Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Looky! Another SERENITY review, but this one's not so positive!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with another, less positive review of SERENITY. This is the one I was afraid of, actually. This one is from someone who didn't even know what FIREFLY was (like me... I knew it was on TV, but I couldn't tell you one damn thing about it other than there were spaceships in it) and says that the film played great to fans of the show, but left everyone else cold. That's exactly what I don't want to hear. I hope I disagree. I want to see good Sci-Fi flicks, not bad Sci-Fi Channel flicks, you know what I mean?

I saw Serenity tonight at Janns Marketplace in Thousand Oaks California in case you need to confirm this.  Joss Whedon was there allegedly... i have no clue what he looks like so dont hold me to this, but everyone was buzzing about that. Call me SuperMedz, because that's who this is. 

I had never been to a test screening until tonight so the other day when I was offered passes by my local gym for a "top secret science fiction movie" I lept at the opportunity to be a part of the process.  I was told it would be in the vein of "I Robot" and "The Day After Tomorrow" so I went into the AICN chatroom and got a tip that the screening would be for Michael Bay's supposedly brainy new movie, The Island.  This was not to be.  It was for Joss Whedon's Serenity. 

I have maybe seen one full episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and uh, Alien:Resurrection.  That is the full extent of my experience with Joss Whedon.  I didn't even know that this movie was based on the show Firefly (which I had only heard of) until I overheard someone whisper that fact in the audience.  So this review should give you an interesting perspective of someone who is not familiar with the show at all.  I think that my lack of contact with the source material definitely hurt my experience with the film.  The overall reception that the movie got from the audience was cheers from the fans of the show and a little boredom from those who were not familiar with it.

For those of you, like me, who are not familiar.  Serenity is about River Tam (Summer Glau), a psychic girl who is held captive by a government operative.  In probably the coolest part of the movie, the opening scene, we see her freed by her brother, Simon (Sean Maher).  Apparently the doctor that was holding her captive, exposed her to the parliament so she knows all of their secrets, since she is captive.  For some reason, the villain known only as The Operative played obnoxiously over the top by Chiwetal Ejiofor, is not cool with this, and uses the same move that Uma Thurman used to Kill Bill with on the doctor.  Everyone in the future knows kung fu.  All of this happens before the opening titles.

And there you have your typical sci-fi channel psychobabble.  While I'm sure a lot of you will get a lot out of this, there are so many characters, so many planets, so many subplots, in this movie (I haven't even mentioned these crazy rastafarian vampire looking dudes that torment both sides), that it's so hard to give a shit about anyone or any story.  It's so hard to even keep track of what the story even is.  My logic is that if you're going to make a movie based on a tv show that lasted seven episodes, at least give me, the virginal viewer, something that I can care about.  All I saw was an intriguing space western arch that unfortunately reeked... and I hate to use the cliche... SCI-FI CHANNEL EXCLUSIVE.

I'm being a little bit harsh, partially because I wanted to see The Island.  There was some good.  I see the appeal behind Joss Whedon after seeing this movie.  The one-liners here are really witty, and if the story focused more on the brother and sister dynamics between River and Simon rather than the Firefly cast, I probably would have been way more interested.  Also, it was really surprisingly violent, River goes apeshit with an axe and a sword on the rastafarian vampires, but you probably won't see that in the final version I'm sure.  As far as this movie being finished... most of the effects looked done... the score sounded awfully familiar to me... some of the shots were rough, but very few and far in between... it's mostly finished as far as I could see, but I'm new at this.

It's not that bad... 2 out of 4 stars??

- Yup, it's SuperMedz


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 29, 2005, 3:23 a.m. CST

    Never watched firefly...

    by CeeBeeUK

    any good?

  • April 29, 2005, 3:36 a.m. CST

    Joss Hating(Sorta)

    by baseballfury

    Yes, Joss Whedon is cool, and can write like Nobodys business when he wants to, but really, I understand why people dont like him. He can get a bit long winded, rather, his characters can. And that last season of buffy? my god, how many "rah-rah" speeches can you fit into a season? I thought Firefly was nifty, and i think this will rock. But if there are more than 2 St. Crispins Day style speeches in this 2 hour flick, I swear, i'll choke someone.

