I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except for one
small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as being in the
same "realistic space movie" category as /Apollo 13/. Comparing the
two shows the difference between a really good movie and one that is well-done but ... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
On 9/21/2021 10:33 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except for one
small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as being in the
same "realistic space movie" category as /Apollo 13/. Comparing the
two shows the difference between a really good movie and one that is
well-done but ... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
You and I must have watched different movies. I gave it 5 stars out of
5 stars. 37,424 people on Amazon gave it 4.5 stars.
https://www.amazon.com/Martian-Michael-Pe%C3%B1a/dp/B018HIZSIA/
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except for one
small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as being in the
same "realistic space movie" category as /Apollo 13/. Comparing the
two shows the difference between a really good movie and one that is well-done but ... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except for one
small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as being in the
same "realistic space movie" category as /Apollo 13/. Comparing the
two shows the difference between a really good movie and one that is
well-done but ... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense of constant >tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real* tribute to >everyone involved in the film, since we all know how it came out decades >before the movie was made.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except for one
small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as being in the
same "realistic space movie" category as /Apollo 13/. Comparing the
two shows the difference between a really good movie and one that is
well-done but ... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense of constant >tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because "they only
catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the rocket was going to
explode. It was cinematically inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although, again, it
was cinematically impossible for the attempt to fail. So any tension
was of the "how do they manage it" rather than "will they manage it"
variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I could tell
when someone would be knocking at the door: the conversation was
heading toward a point where two characters would be able to compare
notes and figure what was going on, and /that/ couldn't be allowed.
The knock at the door stopped the conversation every time -- and it
never resumed from the point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to recognize
that it was amusing to the audience, but I no longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real* tribute to >everyone involved in the film, since we all know how it came out decades >before the movie was made.Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except for one
small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as being in the >>>> same "realistic space movie" category as /Apollo 13/. Comparing the
two shows the difference between a really good movie and one that is
well-done but ... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense of constant
tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because "they only
catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the rocket was going to
explode. It was cinematically inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although, again, it
was cinematically impossible for the attempt to fail. So any tension
was of the "how do they manage it" rather than "will they manage it"
variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I could tell
when someone would be knocking at the door: the conversation was
heading toward a point where two characters would be able to compare
notes and figure what was going on, and /that/ couldn't be allowed.
The knock at the door stopped the conversation every time -- and it
never resumed from the point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to recognize
that it was amusing to the audience, but I no longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real* tribute to
everyone involved in the film, since we all know how it came out decades >>> before the movie was made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
This is typical of most moviegoers now. They expect nonstop CGI
action, and if it's a space movie, it's gotta have alien invaders.
People now don't want a movie where you have to think.
On 2021-10-06 16:01:08 +0000, novaste...@gmail.com said:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except
for one small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three
stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as
being in the same "realistic space movie" category as
/Apollo 13/. Comparing the two shows the difference between
a really good movie and one that is well-done but ...
dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense
of constant tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to
your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because
"they only catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the
rocket was going to explode. It was cinematically inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although,
again, it was cinematically impossible for the attempt to
fail. So any tension was of the "how do they manage it" rather
than "will they manage it" variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I
could tell when someone would be knocking at the door: the
conversation was heading toward a point where two characters
would be able to compare notes and figure what was going on,
and /that/ couldn't be allowed. The knock at the door stopped
the conversation every time -- and it never resumed from the
point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to
recognize that it was amusing to the audience, but I no longer
find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real*
tribute to everyone involved in the film, since we all know
how it came out decades before the movie was made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
That's not the *only* thing it did. The ending also confused the
hell out of me. Even after reading the book, I have no idea what
was supposed to be happening. Best I can figure, it was a film
representation of an acid trip.
On 2021-10-06 16:01:08 +0000, novaste...@gmail.com said:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except for one
small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as being in the >>>>> same "realistic space movie" category as /Apollo 13/. Comparing the
two shows the difference between a really good movie and one that is >>>>> well-done but ... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense of constant >>>> tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because "they only
catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the rocket was going to
explode. It was cinematically inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although, again, it
was cinematically impossible for the attempt to fail. So any tension
was of the "how do they manage it" rather than "will they manage it"
variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I could tell
when someone would be knocking at the door: the conversation was
heading toward a point where two characters would be able to compare
notes and figure what was going on, and /that/ couldn't be allowed.
