? NOT THAT THEY SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED THE VIRUS? BACKED UP BY THE FACT THAT MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE THEY ALREADY POSSESSED THIS TECHNOLOGY.




NOT WHAT I GOT FROM IT? I TOOK IT THAT THE ACTUAL TITULAR ALIEN (FROM THE OLD FILMS) WAS A SPECIES WITH A PARASITIC STAGE IN ITS DEVELOPEMENT THAT BECAME AFFECTED BY THE VIRUS WHICH IN TURN MEANT IT COULD CHANGE ITS PHYSIOLOGY TO GET BEST USE OF HOST DNA? IN ALIEN 3 THERE WERE 'DOG' ALIENS





Is this rampant mutation thing part of the virus hence why the thing eventually turns into the Aliens we know and love
YES, SEE ABOVE

DONT THINK SO
TO MEET HIS MAKER TO GET HIS DNA DOCTORED SO HE COULD LIVE FOR A LONGER TIME.
NO
THEY HAD CHECKED FOR CONTAMINANTS?


THEY WERE ANGLING AWAY. THE SHIP WAS FALLING SLOWLY AND THEY WERE JUST AHEAD OF IT. TURNING TO 90 DEG THEY WOULD NOT HAVE OUTRUN IT AND BEEN SQUISHED
PACE?
COS THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO COOL 2080 MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY?
SAYS WHO? IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN 3 GRAMS LIGHTER THAN A GRI GRI 2 AND BE MADE OF EXOTIC MATERIAL!!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Thanks for that, Alan. You've just saved me £7 and 3 hours.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Can't help with all the analysis, I just watched it to enjoy the film. However, the bloke in charge of the company, after David said the thing about the air being clean, took his helmet off and said of the air: 'Smells fine to me'. Nothing sinister there methinks.

I have no idea why the women didn't run sideways. I was thinking that too. It was clearly a grigri 11, or at least, that's what we decided it was. And evidently when your stomach muscles get cut with laser beams in order to perform a c-section, they instantly heal straight afterwards too.

Also, from what I was aware, Aliens, as per the first film, only look the way they do through human interaction, and before that, they looked somewhat different. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one though.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Laughed at this as well. Same reason when someone is getting chased down by a car they always run forwards

In reply to Gallant:

that's correct. They take on the host DNA.

Eggs > face hugger > chest burster > adult alien > turns humans into more eggs

The last bit where the crew were turned into eggs was deleted from the original alien cut. I suppose it is confusing to how the original eggs started the life cycle but that kind of gets covered in Prometheus where i guess the eggs come from the alien that bursts from the engineer.

The predalien took on the characteristics of the predator in that part of the world. The comic books go into a lot more detail about the alien universe.

In reply to Milesy:

There does seem to be something of a shift though in this film. Previously the hosts were just that - a place to gestate and create a new alien, then be discarded after the requisite stomach-bursting scene.

In this earlier version the hosts appear to get very ill, nearly die then turn into rampant super-strong, bullet-repellant, mutants with no indication of any new life form sprouting out of them (except for the Engineer bubble-head guy who behaves like a normal host).

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: because he was the only one infected by the alien hosts (apart from the big guy at the end) the rest were virus infected.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

The worms did the mouth thing though on the two guys who mutated implying that they were also being used as a host, and then there was also the viris using the woman as a host to give birth to the huge octopus.

This is kind of what I mean by the film adding a layer of confusion and strangeness which was not there back in 1979 when aliens were just aliens and we knew where we stood.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

The chest burster is the only alien to come from the face hugger. The adult alien then kills humans to turn them into eggs which spawn more face huggers.


This seems to be an early stage of the mutation/weapon. The large face hugger which infects the engineer would be the true start to the alien cycle.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Only if you were a fan of the original alien only. The alien universe has expanded through comics for many years now. There is a whole lot of complexity more than Prometheus including aliens which are part whale and swim, and hybrids which can talk and fire human guns.

In reply to Milesy:

Ah, that must be where I am going wrong then. My interest in Alien goes as far as Ridley Scott, with a brief tip of the hat at Aliens for being a decent action film.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Have you ever tried to explain a joke and it then ceases to be funny anymore?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I thought the life cycle of these things was much more complicated. There are several strands going on in the film.

