So I went to see C&A last night. What fascinated me was the response of the handful of people in the audience–and I mean four, maybe five people–as they sauntered out while the credits rolled.
“That sucked.” “What a waste of money.”
I don’t get it. It was a perfectly entertaining two hour diversion. It’s not like they pulled a switch and had the Dallas Cowboys squaring off against Mexicans entering the country illegally. It gave us exactly what it promised. It had Daniel Craig acting surly. It had Harrison Ford acting even surlier. It had cowboys. It had aliens. It had cowboys fighting aliens. What the hëll were they expecting? “Unforgiven” meets “E.T.”?
It’s a perfectly fine film, well made and well acted, with surprising depths given to its lead characters and all the classic cowboy tropes. It had a great supporting cast including Clancy Brown, Sam Rockwell and Keith Carridine. I’m really not sure what people are bìŧçhìņg about. I mean, okay, yeah, it was no “Oblivion,” but not everything can be.
PAD
• 
It’s not like they pulled a switch and had the Dallas Cowboys squaring off against Mexicans entering the country illegally.
.
I would pay serious money to see that movie.
.
J.
That concept alone would probably make my cousin Anthony soil himself.
.
.
(He’s both a Cowboys fan and a racist.)
It wasn’t a great movie, but I thought it was genuinely fun one.
I attribute the “it sucks” reactions to three constituencies.
1) Those who honestly didn’t engage with it, because they felt the western half-baked, or the science fiction rote, or the characters unlikeable — i.e. the “well, I disagree with you, but you’re honest” constituency;
2) Representatives of the rather large portion of the younger set who have never been exposed to westerns and cannot expand their imaginations enough to embrace one; the same group that will largely reject any movie not set in the present day or some comic-book future as beyond their experiences;
and
3) I suspect the largest subgroup, the Simpsons Comic-Book Guy type who like to say everything sucks as a means of declaring themselves above it all.
I love Westerns, and I am getting a really bad vibe from Cowboys & Aliens. You know, it’s no less cliche when you mix up two different sets of cliches. And everything I’ve read about C&A feels cliched as hëll. So maybe I am in category 1.
Nnnoooo . . . that would be category three, the “I’m judging something I haven’t even seen yet” group. You have to have actually WATCHED the movie to have an honest, fair opinion on it, as described in point one. Instead, like the Simpsons comicbook guy, you’re just spouting other people’s talking points (everything you’ve read ABOUT the movie) in an attempt to sound legitimately critical.
.
Group one requires direct analysis in person. Try it.
But Rene isn’t saying that the movie sucks to declare himself above it all. He’s saying it looks like something he wouldn’t like so he doesn’t want to see it.
Well, I said I was getting a bad vibe from it. And that what I’ve read of it feels cliched. I am admiting it’s all conjecture. I didn’t try to pass it as an informed oppinion about the movie.
.
Movie tickets are very expensive, time is short, and I’ve see too many mediocre movies in the theathers in the last two years. I can’t afford to see something my gut is telling me I won’t like.
.
Maybe it’s because I’ve never seen a “Western meets some other genre” movie that I’ve really liked. I think I’m too used to “art” Westerns like the Sergio Leone movies, Unforgiven, Deadwood, Butch Cassidy, and the “popcorn” Westerns I’ve seen have all been awful, IMO.
Reminds me of a scene from an early Michael Douglas film “Adam at Six am” A guy complains that he went to see Michelangelo Antonioni’s movie “Blow Up”, and there were no explosions!
Okay, here is another question for you all. Why is it that most blogs and comic book sites (including this one) have somehow ignored CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER? I have seen almost no reviews of the movie by comic book sites.
.
Is it because the movie was released when Comic-Con was going on, and everybody was writing about Comic-Con?
I could have sworn that that movie was favourably mentioned in passing here, as part of one of the Comic Con reports. Several others passed comment on it there as well.
All I’m going to say on that subject is that my youngest grandfather and I would have very different views on that movie, and there’d have been no point discussing it with him.
As for Cowboys vs. Aliens, the cast is worth a look, but I’ll likely skip it. I don’t feel I should take in another western until I see the one I’ve had sitting on a shelf for the last two years: High Noon.
Bob, time’s a-wastin’. You need to watch High Noon just to help you define how you feel about Frank Miller. If you don’t know what I mean by that, you also need to watch High Noon.
I assume you mean the Gary Cooper/Grace Kelly film, since it occurs to me that there might have been a lame remake made for tv.
Yes, the original. Thank you for the additional perspective.
The biggest complaint that I’ve heard was concerning plot holes. For instance, how/when/from where did the “good” alien show up. But I have a pet theory concerning those that liked it and those that had problems with it. Most of my friends are artistic or are writers. Concepts are easy to accept as a result, sketching on a sheet of paper before applying paint to canvas, or writing a short story rough draft fleshing out a future novel. We loved the movie and accepted it as it was for what it was.