The knock at the door stopped the conversation every time -- and it
never resumed from the point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to recognize
that it was amusing to the audience, but I no longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real* tribute to >>>> everyone involved in the film, since we all know how it came out decades >>>> before the movie was made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ... it's a
great cure for insomnia. :-\
This is typical of most moviegoers now. They expect nonstop CGI
action, and if it's a space movie, it's gotta have alien invaders.
People now don't want a movie where you have to think.
The author of 'The Martian' book has written another 'space novel'
called "Project Hail Mary", which this time does include an alien ...
and not one that can be done by Hollyweird as a human actor wearing
bits stuck on their face. The movie version is already planned. ><https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12042730/>
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to your own.
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except for one
small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as being in the
same "realistic space movie" category as /Apollo 13/. Comparing the
two shows the difference between a really good movie and one that is
well-done but ... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense of constant
tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because "they only
catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the rocket was going to
explode. It was cinematically inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although, again, it
was cinematically impossible for the attempt to fail. So any tension
was of the "how do they manage it" rather than "will they manage it"
variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I could tell
when someone would be knocking at the door: the conversation was
heading toward a point where two characters would be able to compare
notes and figure what was going on, and /that/ couldn't be allowed.
The knock at the door stopped the conversation every time -- and it
never resumed from the point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to recognize
that it was amusing to the audience, but I no longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real* tribute toWhich is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
everyone involved in the film, since we all know how it came out decades
before the movie was made.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
This is typical of most moviegoers now. They expect nonstop CGI action, and if it's a space movie, it's gotta have alien invaders.
People now don't want a movie where you have to think.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote in
news:sjl4ql$lob$1@gioia.aioe.org:
On 2021-10-06 16:01:08 +0000, novaste...@gmail.com said:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except
for one small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three
stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as
being in the same "realistic space movie" category as
/Apollo 13/. Comparing the two shows the difference between
a really good movie and one that is well-done but ...
dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense
of constant tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to
your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because
"they only catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the
rocket was going to explode. It was cinematically inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although,
again, it was cinematically impossible for the attempt to
fail. So any tension was of the "how do they manage it" rather
than "will they manage it" variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I
could tell when someone would be knocking at the door: the
conversation was heading toward a point where two characters
would be able to compare notes and figure what was going on,
and /that/ couldn't be allowed. The knock at the door stopped
the conversation every time -- and it never resumed from the
point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to
recognize that it was amusing to the audience, but I no longer
find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real*
tribute to everyone involved in the film, since we all know
how it came out decades before the movie was made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
That's not the *only* thing it did. The ending also confused the
hell out of me. Even after reading the book, I have no idea what
was supposed to be happening. Best I can figure, it was a film
representation of an acid trip.
Only movie I've ever seen mroe confusing was the one with Van Damme
tied down in the desert, killing a vulture with his teeth.
On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 15:37:27 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote in
news:sjl4ql$lob$1@gioia.aioe.org:
On 2021-10-06 16:01:08 +0000, novaste...@gmail.com said:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars
except for one small problem: it is as dull as dishwater.
Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as
being in the same "realistic space movie" category as
/Apollo 13/. Comparing the two shows the difference
between a really good movie and one that is well-done but
... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense
of constant tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to
your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because
"they only catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the
rocket was going to explode. It was cinematically
inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although,
again, it was cinematically impossible for the attempt to
fail. So any tension was of the "how do they manage it"
rather than "will they manage it" variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I
could tell when someone would be knocking at the door: the
conversation was heading toward a point where two characters
would be able to compare notes and figure what was going on,
and /that/ couldn't be allowed. The knock at the door
stopped the conversation every time -- and it never resumed
from the point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to
recognize that it was amusing to the audience, but I no
longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real*
tribute to everyone involved in the film, since we all know
how it came out decades before the movie was made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
That's not the *only* thing it did. The ending also confused the
hell out of me. Even after reading the book, I have no idea what
was supposed to be happening. Best I can figure, it was a film >>representation of an acid trip.