  • April 29, 2005, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Note for any other early reviewers who might read me

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    Mention something about sound in space, wondering if sound in space was something just for the trailer or if they actually put sound in space in the movie too. And I dunno, think I'm gonna be a bit weary of any reviewer actually looking forward to Michael Bay's next movie, and I guess I have to eat my words from the last talkback about how all early reviews would be from Firefly fans only, not that anyone pays attention from one talkback to the next.

  • April 29, 2005, 3:44 a.m. CST

    "Surprisingly violent"

    by AeroB

    I hope this makes it into the final cut, sounds fun. From a massive Firefly fan, this was a decent review though I would have liked to hear more reasoning behind why the reviewer didn't like it, particularly the "Sci-Fi Channel Exclusive" part (because it's a space opera? Effects didn't impress? What?). As for getting confused by the plot, I could see this happening if Joss tried to make this movie everything for all fans, but I wasn't getting the impression that this is what he was doing. Guess I'll find out for sure in 5 months.

  • April 29, 2005, 3:48 a.m. CST

    tickets from the local gym

    by bunny_lebowski

    is that the demographic their hoping to lure?

  • April 29, 2005, 3:50 a.m. CST

    Probably trying out different demographics (nt)

    by AeroB

  • April 29, 2005, 4:04 a.m. CST

    I'm glad that it's catering for the fans...

    by JackBurton

    Because lets face it, the fans are really the only ones who are likely to go and see it. I swear, I never get this "we have to cater to people who aren't all that interested to begin with" mentality, how about just being true to what a particular film is, what it's based on or what it follows, and giving audiences a little bit of credit. It's like this thing of making sequels but making them so paint by numbers and fill in the blanks heavily front loaded so that people who didn't see the first film(s) won't be confused, and know who everyone is. I mean here's a tip, if people haven't seen the first film(s) then they can bloody rent them, and if they're too lazy to do that and get confused then it's their own stupid fault to begin with. I'm just sick of this catering to the lowest common denominator mindset I guess, in the words of Yoda, shits me it does, and usually does little but clog up the films with largely needless and often clunky exposition. As for Serenity itself, my suggestion is to anyone who's interested, check out the show first, rent it, borrow it off a friend, download a torrent or two see if it's your thing before buying the dvd set, whatever, then go from there. I mean it's not really brain surgery. And if you're not that interested to begin with, then it hardly matters how much exposition they clog up a film with, chances are you still won't be that interested (or satisfied) anyway.

  • April 29, 2005, 4:57 a.m. CST

    Funny... after ALL these reviews and ALL the advance buzz on thi

    by LlGHTST0RMER

    So there you have it, Whedon-haters. If you look long and hard enough, you'll find somebody somewhere who will justify your irrational hate for Joss and his work. Way to go!

  • April 29, 2005, 5:22 a.m. CST

    To Baseballfury:

    by LlGHTST0RMER

    I don't get that, actually... you're not the first person I've heard say they resent the "speechiness" of Joss' characters. The thing is, I've seen every single Buffy & Angel episode and the habit that I've noticed is that they specifically **avoid** soliloquys and monologues. Seriously, the writers take every opportunity they can get (or, at least about 98% of those opportunities) to torpedo or lampoon the television tendency for rousing speeches. They make the characters change the subject or blatantly end the conversation; they mock whomever it is in the scene launching the diatribe; they use it as an opportunity to hurl a plot twist into your lap when you don't see it coming; they have the monster-of-the-week jump out at that quiet moment; or, in the case of "The Zeppo" episode, they have Xander walk right into the scene and ask for a favor. I'm dead serious when I say this... Joss writes AGAINST monologues. The characters are verbose, no argument there, but practically never at the expense of moving the story along. You mentioned the seventh season of Buffy, where the occasional stirring speech did stop by for a visit and I grant you that... you're not wrong. But on the other hand, it had been seven years at that point. The show was wrapping up and everyone knew it. They wanted to get the point across that existence in the Buffy Universe was going to change (or end, in some cases) for the entire cast... they wanted to establish a gravity within that season that was never there before. Sometimes, a big address is the best prescription for that kind of writing. But again, by and large, that was very much the exception, not the tule. And I honestly doubt Joss is willing to risk the flow and pace of his big make-it-or-break-it flick by giving into a writer's jonesing to gush out a monologue. . . . As opposed to myself, who writes a doctoral dissertation in a talkback on Buffy's lack of monologues.

  • April 29, 2005, 5:26 a.m. CST

    The Tule?

    by LlGHTST0RMER

    er... make that, "The Rule." The exception, not the RULE. OK... done now.

