Escape to the Movies: Splice

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

dathwampeer:

...why would "We're tampering in God's Domain" be a bad theme?".
Well..... for one thing its been done to death.
Every movie about a scientist who touches on one of the so called 'taboo's' ends up being a ridiculously pseudo moralistic piece of trash, aimed at getting a cheap reaction.

Remember things such as blood transfusion, stem cell research, abortions heck even basic understanding of human anatomy was considered to be (and still is in some cases) a taboo subject, or not for us to tamper with.
If it wasn't for scientists willing to push the boundaries of social and moral acceptance then we would still be living in the dark ages praying to some sky father to heal the sick and solve all our woes. (well some people still do that) but for the rest of us, the people who are willing to step on gods toes have made life a hell of a lot more liveable.

While I do agree with you on the "done to death" portion, you are confusing religion with rationality, or maybe you're just making the purely religious association for the sake of a convenient dismissal. Saying "god's domain" outside of a purely religious context can also just refer to the fact that we typically can't foresee all possible outcomes. (Which if you want to be particularly tactless about it could also be restated as "The only way to foresee all possible outcomes would be as an omniscient being and since such an being does not exist, it's 'god's domain')

If we don't know spit about something, then make a single breakthrough and push on ahead without taking the time to consider alternatives, overlooking the "How it can work" with "How it will work now", acting purely on the desire to achieve what has not been achieved before, those unknown consequences could very well bite us in the asterisk. Using your examples, early blood transfusions would have carried the risks of acting as a vector for known or unknown diseases, among other complications, proving fatal. Stem cells are more complicated, since that is still something that is just dawning on the medical community. Less than a decade has made the difference between cells from a fetus and sperm or umbilical cord blood for example. I would be of the opinion that an abortion is more of a procedural development than a technological development however, unless you are referring to it from a purely religious standpoint.

Another good example:

MovieBob:

However many hundreds of thousand of years ago, this individual who's name is lost to history said "No, Fluffy. Instead of mating with whatever sheep you wish like every other sheep in sheep history; you're going to mate with Puffy here, because two extra-wooly sheep parents probably means more extra-wooly sheep babies." This would've been a moment on-par with the decision to take command of FIRE. In that moment, we (humans) ripped the lightning from Zeus' hand and became manipulators of life itself.

Sadly, Fluffy and Puffy also harbored double-recessive genetic traits which increased their chances of uterine deformations, or decreased immune responses to certain diseases. Shit happened and sheep died. Or another similar train of thought: Feeding cows material from other cows will make better cows. (Yes it's a stretch, but someone thought it made sense at some point)

Point being, science is about knowing the answers, and it's a lot more informative to have a patient than just a cadaver. Not that there isn't some merit in what you're saying, I'm just advising that you not dismiss or misinterpret the concept of thorough vs theatrical scientific progress.

The3rdEye:

While I do agree with you on the "done to death" portion, you are confusing religion with rationality, or maybe you're just making the purely religious association for the sake of a convenient dismissal. Saying "god's domain" outside of a purely religious context can also just refer to the fact that we typically can't foresee all possible outcomes. (Which if you want to be particularly tactless about it could also be restated as "The only way to foresee all possible outcomes would be as an omniscient being and since such an being does not exist, it's 'god's domain')

If we don't know spit about something, then make a single breakthrough and push on ahead without taking the time to consider alternatives, overlooking the "How it can work" with "How it will work now", acting purely on the desire to achieve what has not been achieved before, those unknown consequences could very well bite us in the asterisk. Using your examples, early blood transfusions would have carried the risks of acting as a vector for known or unknown diseases, among other complications, proving fatal. Stem cells are more complicated, since that is still something that is just dawning on the medical community. Less than a decade has made the difference between cells from a fetus and sperm or umbilical cord blood for example. I would be of the opinion that an abortion is more of a procedural development than a technological development however, unless you are referring to it from a purely religious standpoint.

You're totally correct. If you don't know anything about a subject and make the initial breakthrough into it, there are inevitably going to be consequences from carrying out any experiments, that are totally unforeseeable, being that we aren't omniscient.
But you're completely missing my point. Which is that condemning those who take the first step is not only insulting but stands in the way of future development.
Mistakes are bound to happen, and we adapt, we learn from the mistakes and perfect the science so they don't happen again.
You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

And you're wrong about something, science isn't about 'knowing' the answers, its about trial and error, figuring things out from our mistakes.
If someone doesn't take the initial plunge then the discovery is never made.
I'm all for going about things rationally, and not jumping the gun.
But making certain subjects taboo because they're morally questionable, or just simply because they don't fit into someone's beliefs is detrimental to our very future.

