One of the worst movies I've seen
-
Aloft — 13 years ago(October 04, 2012 02:45 AM)
I realise this is years later. But one of the nice things about the Internet is that conversations can take that long.
However the Rip Torn sex scenes bothered the hell out of me, it was repeating a point that was already stated not more than 5-10 minutes before, while cutting away from the development of Bowie's character.
To me, these seemed to be emphasising something that Dr. Bryce says later on in some narration, about how much his life changed by working with WE. His primary vice is sapped away and he becomes focussed on this thing, this project. You pointed this out yourself, so basically I'm agreeing with you on this point. I think the repeated nature of the scenes, and in particular the overlapping of different women saying similar things or following a line of conversation in concert is just a device to show how promiscuous he was. It would be like showing a sequence of scenes about a drunk who gets himself together. You wouldn't just show one binge at the bar, that wouldn't get the point across. You'd show how this is a common problem with the guy and that he is addicted to burying his life in this vice.
I do not think you would disagree with that, so I feel that your only problem with this is that the man's vice involved something that impinges upon your comfort level.
And to answer why nudity (male and female) was necessary to the impact of the scenes, well the sex scenes were all interleaved with various other events going on. This was most effectively done with the first, where the sex was most vividly portrayed as being overly violent, interleaved with theatrical performance depicting a sword fight. It was, to me, a sort of comedic theatrical performance of human sex as seen from an outsider's point of view. This is a common mammalian trait (a point that was accentuated subtly in some of the nature shows Newton watched, where the male lion "love bites" the female lion on the neck).
It would be difficult to capture a caricature of human mating styles, as viewed by someone from another species, without nudity. I thought it was particularly interesting to show things that way, and then show the evolution of Newton's sex life as he increasingly "went native". In the end he was every bit as exaggeratedly violent as the now monk-like Bryce had been.
I was also perplexed as to why the nude swimming pool scene was included. I thought it was a very beautiful shot, but what purpose did it serve?
A demonstration of power. As he was enjoying a luxurious swim, the murders that he had ordered had been undertaken. I suppose, coming from someone who is decidedly not a prude (so take what I say as being a point of perspective rather than debate) I barely even noticed that anyone was nude in this shot at all. What I did notice was the clear demonstration of physical power, shown by a man who could dive into a pool, kick once to clear it, and then lift a grown women clear out of the pool onto the side, above his chest, so that she lands on her feet. It was such an impressive looking show of strength, and I'm positive that was meant to be directly compared with the political power being used to murder one of the most wealthy men in the world (and his lover). I suppose this could have been done with bathing suits on, but why? I see that question asked often by people who are annoyed or bothered by the depiction of the human form: why does this even need to be herebut I feel the same way, why do they need clothes or swimwear? What would be the reason for shooting this shot with swimwear? I can't think of one, outside of what I would consider to be antiquated socially induced fear of our own flesh. It seems perfectly natural to me to go swimming in the nude. Like I say, I don't wish this to be a point of debate, and I certainly do not mean to offend. I merely wish to offer a counter-perspective from someone who does not see things the way you do. Like I say, to me I barely even noticed the nudity in this shot. That wasn't the focus of it.
I think you might have a point with the analogy of falling to earth/falling into the pool. He did land in the lake after all. Combining this with my conception of the scene perhaps you could say that power, in a sense, comes from an efficient use of one's environment. Newton did not know how to fit into the environment, either biologically or socially and the power he did obtain from his inventions was a fickle sort, whereas the power this retired military man had attained was precisely the sort of lasting, strong influence that can only come from being born in, raised, and intelligent and lucky enough to manipulate the currents of life around you into pushing you to the surface of the pool of life.
At any rate, I would echo what noguano said below. The '70s era in film had a naturalist side to it that I miss in modern cinema. Back then a person could be shown sitting nude in their home reading a book, and that was just an honest depiction of what people do. There was -
Scarlett_Crimson — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 06:54 PM)
Actually, "my girlfriend and I were baffled" is grammatically correct (no 'both' needed). If you're going to nitpick about grammar (which I do all the time) you should probably brush up on yours.
(And yes, I realize that by correcting the grammar of someone who asked us not to you were being a troll.) -
Billy_McAvoy — 16 years ago(June 30, 2009 09:10 AM)
So what's next on your agenda jacka$$? You going to trash Charlie Chaplin's "City Lights" for ineffective use of dialog? I mean where does it end?
By the Way; what does David Lynch have to do with this movie?
PS: I'm 1/2 Norwegian myself, it's not an excuse for idiocy.
Guess What S1m0ne! We have now entered an age where we can manufacture fraud faster than our ability to detect it -
Nick55419 — 16 years ago(July 10, 2009 01:28 AM)
David Lynch has nothing to do with this.. I hope since you posted this over a year ago you maybe have given the film a second chance????? Now that you know the premise, perhaps you will be able to see deeper into the film. Grasp new things you didn't see before? It is a great film. At least to some of us.
-
fanaticita — 16 years ago(July 20, 2009 02:56 PM)
I thought David Bowie was exquisite. Every scene he was in I couldn't take my eyes off him for a second. I thought his acting was great. The movie was fantastic, really, but difficult to make sense of. Bowie's character came to earth to save his planet, but what exactly did he do? He built multi-billion dollar corporations to make money, but then what?
