Did we watch the same film?

You know there are free dictionaries on the Internet right? If I said, "This film is so bad it made my eyes bleed!" That would be hyperbole. Saying this is easily one of the worst films ever made is not hyperbole; it's a valuation statement. Your failure to see this as an actual assesment speaks to your inability to process ideas that conflict with your own.

I do love how you completely ignore all of my protestations as if I didn't say specifically what was bad about the film which then allows you to straw man me saying I didn't say exactly what I dislike about it.

If you want specific examples of the problems I'm sure I could provide a few but I'm doing it out of memory as I've returned this waste of time:

Pacing: The entire first 12 minutes of the film is probably one of the worst uses of time in the film. That entire section could have been whittled down to about 2 minutes. You can then go on to the rest of the film as an example.

Bad acting: The guy who's been shot's assistant. The woman that crashes the car, the one that bores me for the first 12 minutes of the movie. The cop. The "bad" guy. Oh, and EVERY ONE ELSE!

Bad writing: The dialog is wooden, pretty much all of it. The premises are unbelievable; people don't act or speak that way like the whole wreck scene. For self-indulgent we can go back to the first 12 minutes of the film where nothing happens. Pseudo-intellectual is the premise of the film and its execution.

Plot: Ernest Hemingway once said that every word in a story should add to that story. That every word placed upon the page should make the reader more involved. The story in this film is horribly lacking, this speaks to the self-indulgence, as there are scenes that just don't add to the plot. They don't set up anything and they are not foreshadowing of future events. They are just there because the director/writer liked them.

Art direction: This is what makes a film believable. Art direction makes the difference between something that looks like a set and something that looks like your home. For instance look at the sets in this film. They are flimsy and lack a "lived in" look; everything looks like the paint is still drying. Everything looks like it's just a layer on reality.

Like a BMW sticker pasted over a VW emblem. Like how they glue body parts on existing cars to make them look like they are from the future but you can still see the underlying lines of the car; you KNOW that's actually a Pontiac Fiero and not a nuclear powered space car.

Wardrobe: I would argue wardrobe should be under art direction's purview but rarely is.

For examples of bad wardrobe look at the cop searching for the "bad guy." His raincoat, or macintosh, looks like it was a gift given to him by his in-laws on a long distant birthday. He's kept it in the back of his closet for all this time because it's ill fitting but he couldn't bring himself to throw it away or give it to charity. When the wardrobe staff said they needed him to look like a "typical cop" he instantly thought of the old noir films and said to himself, "I'll look like Dick Tracy! Yeah! Totally tubular to the max!" You know, 'cause that's how they talked back then, when this film was made.

But thats just one example. Again all you have to do is look to ALL of the characters and none of their clothes fit them. I don't mean just physically but emotionally. They don't FEEL like they are the character's clothes.

Cinematography: The shots are very static, they lack vibrance and emotion. Worst of all the lighting makes the film look like it's shot on the set of a 1980's soap opera, but not in a good way.

It looks like someone read a book about how to block shots and followed it to the tee but didn't bother thinking beyond what they read or how to do anything different. It's lazy. It's all very "by the book." Lots of 2 shots and long, panoramic shots filmed too closely and without any interesting angles.

Production values: As would be expected this is a combination of many of the others. Overall the film as a very slapped together feel. The quality of the film, the quality of the shots, the quality of the wardrobe, the direction. All of it adds up to a poorly produced film.

You'll notice how I often say, "And then the rest of the film." This is not a cop out, this speaks to the entire quality of the film and is why I say it is easily one of the worst films ever made. You can make all the ad hominem attacks you want but that still doesn't speak to the quality of this abomination put down on cheap video tape; surely it couldn't have been produced on film but must have used 1980's video tape technology.

I would now say to you, what makes this film good? Give specific examples as you have demanded of me. If you wish to say your reasons are purely aesthetic then why would you demand me to produce examples myself? So, that avenue of escape from reality is cut off for you. Tell me how you think this film is good. Demonstrate to me in even the simplest of terms how this film should be treated with anything but the most aggressive disgust. Tell me how this film doesn't spit in the face of anyone that loves art, film making, REAL science-fiction, and intellectual discourse.

Tell me that.

----------------------
All religions are fairy tales.

http://squandrous.com/post/43155755

“It’s not your job to right a wrong, just mark it FAIL and move along.”

...Guess What S1m0ne! We have now entered an age where we can manufacture fraud faster than our ability to detect it

[deleted]