The more “left brained” requires something more concrete and explanatory. My husband, the engineer, and a handful of our mutual friends cited the plot gaps as a reason they were disappointed.
Plot holes seem endemic to alien invasion movies these days. Compared to such films as “Independence Day” which had plot holes so laughable that people actually laughed during the showing I was at (Will Smith didn’t just save the Earth; he saved that movie) or “Signs” which had plot holes you could drive a spaceship through (“Hi, we’re an alien race that can be killed by water. Let’s invade a planet that’s 3/4 water and see how that works out for us.”), C&A was almost hole-free.
.
PAD
I’m sorry Mr. David, but I can’t be as apologetic about this film as you are. I’m glad that you enjoyed the film as most audiences did, but the obvious is too strong for me to excuse it. C & A wasn’t bad movie nor it was an excellent movie, it’s just a decent sci-fi western movie that should’ve been more interesting. It’s unforgettable enough to see it on NetFlix. It wouldn’t be unforgettable enough to see it again in theatres if The Indians didn’t show up way too late in the 3rd act.
“Apologetic?” What would I have to apologize for? I had nothing to do with the creation of the film. Also, the point is that most audience did NOT enjoy the film, at least if one can believe the mediocre rating on “Rotten Tomatoes,” not to mention the sentiments expressed by most of the audience in the showing I saw. And I didn’t quite understand it because I thought it delivered exactly what it promised to deliver, and thus I had no problem with it.
.
PAD
Most blogs “including this one?” Rene, what the hëll–? This didn’t count, from my post on July 22?
.
And it was just in time for me to make the 12 Noon showing of “Captain America” over at the Horton Plaza. What a terrific film. Wonderfully acted, solid direction, a script that deftly mixes wildly hilarious moments with the reality that they’re in a war. Remember how I complained about Thor in 3D missing the obvious shot of having the hammer come right at the viewer. They sure didn’t miss that trick with Cap’s shield. I don’t know that you HAVE to see it in 3d–you probably don’t. Depends how much it’s worth it to you to feel the need to dodge a flying discus.
.
Typically I do a separate entry about Marvel films, but that’s because I’m usually attending the official Marvel screening. This time I wasn’t since it was held while I was out in SDCC. So I reported on it as part of that coverage.
.
PAD
Sorry PAD. I missed it. I didn’t pay attention to the SDCC threads. I’ll go back and read it.
See what happens? You never know when there’s going to be a quiz.
.
PAD
Here, Howard Tayler’s blog attached to Schlock Mercenary, Scott Kurtz’ blog at PvP Online (his father couldn’t swallow the physics of Cap’s shield), a discussion thread at the SJGames.com forums… the list goes on.
.
Summary: Anyone familiar with Cap liked it. Quite a few people who knew nothing about Cap liked it. Found someone who had heard of the Super-Soldier Serum, but thought they’d added the Vita-Rays for the movie – he liked it too. Scott Kurtz’ dad still wants to know where the energy absorbed by the vibranium shield goes.
It gets converted into zero point energy.
.
…
.
What? Isn’t that the sci-fi writing catch-all limitless power source nowadays? And if you can absorb energy from the base-level atomic motion of the universe, don’t the laws of thermodynamics seem to indicate you can reverse the process?
.
…Well?
.
…I dunno, I got nothing.
Hmm… does that mean being hit by Cap’s shield wouldn’t hurt, since the shield would absorb all the energy of the impact?
Ummm….
.
(scrambles to pull something out of his áršë)
.
No, ‘cuz see, vibranium dissipates energy based on the angle the energy is directed at it. It’s kind of like wood-grain: hit a log with an axe on the side of the log across the grain, and it takes out a chip, but hit it on the end of the log along the grain, and you split the whole log. Well, the molecular structure of vibranium is such that if you hit it head-on, it dissipates the impact into sero-point energy, but if you hit it on the edge, the full force is transferred into the target as intended. See, simple!
.
A-yup, that’s how it works alright! Yessiree, that’s my made-up story and I’ma stickin’ to it!
.
(Actually, according to Newtonian action/reaction, wouldn’t the target still feel the full impact while the shield simply dissipates the counter-impact redirected at it? So really, the impact would still hurt, but the shield wouldn’t bounce back, it would just stop cold . . . gah, I think about this crap too much. Someone remind me sometime to explain how I mathematically calculated how Superman couldn’t possibly gain his powers from sunlight)
I have to agree with ATC’s first line in particular. We went to see it over the weekend, and we enjoyed it.
.
I guess part of the problem is the general mentality of the average movie-goer. I mean, here we have a solid film that, although an adaptation, is pretty original (the likes of Firefly/Serenity and Oblivion aside). And it was nearly beat out in the box office by the latest unoriginal remake in The Smurfs.
.