Number 1:
Worm/snake gribbly thing which lives AROUND sweaty jars: Infects a human (or other?) host and turns them into a big angry zombie thing (cf skinhead geologist/lousy cartographer who gets zombiefied and trashes the cargo bay.

Number 2:
Whole alien lifecycle:
Teeny alien from a sweaty jar -> human(?) mating pair -> giant mega-facehugger + Engineer -> Alien Queen -> Egg -> Facehugger + human -> chestburster -> Alien.

I didn't think the Aliens which came from people's chests could lay eggs, that was only the queen. In prometheus the queen clearly comes from the giant facehugger + Engineer rape/infection process.

Also, the "address" of the planet was written on earth over tens of thousands of years. I think the earliest was 34,000 years ago. So there must have been *something* there except a weapon. Unless it was more like an insurance policy for the Engineers: In case humans become too curious or spacefaring, send them somewhere where they'll all be eaten.

In answer to Alan's plot questions. I think Wayland wanted the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life the Universe and Everything. Also he wanted to live forever, in a kind of naive, last chance kind of way.

I think Smooth David poisoned the boyfriend to see what would happen ("Try harder")
I don't think New-Sigourney figured out that Smooth David had poisoned her fella.

I'm not sure if there's much mutating going on, except for in my "Number 1". I think the aliens are parasites, not mutants.

Basically the whole thing is done to answer this question: Why, if there are all kinds of aliens in the universe, do facehuggers fit human heads so well?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Are they going to make more? It seemed awfully ambiguous if not. Haven't quite digested it all in my head yet but it was enjoyable enough (and looked fine in 2D).

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: There do seem to be a few oddities in this film. However if you don't read too much into it and dont look for hidden depths it all pretty much stacks up.

I think one of the reasons they had a giant squid facehugger thing at the end is purely for the fact a standard sized facehugger would be little match for big on steroids human.

One thing which I don't quite get is why The android posioned the Doctor (i guess as an experiment for Wayland?)

As for Noomi making a fast recovery I would just put that down to future women finally getting equal rights and manning up about minor operations...Taxi!!!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Ignoring some of the 'minor' stuff like the C section being nothing more than a paper cut...

I liked the simplicity of the plot whilst explaining some of the background to Alien.

I took there to be a dual evolution - of men and of the aliens. The bubble headed guy's DNA was deconstructed and released into our eco system and gave rise to humans. Aliens were originally designed as a biological weapon (to destroy us), with basic 'pods' (screw top shell cases - later to become eggs in Alien) and giving rise to basic aliens (worms) which infect humans, but when allowed by impregnation to cross DNA with bubble heads/humans creates a more advanced alien which gives birth to something a lot closer to the aliens we know and love so well. Even if some of the detail is a bit vague, I think that's the basic idea - which I kind of like and was new,

I also sat there screaming inside 'run sideways'. Pffff.

In reply to Milesy:

It's a chick thing. Pheasants do it all the time.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Why did the engineer attack? Shaw seemed to say something that had meaning to him, then David went and called him a cockhead, or something. Why go to the trouble of allowing Charlize Theron to prep and eject from the ship, only to have her squashed, with no noticeable further contribution? And why did Rapace have to lower David from the crashed ship? Couldn't she have walked back the obvious way she got in? And...(continues ad infinitum, bemoaning the massive plot holes, poor acting and fractured narrative).

In reply to Stevie A:

Why when escaping the silica storm and racing back to Prometheus on their mobility scooters, does Shaw shout "go faster"? Would they not have been going at full throttle already?

80% of the dialogue was woeful and the film failed to follow its own logic (sometimes showing logical inconsistency between one end of a sentence and the other)

In reply to Blue Straggler:
It was a poor movie, all told. I enjoyed the 'happy suicide', cringeworthy 'bet' sub-plot and ludicrous automated surgery most of all. For some reason I kept thinking of the tosh that was Mission to Mars.

In reply to Stevie A: This film had holes in it for sure (the missed opportunity for Charlize to get naked if nothing else) but comparing it to Mission to Mars is just rude.

