Pandorum -terrific science fiction film!

[Spoke]

This movie reminded me somewhat of a classic science fiction novel, Non-Stop by Brian Aldiss
It’s a different story, but there are some similar elements. (I spoilered the book title so as not to give away any of those elements.)

[LiveOnAPlane]

@SweetLucy

:smack: I am so sorry for the blatant spoiler in my previous thread! I have tried, tried, and tried, and still can’t figure out how to do the hidden spoiler thing. Everyone else on Straight Dope seems to do it with ease, so maybe I’m just stupid.

I see you got that fixed OK, but if I may – For others like you & me who can’t always remember how to do something like spoilers, links, and so on, just pick a post with the feature you want in the text, hit the “Quote” reply button, and then copy the code from the text that shows up in the reply box area. (Don’t submit a reply, of course.) All the codes show up real nice in the text that is quoted.

Then just paste it into your actual post.

[Iggins]

I think we can all agree that this movie was at least a very interesting interpretation of the classic Ren and Stimpy episode, “Space Madness”.

[jimmycolorado]

@Iggins

I think we can all agree that this movie was at least a very interesting interpretation of the classic Ren and Stimpy episode, “Space Madness”.

I now have to go watch this film.

[outlierrn]

@Iggins

I think we can all agree that this movie was at least a very interesting interpretation of the classic Ren and Stimpy episode, “Space Madness”.

Yeah, I was thinking that in the theater

[jackdavinci]

Finally saw this. Probably I enjoyed the benefits of low expectations, but I mostly enjoyed it! After it ended, I muttered out loud, “I wonder why this was so critically panned”. Granted, even if I hadn’t heard mutters of a double identity character it probably would have been obvious, but it didn’t matter, the film did not revolve around that particular twist. Probably worth it for set design and makeup alone. Suspense was decent, though in spots I was shouting ‘get on with it already!’. I’m not sure whether or not the semi happy ending colors my view. Certainly I was expected the possibility of a tragic ending, especially after the ‘no stars!’ observation. I did find it somewhat ironic that the ejection of all the lifepods, which was previously characterized as tragic, was in this case a salvation. I also found it ironic that the main pair had a harrowing escape by lifepod, and then we observe that they could have simply walked to the part of the ship that was above water.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

I had this on my list (as I posted above) and finally got it on BR. It looks awesome. It sounds better. I thought it was a fun sci-fi horror flick. Fairly original in some ways, too, I thought, at least for a sci-fi movie.

I’ve watched it a few times now and my opinion of Pandorum just keeps getting better and better. Oh, there are a few nits to be picked here and there, but overall a satisfying 100 minutes.

[congodwarf]

I saw it last week and I enjoyed it very much.

[Justin_Bailey]

I saw it a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty decent, but enough of it had me asking “Really?” that I don’t think I’d recommend it to anyone.

The split personality thing was so hackneyed and telegraphed I think my dog knew it was going to happen 20 minutes before the “reveal”.

[Spoke]

@jackdavinci

Finally saw this. Probably I enjoyed the benefits of low expectations, but I mostly enjoyed it! After it ended, I muttered out loud, “I wonder why this was so critically panned”.

I stand by my “critics don’t get science fiction” observation.

Damn fine movie, in my view. And I see its IMDb rating is still a solid 6.9. (I would rate it higher.)

[Snickers]

I saw this recently, and really liked it. But then, I’m a huge sucker for Ben Foster - he’s an amazing actor that deserves to be bigger than he is. I also liked the irony of the end - they shoulda let the Lieutenant do what he wanted.

I’m not sure I’m a fan of the Noah’s ark idea - let’s bring all our own invasive species along with us! Bad idea, IMO. It’s a good thing that they’re (hopefully) not retrievable.

