i thought chronicle went way too OTT at the end, which was a shame because i loved the rest of it. the whole way through i was thinking it was nice to see a low-budget superpowers movie focused on characters and believable dialogue, as opposed to epic action setpieces... then it ended with a bunch of high-budget epic action setpieces. it's still good, just could have been better 

keanu reeves, as cool and good looking as he is, is pretty lame as an actor. I watched Bill & Ted the other day and it's quite amazing that he managed to continue a career after his abysmal and annoying acting in that. he was even worse than the other nobody actor that went nowhere.

having said that, he has been in some movies i really enjoyed - point break, constantine, street kings, even the matrix and the lake house (with the equally annoying sandra bullock). even with his annoying acting and voice.

can't really remember Johnny Mnemonic, i'm sure i've seen it though. Ice T and Dolph Lundgren give me a pretty good idea of the quality though. 

Just saw the film in an empty theatre, as is my style, and I have to say I thought the film was much MUCH better than what the autistic nerdrage of the internet would like me to believe.

Not quite up there with Alien (what is?), but definately on a par with Aliens imo, and a lot better than any of the other Alien sequels.

What some might see as plotholes or plot threads that lead nowhere, I saw as opportunities to exercise my imagination and ponder the questions they asked. I don't agree that films have to spell everything out to the viewer, and I usually find it pretty patronising and dull when they do. 

That was one of the main reasons that I liked it - the excessive display of powers at the end came as quite a shock after the rest of the film, and made it more gripping and effective than if the film had been saturated in action already like most such films are.

But I can see your point too.

Kinn: autistic nerdrage makes the interweb go round :) 

oh man, for some reason I'd never seen this film before, lots of fun despite the cheesy aesthetic. The scifi mindfuck genre is one of my favourite types of movie. 

Why was the Engineer infecting himself at the start? What was the ship at the start?
If this is supposed to be the Engineer dissolving himself to produce human life, why does the planet look like LV-whatever and why does the fluid look like their black fluid later on?

What were the Engineers in the holo-recording running from?

Assuming there are at least 3 stages of Alien micro-evolution (parasite via consumption, squid via secondary infection (impregnation by parasite host), Alien via tertiary infection)...
Why was there a bas-relief of an Alien behind the Engineer head?

Why the change in the nature of the lifeform?

Why did she "give birth" to a squid?

Assuming the oral infection of the abandoned human duo by the "cute" tentacle thing and the oral infection of the enginner by the squid were the same, how did the cute tentacle thing develop?

Assuming the cute tentacle thing is a black-fluid induced development of the maggot worms (similar to how the fluid mutated tattooed geologist), where did the worms come from?

How was David communicating with Weyland senior via a mask (before Vickers interrogated him)?

Why were Weyland also trying to infect humans and how did they know how to do that? Was this Weyland senior's instructions?

Why was Weyland senior kept a mystery?

Why did David want Weyland senior to die ("dont all children want their parents to die")?

Why is the surgery machine only configured for one gender and why does Vickers have it? If it was for Weyland, why was it in her quarters?

Why does Shaw have a change of heart and accompany the Weyland team even though Fassbender tried to use her as a host?

Why does no-one bat an eyelid about Shaw's near-birth experience? 

Please exercise your imagination and ponder these (deep) questions, instead of venting your autistic internet nerdrage...



Yeah the script is a fucking mess, good thing we have books! 

I don't have the nerdrage this time, I mostly really liked the film, I thought the first 2/3 was brilliant and the who Alien/s sci-fi style of it was great, last 1/3 was okay and it was a mess of loose ends and inconsistencies transitioning towards the end. I think some questions are there for pondering as Kinn implies, but some are a bit WTF?? Hence that post... 

I was pretty dissapointed, guess I was expecting too much. There's lots of cool stuff in there, but none of it ever felt believable to me, the characters, the science, the story.
I'm all for having mysterious things unexplained, that's what made the pilot in Alien so great, but here it just feels like a mess of random ideas.

I liked the start, the whole exploration/discovery thing is great, wish it had continued more in that style for a bit longer. 

rid of the the final scene, I think a lot more people would be happier because then it actually would be more open ended for interpretation rather than be very messily linked in to Alien with contradictory logic. 

TR is very cool, remake looks bland but apparently more in line with the book. 

There's still the bas-relief of an Alien in the Engineer shrine though.

Also why is there a shrine / temple at all, hmmm? 

cant answer that.

But my point was simply that it would leave less contradictory explanations, not remove all of the inconsistencies. As it is, apart from a cheap direct tie in, that scene serves no purpose and makes things worse. 

There are actually answers to most of your questions. And Ridley Scott himself admitted to a lot of the religious tie-ins.

Just spent 10 mins finding this for you (I read it about a week ago and found it made a lot of sense):

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html 

Found that linked elsewhere, it is the biggest pile of mind-numbingly tedious anally retentive nit-picking micro-analytical drivel written by someone who could painfully contrive lifetime's worth of deep meaning in a 30 second advert, I failed even to skim-read it and I doubt any of it actually relates to any sense behind the film. 

OK, but you should read it. It answers your questions. It quotes Scott. It explains so much of the plot, like why all the engineers were dead, why the engineer commits suicide at the beginning etc. 

proceeds down a path that Scott says was considered (I'm not convinced but it doesnt matter) but dropped. 

'Cause it all made perfect sense to me, having read that article and seen the film twice.

Like about why the engineers happened to die 2000 years ago.

The name of the leading character.

The engineers acceptance that death happens before life as opposed to the human code of trying to stay alive at all costs. 

'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.' 

What a cool film :)
Should have watched it a long time ago.
I was put onto it by a Youtube 'top 15 scary films' video, and saw a clip of a guy having his face peeled off...... 

the Scott quotes are taken out of context for a particular purpose.

I dont deny the religious imagery, just that to link it like that is only an opinion not fact. 

Anyone can spout a load of shite on the internet.


I'm asking questions on here because I think most of the main funcers have the brains and sense to give some interesting answers. 

thing, that is no direct link. It wasnt Elizabeth who had the immaculate conception was it, she was a barren cousin. The movie character could have been named Elizabeth for many other reasons.

And Jesus the Engineer Emissary, last I checked, he wasnt a giant. 

this search for answers and the proposed solution has far too much irony. 

It is possible that he would have been normal size, and resembled a human.

Explain the 2000 years thing then. Explain the 'I need to know why?!'.

Heh - I love how the film is so open to interpretation. It's purposeful I'm sure. It gets everyone thinking about creationism and science.