uh uhhhhh
I didn't think the film or rather this story was at all strong. And the poetic licence would have to be too much to really think this was good film. There were lots of flaws and to be honest who really cared about the majority of the characters.
Interestingly Prometheus was a Greek culture hero. He stole fire from the gos and gave it to man. He was also the one who constructed man out of clay. So of course a fitting name for the ship, carrying a bunch of misfits as space crew believing that they would discover something marvellous about the predecessors to humans.
The prequel to Alien, this story was just not strong. Some of the acting was good. Some of the events in the film were just too ridiculous. And to be honest I really didn't give a damn who was killed ff. Only a very few of them were killed.
It seems to be that the so called forefathers bred humans to enable the alien to lay it's eggs within us. Nothing very deep was pursued at all. In fact it was all so flipping surface.
Cast:
Noomi Rapace
Michael Fassbender
Idris Elba
Guy Pearce
Logan Marshall-Green
Charlize Theron
Director Ridley Scot
So this is the prequel to Alien. Somehow it strikes me the prequels are ways of keeping something alive that has run out of development story. And this prequel doesn't seem to quite fit with the original Alien. I noticed references to certain things like the pre-humanoid getting into the big chair with the telescopic type equipment. When the space ship crashes do we assume that is was Shaw later finds. But in Alien there is no apparent knowledge from thee now supposed previous events. Shaw was the part played by Sigourney Weaver wasn't it? The storms were the same I suppose. Somehow it doesn't seem flowing to me but then again it was a long time ago I saw Alien. I watched at the Empire on Leicester Square. Wow I still remember the opening scenes of the enormous space ship passing over the screen. It was something that resonated from times of travelling along in the back of a car as a child looking up at the stars in the night sky and hearing the silence of space and slowness of time. Now I rally did think Alien was a good story and film. Number two and three were poor though for me. I didn't bother so much with those. Alien has stuck in my memory as a goodun'.
There was the flakiness of Weyland (Guy Pearce). His make up was so terribly fake and in this day an age when ageing someone is an easy process apparently. And the crashing of the spaceship was simply ridiculous. There was no real suspense.
So these pods were developed for warfare. War machines that are created. The question as to why the humanoids turned against the humans they created on Earth seems obvious to me - they wanted to create people to be fodder for the queens eggs. But it was left open. And then a token gesture which seemed insulting asking questions like the meaning of life and the creators. Yuch! Or is it meant t be superficial?
I thought the acting was OK. The Scottish lady was awful but had a small part really. The main characters acted well but I don't think they had a strong story or good script to be working with to be honest.
Oh yes and the whole impregnation thing. Was there reference to this before? And when Sigourney Weaver is becoming Alien-sided and pregnant is there any link with this pregnancy that now appears in the prequel. Am I too much of a purist and not allowing for poetic licence. To be feasible should it matter? After all it's only a film. But then to be taken seriously does the film maker not need to respect us? I think so. I think it's made as a money-spinner and not for the creative wonder. 3D is the experiment really and less about the credibility of the story. That's my view anyway. So a real downer on this for those reasons. For the acting and the camera work - very good. Not Oscar because I think it's all be done now. Hasn't it?
In my books this rates a lowly 2.5 at best.
The 3D was fabulous though. My first 3 D film since approximately 1996 maybe? I was in Universal Studios Floria. I watched Honey I shrank the Audience. It was amusing. The extra effects were with the moving chairs and things running over my feet etc oh and water vapours on my face. Yes it was an all round experience sitting there in my cardboard red and green glasses. Now they are sophisticated black rimmed glasses. Maybe they are shades of green and red but there is only a slight colouring to them. The screen effect is quite wonderful. And now there are gaming devices or did I imagine it that mean you don't need to wear the glasses. Surely not?
Anyhow I'm pleased to have experienced the whole 3D imagery. I would make the effort again in the future. It's so much more expensive. Cinema is expensive. It wasn't full but busy enough. And they are advertising piracy still but in a different less threatening way. After all the threats couldn't be carried out on the scale piracy is occurring.
Food wise? I was aware of the sweet and popcorn buying process. It's the fist time I've been to the cinema since being in FA. I thought about it beforehand, how going to the cinema was really about getting sweeties. Actually at one time with SH I was wanting to go more often than the occasional visit, mainly because it was permission to buy loads of sweets and much through them. SH didn't question it and I could just munch my way through the lot and there was something covetous about being able to bring them home and eat them all to myself later on. Even as I write this there is something about the difference types of chocolaty things I would buy. Sugar, sugar, sugar. I would also obsess if he was holding onto the bag or seemed to be taking too many. I was distracted from the film! And the same with friends, if they were jigging around in the bag I would become impatient and wanting my share. Greedy!