In reply to Stevie A:


Aah the automated surgery was a fine example of inconsistency. Were there anagesics or not? Shaw necks a few somethings and keeps injecting something, but still screams plenty. Nor is it explained why Vickers has such a rare machine on board.

God it was poor.

In reply to Blue Straggler: and why it was only calibrated for men when there were women on the ship ...

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Drugs not strong enough?

Nor is it explained why Vickers has such a rare machine on board.

For Weylan, who was ill and rich?

In reply to lewisor05:

It was for Weylan's use?

In reply to lewisor05:


And it was in a woman's quarters to begin with.

BTW

I loved the film and enjoyed it from start to finish.

Could have done with seeing some boobies though.

In reply to Southern Man:

Ah yes of course - fair enough, and Vickers couldn't say so at the time they were asking about it. Obviously my brain got numbed by the genuinely dumb aspects of the film such as why David would ever smile when there is nobody around to benefit from such assimilation.

In reply to The Lemming:

Well, it was in the most luxurious and safest (detachable) quarters, where presumably Weyland was being kept hidden too. So really they were Weyland's quarters. And Vickers IS his daughter.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


She did get a bit shirty when being accused of being a robot. No boobies, so in my books guilty.

In reply to Blue Straggler: There was a whole subtext there of David doing things to 'please' himself and explore what it is to be 'alive' Smiling may have been an affectation or it may have simply been what he's programmed to do in a situation which would require a smile in normal social interaction.

I think people are expecting too much from this film by the sounds of it!! It was cinematiccaly pleasing (particularly in 3D) It wasn't too deep and was a bit of a romp....... but nothing stands out to me as unexplainably wrong (like the double helix revolving around a central axis in space in that horrible Mission to Mars film, or the stopping half way to her husband because she's used 50% of her propellent!!!! Neatly ignoring the fact she'd need the other 50% just to stop, let alone get back)

I didn't go to see 2001 re made. I went to see the Alien prequal and that's what I got.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Good point - he didn't seem to have a good "functional" reason for reading Shaw's dreams etc. Accepted.

Hah! I wasn't! I was expecting disappointment (if that is not a contradiction in terms), but I got embarrassment. I always defend Alien: Resurrection against the common charge that it's "just a load of people having to get form end of a spaceship to the other and getting picked off by aliens along the way" by pointing out that that describes every Alien film - so I don't hold these things as sacred in the way that some mugs seem to!



I think that was in Red Planet - Val Kilmer with some M&Ms, right?


That was MtM, yes.

I was just in a grump cos my local cinema used to be £3.80 on Monday and Wednesday, but now Odeon have taken over it is £7.

In reply to Blue Straggler: Ha, then you would postively shit at my local cinema! They have are just introducing moving seats at an additonal cost of £5.50.

Got to get me on one of them.

No, the double helix clanger was also MtoM.
Awful film.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Personally I was expecting a lot more simply because of the Ridley Scott and Alien connection. The strength of the 1979 Alien film is precisely the absence of the things people are picking up on here. It was a very simple premise that had a tight plot, with few unrealistic holes or confusing ideas.

I think this film could have been similar had it not been for the extra razzmatazz car-chase-esque stuff that Hollywood feels the need to pepper every film with these days.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Alan, Ridley Scott's track record is really considerably poorer than you might think!
He has been no guarantee of quality since about 1989 (he's turned in some good work since then - indeed a couple of gems - but an awful lot of utter dreck too)

I think we all (myself included) need to watch "It! The Terror From Beyond Space" so we can slag off the first Alien properly too

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Moving seats? What, like Rumble-Vision? Or mobility scooter type things?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Agreed. That Robin Hood thing was dreadful, but Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise and Gladiator isn't a bad quartet.

It was the combination I had higher expectations from.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Gladiator is a disgrace. Seriously.

Thelma and Louise is great but that is a triumph of writing and acting (OK Scott had to direct the actors...); one of its much vaunted "Scott" shots, of "nodding donkey" wellheads, was attributed a load of gender symbolism but is in fact just a steal of a throwaway shot (better filmed) in one of his brother's daft actioners (Beverly Hills Cop 2 I think!)