It can certainly be argued that it had much the same effect.
Well, except that most acid trips don't end up with the Star
Child at the end, looking at the Earth as if it were a shiny new
toy.
IIRC, some of the trip at the end was regarded, by reviewers, as
very advanced and very cool. /Star Trek -- The Motion Picture/
did something like it, although whether that was deliberate or
not I have no idea.
Only movie I've ever seen mroe confusing was the one with Van
Damme tied down in the desert, killing a vulture with his teeth.
That one I missed, God be praised.
Despite buying a "Van Damme 4-Pack" (4 films, 2 per side of a
DVD) to get a /letterboxed/ version of /Timecop/.
The others looked, to me, like three different lessons in how
/not/ to make a movie.
In article <XnsADBB9EF0825B6taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
That's not the *only* thing it did. The ending also confused the
hell out of me. Even after reading the book, I have no idea what
was supposed to be happening. Best I can figure, it was a film >>representation of an acid trip.
It didn't look like flying through galaxies, which is
what it was supposed to be. Real 60s "swirl colored oil
and water on an overhead projector" stuff.
I liked the Mad Magazine take, after Bowman has landed
in the hotel room. "You have just crashed through all
2001 floors of the Jupiter Museum of Modern Art."
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:35:17 +1300, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2021-10-06 16:01:08 +0000, novaste...@gmail.com said:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except
for one small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three
stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as
being in the same "realistic space movie" category as
/Apollo 13/. Comparing the two shows the difference between
a really good movie and one that is well-done but ...
dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense
of constant tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to
your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because
"they only catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the
rocket was going to explode. It was cinematically inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although,
again, it was cinematically impossible for the attempt to
fail. So any tension was of the "how do they manage it"
rather than "will they manage it" variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I
could tell when someone would be knocking at the door: the
conversation was heading toward a point where two characters
would be able to compare notes and figure what was going on,
and /that/ couldn't be allowed. The knock at the door stopped
the conversation every time -- and it never resumed from the
point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to
recognize that it was amusing to the audience, but I no
longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real*
tribute to everyone involved in the film, since we all know
how it came out decades before the movie was made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
If you say so.
This is typical of most moviegoers now. They expect nonstop
CGI action, and if it's a space movie, it's gotta have alien
invaders. People now don't want a movie where you have to
think.
The author of 'The Martian' book has written another 'space
novel' called "Project Hail Mary", which this time does include
an alien ... and not one that can be done by Hollyweird as a
human actor wearing bits stuck on their face. The movie version
is already planned. <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12042730/>
I'll probably see it, if it looks at all attractive.
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >news:bd3ulg9juanonqp6h9gt16rr9k1rm5d9us@4ax.com:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:35:17 +1300, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2021-10-06 16:01:08 +0000, novaste...@gmail.com said:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except
for one small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three
stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as
being in the same "realistic space movie" category as
/Apollo 13/. Comparing the two shows the difference between
a really good movie and one that is well-done but ...
dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense
of constant tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to
your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because
"they only catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the
rocket was going to explode. It was cinematically inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although,
again, it was cinematically impossible for the attempt to
fail. So any tension was of the "how do they manage it"
rather than "will they manage it" variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I
could tell when someone would be knocking at the door: the
conversation was heading toward a point where two characters
would be able to compare notes and figure what was going on,
and /that/ couldn't be allowed. The knock at the door stopped
the conversation every time -- and it never resumed from the
point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to
recognize that it was amusing to the audience, but I no
longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real*
tribute to everyone involved in the film, since we all know
how it came out decades before the movie was made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
If you say so.
This is typical of most moviegoers now. They expect nonstop
CGI action, and if it's a space movie, it's gotta have alien
invaders. People now don't want a movie where you have to
think.
The author of 'The Martian' book has written another 'space
novel' called "Project Hail Mary", which this time does include
an alien ... and not one that can be done by Hollyweird as a
human actor wearing bits stuck on their face. The movie version
is already planned. <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12042730/>
I'll probably see it, if it looks at all attractive.
