“Prometheus”, the sci-fi thriller that marks Ridley Scotts return to the genre, is a cerebral and intense motion picture that asks a lot of challenging questions in an attempt to be more than the average blockbuster. Does it exceed? Well my answer would be yes…but only barely.

Most people, like me, were fairly excited when they learned Scott would return to science fiction. He is responsible for two of the best films of the genre, “Alien” and “Blade Runner”; and when word spread that his newest film would be a sort of quasi-prequel to “Alien”, taking place in the same universe, lots of rumors began to swirl as to what exactly we would be getting.

Well, the story here revolves around two scientists, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway, who have discovered various ancient cave carvings and drawings across the globe from different cultures that depict the same scene, people worshipping tall creatures pointing to a cluster of stars. Because these civilizations never had any contact, and because the star cluster is located so far from earth that humans would have never known it existed, Shaw and Holloway go to the large and powerful Weyland Industries to get funding for a trip to these planets, one of which just so happens to contain a moon that might be able to support life. But why risk so much on such a long and expensive journey? Shaw and Holloway believe that the drawings they found are an invitation from “engineers”, intelligent life forms that created life on earth, and they as well as the founder of Weyland Industries hope to find the origins of life, and the reasons for our existence.

When the crew headed by Meredith Vickers, a strict representative from Weyland Industries, reaches the moon what they find might not only provide the answers to life that they were looking for, but also bring about the very destruction of that life. All exacerbated by members of the crew, including an all too human android named David, who appear to have hidden agendas.

The entire plot is very thought-provoking. Mainly because the questions brought up, such as the creation of life, planet seeding, and trying to find the answers to why we are here, are all challenging and universal. The only problem is that it doesn’t do very much to answer any of them. There is a bit of ambiguity surrounding the events of the film that I did in fact enjoy. There are times when it leaves thing open for interoperation, understanding that in reality many of these questions can’t be answer, and instead just provides alternative explanations. This is all fine, what bothered me though was when many of these themes were just dropped from the film after only being brought up once. For instance, there is a moment in which Shaw and Holloway talk about god and how if these “engineers” are responsible for life, should she remove her cross necklace because it means a god doesn’t exist. In the very same conversation one of them questions the important of life if it can be created so easily. Both are very intriguing notions, but both never really come up again. Yes, the audience can take what happens in the story and try to make their own assumptions as to god and the importance of life, but the real issue is that the characters themselves never really do this.

This mostly has to do with my second big issue of the film, which was the lack of really any development of the crew members outside of Shaw. One thing I enjoyed about “Prometheus”, which is one thing I loved about “Alien”, was that it takes it time. It doesn’t really jump right into the action. The major difference is that whereas in “Alien” the crew members seem to all have their own personalities and we get enough of each to care or at least make us think we know them, “Prometheus” fails to make anyone, besides a very select few members of the crew, have any development. This wouldn’t usually be an issue even if death in horror films is made more effective when those threatened are people we care about; but considering stuff that happens in the end, when some of the characters make decisions that could typically make for rather emotional moments but alas because we know nothing about them it just doesn’t hit as hard as it could. So with more development, not only could there have been more of an emotional connection with the crew, it would have also let them have more time to contemplate all these questions the film asked. It makes me wonder and hope that a director’s cut will be released.

Thematic and character issues aside, the film is damn near perfect on a visual and heart pounding intensity level. The set designs, of the ship Prometheus and foreign world for example, are stunning. This comes as no surprise given that Scott has always been very good at creating futuristic worlds. His use of 3-D was also incredibly effective. It isn’t used simply as a gimmick, nothing made to come shooting out of the screen for scares, it is just there to add a bit of depth which I like.

As for the horror/thriller aspects of the story….well the first thing that came to mind when I walked out of the theater was that what I just watched was absolutely insane. Like “Alien” it just has those totally shocking, eerie and at times bloody moments that are not for the squeamish. This was incredibly satisfying of course; of all the things I wanted from the film, to feel completely uncomfortable at times and just stunned by what I was seeing on screen was one of them. It is in these two ways, the visual beauty and intensity, in which the film really makes up for some of the previously mentioned flaws.

Another of the films redeeming qualities are the performances from the main cast, which were generally great. Michael Fassbender steals the show, as the eerie and impassive android David. Fassbender is always brilliant, and the mystery and wonder he brings to David makes for a fascinating but also unnerving character. Noomi Rapace (Shaw) was also wonderful. She is one of the better actresses to emerge in the past few years, and the emotion and horror really work all the better when being channeled through her. Also, Charlize Theron is at her stone cold bitchiest and Idris Elda just continues to prove he is one of the coolest individuals around, which made them both fun to watch. The supporting cast held their ground I guess, though most were just the stereotypical hard-ass’s “just here to get paid” while being complete morons until their inevitable death.