His best work is The Duellists, Legend, Someone to Watch Over Me and Black Hawk Down. Matchstick Men was good but anyone could have directed that.

I have yet to see 1492: Conquest of Paradise.

But GI Jane, White Squall, Black Rain, blah blah. I'd like to like him more.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
>

Oh come on, yes it was quite minimalist (the original Alien I mean)
But less plot holes? An alien species which just happens to be able to live on any host no matter what species, from entirely different biospheres?

I am of the opinion that if I am prepared to accept the original Alien premise of a deep space mining ship towing 20 trillion tons of ore plant through space at faster than light speeds with people in sleep pods on a vast ship with artificial gravity........ then I can accept that the said Alien was genetically engineered by a race with even bigger spaceships and and an Earth ship with a state of the art surgery pod. I don't really see any plot holes....... just a very different and somewhat grander style which for me didn't jar at all.

Very different films and very enjoyable both.



The cinema seat wobbles around (apparently) and has speakers in it, I believe it makes dull rumbling noises too!

All to the good.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Look, I worked on Legend and I don't think it's nearly such a good/entertaining/accomplished movie as Gladiator.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I was never quite able to get past the apparently infinitely acid blood. Not only would they have to have break all the rules of biochemistry but all the rules of chemistry and metallurgy too...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

What do you need me to look at?

In reply to Wonko The Sane:


I totally agree with you here it's a real bugbear of mine. Not only that, but if you're prepared to watch pretty much any (a few exceptions) sci-fi film that features space exploration, you have to accept the premise of faster-than-light travel, which is generally believed to be unachievable and yet people get the hump about artificial gravity on the ships etc!

At least they didn't cop out and bring God/Hell into it at the end a la Event Horizon/I Am Legend and a few others - now that really is infuriating

In reply to Southern Man:

Then again, artificial gravity could be equally as unachievable as faster-than-light travel (physicists?), but you take my point, I hope.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The case, objectively.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I agree.When she said "I'm suiting up" I thought the next shot would be of her doing the Dior catwalk strut with a nice "through the keyhole" shot at the end.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I am far far more objective than most people when it comes to this sort of thing! Gladiator is very flawed in terms of screenplay structure regarding character consistency, for one thing. And the stuffed tigers are unforgivably laughable and quite inexcusable on that sort of budget. As for the dialogue....

I liked Joaquin Phoenix, at least. And the scenes with Richard Harris.

But Legend, though imperfect, just works really well.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Was the Wayland character supposed to look like Mr Burns?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

it rocked my socks off. Absolutely riveting cinema. Yeah it's not going to be the Maltese falcon, it's an alien movie. and a pretty good one at that.

Poorly acted? It's not like we're talking about Val Kilmer in the Saint. I thought it was acted quite well. Particularly David's character.

The thing that bugged me most of all was how dysfunctional most of the team were. If I was putting together a crew of people to fly to a remote planet, I would put Teamwork and ability to function within a group fairly high on the list of things to look for. Instead the guy with the ginger Mohawk starts aggressively shouting straight from the get go. Bitch please, you're a geologist, no one cares so calm down. Glad he was one of the first to go Plus the guy David poisoned, he was a total tool.

In reply to Kemics:

Ginger mohawk guy might as well have literally water-ski jumped over a shark, all Fonz-style, just to spell things out more cleary. Clearly all intelligent actors turned that embarrassing role down point blank! More depth of character in Space Truckers. I am not sure how you can call it riveting cinema and in the same post point out this HUGE flaw (not just about mohawk guy, but the whole "dysfunctional crew" thing with which I agree. It kind of worked in Alien as they were all blue-collar and disparate, but in Prometheus it should have been a higher-class better selected crew)

In reply to Stevie A:
Why go to the trouble of allowing Charlize Theron to prep and eject from the ship, only to have her squashed, with no noticeable further contribution?

The sequel, dummy. We all know she isn't dead really. The thing that confused me most was why the mahoosive birth-squid thingy killed Mr Bubblehead and then turned into a small and (in comparison) rather tame Alien.