  • April 29, 2005, 6:45 a.m. CST

    JackBurton...

    by BiPolarBear

    Has said possibly the most level-headed thing I have ever heard in a talkback. Where everything else is irrational love or irrational hate, he's stood up to say, "Hey, some people will like it and some people won't. Don't like it? Don't see it." I'm with him. Why can't people just not like something without seething resentment and mud-slinging? Why can't people just like something without taking it personally that others don't like it? Now, I'm a huge fan of Whedon's work in general and of Firefly. I'm looking forward to this movie more than anything else that's coming out this year. But I'm not particularly sanguine about its potential to succeed at the box office. I think the only reason it stands a chance of making back its budget at all is A.)Its budget was only $40M, last I checked and 2.)the fans will support the hell out of this movie. I'm not holding my breath for a sequel or a return to TV, but then again I wasn't holding my breath for this movie to actually get made either.

  • April 29, 2005, 7:22 a.m. CST

    SPOILER FREAKING ALERT!?

    by MemBirdman

    C'mon, telling us that Simon dies early and that the Reavers look like Rastafarian Vampires? How is that NOT spoilerific?

  • April 29, 2005, 7:28 a.m. CST

    blah blah blah

    by frantagila

    Are we trusting the integrity of a reviewer who would prefer a Michael Bay film and is apparently too dense to keep track of a complicated story line?

  • April 29, 2005, 9:01 a.m. CST

    Too much subplot, too many characters....

    by mullymt

    So basically, you're complaint is that the movie wasn't simple enough for your brain? Well, I'm sure Michael Bay will provide you with some entertainment at your level with "The Island".

  • April 29, 2005, 9:36 a.m. CST

    The "Sci-Fi Channell" thing...

    by Brock Samson

    It may be based on the look of the film. The trailer didn't impress me that much, and looked way too cgi'ed. Not "Van Helsing" bad, but not really good. Plus, the actors are all mostly unkowns, and hasn't the Baldwin guy been in a couple Sci-Fi Channel movies? I'm interested in this film because it's science fiction, but I'm not a Joss Whedon fan. Never watched Buffy or Angel, but I am renting the Firefly discs to see what the fuss is about. Until then, though, I think this review is a tad more honest than the "OMFG Joss is so great, I'm gonna lick his cock now!" reviews.

  • April 29, 2005, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Credibility: zero

    by Theta

    Personally, this review has no credibility for me for the simple reason this guy said he wanted to see "The Island." He thought this movie was one thing and got another. I'll be seeing it next week (hee!) and we'll see what's what.

  • April 29, 2005, 9:43 a.m. CST

    12 Very Positive Reviews & 1 Semi-Negative Review.

    by The Outlander

    The moral of the story is if you are that 1 person in 13 that would rather be watching The Island instead of Serenity you probably woun't enjoy it as much as the other 12.

  • April 29, 2005, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Surprisingly Violent?

    by cookylamoo

    Not if you've watched the TV episodes. There's hardly a one where some member of the cast doesn't get shot or seriously injured. Then you've got a couple of episodes that involve extended torture sequences. Firefly was never meant to be the Care Bears fans.

  • April 29, 2005, 10:12 a.m. CST

    LIGHTSTORMER

    by DizzyEllie

    Geez, Buffy speech-afied so much in the last season they lampooned it in the Andrew episode. I loved BUFFY, but the final season was so filled with fluff (speeches, potentials, etc) that what could have been a slam-bam end to the series was just ho-hum. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it more than season 6, but it really needed some tightening, and I would've started by cutting about 2/3s of Buffy's rally to the troops. **** Back on topic, so, this guy didn't like it. Well, we're all entitled, and he's entitled to want to see a Micheal Bay movie more. As much as it's hard for us fans to understand, not everyone will have love for this movie. I've also found Firefly to be an aquired taste, even for Joss fans. Some people might not like the movie the first time through, but I think it will grow on people. We'll see in September...

  • April 29, 2005, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Thanks, SuperMedz

    by Mafu

    That was good review, in my opinion. Being a fan of Firefly, I was interested to read reviews of Serenity from non-fans. You explained your points well, and maintained a sense of equanimity througout the review. It's good to read a dissenting opinion.