For instance. If no one experimented with blood transfusions, then around 99% of the medical procedures performed today would be totally impossible.
So even though we stumbled into that field completely blindfolded, and diseases and rejected transfusions caused the deaths of lots of people. If we hadn't have thrown caution to the wind and tried it any way. Medical science would certainly not have progressed to its current level.

Progress is messy, it doesn't happen without casualties. But its paramount to our continued existence. And sanctioning subjects off because they offend or scare people is ridiculous.

zpfanatic81195:

Marowit:
Sounds awesome!

One question though: Is there a sex scene?

For whatever reason sex in movies immediately turns my girlfriend off of movies. Like we went to go see Watchman and she seemed to be enjoying it until the sex scene, and she checked out. Needless to say it was awkward.

Anyway, I'd really like to see this movie, and I wanted to ask to see if I can bring her along or if it's a movie I should see by my lonesome.

there is 2. the second one is the MOST FUCKED UP THING i've ever seen.

Yeah I went to go see it this weekend while she was working, and I'm glad I went alone. I liked the science side of it, I'm currently working as a Tech in a Developmental Neurobiology lab, but the sex scenes were pretty gratuitous.

Unless you misstated your argument initially, making a reference to "god's domain" consecutively is a pretty clear indication of a point, so I didn't miss it. Either you're arguing it from a rational standpoint or you're using the complications of religion vs science as a screen. Don't forget that this is all stemming from a review of a movie depicting a purely genetically engineered human. Yes there are costs, but I'd be curious of the results if you were put in a situation where your "advancement at all costs" was a cost to you personally.

Okay I'm heading to Home depot for torches and pitchforks. Who wants to join my Angry villager style Michael Bay hunt?

The3rdEye:

Unless you misstated your argument initially, making a reference to "god's domain" consecutively is a pretty clear indication of a point, so I didn't miss it. Either you're arguing it from a rational standpoint or you're using the complications of religion vs science as a screen. Don't forget that this is all stemming from a review of a movie depicting a purely genetically engineered human. Yes there are costs, but I'd be curious of the results if you were put in a situation where your "advancement at all costs" was a cost to you personally.

If you go back and read my entire comment, what I'm saying is pretty clear.

And that is that guilting the scientists who work on taboo subjects is self destructive.
Whether you think of 'gods domain' as a purely religious boundary, or a moral obstacle set by the age. It doesn't matter.
Their both equally irrelevant.

My only point is that if we do not wish to stand in the way of progress, then we have to abandon this notion of there being subjects beyond our ability and understanding.
God's domain, whether meant literally or as a figure of speech, is applied to areas of science that some people think we weren't supposed to meddle in.
I say there's no such thing, and that if approached cautiously and logically there's no valid reason why we shouldn't attempt anything.

Be it synthesising life from nothing, or attempting to create the particles from the beginning of the universe.

And id have no problems with costs if it resulted in a significant breakthrough.
Although not being a scientist, I don't really think I'l be getting that chance any time soon.

I heard about this film a couple of months ago and was interested then, I'm still interested now. And, unfortunately, I'm gonna have to make do with being interested for the forseeable future because there is no UK release date yet :(

Also, I enjoyed your review MovieBob, it made me want to see it even more. Which was cruel of you, seeing as I can't.

Edit: This may have already been posted but I've found a UK release date, August 6th, so still a bit of a wait for this particular island.

hee I like the sound of it but bob opened saying it was horror and I F-ing hate horror so what I'm asking is: is it hardcore damn this is scary horror or is it more like wow that thing came out of nowere it scared me but now im fine horror:P
I hope this is understandeble for anybody to reply:D

I honestly do not know why Moviebob praised this movie so highly. The main characters were morons in every way, and the only good character was Dren.

The hell with "toying with God's domain," I'm christian and don't see any reason why creating a being like Dren would be terrible. Maybe if the main chracters weren't emotionally abusive retards, Dren might not have killed everyone.

And "this years district 9?" Hell no. District 9 was an excellent movie, and this... movie doesn't even come close to being anywhere near the level of excellence the was displayed in District 9.

I think that this movie is simply a guide for parents of what not to do.

dathwampeer:

Be it synthesising life from nothing, or attempting to create the particles from the beginning of the universe.

