This review in Forbes seems fair-minded and offers a negative view of the whole thing:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalv ... c-failure/
While I disagree that Shaw is not on par with Ripley I do agree with many of the points made.
I found my first viewing a bit disappointing, but very thought-provoking. After thinking about it for a day I saw it again and enjoyed it much more the second time. I took a day off and thought I was through, but it called me back again and I saw it for the third time and I still enjoyed it.
The magic for me is not so much in the story, but in the visuals. The characters don't act quite right, but they rarely do in any movie. That would be boring.
I spent more time listening to the music the third time, and I like it a lot more now. It doesn't get in the way or call much attention to itself, the visuals don't need that. It is a bit like some other movies - the Star Trek Motion Picture, for example. It is lofty, swelling, and somewhat intricately composed and orchestrated.
The story line is OK, perhaps a better writer would be good. What some of the actors do is baffling - especially Fifield - the geologist and that other guy - the biologist entranced by the snake-thingy. And there were a lot of red-shirts demolished by the transformed frenzied Fifield.
There are a few things that still bother me: the dust storm seems uncalled for and unnecessary to the plot. It takes a bit of time away from the story without adding much except to show that Shaw would do anything to save that head and David is really helpful when things get tough. It introduces the idea of self-sacrifice for the crew.
The behavior of Holloway and the other scientists (except Shaw) seems wrong. They are in too big a hurry to go into the unknown. If you compare what NASA does with its robot explorers on Mars and Vesta, for example, you see the extreme care and patience they use and the awesome aversion to risk.
David's character is splendidly acted and written, but he is often shown eating and drinking alone in the beginning of the movie and we know that is not necessary. The first part could be tightened up and the ending could be filled in more without straining the 2 hour format.
There is a lot of unnecessary violence - Fifield's rampage is too inexplicable. The Engineer wakes up from a 2000 year stasis and immediately gets medieval - he doesn't even bother to wait for David to finish talking to him. And why are Fifield's bones so cock-eyed that he looks like a spider, but gets up and runs around like a regular human body might move? Gratuitous creepiness, I think.
And the biggest mystery is what happened to the installation 2000 years ago? Why did these people go berserk? How did they lose control of their technology? And why do they want to destroy everything they've created? Is life that cheap to them that they can create and destroy on a whim?
The final scene of the crash is both stunning and laughable - but on the other hand, if one really is in a state of panic it is quite normal to run directly away from the thing - the mind does shut down and adrenaline takes over.
It is quite remarkable visually, with completely seamless 3D CGI, but it looks like Ridley wanted to put the alien ship in exactly the same repose as the one that crashed on LV-223 in Alien.
Since I enjoyed the movie so much, it is easy for me to ignore these things - it is really hard to get everything done in a 2 hour format, and the more one attempts to do, the harder it is to fit everything in.
And if one wants to quibble or find fault, very few movies will survive unscathed. Just how hard you want to be depends on whether you like the movie or hate it.
I think Ridley will be successful because he will draw out the lovers and haters and make us all think and talk about it. It won't be ignored like, say, 'Cowboys and Aliens'.
Here is how I would change things:
After waking from a 2 year sleep, I would spend some time in orbit and scan the other parts of the star system. I would run those pup-thingies through all the 'pyramids' - there are a few others nearby - before going inside. I would not take off my helmet or touch anything. The technology is so evolved that we can scarcely imagine what does what or how things work. Extreme caution is required. And I would send David in to do all the dirty work. He seemed the best suited to do everything. But that movie would be too boring to watch - movies need to pull the viewer into them and get them involved. Especially modern movies seem to have scene changes every few seconds - the action format is pushed to the limit of human perception.
I don't expect as much from movies as I do from novels, I just want to be entertained and visually stunned - and Prometheus does this with class.