Also, was he stuck on earth at the end? It didn't seem like he was going anywhere. ???? Very mysterious. -
Huffman1 — 16 years ago(September 23, 2009 05:17 PM)
This is one of my favourite movies of all time; I gave it 10/10because there is no 11/10! I can understand that this is not everybody's cup of tea in terms of editing style (which has left many confused), but the acting was absolutely wonderful. David Bowie was perfect in his role; even if the scene where he takes off his human disguise were not included, we would still be convinced that he was an alien simply by his facial expressions and his way of speakingtotally unearthly. Candy Clark was also perfect in her role; her performance was one of the most natural I have ever seen. The cinematography was very beautiful, and I did love Roeg's visual style. As for the nudity, I thought it was pertinent to the story so it didn't bother me at all. I also loved the atmoshere created- there was a strong sense of mystery at the beginning and throughout, but which little by little translated into a sense of urgency and helplessness. The last scene was particularly striking; "I think Mr. Newton has had enough," was perfect, and very relevant not only to the story, of course, but also when referring to us in general (I suppose that for many of us, there comes a point where we cannot face the society conventions anymore, and we've just had enough of everything). As well, I think that the story has many dimensions; Of course, there is the objective story, but there are many themes, for example, the way that in society, anyone who is different in character, ideology, philosophy, etc from what is considered to be the norm is nearly always scorned at and treated as if he were crazy.
I don't want realism. I want magic! -
purduemathgrad — 16 years ago(October 14, 2009 10:10 AM)
The actors were mediocre,
Subject to debate, but keep in mind that this was David Bowie's acting debut. That said, I thought he played Newton with a lot of depth and pathos. I was genuinely concerned with his character by the end of the film.
The effects were laughable,
Maybe, but SciFi doesn't have a GREAT history with this, especially since the effects tend to become dated over time. Fritz Lang's Metropolis has incredibly dated effects as well, but it is still a classic. Keep in mind that this is not a documentary, so not everything is going to be lifelike.
The lighting made it look like a home-movie,
I'm curious what examples you have of that. I found the lighting to be, in most cases, indicative of some mood.
The Cuts were confusing and didn't make any sense a lot of the time,
The cuts, in several cases, were meant to convey the disconnected feeling that Newton has being on a completely new planet in a completely new society. He is making an adjustment, a key theme to the film.
and the structure of the screenplay was so bad it took me an hour to figure out what the hell was going on? (very confused about the aliens on the "desert-tram" and what the plot was all about),
OK, I can't really help you with that. Depending on the cut that you saw - the 120 minute US release cut or the 140 minute Director's cut - it might not have been pretty clear, but by the time that Newton talks to Mary Lou about his family being out there waiting for him well, you should have sorted that out by then. You might have also had some suspicions in the first scene when we see Newton land into a lake.
Beyond that, the story is NOT meant to be completely linear or transparent. If an alien landed on Earth, attempting to do what Newton was trying to do, why would he come right out and tell everyone from the start? He wouldn't, much for the same reasons why he only wanted to interact with a very few number of people (Farnsworth, Bryce and Mary Lou, to start). Much of the story is hidden because much of the character would be hidden.
The adaptation I hear is not good (I haven't read it though).
The book is better and does explain more about why Newton left his planet, but when is the book NOT better than the film?
Also, what the hell was the point with Rip Torn's sex-scenes? They had no relation to the story at all?
It has a lot of relevance to the story, but again, depending on the cut of the film that you saw. Bryce's sex scenes convey the major weakness of that character and he even makes it explicit that he is only concerned with sex and work. Once he comes under the employment of Newton, he has lost his fascination with sex and tells us that explicitly as well. But notice that as he loses it, Newton gains it. By the end, Newton is having sex with Mary Lou and a gun - very similar to Bryce's sex with a camera - but Bryce is content to go booze shopping with Mary Lou. In short, Newton took Bryce's appetite for unconventional sex, using it as a weapon of power and control, and Bryce has taken Newton's vulnerability. They are all part of the humanization process of Newton. (Think now about the non-literal meaning of the title.)
You may call me stupid, but both me and my (history/language teacher-)girlfriend was baffled by how terrible this film was. I would like to point out that it had potential. I'm really looking forward to the remake.
It's dense film and there's a lot going on. I would never call someone stupid for not liking a film or seeing all the subtext.
PS. I'm Norwegian, don't pick on my English skills
Your English was perfect. No worries. -
lindsaym41 — 16 years ago(January 05, 2010 06:50 PM)
I don't think this film is a "bad" movie by any stretch of the imagination. The film was visually stunning, had a very interesting story & concept, & David Bowie did a wonderful job in his role, especially considering this was his first film.
So while this film isn't really "bad", it is most definetly a test in beep endurance. I would almost dare to call it the most self-indulgent film that I have ever seen. It's like the director just couldn't resist putting in pointless scenes, dialogue, & chopping editing that made no goddamn sense. And much like "The Thin Red Line", the film lingered on & on & on & on. Every time I thought it was finally going to end, it would stagger on for another half hour like a meth addict with a spear through his head. I have no problem with "epic" films. "Apocalypse Now" is one of my top 10 favorites. But this was just entirely too much. I think better editing & a better script would have solved this problem, but obviously the director was too busy fellating himself during every single shot of the film to worry about such "trivial" things.
However, I still think it is a classic in it's own right, but I personally believe it's a more of a movie for film buffs only. Just make sure you have a lot time & patience on your hands when you sit down to watch it. -
mensur_sony — 16 years ago(March 28, 2010 08:00 AM)
I'm not a fan of science fiction films. I only watched it for David Bowie and that was really perfect, even a masterpiece! Definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen and I gave 10 out of 10. Just because it has made 30 years ago it doesn't make it bad. I can understand if someone says that they didn't like it because it's very "different" but your reasons are strange. Haven't you seen any film made in 70s? Acting was pretty good, especially Bowie was terrific. The Cuts were not confusing, effects are pretty decent and not laughable. As an adaptation, I didn't read the novel but critical reception are very high ("Fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes). There were not modern technology at that time but still they made total perfect movie.