And id have no problems with costs if it resulted in a significant breakthrough.
Although not being a scientist, I don't really think I'l be getting that chance any time soon.

You don't need to be a scientist. You're obviously a full organ donor, so in the event of your death should any of your organs not be viable for transplantation they will instead be used for scientific research. You also obviously donate whole blood and/or plasma on a regular basis on the same principle.

I'd respond to the rest of the post but I would just be repeating myself.

The3rdEye:

You don't need to be a scientist. You're obviously a full organ donor, so in the event of your death should any of your organs not be viable for transplantation they will instead be used for scientific research. You also obviously donate whole blood and/or plasma on a regular basis on the same principle.

I'd respond to the rest of the post but I would just be repeating myself.

Well i am rgistered as a donor. But I've never given blood.
But thats not really what I was getting at.
A few pints of blood and a liver after I've kicked it is hardly a cost to me, nor is it a breakthrough of science, or the pushing of a boundary.

at the end, I honestly thought that

Hahaa...Bob said y'all.

I gave this movie a 3/10.

Reasons:

I couldn't really let "THIS HAS GREAT SCIENCE" stand uncontested. It really isn't. Even the scientific method is unsound. :P

Shoulda requested my money back and bought $16 worth of movie snacks (I wasn't annoyed at the theater, just the movie. I'd rather the theater had my money and the movie didn't get a cut ;P)

Elesar:
) but let's try and keep this from becoming a long lasting cultural thing or (god forbid) a meme. You want a gross out movie that's 100 times better than Centipede? Go track down Slither.

Seconded - Slither is properly awesome black comedy/horror and also contains Nathan Fillion!

Moviebob, you let me down this week. Normally, I like your opinions about movies. I saw this movie with my boyfriend on a good review from you and Ebert, thinking I'd be seeing a really good piece of intelligent science fiction. Clearly you and I were seeing different movies.

The characters are poorly written and hideously inconsistent. It's not even that this thing gets the science mostly wrong, as a narrative it sucks, and it totally IS that whole "we must not tamper in GOD'S DOMAIN" thing you very specifically said it isn't. How could it possibly not be said to be that? It is the same "moral" as the Frankenstein story, the only difference being an obsessive mother figure instead of a neglectful father figure.

You claim that it places the blame squarely on the characters rather than their field. Yeah, thing about that: let's count the scientist characters in this movie who are a)actually characters instead of just extras, and who are b)not the main characters: 1....well then. See, these characters are to be considered representative of what the creators think of science, because other than one other scientific character, who while not an Evilutionary Biologist the way our "heroes" are, still *SPOILER ALERT* manages to not notice a sex change in the creature he is supposedly actively observing. *ALL IS WELL*

The film starts off so interesting, and sets up so many interesting elements, and promptly does absolutely nothing with them in favor of samey horror bullshit and sex scenes that felt random and gratuitous. It would also be nice if at either point our main characters actually ACTED LIKE SCIENTISTS, which of course they never do, other than at the very VERY beginning when the movie really does take one note, and exactly one note, from what real people talk about doing with gene splicing.

What were you on when you saw this movie, because we clearly saw completely different films. I'll keep watching, because I still enjoy your reviews, but I'm dumbfounded as to how you could actually enjoy this, or that it's this year's District 9. How is this anything near the level of glory that that movie so wonderfully achieved?

I have to see this, a film whith an attitude other than 'don't play god', it's about time
edit, woops, just read the above comment, why do 'mad' scientists get such a bad press anyway? it's just like class C drugs, people will do this so it needs to be regulated.
And I want to see a 'monster' that can argue for it's own existence in court, it'd be one hell of a trial

Well Bob, I saw Splice yesterday. Pretty good film. But was it really this year's District 9 as you said? Well, personally I wouldn't go that far. It was well-directed and acted, and I agree it had a lot more going for it than The Human Centipede did in that there was more to it beyond just the "OH GOD!!! MY EYES!!!" factor. Incidentally, both films, particularly THC, have been compared to David Cronenberg's classic works. But I thought Splice was a lot closer in spirit to the kinds of things Cronenberg had done. There was always a point or some underlying meaning to the transformations that were happening in his films, and they were always weird and unsettling without being completely off-putting. Cronenberg's transformations were also often organic in nature, with the exception being Dead Ringers. THC on the other hand was all about surgical mutilation and was more of a fetish film than anything else.