  • April 29, 2005, 12:03 p.m. CST

    RE: Spoler Freaking Alert!?

    by rsbtmr

    I don't think he was saying that Simon dies, it was the doctor who was holding her captive, maybe I read it wrong, but that's how I read it. I also don't see Joss killing one of the main characters in the first few minutes of the film, that doesn't make sense.

  • April 29, 2005, 12:39 p.m. CST

    THAT WAS THE WORST REVIEW EVER IN THE HISTORY OF TIME AND SPACE.

    by Jossisgod

    Firstly, the guy who reviewed it is NOT A SCI-FI FAN!!! The movie is aimed at 2 groups of people: people who like Firefly, and people who like Sci-Fi. People who don't like Sci-Fi aren't going to watch this in a million years and so the movie wasn't aimed at them. The guy made this obvious by his negative references to the Sci-Fi channel. He also made himself out to be an idiot in that he wanted to watch 'The Island' (wtf? why??). That's why this review is completely pointless: it's tantamount to asking a 6 year old child to watch The Exorcist and give a good UNBIASED critical review. Tantamount to getting an art film fan to watch Bulletproof Monk. Do you see? This guy isn't the potential audience, he's an idiot! He can't even keep track of the story! Want more proof? This guy has ACTUALLY SEEN Alien Resurrection, despite it being one of hte most hated movies in the history of motion pictures. Hated by fans, hated by the studio, the critics, the producers, and most of all hated by Joss, who said that he desperately tried to get his name off the movie after seeing it. He actually cried when he realised what they'd done to his script. 'Supermedz' doesn't deserve to be on AICN. This review is an abomination of the highest order, Cap'n.

  • April 29, 2005, 12:41 p.m. CST

    by fiester

  • April 29, 2005, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Firefly was The Suck

    by fiester

    This flick will do well on DVD sales.

  • April 29, 2005, 12:48 p.m. CST

    This is an official request to this review removed from AICN.

    by Jossisgod

    Herc, read my above review of of the review please. The 'Supermedz' guy is clearly an idiot and needs to be put down. Serenity doesn't need this kind of negative reaction and neither does it deserve it. If I've learnt anything in my 19 years of life on this planet, it's that when it counts, Joss DELIVERS. Everything the guy has written is 8/10 or higher (usually a 9/10, sometimes a 10/10). No other writer has come close to that record (other than M Night Shyamalan, who is a bit of a one-trick pony).

  • April 29, 2005, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Jossisgod is delusional

    by Outrider304

    You just can't accept that this movie is going to tank, can you? If are so behind this movie, then lets make a wager, shall we? If this movie tanks, you admit that Joss Whedon is not better than Shakespeare or Jesus, but more importantly, that you were WRONG and that he doesn't appeal to anyone outside the cult fans. If it does reasonably well at the box office, say, twice as much as it cost to make, then I will admit you are the king and Joss Whedon is god. Deal?

  • April 29, 2005, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Jossisgod is delusional

    by Outrider304

    You just can't accept that this movie is going to tank, can you? If are so behind this movie, then lets make a wager, shall we? If this movie tanks, you admit that Joss Whedon is not better than Shakespeare or Jesus, but more importantly, that you were WRONG and that he doesn't appeal to anyone outside the cult fans. If it does reasonably well at the box office, say, twice as much as it cost to make, then I will admit you are the king and Joss Whedon is god. Deal?

  • April 29, 2005, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Give it a rest, Jossisgod

    by xsi kal

    Honestly, your over-the-top rambling is driving me up the wall and I -like- Firefly! Every review we get will be 'biased'... namely, by the user's likes, dislikes, and expectations. That's the whole freaking point of a review. Whether or not Supermedz' perspective is indicative of that of the general public is most definitely still in question, but at the very least, he has shown that the movie won't be appealing to everyone. Getting hyper defensive about it doesn't do you, or the film, any good.

  • April 29, 2005, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Jossisgod

    by potvsktl

    "This guy has ACTUALLY SEEN Alien Resurrection" - could you be any mroe fucking retarded?

  • April 29, 2005, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Jossisgod, you need some help

    by rsbtmr

    Dude, stop freaking out, one review on AICN will not make or break the movie. I love Firefly and think Joss Whedon is a good writer, but not to the point of being a stalker. Take a Prozac and calm down.