It seems that more often than not, the automatic reaction is to reject the original unless it’s incredible, such as the first Matrix film or Inception.
.
We go see a few movies in theaters every year. And while I think there are films that were not worth paying to see in a theater (Star Trek: Nemesis, Harry Potter 1, Matrix sequels), the last movie I can think of that we thought was truly, truly awful was Alexander (although the wife refused to go see any more Asian films with me after House of Flying Daggers).
.
There are also those that we didn’t see in theaters that I would probably say “That sucked”: Harry Potter 7.1 and G.I. Joe come to mind. I’m sure there are others I’m forgetting.
I really gave up on trusting others’ view of the objective standard when everyone else in the world except PAD and my parents seemed to give Green Lantern low marks while I thought it was great.
Not that I’m going to rush out and see Cowboys and Aliens. It’s not that I think it’ll suc k so much as I’m just not interested in seeing it in general.
And the lesson to be learned from that is, just listen to me and you’ll be fine. I mean, jeez, it was a “Green Lantern” movie. For what it was, I doubt they could have done better. Sometime I think “Captain America” is the only feel-good superhero film to come out in a while that people don’t seem ashamed to feel good over, and that’s only because it was mostly set in the 1940s.
.
And even THEN not everyone is satisfied. I saw a guy at my local gym wearing a Captain America t-shirt. I asked the logical question: Are you going to see the movie? He says no. Why? His exact quote: “I’m not interested because they retrofitted it.”
.
I said, “What are you talking about?” He said, “They set it during World War II.” I said, “But he’s FROM World War II! The character was CREATED during World War II!” But because this guy’s first exposure to Cap was during his return in “Avengers #4,” he didn’t want to watch a Cap movie set during WW II. Presumably he would have been perfectly happy seeing Cap first show up in next year’s “Avengers” movie with Cap’s entire origin dealt with in a thirty-second flashback.
.
PAD
I saw Captain America yesterday, great movie. Here in Brazil, Cap was released before Green Lantern, and I saw GL’s trailler.
.
I don’t know exactly why, but while Cap was a fun, family-friendly superhero movie, it was still something an adult would not be ashamed of, it was more like an action movie. While Green Lantern felt like a kiddie movie in the trailler.
.
I don’t know, maybe something about the way they used the oath in the trailler, and the aliens seemed slightly cartoony in 3D.
“Sometime I think “Captain America” is the only feel-good superhero film to come out in a while that people don’t seem ashamed to feel good over, and that’s only because it was mostly set in the 1940s.”
Because nothing quite says “feel good movie” like a World War. (I liked Captain America, but still).
“I don’t know exactly why, but while Cap was a fun, family-friendly superhero movie, it was still something an adult would not be ashamed of, it was more like an action movie. While Green Lantern felt like a kiddie movie in the trailer.”
Maybe that’s WHY I liked it. I mean, you’ve got to know something about me. I watch a lot of cartoons. I read a lot of comics, my favorites of which lately are either from the ’60s when all comics were for kids or are marked “All Ages”. One of my primary hobbies can basically be summed up as reading, learning and telling fairy tales. I’ll go ahead and admit it: I’m not the most grown-up guy in the world.
Because nothing quite says “feel good movie” like a World War. (I liked Captain America, but still).
.
Well…yeah. As opposed to subsequent wars drenched in moral ambiguity and a sense of “what the hëll are we doing here?” or “this could have been avoided,” World War II (I’m not speaking to WWI since it’s irrelevant) had a very clear mission, we had powerful allies, and indisputable evil that needed to be stopped. I’m not saying war is a good thing, but there’s something to be said for the positive feelings inspired by moral clarity.
.
PAD
The Captain America movie felt like everything that could be good about a comic book. Steve Rogers was someone of worthy character ready to leap at any chance to do what he thought need doing. He did not let himself stay sidetracked by his limitations. He represents an ideal well because he regularly strives to do so from his first scene to his last.
That’s the strength of the character. The other strength of the movie was how many ways it acknowledged how the era’s American propaganda was poorly received beyond the borders of the United States of America, even among its allies. It doesn’t pretend everything was golden at home. It doesn’t let you feel the show–and boy, did the U.S. know how to put on a show!–was enough, while acknowledging how much effort went into that at the time. Sure, you get an impossibly diverse band in the Howling Commandos, but it’s acceptable by virtue of the ideals the protagonist tries to represent, regardless of what his nation (as mine) was during the period.
There was also a feeling of growth and connection between characters. Even the villain connected by virtue of clashing ideals and personalities.
Green Lantern was lacking in these things. Its antagonists were closer in nature to rabid animals the people with goals opposing the hero’s ideals. None of the relationships in the film showed anything even simulating depth. The worthiness of the ring comes across in a rather absurd revelation (surely that would be evident to an organization older than life on Earth) that acts like an on/off switch.
