One of the worst movies I've seen
-
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.
-
birdeyes304 — 12 years ago(January 04, 2014 01:44 AM)
I feel the same way. A person comes from another planet and is subjected to hedonism at its finest with confusing twists as to what the human race really is. That is the stupid story I guess. 100% stupid.
-
wirenwit — 15 years ago(March 18, 2011 12:37 PM)
I found the script unique and stimulating; Bowie, Rip Torn and Candy Clark, perfect for their roles. But the direction and editing were amateurish. I wonder if Roeg got his reputation because of his bold choice of scripts, rather than his technical abilities.
-
s-napolitano8 — 15 years ago(March 22, 2011 01:18 AM)
I don't understand why when someone says they don't like a film they're automatically stupid. I like everything. Seriously it's like a curse. This movie howeverI found pointless. Unfortunately, I didn't enjoy it, that doesn't make me or anyone else stupid..Why bicker? I don't get it. Talk about it instead of, "Oh you're a big dumby for not liking it"
It suckedto me. To most of you on the board, apparently, it's a masterpiecesorry I can't enjoy this one. -
nephihaha — 15 years ago(March 31, 2011 11:33 AM)
For what it's worth the original poster seems to have seen the cut version. I watched the full version, and it explains a few things which are plot holes in the cut version.
I have seen Bowie criticised as an actor, but he did suit this role IMHO.
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!