So I was glad to have eaten beforehand and know that this is not my food Thank you God.
Eating yesterday was slightly awry. Having visited SS in her home yesterday morning then went to Lidl's veggie shopping. This meant I got home approaching 2pm and then had to prepare my lunch. It was way way too late. I should have prepared my lunch before I left home and also times my chatting with SS to a tighter limit. It was pleasant sitting with her she is lovely. I am so sad that she has developed MS. I cannot understand this seeming injustice of bad things happening to good people. But then everyone is good deep down so why does bad happen at all. Is it bad? It's bad yes because it inhibits a lifestyle and causes pain. SS is so gracious in her situation. She is smiling. She is hopeful. She seemed thoughtful at times. She is forgetful. This scares me as I'm very forgetful, with words and situations and trains of thought. This is a symptom of so many conditions but more and more I realise that diagnoses are really theories and guess work. It is theorised because a number of symptoms seem to be common. SS has lesions in her brain in the cerebellum area. Cerebellum is linked with motion and that would explain why her hand movement is impaired. The lesion are linked I presume with the myelin being affected. And the myelin affects the action potentials. It was CS who reminded me that it was myelin that is the big physical issue with MS and fro there I started to remember snippets from my biological psychology course. Fascinating but not for SS. She is suffering at times she said. Please God help relieve her from the suffering and just help and guide her through this. Help me to be of good support in what ever way I can.
SS suggested I write a book about my experiences with food. Well here is my blog and sometimes I am writing about the specifics with food. The funny thing is that I realise I sort of take it for granted. The food plan and so on are fixed and that's that. Although the odd cravings occur. I am feeling hungry between meals right now and wanting more food. I think as soon as I start talking that dies down again. I had two satumas this morning whereby I have been opting for one. However it is suggested to have two rather than one. Any small fruit should be two. I've justified having one and now I'm justifying having two. I need to check this out with my sponsor as by trying to do it myself I am really not sure anymore which is right. I wanted to keep it to one to keep weight reduction occurring and this s ot healthy thinking. I cannot afford to mess even slightly with any single element of this. Why? Why be so rigid you may ask? Well if I wonder off what is prescribed as abstinence then I start to take control and then I can swing quickly into being out of control. Handing it over to my sponsor means that I am totally trusting and do not have to stay in the wondering, the control and the obsession. Get it out of me, like ridding me of the alien inside.
I didn't think the film or rather this story was at all strong. And the poetic licence would have to be too much to really think this was good film. There were lots of flaws and to be honest who really cared about the majority of the characters.
Interestingly Prometheus was a Greek culture hero. He stole fire from the gos and gave it to man. He was also the one who constructed man out of clay. So of course a fitting name for the ship, carrying a bunch of misfits as space crew believing that they would discover something marvellous about the predecessors to humans.
The prequel to Alien, this story was just not strong. Some of the acting was good. Some of the events in the film were just too ridiculous. And to be honest I really didn't give a damn who was killed ff. Only a very few of them were killed.
It seems to be that the so called forefathers bred humans to enable the alien to lay it's eggs within us. Nothing very deep was pursued at all. In fact it was all so flipping surface.
Cast:
Noomi Rapace
Michael Fassbender
Idris Elba
Guy Pearce
Logan Marshall-Green
Charlize Theron
Director Ridley Scot
So this is the prequel to Alien. Somehow it strikes me the prequels are ways of keeping something alive that has run out of development story. And this prequel doesn't seem to quite fit with the original Alien. I noticed references to certain things like the pre-humanoid getting into the big chair with the telescopic type equipment. When the space ship crashes do we assume that is was Shaw later finds. But in Alien there is no apparent knowledge from thee now supposed previous events. Shaw was the part played by Sigourney Weaver wasn't it? The storms were the same I suppose. Somehow it doesn't seem flowing to me but then again it was a long time ago I saw Alien. I watched at the Empire on Leicester Square. Wow I still remember the opening scenes of the enormous space ship passing over the screen. It was something that resonated from times of travelling along in the back of a car as a child looking up at the stars in the night sky and hearing the silence of space and slowness of time. Now I rally did think Alien was a good story and film. Number two and three were poor though for me. I didn't bother so much with those. Alien has stuck in my memory as a goodun'.
There was the flakiness of Weyland (Guy Pearce). His make up was so terribly fake and in this day an age when ageing someone is an easy process apparently. And the crashing of the spaceship was simply ridiculous. There was no real suspense.
So these pods were developed for warfare. War machines that are created. The question as to why the humanoids turned against the humans they created on Earth seems obvious to me - they wanted to create people to be fodder for the queens eggs. But it was left open. And then a token gesture which seemed insulting asking questions like the meaning of life and the creators. Yuch! Or is it meant t be superficial?