There’s potential in a sequel, but it does not come from the efforts put into the first movie.
Funny how sometimes people want a movie to be more epic and meaningful than said movie ever intended to be. This happened to “Independence Day” and “300” and now it seems to be happening with “Cowboys & Aliens.”
I notice that this film has only a 44% freshness rating among critics at Rotten Tomatoes. This is too bad, because some people might be influenced into not seeing what’s an enjoyable popcorn movie. (Audiences, by contrast, rate it at 69%.)
.
Me, I liked it a lot. Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford are both interesting characters that bring some depth and internal conflict to their roles, and the team of Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman (Fringe, the Transformers films), Damon Lindelof (Lost) and director Jon Favreau (the Iron Man films) do a good job in entertaining the audience.
.
Sure, there’s the question of why that gonzo wrist-mounted, alien-blower-upper is right there on the aliens’ examination tables, ready to attach itself to the last people in the universe that the aliens would want to have one, but then again, I had a strong suspicion while watching the film that we were not going to get a logical explanation for this, and that we were just expected to accept it as a given. There was also the issue of how the end of the film seems to absolve Lonergan of the murders his wife said he committed to get that gold (which he never contested), but I guess that the film treats him as a tabula rasa following his abduction, unresponsible for the deeds of the man he used to be, and the frontier perspective on law and justice exhibited by Taggart and Dolarhyde at that point seems to embody that viewpoint.
.
The bottom line for me is, it’s a popcorn movie whose title and concept should’ve disclaimed for the viewer going into see it what they were in for. By that measure it earned the price of admission.
.
Rene: Why is it that most blogs and comic book sites (including this one) have somehow ignored CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER? I have seen almost no reviews of the movie by comic book sites.
Luigi Novi: Well, if you need another one, here’s mine: http://nitcentral.philfarrand.com/discus/messages/8/28618.html?1312008468#POST389572
.
Peter David: Compared to such films as “Independence Day”…(“Hi, we’re an alien race that can be killed by water. Let’s invade a planet that’s 3/4 water and see how that works out for us.”), C&A was almost hole-free.
Luigi Novi: “Hi. I’ll be your alien examiner today. Now lay down while I experiment on you and your wife before I disintegrate you both, and don’t you dare try to blast me to mulch with this powerful laser doohickey that I’m going to place right next to your left wrist…” 🙂
Sure, there’s the question of why that gonzo wrist-mounted, alien-blower-upper is right there on the aliens’ examination tables, ready to attach itself to the last people in the universe that the aliens would want to have one,
.
FOLLOWING COMMENT CONTAINS SPOILERS
.
As near as I could tell from the flashback, the device actually had multiple uses and the alien scientist was initially wearing it as a means of examining the other patient. Why in God’s name he felt the need to remove it in order to place it near Jake, I can’t even begin to fathom. Even more perplexing is, if that sort of tech existed and was at the aliens’ disposal, why did they disdain to use it when they went into hand to hand combat with the cowboys. It should have been, “Yo, Zon-Blat. Some annoying humans are outside. Slap on a wrist blaster and incinerate them, would’ja?” Just one of those things could have annihilated the entire human opposition force. We know this because Jake was disposing of the things right and left even though they had built in body armor, so how much of a chance would humans have stood? You could argue that the device was some sort of prototype so that there was only one, but they had NO other energy weapons of any kind? Really?
.
But, as I said, still nowhere near as stupid as, say, taking over an alien computer system with a Mac, so…
.
PAD
as dumb as the taking over a spaceship with a Mac was, they COULD have made it semi logical–just make it crystal clear that Macs (and all our computer tech) was based on the computer technology we obtained from the roswell crash.
.
Ok, maybe semi-semi-logical.
.
I never found the sequence with the Mac to be as problematic as the people who wanted to find things to complain about with that film did.
.
They had been studying that ship in Area 51 since shortly after it crashed on Earth. They mentioned that most of the advanced systems had been dead all these years, but the discussions about it did indicate that they had been able to get into some of the ship’s lesser functions.
.
Conclusion? The scientists and techs studying that ship for the 50 years or so that it had been down there had created interface devices or programs for our tech to access the ship’s basic computer functions and learned at least some of the basic programming that the aliens used.
.
Seriously, complaining about the Mac scene is like complaining about a guy being able to get information out of a book written in Cantonese when there are ten people in the room with a working knowledge of Cantonese.
My fanwank was that since the Locusts obviously didn’t build that tech (judging by the interfaces used, and their own physiology, the devices were originally designed for a very different species, and they just weren’t bright enough to rebuild it), the Macbook interfacing with that alien system was hinting at something very important about Steve Jobs and his people… 🙂
If you’re worrying too much about the plot when watching a movie like Independence Day, then you’re missing the point.
Peter David: Why in God’s name he felt the need to remove it in order to place it near Jake, I can’t even begin to fathom.