The plot summary (of the novel) on Wikipedia did not inspire me.
Not that the movie is likely to have much to do with the novel.
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >news:7f3ulgt38kbbn6j668sv1mrn276h85i89j@4ax.com:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 15:37:27 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote in >>>news:sjl4ql$lob$1@gioia.aioe.org:
On 2021-10-06 16:01:08 +0000, novaste...@gmail.com said:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars
except for one small problem: it is as dull as dishwater.
Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as
being in the same "realistic space movie" category as
/Apollo 13/. Comparing the two shows the difference
between a really good movie and one that is well-done but
... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense
of constant tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to
your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because
"they only catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the
rocket was going to explode. It was cinematically
inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although,
again, it was cinematically impossible for the attempt to
fail. So any tension was of the "how do they manage it"
rather than "will they manage it" variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I
could tell when someone would be knocking at the door: the
conversation was heading toward a point where two characters
would be able to compare notes and figure what was going on,
and /that/ couldn't be allowed. The knock at the door
stopped the conversation every time -- and it never resumed
from the point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to
recognize that it was amusing to the audience, but I no
longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real*
tribute to everyone involved in the film, since we all know
how it came out decades before the movie was made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
That's not the *only* thing it did. The ending also confused the
hell out of me. Even after reading the book, I have no idea what
was supposed to be happening. Best I can figure, it was a film >>>representation of an acid trip.
It can certainly be argued that it had much the same effect.
Well, except that most acid trips don't end up with the Star
Child at the end, looking at the Earth as if it were a shiny new
toy.
There's no reason they couldn't, what with the hallucinations and
all.
IIRC, some of the trip at the end was regarded, by reviewers, as
very advanced and very cool. /Star Trek -- The Motion Picture/
did something like it, although whether that was deliberate or
not I have no idea.
"Now that we have them just where they want us."
And that sums up the high points of that turkey of a movie.
Only movie I've ever seen mroe confusing was the one with Van
Damme tied down in the desert, killing a vulture with his teeth.
That one I missed, God be praised.
The first time I saw it, it was chopped up for television, as
movies often are.
It made *more* sense that way.
(I'm not sure, but I *think* it was "Cyborg.")
Despite buying a "Van Damme 4-Pack" (4 films, 2 per side of a
DVD) to get a /letterboxed/ version of /Timecop/.
Timecop had it's charm.
The others looked, to me, like three different lessons in how
/not/ to make a movie.
Starting with "Starring Jean-Claude Van Damme." Or "With Jean-
Claude Van Damme in a cameo role." Or "Jean-Claude Van Damme has
heard this movie eixsts."
Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in news:sjl4ql$lob$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...That's not the *only* thing it did. The ending also confused the
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
hell out of me. Even after reading the book, I have no idea what
was supposed to be happening. Best I can figure, it was a film representation of an acid trip.
On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 08:25:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >>news:bd3ulg9juanonqp6h9gt16rr9k1rm5d9us@4ax.com:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:35:17 +1300, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2021-10-06 16:01:08 +0000, novaste...@gmail.com said:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars
except for one small problem: it is as dull as dishwater.
Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as
being in the same "realistic space movie" category as
/Apollo 13/. Comparing the two shows the difference
between a really good movie and one that is well-done but
... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same
sense of constant tension in the Martian as I did in
Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled
to your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because
"they only catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the
rocket was going to explode. It was cinematically
inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting,
although, again, it was cinematically impossible for the
attempt to fail. So any tension was of the "how do they
manage it" rather than "will they manage it" variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I
could tell when someone would be knocking at the door: the
conversation was heading toward a point where two
characters would be able to compare notes and figure what
was going on, and /that/ couldn't be allowed. The knock at
the door stopped the conversation every time -- and it
never resumed from the point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to
recognize that it was amusing to the audience, but I no
longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a
*real* tribute to everyone involved in the film, since we
all know how it came out decades before the movie was
made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
If you say so.
This is typical of most moviegoers now. They expect nonstop
CGI action, and if it's a space movie, it's gotta have alien
invaders. People now don't want a movie where you have to
think.
