I cannot believe people like this movie - Screamers (1996) Discussion

[–] filmboy303 18 years ago

Yeah, I agree with most of what you've said; but I still forgive it. The concept is epic and cool, yet the story is contained, which shows the skills of the writer and director. The production value is seriously lacking, but I think they made due, okay.

I think why this film has such a fanbase is because it brings the audience into a different world, a gritty and grimy, near post-apocolyptic wasteland where death is everywhere and can come for you at any moment...

And yes, I think they failed in a lot of ways placing the audience in that "world", but as fans, I think we fill in the blanks, aka, let our imaginations run with the canvas presented.

I look at this film as a nice "first draft" and can only hope and dream it can/will one day be remade with a better budget, seamless special effects, and yes, without those awful,awful early 90's ski sunglasses.

reply

[–] beckmen 18 years ago

I remember thinking it was utter garbage and a real bore when I saw it years ago. Too bad, Peter Weller is awesome.

[email protected]

reply

[–] Harlesden_P_Ruffkins 18 years ago

Up until they find the 2 guys and the woman the film was ok in my opinion. From there it went into tripe land, from the woman washing herself infront of Weller, which was just bizarre more than anything else to the fool trying to be that Snake Pliskin type character as mentioned previously. The crazy paranoid guy was also pure crap. They raided the cliché drawer and then cast 2 guys that can't act.

Weller on the other hand was great but even he couldn't do much with what the film turned into. The last line where the female droid dies before finishing her sentence only for Weller to complete it for her was more cheesey and cliched than anything I have ever seen. It is a line right out of a parody of sci-fi, but this was said in seriousness.

I haven't read the book so maybe the fact the plot itself isn't actually interesting is to do with that. K Dick is lauded but a lot of his stuff is too boring for words.

reply

[–] ip2007 16 years ago

scifi does not equal action

most of Philip K Dick's work that i have read does not have a lot of action, he tries to make you think instead

so, some people like that some dont, apparently you dont, does not mean its crap, only means that its not for you

mostly the movie followed the plot of the original story, including character development except for the ending and the second variety being able to love

reply

[–] KamiNoNamida 14 years ago

Up until they find the 2 guys and the woman the film was ok in my opinion. From there it went into tripe land, from the woman washing herself infront of Weller, which was just bizarre more than anything else to the fool trying to be that Snake Pliskin type character as mentioned previously. The crazy paranoid guy was also pure crap. They raided the cliché drawer and then cast 2 guys that can't act.

Weller on the other hand was great but even he couldn't do much with what the film turned into. The last line where the female droid dies before finishing her sentence only for Weller to complete it for her was more cheesey and cliched than anything I have ever seen. It is a line right out of a parody of sci-fi, but this was said in seriousness.

I haven't read the book so maybe the fact the plot itself isn't actually interesting is to do with that. K Dick is lauded but a lot of his stuff is too boring for words.

Agreed 100%.
The first half is ok because it's just the setting, there's kind of a cool ambiance, something special about it. But then it all turns to sh!t with the other guys...
Roy Dupuis is a TERRIBLE actor, I whished his character dead as soon as he gave his first lines with this cheesy voice and cliché faces. The constant twists were pretty boring, predictable, completely overdone and useless. "OMG the kid's a robot, and him too, and her too, but not him ! But OMG the bear's a robot!!!" I mean, come on!
It really felt like the movie had nothing to say and was trying too hard.

It's true that P. K.Dick books generally have original ideas and strong themes though. Well I didn't read the book but the movie failed miserably to developp any intersting theme. The only cool thing here was the sci-fi universe (as always with K.Dick) and it was ruined by the (very) poor story and characters. After 30 minutes it just felt completely empty and pointless.
Weller was the only thing that made me keep watching until the end, which was also completely lame and rushed anyway.

