Even though I do agree with most of what you thought was positive with the movie Apostate - such as its astounding beauty and the great character Fassbender - there were too many unjustifiable actions throughout the movie for this to truly shine for me. It is a sci-fi movie, and when they evidently try to make the science portion somewhat realistic (first 20 minutes), and then fail with that prospect, I get frustrated.

Quote Originally Posted by Apostate
I completely disagree with the idea that a film necessarily has to "make sense" to be a good movie. This is a sloppy and frankly stupid assertion to make. I think the lack of answers is a well utilized device in this film. Prometheus is not an example of a film with "plot holes" or "loose ends" that are just there to keep us wondering with absolutely no follow up at all. Properly understanding it requires prior knowledge, simple as that. This isn't a flaw, it's a design choice, and one that most fans generally appreciate.
I want to differentiate between intentional plot-holes that are improving the movie experience as whole by leaving us in deep quandaries for days to come, and the ones that simply leaves us in frustration. They are two very different entities, and should not be treated the same.

An example of the first one would be the example you brought up, with Fassbender's intentions. I am perfectly content with leaving the theater contemplating what his ultimate role and own intentions were, and I think the movie-makers did a great job on depicting him to create this specific thought process.
An example of plot-holes that leaves us in frustration would be the numerous ​scientific failures that was committed, which did not in any way, shape or form improve the movie.

We should be frustrated by the latter one, because it implies either:
a) Intentional plot-hole to mess with the audience and to make people dislike the movie. (BAD)
b) Laziness from writer where they think they can impress us with smashing graphics and the story will seem good enough. (BAD)
c) Attempt at "artistic touch" but failing miserably with such and leaving the audience in frustration. (BAD)
d) Leaving it for the sequel/prequel which does not make the movie in itself better, but just reliance on other movies to explain itself. Note here that I am not talking about the sort of plot-holes that are meant to be covered in a later movie, such as the ending of the first LotR, but instead the kind of plot-holes that requires repair in a later movie for the first one to make any kind of sense. (BAD)
Quote Originally Posted by orbitalx
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Prome...ons-31317.html
Good article, but it still fails to truly answer most of the questions, it just states that most of the questions aren't that important anyway, and that we should be able to live with that ambiguity. The questions that can are are meant to be answered in a possible sequel/prequel I have no issues with, but then again, that goes back to my previous comment about "good" plot-holes and "bad" plot-holes.