Speaking of Alien I am sure we all remember the scene with Jeeves the cat and the dangling chains, and how scary it was. I think that was the first time we ever saw the Alien, and after then it could never be as scary again, hence the need to introduce increasingly weird/complex elements which somehow never equal the original. Still loved it though!

In reply to Bobling:

I always felt that the radar scene early after deployment, just before the first firefight in Aliens, when the space marines realise that it's not a wrong reading and there are in fact a load of aliens in the ducting/corridor ABOVE them, was more effective. The characterisation of Harry Dean Stanton as a complete dumbo, kind of diminished the "Jeeves" scene in Alien.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I say riveting because I watched a solid 70% of the film with both my hands on my face

In reply to Kemics:

i wish I'd spent 70% of it with cheese in my ears

In reply to Blue Straggler:

You realise, of course, that Dr. Shaw is Charley Varrick and that the creature is a futuristic interpretation of Molly.

In reply to Bobling:
Dummy? What a rude chap. I hope this bag of shite does have a worthy sequel, though I hope she is dead, as she contributed sweet f*ck all.

In reply to Stevie A:

Yep, utterly awful film. Surely it can't be that hard making a credible sequel to something first made over 30 years ago? Instead they relied on good special effects, questionable dialogue, cliche after cliche, and massive plot holes.

I've got a pair of 3D glasses now at least.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Don't think anyone has answered this yet
"Why did Smooth Android David poison Sigourney-replacement's man?"

I don't think David poisoned Charlie; I thought he infected him with a bug from one of the four big vials "Great things come from little beginnings". I thought that it started in Charlie where it was perhaps fertilized before being passed to Elizabeth by their humping and hence led to her incubating an alien octopus.

I didn't see any hints about why David was attempting to get humans infected though and to get the whole Aliens thang going. I presumed he was programmed by Wayland but maybe someone else had a finger in his pie.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


That Petzl gri gri 3 was a Petzl ID.

In reply to risby:



Oooh I have been waiting for an Aliens / RoboCop mash-up for ages! Prime Directive Number 5 - Classified

Only so they can resurrect Hudson and have him killed by an ED-209, just to add to Bill Paxton's "killed-by" count of Terminator, Alien and Predator...

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Bit late to the party on this but anyway, really enjoyed it despite its flaws, and it has to be the prettiest film I have seen. Lot of questions raised, particualrly about the black liquid/virus/weapon, which seemed to have different effects. Turned grubs in the ground into deep-throating aliens, made the Dr guy ill but at the same time messed with his junk so he produced a squid foetus, ginger guy looked to be dead but came back miles stronger. The first scene in the film shows it messes with DNA so I suppose you could argue there would be no set outcomes to exposure.

One problem that exists with all the Alien films; how the aliens generate mass without eating anything. Sure, the facehuggers are laid in eggs, then the egg they implant in humans can feed on said human, but then the adult alien skulks around ships not eating anything while growing 100 times larger. Same with the squid thing in Prometheus, it's football sized at first, is locked in a room with nothing to eat, but grows massively. Not just talking food for energy, but to construct tissues etc. That said, I can easily overlook stuff like this and just enjoy it for what it is.

In reply to Blue Straggler: I'm a bit disappointed by all the anti-Promotheus stuff on here, was hoping it was going to be brilliant. Still might have to go as Alien and Aliens rate highly for me and from reading around reviews it at least sounds sumptuous to look at.

Have to disagree with you on Gladiator (Ridley Scott), thought it was very good indeed. Black Hawk Down impressive too, add to that Alien and Bladerunner and there's some special stuff in there.

In reply to ksjs: You only have to listen to Ridley Scott being interviewed to see he's a cut above. He really is very focused

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Yes Ridley Scott is indeed a cut above the rest and I think I have read that he envisages this a being the first of 3 prequels. But....

The story felt muddled and confusing. The acting was crap (apart from Michael Fassbender who was mesmeric) and character development was poor to the extent I didn't care about any of the characters, I was just hoping that they would all die. And yes Scarlet Johannson running away from a rolling gigantic metal croissant in a straight line was a particluarly dire moment.

Given some of the other comments I will watch it again, as may be I have missed something and some of the scenes were gorgeous to look at at.

