Squirting poop into space is a hell of a feat. In any event, the film doesn’t really five any indication the bugs DIDN’T fire the asteroid. It’s consistent with what we see on screen to believe it might have been a pretext, but really it doesn’t matter either way, since it is already rather strongly implied the humans may have started the war prior to Buenos Aires being destroyed. There is really no clear explanation as to when the war started or who started it, which is sadly pretty consistent with how a lot of wars start.
One thing that always bothered me about the film, aside from it being boring, was using Michael Ironside to play two characters as one (he’s the teacher, and then suddenly he’s an officer.) In the book they’re different characters, and at the time, as now, I was astonished at what a terrible decision it was to combine them, since
It’s visually jarring. “Wait, he was a schoolteacher, now he’s Gunney Hartman, wtf?”
The movie’s whole point would frankly be a lot stronger if the two roles were different characters; it’d reinforce the film;s message far more to have a TEACHER preaching violence and fascism but in a teachery way - imagine those lessons being taught in a less Michaelironsidish way by a woman who looks like a high school teacher. That’s how we teach civics to kids now; it’d be more more effective to have a teacher teaching that stuff, rather than a guy who turns out to be a badass soldier after all.
Eyes Wide Shut. Same reason–it’s a psychosexual dream, not “real story.” Screenplay almost word for word from Arthur Schnitzler Traumnovelle, [Dream novella] Freud-era Vienna.
Screenplay and novella are available in paperback single volume.
I don’t recall if it’s been mentioned above, but Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a nostalgic hoot. It’s a tribute to 1930s adventure pulps, and to things like the old Superman cartoons (the opening images of flying robots invading the city are pretty clearly inspired by the Superman cartoon "
Mechanical Monsters") and to “King Kong” (the island at the end with its prehistoric beasts, not to mention the sunken ship “Venture”), all done with consideranle cinematic flair. And virtually all done in Digital Backlot. I loved it, Unfortunately, not enough other people did.
I mostly loved it, but the female lead was so irritatingly written that it nearly ruined the movie for me. She should have been a hardbitten no-bullshit reporter; instead, she was an incompetent bimbo pretending to be a reporter. Everything else nailed the type, but she made me cringe every time she was on screen.
Since we went on a bit of a tangent regarding M. Night Shyamalan, I’m curious if anyone liked The Lady in the Water.
I happen to think it is perhaps the worst movie ever made. Many would agree, but I’ve had (actor) friends try and tell me it was good. I guess I missed something.
Not terrible, but let down by weak casting: Gwyneth Paltrow shouldn’t be allowed to be in anything except flabby romcoms, and Jude Law is too reptilian to be the dashing pilot.
The scene where the protagonist shoots a hole into the bug and throws a grenade inside is one the best action scenes ever. Also, the alien swarm when they try and build that base on their planet. Both really amazing fight scenes. I would question anyone who could describe them as “boring.”
I think the political element was interesting, but I felt it could have been explored much deeper. I think there was a genuine masterpiece somewhere in that film, but the director made it far too cartoonish and low-brow to achieve its full potential. From what I’ve heard, the book was brilliant and the movie just dumbed things down. What a shame.
I really enjoyed What Dreams May Come. I love the whole idea of the movie, being set in “heaven” - I found it quite thought-provoking.
I liked The Postman, too - I read the book, and that may have coloured my enjoyment of the movie, since I really liked the book.
Are you me?
That is probably the perfect example for this thread - it really is a very, very good movie, and any derision really is unjust. It’s not perfect; just very, very good.
Very interesting - I’ll have to re-watch it with that idea in mind.
They…they don’t seriously criticize it on those grounds, do they? They do understand that so much seems familiar because Edgar Rice Burroughs invented it, right?
And Gwyneth Paltrow even dies miserably in it! What more do you want?!?
I don’t know if these are actually derided per se, but they certainly are not celebrated as the fine works of cinema that they are.
Mars Attacks! is pure fun from beginning to end.
The 1967 production of Casino Royale is worse than unjustly derided, it’s unjustly neglected. Some people don’t even consider it to be a real James Bond film. I, on the other hand, rightly regard it as the best Bond film and the last James Bond film that anyone needs to watch (because all subsequent Bond films are encumbered with that huge unresolved plot hole).
You heard wrong, I’m afraid. Verhoeven and Heinlein’s work have prettty much opposite agendas and little in common
You didn’t find the characterisation of rag-head Mooslims and French surrender monkeys cartoonish? How about ‘evildoers’ and their ‘terrah!’? Or those dumbass lies about weapons of mass destruction - all those foolish, child-like lies we saw straight through?
I am kind of rusty on the nuances; it was astoroid though - folks don’t fire/aim astoroids … I guess the point is you don’t have to make a whole lot of sense if people want to believe or are primed to believe…
I haven’t seen Verhoeven explain that decision and I do find it difficult to criticise what is essentially an artistic decision without knowing the rationale. Certainly jars, given how well thought-through the work is, it would be interested to know the thinking …
On reflection, Paltrow’s character in Sky Captain was pretty true to the source material, if we consider such to be (at least partly) the Max Fleischer Superman cartoons. Polly Perkins is basically a live-action version of every irritatingly impulsively self-endangering aspect of Lois Lane, only we were subjected to 90 minutes of her instead of just 7.
It’s Michael Ironside. I’d have to look for excuses to not have him in every scene.
Of course, now I’m musing on the ultimate masculine-man cast. Ironside, Danny Trejo, Liam Neeson… fuck that Expendables shit, this’d be the real deal.
I thought What Dreams May Come was visually stunning, but the film seemed pretty dumb to me. Mike Nelson dissects its inanities hilariously in his book *Movie Megacheese. His summing up – It’s vision of heaven looks like the outcome of “two guys doing bong hits.”
The film is based o a book by the great Richard Matheson, whose stuff I love. I haven’t read this book, though, and perhaps I should some time, just to see what the filmmakers started out with. There’s little doubt in my mind that they screwed around with the ending, possibly after running the film by test audiences. It has a tacked-on feel, and doesn’t really go with the rest of the film.
In any event, the film doesn’t really five any indication the bugs DIDN’T fire the asteroid. It’s consistent with what we see on screen to believe it might have been a pretext, but really it doesn’t matter either way, since it is already rather strongly implied the humans may have started the war prior to Buenos Aires being destroyed. There is really no clear explanation as to when the war started or who started it, which is sadly pretty consistent with how a lot of wars start.