Luigi Novi: Or why an examination device would include a setting called “Michael Bay”.
.
Peter David: But, as I said, still nowhere near as stupid as, say, taking over an alien computer system with a Mac, so…
.
Jerry Chandler: I never found the sequence with the Mac to be as problematic as the people who wanted to find things to complain about with that film did.
Luigi Novi: I have a Mac, and it can barely run on Mac OS.
Guys, honestly, I don’t care what you say: any plot point that, when it’s broached, has a crowded theater of science fiction fans (I saw I4 at Horton Plaza during Comic Con) actually shouting, “Aw, come ON” during the screening represents a problem, no matter how much after-the-fact rationalizing one can do.
.
PAD
“If you’re worrying too much about the plot when watching a movie like Independence Day, then you’re missing the point.”
.
I loathe that type of rationale. Implies there is not range in quality in these films, no good or bad – just sit back and take your entertainment. Eck.
“The bottom line for me is, it’s a popcorn movie whose title and concept should’ve disclaimed for the viewer going into see it what they were in for. By that measure it earned the price of admission.”
.
And yet, if it had turned out to be a masterpiece, people would have been urging others to not judge it based on its title or concept. Imagine if everyone assumed that the title and concept of Raiders of the Lost Ark disclaimed what they were in for.
“If you’re worrying too much about the plot when watching a movie like Independence Day, then you’re missing the point.”
.
So, with all of the hands that a movie goes through to get made they don’t have a responsibility to make sure the story y’know, makes sense? How can anyone justify the spending of millions on a movie, “popcorn flicks” they may be, if the plot doesn’t add up? Movies with plot holes big enough to pilot a spaceship through are insulting to each and every person who pays money for a ticket, DVD, or rental. You can blow up as much as you want, you can have little to no characterization, but please, at least have the decency to have things make sense. I don’t even ask that they make a whole lot of sense, just enough to get me though the movie without un-intentionally laughing with disgust.
.
But I guess, as you say, I might be missing the point.
I have a theory that we enjoy movies in basically four ways: brain, heart, senses, and gut. Independence Day is the kind of blockbuster that appeals mostly to the later two.
.
Usually I’m not willing to disengage my brain so completely as to enjoy a movie like that. But I think Independence Day is worth it for the first half of the movie. In a purely senses and gut way it is the most impressive alien invasion ever depicted in film.
.
I think Jurassic Park is another movie like that, important mostly for being the best realization of a classic science fiction trope in a visual and guts way (though Jurassic Park isn’t nearly as brainless as ID4).
Actually I have a specific issue with this thread… It wasn’t Independance Day that they could be killed by water, it was Signs.
.
Just Sayin.
.
TAC
I found it a pleasant enough diversion, but I felt it really could have benefited from some editing. The “journey in search of the aliens” seemed absolutely endless. Judging by the number of people I saw checking the time on watches and phones, I’m not the only person who felt that way. If you’re going to leave big plot holes, the film should MOVE. That way the audience doesn’t have time to sit and think about them while we’re in the theater.
The “journey in search of the aliens” seemed absolutely endless.
.
Apparently you haven’t seen Harry Potter and the Endless Camping Scenes… err, Deathly Hallows, Pt 1 then. 😉
I think sometimes people *want* a movie to suck, so they can walk out saying, “Well *that* sucked.” I’m not sure if it’s wanting the feeling of being the “cool one” or not. And sure, maybe they genuinely thought the movie was bad. But how many times do we hear or read someone stating that “Movie X” is going to suck big time, without a frame of film being seen yet? And would these same people admit that a movie was actually pretty good after making statements like that?
I was afraid that this summer was going to be an over-saturation of comic and genre films, and maybe the two movie goers have just had enough of them, and at this point in the season they’re jaded. I can’t pass judgement on the film myself because I haven’t seen it yet, and these days I’m miserly with my movie-going money – gotta pick and choose.
I feel, though, that we’ve got a comic movie bubble growing, and too many years of growth and it will burst, and movie audiences will grow tired – maybe even hostile – of them. Or maybe it’s just me.
I don’t think it’s genre or comic book movies people get tired of. I think they tire of Superman going up against Lex Luthor FOR THE 37TH TIME!!!!
.
My point, in case it’s not stunningly obvious, is that I think people tire of needless repetition where none need exist.
Other than the fact that the film seems to be made up of characters swiped from other films, I think my feeling about the film is best expressed by something Roger Ebert said in his review: “The most compelling part of the film comes in the beginning, when Dolarhyde’s son is shooting up the town.” (I’m quoting from memory) Once the aliens are introduced, there’s an almost immediate disconnect for me. It was just too much for me to accept that a bunch of scarcely educated cowboys, outlaws and townsfolk from 1873 would actually take on these aliens rather than run screaming for the hills. After that, the only interest I had in it was watching Daniel Craig do his “badass” act and the slight chemistry he had with Olivia Wilde.
