One of the most poorly edited films I have ever seen!
-
christomacin — 16 years ago(August 02, 2009 09:38 PM)
I totally agree with you that today's whippersnappers have pathetic attention spans, and I find it less and less enjoyable going to see newer movies for precisely this reason. However, I am in my late 30's, so I am not sure that totally explains my problem with Outland, which was a film of my youth. I really liked Outland when I saw it as a kid in the theater, but I really do think the pacing of this film is terrible, mostly toward the end. I understand what Hyams was trying to do, but it just came across as ponderous rather than suspenseful. I didn't realize it until watching it again about 10 years ago. Maybe I am being too hard on the film, but I have gotten picky on Hyams films generally. He used to be one of my favorite directors, now not so much. I do remember Outland fondly as the first Connery movie I saw in the theater, so it has a soft spot in my heart just the same.
-
-
scotbpens — 16 years ago(December 05, 2009 10:55 PM)
My 16 year old nephew often becomes bored with movies that are over 20 years old.
Well, if he ever has trouble falling asleep, just give him the original Russian version of
Solaris
to watch! (AKA
A Bunch of Russian Dudes Sitting Around Talking
.)
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be? -
Etherdave — 15 years ago(August 20, 2010 01:15 AM)
Hmmm I saw this film in my youth as well, but today I still find it hugely entertaining. I don't see any problems with the pacing or editing, and Hyams' directing seems as competent as anyone else's of the period; his use of low camera angles and dollies consistently sets an atmosphere of claustrophobia and paranoia. While the music is highly reminiscent of 'Alien' and 'Poltergeist', it fits the drama of this film quite well, and in some cases is better scored to the screen action than either. This is one of my favorite non-bond Connery films, a near equal to the preposterous, ridiculous, absolutely gorgeous 'Zardoz'.
-
filmklassik — 9 years ago(June 18, 2016 02:01 AM)
Do you really believe modern audiences have shorter attention spans than audiences in 1981? How then do we explain the fact that the dominant mode of storytelling today long form TV such as BREAKING BAD, TRUE DETECTIVE, WALKING DEAD, MAD MEN, etc isn't being edited for short attention spans?
-
hafabee — 15 years ago(October 02, 2010 06:09 PM)
I don't feel that the movie suffers from poor editing at all; in fact the editing is pretty good. What the movie could have used were a few more interesting angles in shooting though. That gets a lot better for some reason towards the end of the movieI suppose for the most part they simply didn't have a lot of room for setting up some great shots what with the claustrophobic feel to the facility and the 4th wall and all.
I dislike much of the fast editing many action movies have today. We cant see the action clearly because it is cut to pieces. Maybe Im getting too old, or perhaps the filmmakers are just trying to disguise their poor work.
Me too, a lot of editing these days looks terrible. Its of course suppose to make action scenes look chaotic but it just becomes a jumbled mess. One recent example of this that I saw was Batman Begins by Chris Nolan. Beautiful cinematography, great story, but when the action sequences started the cuts were so quick and terribly assembled it brought the whole movie down. -
Ashley Pomeroy — 12 years ago(January 13, 2014 12:17 PM)
"draggy"
Interestingly the film was edited by Stuart Baird, who later went on to direct Star Trek: Nemesis, which has a similarly dark look. After Nemesis flopped he went back to editing, and is apparently very good at it; he edited Casino Royale and Skyfall.
My opinion is that the film editing is just fine, but I agree that Hyams needed to chop a quarter of an hour or so off the running time, or generate some more plot. The story simply wasn't involved enough to justify the film's length. It needed a third strand, perhaps some kind of threat to the mining colony itself, or something involving Io.
It's interesting to compare it with Total Recall, which has a similar milieu, but feels more epic because it has the plot thread with the alien oxygen generator. Outland ultimately feels inconsequential. -
filmklassik — 9 years ago(June 18, 2016 01:56 AM)
One problem I have with movies and TV shows today is the abundance of sub plots. B, C and D stories usually bore the hell out of me.
I came for the A story, dammit.
And I thought OUTLAND was much better than TOTAL RECALL, if not quite as good as ALIEN (which also had no B story)