[BrainGlutton]

@outlierrn

well I thought it was OK, not great,as an action/horror movie, as scifi, not so much. It had a real video game feel to me as well, start with no memory and no weapons and work your way up. I was surprised to find out it wasn’t based on one. YMMV

I think you’ll find SF, comic books, Dungeons & Dragons, and probably even some mainstream literature already had pioneered that plot-arc when videogames were still in the Pac-Man stage.

[alphaboi867]

Forgive the zombie thread; I just saw this movie.

@SweetLucy

I liked it, though I was scratching my head at the end because I had a hard time understanding everything (reminiscent of this year’s “Moon” as well).

Although about 1200 of the Earthlings made it alive to Tanis’ surface, all their supplies and the “Noah’s Ark” of Earth animal life was presumably still trapped underwater in the ship. I guess the humans would have to really use their brains to survive on the new world.

@Spoke

I thought about that too.

Part of what made the film interesting to me was thinking about what happens next. What will they do now? Will they re-enter the ship to retrieve their “Noah’s Ark”? If not, most or maybe all of them may starve. Will any of the creatures in the ship escape?

Yeah, 1200+ humans, suffering from varying degrees of amensia, on an alien planet with no survival gear (not even the clothes off their backs). They don’t even know where on Tanis they are or what season’s approaching. They’ll be a massive die-off soon and any survivors well become illiterate stone-age hunter-gatherers within a generation.

Can they even reenter the ship? The hull was breached and the ship flooding; it’s not clear if the ship was still able to contain the hull breach. So either it’s just the bridge & room where the flight crew’s stasis chambers where that flooded or the the entire ship. Even if the rest of the ship isn’t flooded there’s still the matter of the creatures infesting it (& it’s not like the survivors have acces to any weapons).

@Snickers

I saw this recently, and really liked it. But then, I’m a huge sucker for Ben Foster - he’s an amazing actor that deserves to be bigger than he is. I also liked the irony of the end - they shoulda let the Lieutenant do what he wanted.

I’m not sure I’m a fan of the Noah’s ark idea - let’s bring all our own invasive species along with us! Bad idea, IMO. It’s a good thing that they’re (hopefully) not retrievable.

Well the mere fact that we’re colonizing the planet at all is going to wreak havoc with it’s ecosystem. Plus they just because Tanis is an Earthlike planet rich in life doesn’t mean we can eat any of it.

[Spoke]

@alphaboi867

Can they even reenter the ship? The hull was breached and the ship flooding; it’s not clear if the ship was still able to contain the hull breach. So either it’s just the bridge & room where the flight crew’s stasis chambers where that flooded or the the entire ship. Even if the rest of the ship isn’t flooded there’s still the matter of the creatures infesting it (& it’s not like the survivors have acces to any weapons).

Even if the breach wasn’t contained, a sizable part of the ship was resting above the water line.

The potential is there for a really interesting sequel (which of course will never be made).

[stegon66]

It was alright, but nothing special. I was expecting more but it seemed to just go for the cheap horror scares rather than anything that deep. The explanation for the monsters made no sense and the “twist” that friedo mentioned was obvious the moment it began.

Exactly.

I love this anti-critics/pro-“unwashed masses” (or Joe Six-pack as I like to call 'em) attitude. While there are some hack critics out there, most of them generally know what they’re talking about. At the same time, the average movie-goer is an idiot. If someone tells me Armageddon was “awesome” and The Third Man was boring (and I’ve heard it said), well, that says a lot about their mentality. :rolleyes:

[stegon66]

I know that was snarky, but on a board that supposedly advocates reason, intelligence and education, I find it amusing that in this instance, it’s the uneducated who are given credence over the educated.

“The film school-educated, prize-winning critics didn’t like it? Well, they’re stupid and don’t know what they’re talking about! 80% of the people on the Moron Boards loved it! Can you argue with that?”

Yes, you can.

[Spoke]

So then, we should have taken the critics’ word about Blade Runner and The Thing? Because, you know, the critics went to college and all.