Did Ebert see the same movie? They DID run for the hills. But then the “demons” kidnapped key family members, and there was also an alien (presumably having escaped from the vessel that Daniel Craig shot down) who killed some people and then fled. The townspeople wanted their loved ones back, saw tracking the demon as a means of going after them, and did so. What would Ebert have preferred they do? Just write off all the kidnapped people? Called the cops or wait a few weeks for the Marshall to show up?
.
Meanwhile Craig’s character initially wanted no part of the alien battle, and only signed on when his fractured memory made him realize that the “demons” were responsible in some way for the lose of his girlfriend. So it became a vengeance deal for him. Which makes sense.
.
PAD
Did Ebert see the same movie?
.
I’ve asked myself that same question several times lately with his reviews. I can understand enjoying a movie that a critic disliked, or vice versa. And in that case, I try to make some effort to understand why we reached different conclusions. But when the details of the synopsis don’t line up, I’m left puzzled over how to interpret the critique.
What would Ebert have preferred they do?
.
According to his review? Just made a plain ol’ Western. But then he still gave it 3 stars.
.
FWIW, he also gave 3 stars to Captain America, but for some reason he had an intense dislike of Thor and only gave it 1.5.
The “run for the hills” part was my interpretation, not Mr. Ebert’s. My contention is that nineteenth century humans (or humans from a lot of other centuries), when confronted with both flying ships and later an alien species, aren’t likely to form a posse and reclaim their abducted citizens. Fear and shock from an inability to comprehend would overwhelm other emotional drives.
Okay, well, since neither of us actually knows anyone from the 19th century, we’re both spitting in the wind here. Now me, I feel just as comfortable saying that these people are perceiving themselves tested by Satan-spawn demons and are convinced that, with God on their side, they’re going to triumph. And that proud, God-fearing men like these aren’t about to leave their loved ones in the hands of Satan-spawn. It was made quite clear in the film: they saw this as a religious crusade. How does that not justify their determination?
.
PAD
Can’t find a valid email for PAD, so I’m posting here:
http://www.disunplugged.com/2011/07/22/disneys-aulani-resort-spa-references-former-adventurers-club/
many of the adventurers club props have found their way to Disney’s
new resort in hawaii.
Though you’d like to know.
Thanks for the heads up.
.
PAD
http://charlie.griefer.com/blog/cowboys-and-aliens/
I swear I did that before reading this post 🙂
FWIW, I did consider using a group of swarming Mexicans (I live in Phoenix, it wasn’t hard to make the association), but this was easier to Photoshop 🙂
Hope you like.
I found Cowboys and Aliens a perfectly good movie. There was nothing really wrong with it. I don’t know how it compares to the source material. It was a bit surprising seeing Harrison Ford in an almost bad guy role. I really enjoyed the aliens look and motive. It was simple, it worked and nothing was overly crazy or convoluted.
“I don’t know how it compares to the source material”
.
Plot-wise, it doesn’t. But that’s not a bad thing, necessarily. I think the flying horses might have been a bit much for even the most forgiving viewers of the silver screen version.
Hah! Maybe that’s a good thing perhaps if they ever would do an animated movie or series they could try ti use the source material.
I plan on seeing Cowboys and Aliens later this week. I mean it has James Bond AND Indiana Jones, written produced by the guys who wrote Star Trek (2009), produced by Ron Howard (Apollo 13 and Frost vs Nixon WONDERFUL movie BTW) and Seven Freaking Spielberg! Its directed by Jon Farveau (Iron Man). Whats not to like??:)
“I mean it has James Bond AND Indiana Jones,”
Not to mention Han Solo. 🙂
I thought it was a good, not great, flick. Weel worth the $6 ticket on “super Tuesday” at the local theater. At least it’s (barely) beating out the Smurfs.
“What the hëll were they expecting?”
I think this question is the key to why it made a weak showing at the box office; people didn’t know what to expect. Was it going to be a Western with elements of sci-fi or a sci-fi flick in the Western milieu? Was it going to be a serious action movie or a comedy? That sort of ambiguity and uncertainty seems to be fatal when people are choosing what to spend their theater dollars on.
First, there’s an idea that before a movie is released it should be watched by a 10-year-old child, and any mistakes or plotholes that child notices must be fixed before the movie is released. (I’ve noticed that this idea tends to be embraced by people who didn’t like a movie with plotholes, and ignored by people who like a movie despite its plotholes.)
