most well written review 3.15.00
It is a bit difficult (and unfair, in my humble
opinion) to criticize a movie without giving
away details, but here goes...
would not say it was *absolutely* horrible,
yet it was quite bad. In general, summarize
it as a collection of ripped off ideas from
good examples of the genre like 2001, Apollo
13, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind,
etc., combined with an uncommon compliance
with physical laws and technical details,
yet exercised badly through mediocre or worse
acting and a substandard plot. There are a
few subtle throwbacks to even Star Trek.
is refreshing to see that they had instances
where they utilized technical limitations
well to create challenging, suspenseful scenes--but
they wasted them either through bad acting
(or overacting), plot points left hanging
or led astray, cheesy commentary (and I mean,
only enjoyable parts were, I have to say,
some death scenes (watch for an excellent
mutilation scene towards the beginning of
the movie; and no, I am not insane or anything--just
an interesting idea to put on film), a lot
of out-of-place but hence *very funny* jokes
(I am certain some were not meant to be jokes,
even), and a few good examples of CGI (ships,
plot is barely there, hanging by threads.
The characters are shallow--the beginning
scenes were promising, but they were given
no chance to develop (cf. Apollo 13); the
moral--if there is one-- is simply "stated"
by one of the secondary characters and comes
across so cheesy, you just laugh it off. A
good philosophical argument about the origin
of life on Earth, if any, was botched by revealing
too much, too late and suddenly, without any
subtlety or cliffhangers. Made me feel like,
"OK, the movie's over, let's go home." (cf.
2001 which makes you think _years_ if not
_hours_ afterwards. But, of course, that _was_
de Palma should go back to making gangster
brilliant Tim Robbins was wasted in this movie
with stupid dialogue and a character not given
enough depth to explore. He seems to make
excellent movies with inspiring roles (Hudsucker
Proxy, Shawshank Redemption), interspersed
with stupid, insufficient, forgettable roles
(IQ, this movie)--something I often see equally
(if not more) brilliant Robin Williams do
goes for Gary Sinise who is a skillful actor;
a beautiful Kim Delaney appears merely in
photos and a few seconds of recaps--hope she
got paid well.
O'Connell was as bad as usual and ignorable
in his role.
am sincerely sad to say that this movie could
have been a greater success as a comedy; it
would in fact be better than Mars Attacks!.
Frankly, I am glad I do not have to pay $7.xx
for it in a theater.
for the product placement, don't even get
can Hollywood not make a technically consistent
movie with a _toned_ suspension of disbelief
when needed (to help the art part of the deal),
yet at the same time is a solid, good story,
with believable (notice I do not necessarily
say "likeable") characters, a consistent plot,
and some meaning? It is either the former
or the latter. It is as if the two don't go
together. But then, there is the classic Star
Wars and the recent Babylon 5 series. (Oops,
that is *technically* TV. But they did shoot
it in widescreen to be released at a later
date; well, that's another article).
$0.02. Regards, Kerem