(Might contain some remarks some would view as spoilers.)
Hey, guys, lighten up!
OK, OK, so it ain't "2001." What is? So it makes you think of "2001." That's bad?
I think many of the comments I've read so far were written by very young people, teens and twentysomethings. De Palma was making an effort to try to create something unusual for sci-fi films: real characters with some depth; the cocktail party/barbecue at the beginning is an excellent scene in laying the groundwork for that, and many commentators apparently just don't understand such occasions. Unfortunately, his success in making his characters real is limited, and that does limit the reach of the film overall. But to rate this movie as a "1" is just beyond the pale.
I, too, shudder at some of the scientific errata and elisions; I, too, want to reach out and shake some of the characters when they're just plain dumb (but how unusual is *that* in the movies?) in order to advance the plot. Likewise, the semi-New Age thematics aren't my favorite thing (worked much better in a better movie for which Jodie Foster should have won an Oscar, "Contact") and the closing revelations are too short in terms of their supposed importance (but that's probably a consequence of De Palma's attempt to create real people in the movie).
So, it's flawed.
But once you get that off your chest, look at the rest of it. The characters may not have the depth of the central ones in "Close Encounters," one of very few sci-fi films to have been about real people, but they are more than cardboard cutouts, and by the film's end, I cared about what happened to them. There's an absolutely marvelous scene in the middle part of the movie having to do with weightless dancing, when Connie Nielsen's character's interaction with her husband makes the whole group come alive as real folks. Beautifully choreographed and emotionally telling, it is in many ways the centerpiece of the film, and more compelling than most if not all of the genuinely spectacular Fx.
Incidentally, professional reviewers have generally been ignoring Nielsen and her character; big mistake, and, I think, indicative of a prejudgment of this movie as just another big-budget special effects flick. If that's what you think it's supposed to be (and I admit that the studio promoted it that way; De Palma should probably sue), well, yes, it's got the problems already mentioned, and more.
At any rate, the special effects are truly excellent, the "revelation" at the end is supported by at least some responsible scientific hypothesizing, and De Palma created some fairly real people to populate his universe, people whose eventual fate matters to viewers who understand what De Palma was doing.
The special effects are sufficiently good that nobody without a really big-screen home theater should wait for the video/DVD. Go see this if you like sci-fi, and approach it with an open mind.
Hey, guys, lighten up!
OK, OK, so it ain't "2001." What is? So it makes you think of "2001." That's bad?
I think many of the comments I've read so far were written by very young people, teens and twentysomethings. De Palma was making an effort to try to create something unusual for sci-fi films: real characters with some depth; the cocktail party/barbecue at the beginning is an excellent scene in laying the groundwork for that, and many commentators apparently just don't understand such occasions. Unfortunately, his success in making his characters real is limited, and that does limit the reach of the film overall. But to rate this movie as a "1" is just beyond the pale.
I, too, shudder at some of the scientific errata and elisions; I, too, want to reach out and shake some of the characters when they're just plain dumb (but how unusual is *that* in the movies?) in order to advance the plot. Likewise, the semi-New Age thematics aren't my favorite thing (worked much better in a better movie for which Jodie Foster should have won an Oscar, "Contact") and the closing revelations are too short in terms of their supposed importance (but that's probably a consequence of De Palma's attempt to create real people in the movie).
So, it's flawed.
But once you get that off your chest, look at the rest of it. The characters may not have the depth of the central ones in "Close Encounters," one of very few sci-fi films to have been about real people, but they are more than cardboard cutouts, and by the film's end, I cared about what happened to them. There's an absolutely marvelous scene in the middle part of the movie having to do with weightless dancing, when Connie Nielsen's character's interaction with her husband makes the whole group come alive as real folks. Beautifully choreographed and emotionally telling, it is in many ways the centerpiece of the film, and more compelling than most if not all of the genuinely spectacular Fx.
Incidentally, professional reviewers have generally been ignoring Nielsen and her character; big mistake, and, I think, indicative of a prejudgment of this movie as just another big-budget special effects flick. If that's what you think it's supposed to be (and I admit that the studio promoted it that way; De Palma should probably sue), well, yes, it's got the problems already mentioned, and more.
At any rate, the special effects are truly excellent, the "revelation" at the end is supported by at least some responsible scientific hypothesizing, and De Palma created some fairly real people to populate his universe, people whose eventual fate matters to viewers who understand what De Palma was doing.
The special effects are sufficiently good that nobody without a really big-screen home theater should wait for the video/DVD. Go see this if you like sci-fi, and approach it with an open mind.