Second, here’s my CAPTAIN AMERICA review http://thearmchaircritic.blogspot.com/2011/07/captain-america-first-avenger.html While I thought it was decent, I had a few problems with it. First, I found Steve Rogers a very static character: He starts as a gung-ho hero out to fight the baddies and support the troops, and he never grows or changes. Second, for a movie set in WW2 they forgot about the Nazis/Azis pretty dámņ quickly. (Yeah, WW2 was really all about stopping Hydra.) And third, I wish they could have just said the Super Soldier formula was essentially a super steroid instead of the “it magnifies what’s inside you” thing. (A friend of mine pointed out that if it magnifies what you are, Steve Rogers should have become scrawnier. I responded that it should have magnified or multiplied his numerous health issues. Unless it worked on the motto of Springfield: “A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.”)
“Second, for a movie set in WW2 they forgot about the Nazis/Azis pretty dámņ quickly. (Yeah, WW2 was really all about stopping Hydra.)”
.
It wasn’t about the Nazis or the Axis. It was about this one little fictional element of WWII in which Hydra is the villain. That’s like complaining that Apocalypse Now forgot about the Viet Cong.
As a fan of Wild Cards, I understood what the serum did immediately. It’s more of a transformation guided by the subject’s subconscious. The guy with the heart of a hero became a hero, the guy with the heart of a monster became a monster.
Also, you can argue the Rogers in the movie was still more nuanced than the Rogers in the comics set in WWII. Captain America IS a more or less static character, except when he is being a fish-out-of-water (something only present in the movie’s end), or when he starts to doubt his mission (and I doubt a Cap movie would want to go there, the movie was very apolitical).
.
IMO, the movie even made Steve slightly more interesting than he usually is portrayed, by playing up how awkward he is around women and making him more self-conscious about using tights than he is in the comics.
Well, I saw it today and thought it was a perfectly fun summer blockbuster. Is it a movie that I’ll re-watch again and again? No, probably not. You’d need to inject some of PAD’s witty dialogue for that. But as a summer movie, it was pretty enjoyable and preferable to a Smurfs movie.
So, Peter, when are you going to review “The Smurfs?”
I saw it Monday and one thing I realized is that it’s too bad that they’ve already done (and blown) a “Bewitched” movie, because Neil Patrick Harris would’ve made a great Darrin.
Kim Metzger
(hiding where no one will ever find me)
So you’re at a showing of “The Undefeated”?
Someone contact Amnesty International!
I saw the movie tonight with my wife. We both loved it but some kids in the audience did not. I’m 28 and I was lucky enough to grow up watching westerns and Sci fi together. This movie did both things very well. I thought the movie was very tight and paced very well. I think the reviewers did not like it because the movie didn’t hand hold the entire time. Craig reminded me of Eastwood. My wife is my litmus as she isn’t easily swayed by geeky stuff and this movie passed her test.
Why must the only reason they disliked it reflect poorly on them? Can’t they have a different opinion for reasons that aren’t an indictment on their imaginations? Most people sound like they’re saying “They just don’t know what’s good!”
Just because you can’t understand why someone holds a different opinion than you does not in and of itself invalidate their opinion. A movie can be beautifully made and wonderfully acted and still leave you completely cold.
Why must the only reason they disliked it reflect poorly on them?
.
It’s not a matter of reflecting poorly. It’s that their opinion is, to me, incomprehensible. The movie delivered exactly what it promised; if they didn’t want to see that movie, I wasn’t sure what they were doing in the theater in the first place.
.
PAD
“The movie delivered exactly what it promised; if they didn’t want to see that movie, I wasn’t sure what they were doing in the theater in the first place.”
Some people go to the movies as a “default” activity, seeing whatever’s new because there’s nothing better to do. Some people see movies to have something to review (I almost did, but went with FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS at the last minute) or talk about. Some folks may not have wanted to see it, but were brought there by friends/significant others/kids. Some folks may have forgotten/ignored the fact that it’s PG-13 and thought, from the trailers, that they’d get to see Olivia Wilde naked. I(I’m sure if this *had* happened, stories and images would have been all over the Internet well before the movie’s release.) And some people may have expected more from it than it delivered.
I think disagreement about it is natural, but “incomprehensible” is a bit strong.
I think disagreement about it is natural, but “incomprehensible” is a bit strong.
.
Well, since I’m writing about my perceptions, and I couldn’t comprehend it, it seemed exactly the right word.
.
PAD
I’m really interested in seeing this, but with an 8-month old, seeing films in the theater is a thing of the past.
.
I noticed that people’s disinterest in westerns was a real problem for Firefly. I remember talking to many friends, all of them avid Buffy viewers and Joss Whedon fans, and none of them were watching Firefly when it was on. Why? Most of the time the response was a variation of, “I don’t like westerns.” And Serenity really down-played the western aspects. I doubt that was a coincidence.
When Firefly first came out I did not watch it on TV but I liked and still like sci-fi and westerns. The reason I did not wanted to see it was that the Fox TV promo stated it was from the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I have an unnatural hate for anything with vampires but there was so much buzz around Buffy that I gave it a try and saw 2 early episodes. I hated them.