So in the end, I can say that I did in fact highly enjoy “Prometheus”. It works on a whole lot of levels, in being both visually stunning and intensely thrilling. Its only fault is that it tried to be a bit too smart, asking far too many questions, and not having answers to most of them. Perhaps on another viewing, or given more time to mull it over…or if a director’s cut comes out with more story and characters…then I will think more highly of the themes it attempts to tackled. Until then I can only admire it for being a better than average sci-fi thriller blockbuster and at least trying to strive to be challenging and thought provoking, and maybe that is enough, but I can’t help feel a little let down.

“Moonrise Kingdom”, Wes Anderson’s newest feature and easily one of his best, is a delightful, colorful and flat out beautiful depiction of young love, seen through the eyes of a director with a youthful heart. Sure he might overindulge in terms of visual style and whimsy, a passion and uniqueness I personally love, but in the end his mastery behind the camera and tenderness for his characters and the stories he tells make for wonderful experiences.

Not everyone always feels the same obviously, many are completely turned off by his work, but I think in this case even the most anti-Anderson crowd will have a hard time not falling in love with this story, these characters and the touching, charming and often hilarious situations they find themselves in. That is because this time around, more so than in his previous film, the line between reality and fantasy is extremely thin. In his previous films, and this is coming from someone who has loved EVERYTHING he has done (yes, even ‘The Darjeeling Limited’), the worlds he creates, with their overtly intellectual, quirky and often pompous characters, are often interpreted mostly as shallow and even more harshly labeled as pretentious and annoying because they are drowning in an ocean of visual grandeur. Although I personally love it, I cannot say I blame people for thinking it. The story, emotion, pain and humanity of many of his films can be lost and viewed strictly formalistically in his attempts to stay grounded while also throwing a very thick layer of style over everything. The difference with “Moonrise Kingdom” I believe has to do with the perfect blending of that passionate and fine eye for detail, color and design and the central human story below the surface. Here we have the joys and passions of young love, juxtaposed with the hollowness and pains of adulthood in a way that feels more like a fable than an actual depiction of real life. It is in that way, how this feels more like a story out of one of Suzy’s fantasy novels, that makes it work so well.

This fable takes place over the course of a few days in the summer of 1965, on a fictional island off the coast of Rhode Island.  It follows Sam Shakusky, an orphan and Boy Scout who has trouble making friends; and Suzy, a smart but depressed young girl whose parents think is “troubled”. After meeting a year before, and becoming pens pals, the two decide to run away together.  When the Scout Master (Edward Norton) finds out he goes to the local police captain (Bruce Willis) to start a search party with Suzy’s parents. As Sam and Suzy’s love blossoms in their adventure across the island, the adults have secrets and personnel issues that begin to get in the way with their search for the children.

Visually intertwined with this story are everything one would expect from a Wes Anderson film. Those fantasy elements and overall tone I mentioned above are really driven by the use of tracking shots, almost always consisting of layers of action, with things happening in the background that could be easily missed on a first viewing; and set and costume design that not only capture the era (the late 60’s) but also a very fantastical and specific melancholy-summer atmosphere.  The house where Suzy lives for example feels more like a doll house, with the characters just puppets under Anderson’s guidance. In this way the entire film really feels like a live action version of a story that would normally take place in the world of “The Fantastic Mr. Fox”.

As for the performances, which are just as important as the visuals and designs because of Anderson’s writing and humor, are all around just wonderful. For the adult cast this comes as no surprise. Bill Murray for instance is no stranger to Anderson’s films (this being the sixth time he has appeared in one). The rest fit in nicely, with Willis and Norton seamlessly blending into the world and dead pan humor. What really blew me away was the performances by the two child leads, Kara Wayward (Suzy) and Jared Gilman (Sam). Now these performances were not perfect, I felt like they stumbled over a few lines and their delivery was flat at times, but it worked in their favor making the performances feel very natural, never forced and their missteps felt more like children trying, and at times failing, to sound smarter than they really are which was in line with the personality and background of both.

Overall this definitely ranks up there as one of Wes Anderson’s best, probably right behind “The Royal Tenebaums” (my personal favorite of his). As for its place amongst the rest of the films this year? I can easily say that it is the best, and my favorite, filmso far in 2012. And although there are still many more to come, I think I’ll be hard pressed to find another film that was as all around beautiful, charming and fun as “Moonrise Kingdom”; and even if it doesn’t turn out to be the “best of the year”, it will most likely be the one I revisit most often.