  • April 29, 2005, 3:17 p.m. CST

    I refused to watch Alien Resurrection out of respect for Joss Wh

    by Jossisgod

    So you can see how annoyed I get when people mention Alien Resurrection when reviewing a Joss Whedon show/movie. Joss campaigned to get his name removed from the movie, and he cried when he first saw it and he thought it would end his career. The last thing he needs is people like Supermedz mentioning it everytime the topic of Joss Whedon comes up. Face the facts: HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FINISHED PROJECT. It's like blaming Michael Chichton because Jurassic Park 3 was crap.

  • April 29, 2005, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Thanks for a balanced review

    by The Ref

    Thanks for a well-thought out review. It was neither oozing with Joss-love, nor was it unnecessarily hateful. I'm a Firefly/Whedon fan and I've also seen the movie. Like most movies, it is not without its flaws; it is NOT the Second Coming of MovieJeebus. Some of the visuals were a little flat and TV-ish. Whedon is a better writer than film director (though he is a first-timer). As such, the visuals sometimes suffer -- but the story is solid, the characters well-developed and the dialogue always entertaining. Unlike the reviewer, I thought The Operative wasn't played over-the-top. On the contrary, I thought he was a rich, subtle, fully-realized "villain" with his own motivations and philosophy -- far better than most two-dimensional schlock villains. I can see how it might be difficult for a non-fan to grasp all the characters' underpinnings and the subtext going on, but overall I think Whedon does a decent job of balancing "stuff for the fans" with "anyone can walk in and enjoy this movie and know what's going on." I'm not sure where the reviewer got lost; I don't think the plot is hard to follow. Does the movie deliver? Absolutely. It's an exciting, funny, well-written action-packed sci-fi adventure. Could it be better? Sure. It could have been a little more visually "cinematic" at times. It might have benefited from a "name actor" and the cache that that brings -- perhaps in the bad guy role (though the guy who plays The Operative does a really good job) or in some other cameo-type role. The fans will inevitably love it--I do. For the rest, more people will like it than dislike it, which is the most any movie can hope for.

  • April 29, 2005, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Need screening tickets!

    by Clairey

    HELP! Looking for 2x "Serenity" in either Boston or Chicago on 5/5. I want to take my wife for a birthday surprise!

  • April 29, 2005, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Refused to watch Alien

    by potvsktl

    Hey, idiot, there are more people attached to a movie than one. How about watching it because it's directed by one of the most talented working filmmakers? You know, somebody with a proven track record, unlike Whedon. You are seriously brain damaged. Not joking, you need mental help and I urge you to seek it.

  • April 29, 2005, 4:54 p.m. CST

    He was looking forward to "The Island"?

    by Zardoz

    Well, that says it all to me. Anyone who likes Michael Bay's steaming shit-piles of cinematic dreck is obviously a moron. So therefore, his entire opinion is worthless...Serenity will rock!

  • April 29, 2005, 6:59 p.m. CST

    BUT HE WANTED TO SEE THE ISLAND!!

    by bighank

    I really cant trust the opinion of a person actually looking forward to seeing a Michael Bay film...Sorry.

  • April 29, 2005, 7:02 p.m. CST

    The Island

    by potvsktl

    Scarlet Johannson. Ewan McGregor. Interesting (albeit stolen) concept. Scarlet Johannson. Half-naked.

  • April 29, 2005, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Jossisgod, I urniate on 19 yr olds

    by WayOutWest

    You haven't learned ANYTHING in 19 years - you've been programmed. If you ever move out of your parents' house, then you'll start learning. If you can't take criticism, let alone criticism about someone who is neither your friend or relative, you're going to have a tough go of it. I expect to see you on a future episode of Cops, taking some pepper spray in the face. Duck!

  • April 29, 2005, 9:42 p.m. CST

    IT'S CRAPTACULAR!!!

    by cutest_of_borg

    Ha! Serenity. I laugh at you. All hail Empress Sato! Now there's a show!

  • April 29, 2005, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Sato

    by cutest_of_borg

    That's a TREK reference for all you impaired Whedon fans. Now bow down and worship at the altar of borg!!!