In reply to paulcarey: I gave some thought to this issue of running away in a straight line and in fact, I think it's one of those occasions where something which probably would happen in real life just doesn't look 'right' on film.

First, She's only 100m or so in front of it. It's falling slowly. So there's the posssibility of outrunning it. If you went at 90 degrees to it... it may well catch up to you before you're clear. In other words, running in a straight line, by the time it falls to where you were....... you're no longer there, you're further away.


Then there's the issue of perspective. If you're under such a gargantuan thing rolling toward you, would you see the edges clearly? Your instinct surely would just to be to run away from the direction of movement?

I just don't see this as a massive issue in the film.


Lastly, wasn't she Charlize Theron??? I thought she was!

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

My first thought was to run 90 degrees to it straight away and then run along side it so when it lands, you are in the middle of the holey bit but that would be equally stoopid!

You are probably right; it isn't a massive issue in the film but after the rest of the film was disappointing it felt like the final straw.


Doh of course I meant Charlize Theron....

In reply to paulcarey:

Charlize Theron

... but now you mention it, Scarlet Johansson in her white suit in that dire film with Ewan Macgregor called the Island could have easily done the running away scene!

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: You're just viewing the film all wrong. The Island acheived all of it's objectives, which were:

(1) To show off Johansson's ability to pout.
(2) That's it.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax & Wonko:


blondes in tight suits all merge into one after a while.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Talking of Scarlet Johansson, have you seen Avengers? The film could be far too intelectual for you perhaps but she does do a lot of running arround in a tight suit ...

I think we need an Avengers thread to discuss the artistic and plot merits of the film. Might be a short thread... But it was an enjoyable friday night type film.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: given the almost infinite size of universe and bubble universe theory, it it not fair to say that the film is loosely based on a true story. Or are we so egotistical to believe that we are alone or if not all other life forms would be inferior?

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I think it wanted to show off some other aspects of Scarlett as well, but I take your point.

Alan

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I was once on the same guest list as Scarlett Johansson :-P

Le Tigre gig in Islington, late 2004 I think. I missed my opportunity to say "hey aren't you that girl in that film where your brother turns into a pig and Eva Mendes is the nanny?".

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Ah, twas a brilliant shambles.

1. They don't spot that high oxygen content in an atmosphere means life
2. When they land they take their helmets off
3. We can map the surface of Mars with incredible detail now. Why the ridiculous plunging through the clouds go-left-go-right-oo-straight-lines nonsense?
4. Particularly when they have the red laser floaty underground mapping things
5. What's with the android? Didn't they watch Alien.
6. Why o why o why didn't they spend some of the trillions of dollars picking a group of people who might actually work together effectively.
7. Didn't that space ship seem ridiculously large for such a small number of people
8. Didn't the film seem a bit confused over whether it wanted to be Aliens or The Thing?
9. Why do grown ups wear nappies in 2089?
10. Staples? Really?
11. What the hell was Noomi going to eat on that Alien space ship?
12. Why did they have so many different kinds of space suit?
13. Why did they go on wearing them when they realised that it wasn't inhospitable at all?
14. Why didn't the silica storm with the million mile an hour winds damage anything? Or cause the promised static?
15. When the pale chap melts into the waterfall at the start how did he manage to jump into the lethally muddy torrent (Iceland?) and somehow land in a limpid jungle pool instead of being pounded instantly to mush?
16. How the feck did they geologist and the biologist manage to get lost?

etc.

It doesn't make any sense if you think about it too hard, but nevertheless there are some interesting ideas in there. Was that really Earth at the beginning of the film? Why were all the bodies piled up outside the doors? Why destroy earth? Why decide not to? What do we find acceptable answers to the question of where we come from or what our purpose is?

I thought the 3D worked quite well too.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
The manner in which the little black particles in the infinitely acid blood / drano-domestos stuff could change in diameter from tadpole-size to sub-molecular (smaller than DNA) was another rule-breaking annoyance.

Or, on the other hand, maybe our puny human imaginations fail to comprehend the possibilities of a technology so advanced...etc etc. They fly around space in gravity-defying croissants, after all. Pastry chefs across the globe are baffled.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

http://m15m.livejournal.com/23209.html

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-x1YuvUQFJ0