I thought the acting was OK. The Scottish lady was awful but had a small part really. The main characters acted well but I don't think they had a strong story or good script to be working with to be honest.
Oh yes and the whole impregnation thing. Was there reference to this before? And when Sigourney Weaver is becoming Alien-sided and pregnant is there any link with this pregnancy that now appears in the prequel. Am I too much of a purist and not allowing for poetic licence. To be feasible should it matter? After all it's only a film. But then to be taken seriously does the film maker not need to respect us? I think so. I think it's made as a money-spinner and not for the creative wonder. 3D is the experiment really and less about the credibility of the story. That's my view anyway. So a real downer on this for those reasons. For the acting and the camera work - very good. Not Oscar because I think it's all be done now. Hasn't it?
In my books this rates a lowly 2.5 at best.
The 3D was fabulous though. My first 3 D film since approximately 1996 maybe? I was in Universal Studios Floria. I watched Honey I shrank the Audience. It was amusing. The extra effects were with the moving chairs and things running over my feet etc oh and water vapours on my face. Yes it was an all round experience sitting there in my cardboard red and green glasses. Now they are sophisticated black rimmed glasses. Maybe they are shades of green and red but there is only a slight colouring to them. The screen effect is quite wonderful. And now there are gaming devices or did I imagine it that mean you don't need to wear the glasses. Surely not?
Anyhow I'm pleased to have experienced the whole 3D imagery. I would make the effort again in the future. It's so much more expensive. Cinema is expensive. It wasn't full but busy enough. And they are advertising piracy still but in a different less threatening way. After all the threats couldn't be carried out on the scale piracy is occurring.
Food wise? I was aware of the sweet and popcorn buying process. It's the fist time I've been to the cinema since being in FA. I thought about it beforehand, how going to the cinema was really about getting sweeties. Actually at one time with SH I was wanting to go more often than the occasional visit, mainly because it was permission to buy loads of sweets and much through them. SH didn't question it and I could just munch my way through the lot and there was something covetous about being able to bring them home and eat them all to myself later on. Even as I write this there is something about the difference types of chocolaty things I would buy. Sugar, sugar, sugar. I would also obsess if he was holding onto the bag or seemed to be taking too many. I was distracted from the film! And the same with friends, if they were jigging around in the bag I would become impatient and wanting my share. Greedy!
So I was glad to have eaten beforehand and know that this is not my food Thank you God.
Eating yesterday was slightly awry. Having visited SS in her home yesterday morning then went to Lidl's veggie shopping. This meant I got home approaching 2pm and then had to prepare my lunch. It was way way too late. I should have prepared my lunch before I left home and also times my chatting with SS to a tighter limit. It was pleasant sitting with her she is lovely. I am so sad that she has developed MS. I cannot understand this seeming injustice of bad things happening to good people. But then everyone is good deep down so why does bad happen at all. Is it bad? It's bad yes because it inhibits a lifestyle and causes pain. SS is so gracious in her situation. She is smiling. She is hopeful. She seemed thoughtful at times. She is forgetful. This scares me as I'm very forgetful, with words and situations and trains of thought. This is a symptom of so many conditions but more and more I realise that diagnoses are really theories and guess work. It is theorised because a number of symptoms seem to be common. SS has lesions in her brain in the cerebellum area. Cerebellum is linked with motion and that would explain why her hand movement is impaired. The lesion are linked I presume with the myelin being affected. And the myelin affects the action potentials. It was CS who reminded me that it was myelin that is the big physical issue with MS and fro there I started to remember snippets from my biological psychology course. Fascinating but not for SS. She is suffering at times she said. Please God help relieve her from the suffering and just help and guide her through this. Help me to be of good support in what ever way I can.
SS suggested I write a book about my experiences with food. Well here is my blog and sometimes I am writing about the specifics with food. The funny thing is that I realise I sort of take it for granted. The food plan and so on are fixed and that's that. Although the odd cravings occur. I am feeling hungry between meals right now and wanting more food. I think as soon as I start talking that dies down again. I had two satumas this morning whereby I have been opting for one. However it is suggested to have two rather than one. Any small fruit should be two. I've justified having one and now I'm justifying having two. I need to check this out with my sponsor as by trying to do it myself I am really not sure anymore which is right. I wanted to keep it to one to keep weight reduction occurring and this s ot healthy thinking. I cannot afford to mess even slightly with any single element of this. Why? Why be so rigid you may ask? Well if I wonder off what is prescribed as abstinence then I start to take control and then I can swing quickly into being out of control. Handing it over to my sponsor means that I am totally trusting and do not have to stay in the wondering, the control and the obsession. Get it out of me, like ridding me of the alien inside.
No comments:
Post a Comment