I think you're a little off though on how the movie avoided the "They tampered in God's domain" trap. The movie didn't refute it like you implied as much as it deftly dodged it. Adrien Brody's talking about how they "fucked up," was about as close as it got. The implication that I think Natali was trying to make was that it's useless to debate this because it's inevitably going to happen; it's just how responsible science and society is willing to be with it, just like nuclear energy was and still is being regarded.

Anyway, the movie was fine until the about the last twenty minutes, at which point it just came completely undone. In fact, I'd say the ending of this movie kind of pissed me off even more than you thought Prince of Persia's ending would for some people. Once Dren...

Anyway, I think the real thinking-man's Science Fiction film is going to be Inception. I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about it when it comes out.

Oh, and as for the whole "Would ya?" thing? For me, definitely not. Dren's basically just an animal, so that crosses the line into bestiality. Plus the stinger in the tail's a deal-breaker.

portal_cat:
I think the fact that Michael Bay is directing a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie is scarier than Splice

Oh shit, I suppose I understand what Mr Bob Said about his dog now.

This movie wasn't about "don't tamper in God's domain."

This movie was about "Adam's sin was in letting his wife do what she wanted."

Though I'm kind of appreciative, because far too few movies go after the silly things mothers do in raising daughters so effectively.

The villain isn't SCIENCE, it's Elsa's evil femibitch mother.

And the more movies that show how feminism has fucked up our society by telling women lies about their nature, the sooner the healing can begin. Four stars.

5 stars for the DeviantArt joke.

Really? Feminism is the cause of the problem here? Oh boo hoo, Elsa's mom didn't let her wear makeup so she's so fucked up and has to control this new creatures life in exactly the opposite fashion.

I would like to point out that the male main character has significant failings too. Though Elsa is the one who is the prime fuck-upper of things, Brody's character still *SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SOEIPLR SLIOEPR* has the failing that the man always does, that being sex. *YOU ARE SAFE ONCE AGAIN*

Seriously, though, if this movie had things to say about feminism, they should have gone more into the ways that Elsa was fucked up because of it, though if the singular thing they mentioned was the direction they were going, they would be significantly wrong about feminism, just like they are wrong about science.

Please explain how feminism encourages women to go against their "nature," because that sounds like it could be hilariously sexist.

I think Bob must've liked LoadingReadyRun's scientific response to Insane Clown Posse

Pianocat:
Really? Feminism is the cause of the problem here? Oh boo hoo, Elsa's mom didn't let her wear makeup so she's so fucked up and has to control this new creatures life in exactly the opposite fashion.

Elsa's mom made her sleep on the floor, forced veganism on her, no doubt pushed her into studying biotechnology in an attempt to get as much control and individuality outside of male influence, took away cherished pets to teach banal lessons and control her behavior, and taught her exactly nothing about the true motivations and nature of men and women. Hence, Elsa married the nerd who'd help her advance her research (he no doubt thought he was 'rescuing' her from an abusive situation,) tried the Dren thing as a 'child' that she assumed she could control (since she learned all of her parenting from biology and sociology textbooks, and her ideologically driven and abusive mother,) and turned into her mother when all else failed. Note how her two courses of action whenever pressed are to either go into dictatorial mommy mode or icy cold clinical scientist mode. She is exactly what she was taught to be, a terrible amalgam of Andrea Dworkin and GlaDOS, worse because these two personalities are often temporarily driven away by her husband's simple masculinity, which ends up saving the day far more often than not.

Pianocat:
I would like to point out that the male main character has significant failings too. Though Elsa is the one who is the prime fuck-upper of things, Brody's character still *SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SOEIPLR SLIOEPR* has the failing that the man always does, that being sex. *YOU ARE SAFE ONCE AGAIN*

You're really reaching here. Falling for and having sex with a younger, hotter, more willing, less mentally abused by feminism, and more animalistic version of your own wife does not fall under the same category of fuck-uppery. Or even in the same universe. Would it even technically be considered a sin? It's not like HE had any DNA in the matter. Matter of fact, what she did was very close to female rape, since the only genes Dren had were hers and her male forebears (no doubt some handsome passing thug her mother fell for in one of her drunken-er moments.)

Had Adrien Brody's character been the one in charge of Dren, Dren would not have been a feral disaster. But then, Adrien Brody's character actually HAD a family that looked out for each other, at least in the person of his nerdy but mostly common-sensical brother. But women never like beta providers until real problems that need fixing turn up.

Seriously, though, if this movie had things to say about feminism, they should have gone more into the ways that Elsa was fucked up because of it, though if the singular thing they mentioned was the direction they were going, they would be significantly wrong about feminism, just like they are wrong about science.