It's a shame though... I actually watched that movie yesterday because I remembered that I had liked it a lot when I first saw it, like 12 years ago. Well some memories should rest in peace I guess :/

// Porcupine Tree is da sh!t !! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vAAWk7f2L4 \\

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 13 years ago

"I cannot believe people like this movie".
I cannot believe there are people like you lot. There's always at least one thread like this one on almost EVERY film discussion board, from people like you who didn't like the movie. They're invariably titled something like "Worst film ever".

What people always say in such threads, is said in every other 'didn't like this film' thread... sometimes by the same poster about different films!!

Thing is... For all this negative criticism, I never see ANY of these people making movies. If XYZ film was so bad that it devastated one's life, as one's post seems to suggest, why doesn't one go make a film that is beyond such petty reproach?

That, or just appreciate the film for what it is ;-)

The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/

reply

[–] jacksonmayhem 12 years ago

It's pretty funny reading through all these terrible grammar & spelling reviews only to realize that most of them don't even understand what was actually going on.

The point of the movie is that to fight a war, humans carelessly & inadvertently created a sentient race that was not only evolving but self replicating. The conversation with the commander where the grunt can't believe people would be so careless as to leave them alone to replicate on their own. Then near the end you find out just how far this race is evolving. Sure there are some cheesy special effects by today's standards, and some of the archetypes are cliche` now, but this movie was made in 1995.

reply

[–] PPPuro 15 years ago

and yes, without those awful,awful early 90's ski sunglasses

And let's not forget the awesomestly whitewashed ergo-keyboard, truly awful video-screen program, ridiculous mobile phone with crappy connection, stupid Walkman-video-set, and the rest of the ugly paraphernalia that I did not get to see because I was unable to continue watching this trite.

reply

[–] bannedpeanut 18 years ago

I think your being a little too critical about a movie that isnt very pretentious. I like the film because of its atmosphere...thats usually what i like about the movies i bother to remember. I dont really know how to explain it's charm ....its just there, i think filmboy has the right idea about it though. If your looking for and action packed sci-fi thriller this movie probly isnt for you.

reply

[–] Flipao79 18 years ago

It tries a bit too hard, but it's a fun ride... like people have already mentioned, the story is kinda cool, and it does have a certain charm.

Peter Weller is a legend, no matter how bad he is :P

And the "can I come with you" scene was not only creepy, but also well done... great use of sound effects.

You can call it a bad film, and I don't disagree, but there's a lot to like on it.

reply

[–] Landmaster74 18 years ago

That's what you get with a movie with virtually no budget. But they used what they had and did the best they could. The story is intriguing and the acting can be forgiven, and special effects are overrated.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jswiggum 17 years ago

Don't forget about all the mistakes in the movie. They make a big deal that only your own arm band works for you, then someone saves their buddy using his own arm band. Speaking of which, i do not think i would ever get horny enough to take off the only thing keeping me alive just to masturbate to porn.

There is only one escape ship on the entire planet and it is for one person. Above it is a crane to move it that has a spherical grip while the ship is cylinder shaped. When he leaves he has to get clearance from earth.

The robots are numbered wrong. Like 1 is a simple buzzsaw, 2 is a lizard thing, 3 is the wounded soldier, 4 is then back to a robot cat, and 5 is the child. Something like that, anyway, they screw it up.

I could not believe this movie only had one continuity post in the Goofs.
-j-

reply

[–] rick-deckard45 16 years ago

you forgot stuff. the buzzsaw is 1, 1 revised is the lizard (they called it 1 revised in the film), 3 is the kid, 5 is the woman. 2 and 4 could either be the wounded trooper or the teddy bear.

reply

[–] alien_4 16 years ago

Where did you deffinitely get from: 5 was the woman? (Did I miss something?)

(I thought the woman would have must been the most evolved: bleeding, maybe rather complex feelings and the "social skills" of killing one of it's (her?) own ("civilized"), but where did you get the deffinite 5 from?)

That may also apply to 2 and 4 too. We may very well assume what you say - that may even be well intended; the story - but do we get any real _solid_ clues?

reply

[–] Thatguyphil 16 years ago

I saw this just a few days ago, so it's fairly fresh in my mind.