  • April 30, 2005, 1:39 a.m. CST

    Well

    by Trienco

    >>Anyone who likes Michael Bay's steaming shit-piles of cinematic dreck is obviously a moron.<< Unfortunately the world is full of them, which is why Michael "at least I'm not Uwe Boll" Bay is still in business and making money. Hence the reviewer COULD be representative of the "masses" that either make it a big success or not. Also, please ignore Jossisgod, he already admitted to be nothing but a troll and attention whore at the official board who just wants to piss you off to be talked about (when he's not calling Fillion a cunt and gets off over the slim chance he is reading it). Kind of makes you wonder if guys like Hitler or bin Laden would have been nicer if they had gotten a bit more attention by their parents or would have had friends.. or at least a dog or something. Bottom line for everyone not realizing it himself: he is NOT serious about the bull he is spewing. Sato??? Without Mayweather it would be impossible to imagine a paler, more undeveloped and all around pointless character than her. Though when it came to whining she definitely gave Luke and Anakin a run for their money. I agree on "there WAS a show", at least for part of the season 4, when they finally hired a writer. When even some of the actors think that their own show sucks, how good can it be? Not to mention Enterprise wouldn't have lasted more than 4 episodes on Fox and/or without being backed by being Star Trek.

  • April 30, 2005, 8:03 a.m. CST

    Serenity is

    by Nabster

    definetly going to flop. There is no doubt about it. Firefly was a decent show, nothing special. It had some fun moments, but not memorable.

  • May 1, 2005, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Whedon Speechifying

    by baseballfury

    LIGHTSTORMER, I get what you are saying with regard to Whedons Anti-monologue Tactics. He and the other writers quite often did satirize or parody the "Win one for the Gipper" speeches, but to parody or satirize something, you basicly do the same thing, but with humor and wit. In the end, even if lampooned, its still a "rah-rah" speech. And I, for one, just got sick of them, in "Buffy", and in "Angel". They were always well written, but damn. I know there will be atleast one in Serenity, and it will probably be good, but i was just expressing my hope that whedon will recognize that is all that is needed. Watch season 7 of Buffy in a straight shot, and chug a beer for each heartfelt,"this is the plan" speech, and see if you dont pass out before episode 5. I'm just saying

  • May 1, 2005, 1:34 a.m. CST

    And.....

    by baseballfury

    I realize i wrote a fairly long talk back against monologues. So flame-on, fuckers.

  • May 1, 2005, 7:14 p.m. CST

    Jossisgod

    by Wangtasm

    I've read the script for Alien: Ressurection and yes, it is a travesty what they did to it but 80% of it is his, just the direction is very wrong for the script he wrote. Don't be so stupid as to not watch a film because Joss didn't like it, make up your own mind.

  • May 2, 2005, 5:06 a.m. CST

    Actually I think that's a pretty good review

    by Zoecb

    "I see the appeal behind Joss Whedon after seeing this movie. The one-liners here are really witty, and if the story focused more on the brother and sister dynamics between River and Simon rather than the Firefly cast, I probably would have been way more interested. Also, it was really surprisingly violent, River goes apeshit with an axe and a sword on the rastafarian vampires, but you probably won't see that in the final version I'm sure." Lovin' the description of the reavers, btw. So the movie will be enjoyed much more by Firefly fans than newbies. Well, "to coin a popular Sunnydale phrase, Duh." If there's not enough River/Simon in the movie, maybe that's because this very touching relationship was already very well developed in the original 14 (NOT 7) episodes. Too bad you missed 'em. The good things this "critic" mentions (I robot and The Day after tomorrow? *coughsummerblockbustercough*) clearly shows that there is potential for this movie to be liked by non-converts, and that makes me happy. I find this encouraging.

  • May 2, 2005, 6:15 a.m. CST

    "typical sci-fi channel psychobabble"

    by La_Gazza

    The Critic seems to be referring to the channel's many mini-series, movies, etc. that (naturally) don't have huge movie budgets/looks and tend to not care if everyone "gets it". He also seems to have negative feelings about the current one, "Battlestar Galactica"... especially since it is also has many different "main" characters (as opposed to keeping it dumb with 3 or 4). Although I find that show interesting, it's an irritating shame that the people involved fail to give any props to Whedon for doing all of it first..... My biggest complaint about this review was that I can't feel that it was "un-biased" because of the false spoilers the critic was given/found. The free tickets should have been "For A Science-Fiction Movie", they should have mentioned that a "Preview" means the film isn't FINISHED yet, and that should be _all_. If you wouldn't go see an SF flick, you shouldn't go see an unfinished one. And if you DO decide to go, you certainly should'nt try to find out which movies it is, or you'll be expecting something specific and be disappointed no matter what you see because you didn't get what you expected. (Sorry bout the rant, all.)