One of the worst movies I've seen
-
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! -
DrSamba — 14 years ago(August 27, 2011 07:25 AM)
I've seen it a few times, but always the cut version. I enjoyed it, but did find it confusing at times.
I just found out the director's cut is available at my local library. I'm looking forward to seeing it at last! -
kswiss89 — 12 years ago(November 17, 2013 01:42 AM)
I actually think Bowie acts surprisingly well, although I am a huge fan of his music I see him credited in movies and am also really driven to see them Given other musicians who have tried to act as well: Cough Gene Simmons Cough; Bowie deserves little to no criticism.
"Even though I'm no more than a monster - don't I, too, have the right to live? " -Oh Dae-Su -
franzkabuki — 14 years ago(September 04, 2011 11:36 AM)
Yeah the cuts were kinda confusing, but thats a great thing, creating numerous wonderful transitions between all sorts of imagery and tones - Roeg seemed to have impeccable instincts for that stuff here and in Walkabout and, especially, Dont Look Now. And Id say the screenplay was so good that the story takes at least 2 viewings to bring it all together more or less perfectly. An amazingly shot, poignant and startlingly original - if not perfect - work of art; Roeg sure cooked up some heavy sh-t in the 70s. 9/10.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
TheBotticelliQueen — 13 years ago(August 18, 2012 07:53 PM)
I liked everything about the film except for the editing, really. Like a poster above said, the narrating could've used some work. When narration was used, it was ineffective most of the time, seeing as it provided information already given to us. Like towards the beginning, Rip Torn was narrating how he was going to work with Bowie's quirky character when we already knew that a) the point of having Rip Torn was so that his story would tie into Bowie's, and b) We already started to get the idea that Bowie's character was pretty quirky.
Editing, however, was definitely the biggest issue. Besides that, lovely movie.
-
Mr_Blonde3 — 13 years ago(September 01, 2012 05:40 PM)
"One of the worst movies I've seen."
It was very surreal, and I have to admit I snuck a peek at wiki afterwards to fully understand some things, but I liked it. Bowie was just the right level of Odd, and I really liked Rip Torn.
I love to love my Lisa. -
gorguruga — 12 years ago(May 07, 2013 01:28 PM)
I've just finished watching this for the first time 5 minutes ago and I have to agree it was very disappointing. It was strange in a way that it kept me watching for 2 hours just waiting for something to happen. But it was more of a chore rather than an enjoyable experience.
The good points perhaps are that the atmosphere, some music and some of the visuals were occasionally decent, the acting wasn't that bad, it's just the movie didn't really go anywhere. I came away thinking ultimately that I'd just wasted 2 hours of my time.
I'm guessing that the reason the movie has been rated so highly is largely because of David Bowie fans who don't want to fault anything he's involved with. Ultimately it's misleading that the IMDB score for the movie is currently 6.7 when probably 4.5 would be a fairer and more realistic number for this film. -
acceberbex — 12 years ago(May 25, 2013 05:13 PM)
I've just watched it for the 2nd time (both late at night I'll admit) but I still had to go online to figure out what was going on.
I too feel like I've wasted 2 hours of my life waiting for the film to end so I could go and figure it out!
I'm also a huge Bowie fan so I don't want to fault it, but it just didn't do anything for me. I don't think the acting was necessarily bad - I just didn't get the plot, didn't get who was who and the constant flicks between people/alien, past and present etc threw me totally