Reviews written by registered user
|5 reviews in total|
Not impressed with Josh. He seemed to have one expression throughout
the entire film.
Benicio Del Toro carries the entire flick. Hell, half of it was in Spanish and it was superb to watch him. To stuff his bank account, he needs to be the villain in either a new Batman or Star Trek film. He makes every role believable.
Overall, the film is worth a watch, if only to get a feel for what life might be like in romanticized Central and South America. Like I said, I finished it -- unlike Markie Mark's "The Gambler," which dragged me thorough a half hour before I searched YouTube for a Hopalong Cassidy adventure.
This movie is far better than some of the reviews indicate. One reviewer rightly said that good films like The Thing or The Man from Planet X were made at the same time, but the comparison is faulty. The Flying Saucer was a one-off by Mikel Conrad who starred in it, wrote the storyline, directed and produced; it seems to be his only writer-director-producer credit. TMFPX was extremely low budget but used far superior actors. And Thing was a Howard Hawks production with a top-notch cast and crew; many of the scenes, judging by dialogue and action alone, seemed to have been directed by Hawks even though he is not credited. Compare The Flying Saucer to the many other sci-fi flicks of the early fifties and it holds up a little better. Except for interiors, the entire film was shot on location in Alaska so you get a great look at the 1949 Alaska environment around Juneau, Spring Lake, and Taku Glacier. And a number of boats, docks, cabins, and float planes from that era. I found the storyline interesting a scientist builds a saucer (From alien plans? This question is left to the viewer's imagination) that both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. want to get a hold of. The saucer was a good MacGuffin. Acting was stiff at times, but this was a pro- sumer production. Still, it was worth watching.
I bailed at 2 hours and 13 minutes. I don't care how it ends. Why is it that filmmakers think dragging viewers through unneeded minutia is art? There are wide shots in this film that I could have shot and directed. Perhaps the director forgot to shoot a close-up. Do we need to see a father, barely a speck on the screen, walk all the way to the group returning his son to him and then watch him and his son keep on walking and walking and walking into another scene. For what? To say you did all this in one shot? A first year film student could do that. It certainly doesn't come close to rivaling the opening shot in Touch of Evil. And in Citizen Kane, Welles covered far more sweeping material in 119 minutes (instead of 158!). Attenborough covered Ghandi in 188 minutes, and this was one of the most epoch stories of the 20th Century. Even Upton Sinclair would not have put mired his readers with such tediousness. Reminds me of Kevin Costner's attempt at Wyatt Earp, where the movie really starts when the badge is pinned on Wyatt's shirt, about an hour in. Don't confuse screen time with quality. This flick needs a tough edit, at least 45 minutes.
Yet another unimaginative monsters-chase-humans flick created for the SciFi Channel. I won't reveal the monster for fear you might laugh yourself into a coma. A scientific team with soldiers teleports to a far off planet (a la Stargate) to find a plant that will produce enough oxygen to save Earth, which is choking on its own pollution. The gear everyone carries looks like toys and the canvas tents and cots don't seem very futuristic. Things go wrong, the team is stranded, and the monsters pick them off as they make their way to the back-up teleporter device. Every so often the Director of Photography shakes the camera to tell us the planet is unstable. In between the "excitement" we're treated to some fairly lame interpersonal dialogue. Sean Patrick Flanery makes the best of the dreadful script. The special effects are about as cheesy as you can get. Otherwise, it's a great romp.
Just saw the movie - for the first time! - the other night on cable. It is fabulous - very rich, very dense. I'd recommend it to any Leone fan. I noticed many comments about the long shots in closeup and the acting through action rather than words, which adds to the richness. An interesting note about some of the long scenes. My business partner (we run a production and communications firm) interviewed Ennio Morricone a number of years ago when he was being honored in LA. Apparently, he basically cranks out many of his film scores and then puts them "in the drawer" until a movie comes up. In many of the Leone movies, scenes were shot to Morricone's score, not the other way around (which is more typical), so many scenes are stretched to match the music. Back to Duck You Sucker - I'll start searching for a DVD. It's definitely one for the collection.