Interesting analogy to "Catcher in the Rye." I also much prefer books and films where the plot description is only the tip of the iceberg.
Most science fiction doesn't particularly interest me because it tends to be driven by spectacle and effects rather than characters with real motivations that have relevance in our world. That's a generalization, of course, but it comes from seeing too many films about Kryptons battling Ewoks (or whatever the good and bad characters of the given "event" film are).
This film did a very good job of connecting humanity with science early through Daniel J. Travanti's character, and I think the scenes between Kris Kristofferson and Cheryl Ladd worked quite well together despite what many of the other posters on this board say.
Once I became invested in the people in this film, I gained interest in the creatures they interacted with -- particularly the lady with the stretchy skin. You know, like in "Brazil" http://llwyd.tripod.com/gross/brazil.htm and "Brain Dead" http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1256362496/tt0099173 .
Had I not cared for the present-day human characters first, though, I would have though those supporting players were just gimmicks. This film really has some clever set design and art direction -- along with effects that look dated now, of course, but I'm fine with that.
It seems when people dislike something on these boards, they absolutely rip it to shreads rather than seeing it as a flawed film that could have used some improvement. I usually find some nuggets of amusement even in movies that I agree are bad, unless they are painful to watch or, worse, boring.
I like this film despite its flaws, but mostly I like it for its humanity (which is probably connected to what others see as its flaws).
reply
share
Hythlodaeus
14 years ago
WarpedRecord (Good name BTW),
I think I see what you mean, I wasn't saying Catcher in the Rye had anything to do with this movie but to me the Millennium was all about that monologue,
"You couldn't kill Hitler, as much as you might want to. But you could do a remarkable number of things, take a cup of water from the Pacific Ocean, a grain of sand from the Sahara Desert. What is the difference between a live man a dead man - what's the difference between a live man and a man who's about to die?"
Whatever it was, I haven't seen the movie in about 15 years but I never forgot that idea.
Yeah, people like to rip stuff to shreds, it's easier than putting something together, ha another line comes to mind... "As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create"
So people like you and me can do the synthesis, when most people seem to only want to do the digestion and elimination. Synthesis is more fun that defecation.
What hump?
reply
share