[Frylock]

@Spoke

So then, we should have taken the critics’ word about Blade Runner and The Thing? Because, you know, the critics went to college and all.

Where can I find out about these negative reviews of Blade Runner? On Wikipedia, it just says critics were “polarized.” But you’re saying the reviews were overwhelmingly negative?

ETA: Hasn’t Blade Runner gone through multiple revisions since its original release? I’m not sure it’s a great example of “critics changing their minds” if that’s the case. Maybe it’s not the critics that changed, but the film!

(Personally, I recall Blade Runner being visually arresting but kind of messy and trite on the plot front.)

As for The Thing, I haven’t seen it so I can’t judge for myself. But again, where can I find out more about the overwhelmingly negative reviews it recieved on release?

[Spoke]

@Frylock

Where can I find out about these negative reviews of Blade Runner?

How about here:

Considering how respected Blade Runner is in the 2000s, it’s difficult to remember that it was widely viewed as a failure during its initial release. Reviews, for the most part, were negative. (This isn’t surprising. Cutting-edge science fiction is often viewed negatively at first then re-evaluated later. 2001 is a classic example.) The box office was tepid, and the film failed to make back its production costs.

Or here:

But the enthralling film was originally a box-office financial failure, and it received negative reviews from film critics who called it muddled and baffling.

Or maybe here:

Reviews, however, were overwhelmingly negative (“A film that has neither strong characters nor a strong story,” wrote Janet Maslin in the New York Times; “It forces passivity on you,” Pauline Kael tsked in The New Yorker), and audiences were baffled, sometimes even hostile. Moreover, a lovable bit of merchandise had landed in theaters only two weeks earlier. Scott’s brackish rain had no chance against Spielberg’s amber goo-glow; and as E.T. began its ascent into universal consciousness, Blade Runner sank with barely a ripple.

Like I said.

@Frylock

As for The Thing, I haven’t seen it so I can’t judge for myself. But again, where can I find out more about the overwhelmingly negative reviews it recieved on release?

Try here:

Critics often get it wrong, but they’ve rarely been so wide of the mark as when they reviewed The Thing in 1982. Chacun a son goût, of course, but they didn’t just give it the thumbs-down; they tore into it like jackals. “This movie is more disgusting than frightening, and most of it is just boring,” wrote David Denby in New York magazine. Vincent Canby of the New York Times called it: “too phony looking to be disgusting. It qualifies only as instant junk”. Their counterparts on this side of the Atlantic were no less scathing. Derek Malcolm wrote in this paper that the special effects were: “let loose on us by the bucketful, and satiation rather than horror is the result”. William Parente of the Scotsman went further: “The only avenue left to explore would seem to be either concentration camp documentaries or the snuff movie.”

Many reviewers compared Carpenter’s film unfavourably to Christian Nyby’s The Thing from Another World (produced by Howard Hawks, often credited as the film’s auteur), which had been based on the same source material, John W Campbell’s 1938 novella Who Goes There? Variety wrote: “What the old picture delivered – and what Carpenter has missed – was a sense of intense dread.” Which is funny, because in 1951, the same paper had said of Nyby’s film: “The resourcefulness shown in building the plot groundwork is lacking as the yarn gets into full swing. Cast members … fail to communicate any real terror.”

This suggests, perhaps, that classics can only truly be appreciated in retrospect, when the dust has settled.

So yeah, pardon me for not deferring to critics. Particularly in the sci fi genre.

If you don’t like Pandorum for your own reasons, that’s cool. But making up your mind not to like it because some critics didn’t? Well history makes that look pretty stupid.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Spoke

If you don’t like Pandorum for your own reasons, that’s cool. But making up your mind not to like it because some critics didn’t? Well history makes that look pretty stupid.

I’d argue that history makes that look pretty stupid in very specific instances. But, more or less, the critical reception a movie receives on release is the reputation that sticks with it forever.

And I’m positive no one will look back at Pandorum in 20 years and consider it a classic.