Feminism is a failure that succeeds by the failure of its members. It alienates men and women away from each other and destroys the trust that holds a civilization together. It ruins relationships, trust, wealth, companionship, families, independence, and freedom. Slowly at first, but as it gains more and more power, faster and faster. It hasn't completely ruined our society (thank you Phyllis Schlafly) but it's ruined anywhere it's taken seriously. Worst of all, it completely kills any respect young men have for education, which is kind of important if you want to keep living in this tech-world.

Please explain how feminism encourages women to go against their "nature," because that sounds like it could be hilariously sexist.

Please tell me one good thing feminism has done for society that hasn't already been done more effectively by non-feminists for non-feminist reasons. Better yet, tell me one good thing feminism has done for video games that hadn't already been done, better, by non-feminists, in a non-feminist game. How often has NOW been on the side of GTA 4, again?

This movie is so far from "this year's District 9" it's not funny. You fucked up this time Movie Bob, this movie's a turd. It's slow as shit, with little to no suspense. The "science" is laughable, as are all the retarded things these two supposed geniuses do. Speaking of which...

It's amazing how quickly Adrien Brody goes from "Abomination! Kill it!" to "I'm totally sticking my dick in that thing." Wasn't it supposed to be their child analog? Doesn't that make it even creepier, and his character's 180 that much less believable? The sex scene itself...I have no idea if it was supposed to be touching or repugnant, but when Dren spread her wings and screeched like a pterodactyl while orgasming, the entire theatre burst out laughing. Don't think that was the effect the director was going for.

The only good scene was Fred and Ginger's show. You just ruined all the credibility you got from recommending District 9.

PianoCat5:
Moviebob, you let me down this week. Normally, I like your opinions about movies. I saw this movie with my (girl)friend on a good review from you and Ebert, thinking I'd be seeing a really good piece of intelligent science fiction. Clearly you and I were seeing different movies.

What were you on when you saw this movie, because we clearly saw completely different films. I'll keep watching, because I still enjoy your reviews, but I'm dumbfounded as to how you could actually enjoy this, or that it's this year's District 9. How is this anything near the level of glory that that movie so wonderfully achieved?

Exactly my opinion. I always take Ebert with a grain of salt, but up until now I hadn't disagreed with MovieBob once (Daybreakers wasn't as good as he said, but it was still decent.)

Edit: Having just watched the review again, where is all this heavy stuff he mentioned? It's about as deep as Species.

sephiroth1991:
This film has completely gone under the radar here in england i have not seen even a poster on a phonebox of this film. Never heared of it, but i might check it out.

Is it out yet over here then or not?

So how many other people saw all the Freudian overtones?

Thought I'd bump this.

This is my first post on the escapist, though I've read it for some time. Felt the need to mention this.

Movie Bob's observations on this film weren't merely wrong or tasteless -- they were outright lies.

It's mind-boggling. It's like it was opposite day.

-The film's science was awful and would turn anyone off science. Bob said the science was good.

-The ending -- well, go look for a spoiler. Seriously -- do a net search and dig one up. It's pure shock value for its own sake. Warner Brothers cartoons have more internal logic and are less banal and vile. And worse -- it's not unpredictable. If you expect the movie to try to shock you, you expect the ending. And the middle, but I digress. Bob said the ending was good, and it wasn't.

-To say the characters were unrealistic would be a god-awful understatement. This is worse than fanfiction by pre-teens. There's like 6 characters and the writer couldn't manage that. Bob praised the characters and it was undeserved.

I get the feeling -- this is guesswork, btw -- that this movie pushed Bob's emotional buttons so he made up for its massive shortcomings by imagining a film that didn't exist. It's sort of what we do with action flicks; we know they're silly, but they're fun, so we don't put them up to a rigorous coherency standard. As long as there's narrative logic, or dream logic, there's logic enough.

But I think most of humanity's emotional buttons are set up like Bob's.

As such, this flick won't give most of its audience the high Bob got, so the rest of us will see only only its resemblance to a particularly noxious bowel movement.

I'm serious: spoil the ending for yourself.

From now on, when Bob gives a contentless review, we should assume the movie's a worst disaster than we could have even imagined.

Back to lurking.

Watched this with the gf......it was great at what it does....im still grossed out by the ending. Dont want to give anything away but...god dam lol.