The author of 'The Martian' book has written another 'space
novel' called "Project Hail Mary", which this time does
include an alien ... and not one that can be done by
Hollyweird as a human actor wearing bits stuck on their face.
The movie version is already planned. >>>><https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12042730/>
I'll probably see it, if it looks at all attractive.
The plot summary (of the novel) on Wikipedia did not inspire me.
Not that the movie is likely to have much to do with the novel.
Well, precisely.
It all depends on who makes the film.
Although a good story does help.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:projection, so everyone looked tall and thin, but after a while you get used to it. We weren't quite Mystery Science Theater 3000, because that hadn't been invented yet, but it was a relaxed crowd. We enjoyed the antics of the monkeys, and the suck-ups
Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
news:sjl4ql$lob$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
That's not the *only* thing it did. The ending also confused theOn Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
hell out of me. Even after reading the book, I have no idea what
was supposed to be happening. Best I can figure, it was a film
representation of an acid trip.
The story of my second try at watching 2001:
A college dorm committee had decided to spend its funds to show it in their lounge one night.
The first thing I should mention is that the movie was anamorphic: the widescreen image had been squeezed left-to-right to fit in the full frame of the standard film, but the projector didn't have the anamorphic lens necessary to unsqueeze the image on
(As I said, we had gotten used to everyone looking tall and thin, so it was a bigger change in one of the last scenes with Dave lying in the hotel bed. Horizontally, his face was now smushed forehead-to-chin, and pushed forward. He looked like... well,"E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" had been in theaters the summer before. Now here's the brilliance of Kubrick as a film director: 15 years before, he had calculated the time it would take some wag to say, "Eee tee, phooone hooome," to get everybody on the
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >news:btq0mghnm8ol8c2r8eh144872hb6a6ijg0@4ax.com:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 08:25:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >>>news:bd3ulg9juanonqp6h9gt16rr9k1rm5d9us@4ax.com:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:35:17 +1300, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2021-10-06 16:01:08 +0000, novaste...@gmail.com said:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S
Person wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.
It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars
except for one small problem: it is as dull as dishwater.
Three stars, then.
This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as
being in the same "realistic space movie" category as
/Apollo 13/. Comparing the two shows the difference
between a really good movie and one that is well-done but
... dispensible.
IMHO, of course.
And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same
sense of constant tension in the Martian as I did in
Apollo 13.
There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled
to your own.
I had the blahs all too much of the time.
And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because
"they only catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the
rocket was going to explode. It was cinematically
inevitable.
I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting,
although, again, it was cinematically impossible for the
attempt to fail. So any tension was of the "how do they
manage it" rather than "will they manage it" variety.
Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I
could tell when someone would be knocking at the door: the
conversation was heading toward a point where two
characters would be able to compare notes and figure what
was going on, and /that/ couldn't be allowed. The knock at
the door stopped the conversation every time -- and it
never resumed from the point of interruption.
The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.
The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to
recognize that it was amusing to the audience, but I no
longer find it so.
I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a
*real* tribute to everyone involved in the film, since we
all know how it came out decades before the movie was
made.
Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.
And /2001/ did it better as well.
The only thing "2001" did 'well' was put people to sleep ...
it's a great cure for insomnia. :-\
If you say so.
This is typical of most moviegoers now. They expect nonstop
CGI action, and if it's a space movie, it's gotta have alien
invaders. People now don't want a movie where you have to
think.
The author of 'The Martian' book has written another 'space
novel' called "Project Hail Mary", which this time does
include an alien ... and not one that can be done by
Hollyweird as a human actor wearing bits stuck on their face.
The movie version is already planned. >>>>><https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12042730/>
I'll probably see it, if it looks at all attractive.
The plot summary (of the novel) on Wikipedia did not inspire me.
Not that the movie is likely to have much to do with the novel.
Well, precisely.
It all depends on who makes the film.
Although a good story does help.
it is sxceedingly rare that a movie "based on the title of a
popular book we haven't read" isn't crap, ragardless of who made
it. Ther are exceptions, but not enough that I'm giving anyone the
benefit of the doubt.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 79:13:48 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,333,083 |
| Posted today: | 1 |