.
I saw Serenity when it was out on DVD and loved it. I bought the Firefly DVD set from Amazon for $19.99 and I thought it was great.
.
I think Fox made a mistake in their marketing. Like many others, they assumed sci-fi fans are horror fans and vice versa. They tried to make Buffy viewers see Firefly using Josh’s name but obviously that did not work. It’s a shame.
When Firefly started, I caught the premiere episode. Which featured a sequence in which the heroes fly their spaceship in to catch a steam locomotive. The technological clash drove me away.
.
Perhaps, had Fox opened the series with the intended premiere, which laid out the situation and at least attempted to explain why cheap spaceflight and 19th-century trains coexisted, I might have stuck with it…
“Which featured a sequence in which the heroes fly their spaceship in to catch a steam locomotive”
.
Huh? I just watched that very episode earlier this week and it was my impression that the train engine was some high-tech thing pulling train cars. I’m going to have to look at that again to check.
.
Regarding the rejected pilot that they didn’t show except as the last episode when they canceled it…Yes, it was far superior and did a much better job of setting the series up as well. About that, I can only say that I imagine Fox’s treatment of scifi shows is managed by people who read Kafka and decided it was an instruction manual.
I still remember watching the last episode of “Firefly,” which should have been the first episode of “Firefly,” and Kath and I turned to each other and said, “Okay, this series makes a lot more sense now…”
.
PAD
I felt the Train Job wsn’t a great start to the series but mostly my gripes were about all the scenes from the promos that were missing . I mean, a key bit of those early commercials were references to “the girl in the box” which we never see. I still watched all the episodes Fox felt like airing and felt the world was just as believable as any other sci-fi/fantasy show
I really can’t get it either. It’s like people really did want the best cowboy movie ever AND the best alien invasion movie ever. I saw it, enjoyed it, not my fave movie of the summer but nothing that makes me feel I wasted my time or something. I didn’t like Olivia Wilde at all but that’s more personal. They did have other “ray guns” though. It wasn’t just the wrist blaster. The wrist weapons did come off as rare, though, given how many you see.
I saw it at the drive-in last night and I was pleasantly surprised. (I mean, if you’re going to go to the drive-in, can you pick a better movie than one called Cowboys and Aliens?) I liked it a hëll of a lot more than Independence Day, probably because I didn’t feel like I was ten steps ahead of the characters and was drumming my fingers waiting for them to catch up with what I already knew.
Well, I caught it last night, hoping to like it, but wary based on what I’ve heard.
It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t very good either.
I probably would have liked it more if the plot was less dependent on the all-purpose magic bracelet MacGuffin, or if the aliens didn’t always conveniently do the one thing that would give the heroes a chance in every confrontation, or if stuff like the beat with the kid and knife wasn’t so ridiculously telegraphed and silly in it’s pay-off.
There was a lot of stuff I liked, but a lot that had me rolling my eyes, too.
Well, I had three problems with this (not that anyone asked)
1. Harrison Ford–Sorry, but his performance just didn’t work for me here. (I spent much of the first act thinking how much better Liam Neeson would have been in the role.) I think it may have been asking too much of Ford to pull off playing a hero who’s surly, cruel, and basically thinks himself above the law even if the character does find his inner decency in the end. For me, Ford just didn’t have the acting skills to make Dollerhyde (who though of that name, anyway? Dollerhyde for a cattle baron? Really?)someone I cared about.
2. Cliches–As someone way upthread pointed out, mixing two sets of cliches together doesn’t make them any less cliched. (MILD SPOILER) During the alien attack on the town, I found myself saying “annnnnddddd now!” just exactly before the sheriff was snatched. Yeah, I’m a jerk, but I called it.
3. Plot holes (actually just one in particular)–I have a respectable skill level in fanwankery, and none of the plot holes mentioned so far bothered me. (Why the fuss about the weapon, anyway? A weapon doesn’t care who shoots it, and the alien probably didn’t think any more about laying one down next to Jake than you’d think about laying a hunting rifle down next to a dog. Also, the aliens did have energy weapons in the big climatic confrontation. They didn’t take the blasters for the same reason a solider uses a rifle in combat and not a sidearm. Although it did bug me that a race who couldn’t see well in the light didn’t seem to be having much of a problem–maybe that why the all seemed to eventually lose their weapons.) What bothered me was the exposistory campfire scene where the Indian chief–who couldn’t speak English–somehow comprehended all the conversations in English going on around him. I’d probably be willing to let this go if the film hadn’t structured at least one other scene (where Dollarhyde’s hired hand explains to the chief why is boss is a good man) around the language barrier. Besides, would it have been that hard to have the alien quietly mention to someone that she was somehow telepathicly helping with the translation? It was good enough for Doctor Who.
I will say one thing, though. Jon Favreau is one heck of a director. The movie was staged and framed wonderfully.