Bob never fails to spot a good movie, he is right about Twilight being shit but....im sure we all knew this, and he was right about D-9...again im sure you all agree.

keep up the good work bob

Just watched this movie. Movie Bob... You are usually right on the mark with most movies. This is NOT one of those times.
You mention that this movie does not use Fiction to bash the Science??!! I have never seen so many laws of Science broken in one movie for the sake of fiction.

Physics, Biology, Genetics, Psychology ... all blown right out of the water. I would have serious issue believing any of this would be possible or realistic if they had set the movie in the distant future Star date 2234 or something like that.

Spoiler alert:

They make a new species made out of 5-8 different animals and it lives and functions as an organic blob... they add human DNA and it become a sexy Human like pokemon?!

It can sprout tiny wings and fly... (see laws of aerodynamics ), breath underwater, regenerate, age rapidly, stab with a poisonous tail, change its sex AND successfully mate with Humans. And they were able to do this on the FIRST Embryo they bring to term... ?!

Psychologically the 2 doctors made no sense and were not relatable. From day one this thing nearly kills her. Time and again they treat Dren like an orphaned child instead of a dangerous creation even after each close call. Then it seems both doctors go way over the deep end. Both seem to do a total 180 in a short period. Like they were hell bent on finishing the freakish plot of a movie instead of taking the desperate and calculated actions of 2 intelligent humans in a crisis situation.

This years District 9?... I couldn't disagree more. Unlike District 9, I had a lot of trouble relating to any of the particulars in this movie. While this movie does address moral and ethical crises like district 9, the characters never really deal or struggle with them. Most times they just ignore them.
This was little more that a shock factor movie using Inter-species sex as its medium a la Avatar.
3/10

I joyfully (perhaps wrong word) watched this opening day, doing my little part to support Canadian cinema.

The fact that it is Cronenberg-ish alone makes it worthwhile for it will bravely show and tell you things other (countries) won't in their films.

I agree that it is a fantastic film, and sympathise with it for having the immense challenging of coming up with an ending for it....I'll stop there for fear of spoilers but had an idea...if you are to make a monster, make it more threatening...

P.S. District 9 was swell and all but was two movies slammed together...like if Spinal Tap were sewn to robocop...

Pandalisk:
This years district 9 you say?
Actually intelligent you say?

Dont toy with my heart Bob, but i trust in our Wisdom until i can make an opinion of my own

I hop it shows at my local cinema otherwise ill have to wait for DVD

District 9? No way. This movie is so ridiculous you can't take it serious. So when serious things happen you just laugh. Adrienne Brody is far and away the best actor in this movie and he almost makes everyone else look bad in comparison. The dialogue is hackneyed at best. Yes, it has a freaky twist that is weird, gross and unexpected, but it just adds to the craziness and makes you take this movie less seriously.

I'm not sure if Bob is losing it or what, but he's gone 0-for-3 in his last three reviews. Robin Hood was excellent, Prince of persia was crap and now "splice may be the best movie all year"? Come on man.

keserak:
Thought I'd bump this.

This is my first post on the escapist, though I've read it for some time. Felt the need to mention this.

Movie Bob's observations on this film weren't merely wrong or tasteless -- they were outright lies.

It's mind-boggling. It's like it was opposite day.

-The film's science was awful and would turn anyone off science. Bob said the science was good.

-The ending -- well, go look for a spoiler. Seriously -- do a net search and dig one up. It's pure shock value for its own sake. Warner Brothers cartoons have more internal logic and are less banal and vile. And worse -- it's not unpredictable. If you expect the movie to try to shock you, you expect the ending. And the middle, but I digress. Bob said the ending was good, and it wasn't.

-To say the characters were unrealistic would be a god-awful understatement. This is worse than fanfiction by pre-teens. There's like 6 characters and the writer couldn't manage that. Bob praised the characters and it was undeserved.

I get the feeling -- this is guesswork, btw -- that this movie pushed Bob's emotional buttons so he made up for its massive shortcomings by imagining a film that didn't exist. It's sort of what we do with action flicks; we know they're silly, but they're fun, so we don't put them up to a rigorous coherency standard. As long as there's narrative logic, or dream logic, there's logic enough.

But I think most of humanity's emotional buttons are set up like Bob's.

As such, this flick won't give most of its audience the high Bob got, so the rest of us will see only only its resemblance to a particularly noxious bowel movement.

I'm serious: spoil the ending for yourself.

From now on, when Bob gives a contentless review, we should assume the movie's a worst disaster than we could have even imagined.

Back to lurking.

Couldn't agree more.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here