It's all full of paradoxes though, so maybe i got it wrong:

Type 1 was the buzzsaws
Type 2 they said was the 'wounded soldier'
Type 3 was the 'Mechanical Sword', the crawling lizard thing

so Type 4 must have been the little kids (giggle)

What i thought was so confusinig was:
1)Peter's character mentioned never seeing the Type 3 lizard things before, yet,
during his walk over to the HEB camp, he specifically mentioned creating 'the oldest weapon in man's history...the 'mechanical sword', which i thought was the name on the computer screen for the Type 3s.

2) what a wierd progression of upgraded 'screamer'. If i have it right, they built a saw, then upgraded to a human mimic, with personality, back down to a silly crawling thing, then to an even goofier little child design.

I dont know...the movie was an interesting concept, just executed poorly.

It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.

reply

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 16 years ago

I'll have to check again the next time I watch it, but I think the "crawling lizard thing" was a Type 1 revised (an upgraded "autonomous mobile sword"), "David" was a Type 3, and "Jessica" and the teddy bear were probably Types 4 and 5, in one order or the other.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

reply

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 16 years ago

Yep, watched it again last night, and those are correct. Incidentally, the computer screen identifies both the Type 1 Revised and the Type 3 as an Autonomous Mobile Sword. And there appear to be two variants of the Type 1 Revised: the one that flies at Jefferson when he's being rescued, and the one with legs.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

reply

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 16 years ago

They make a big deal that only your own arm band works for you, then someone saves their buddy using his own arm band.

There's one line where Jefferson is told about his tab, "From now on this will only work for you." Since he uses it later to protect someone else, that line must have meant that only Jefferson could activate it. (It's "coded to his biosignature," like the technology we see later in the film.) And that makes better sense anyway; it's not significantly harder to broadcast the sound of two heartbeats out of phase than it is one.

There is only one escape ship on the entire planet and it is for one person.

It's not necessarily the only one there is, it's just the only one Hendricksson knows about. And it's specifically for his use, so why wouldn't it be for one person?

Above it is a crane to move it that has a spherical grip while the ship is cylinder shaped.

If you watch carefully, you'll see that the ship has a spherical section that the crane can grip. Anyway, we don't actually know that the crane is specifically for moving the ship, although it certainly seems likely.

When he leaves he has to get clearance from earth.

Yeah, that's a bit odd considering that he thinks the authorities on Earth don't want him to get home. Still, I think his alternative is probably getting blasted out of the sky. It's specifically the Alliance that he asks for clearance.

The robots are numbered wrong. Like 1 is a simple buzzsaw, 2 is a lizard thing, 3 is the wounded soldier, 4 is then back to a robot cat, and 5 is the child. Something like that, anyway, they screw it up.

No, they don't. As I mention in a couple of other posts in this thread, Type 1 is the kind we see at the beginning of the film; Type 1 Revised is both the one that attacks Jefferson as he's being rescued from the crashed transport (as indicated by the back of its tag) and the crawly one with legs (as shown by Hendricksson's statement that he pulled a tag off "the reptile" and learned it was a Type 1; apparently there's more than one variant); Type 2 is the wounded soldier (Becker); Type 3 is David Edward Dearing, which may not seem like much of an upgrade from Becker but it's at least a different model (and for all we know it may have some improved capabilities); and Types 4 and 5 are probably Jessica Hanson and (maybe) the teddy bear.

Anyway, there's no reason to assume that every new "Type" represents an upgrade (although that should be the general trend if the type numbers are assigned in chronological order). If the next model is e.g. an imitation of one of those rock bugs, it will surely be called a Type 6 even through it's not an "improvement" on Jessica Hanson.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

reply

[–] jswiggum 12 years ago

Wow, you really, really, want to like this crappy movie.

-j-

reply

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 12 years ago

Wow, you really, really, want to like this crappy movie.

Wow, you really, really want to post this crappy rebuttal.

----

Lazy + smart = efficient.

reply

[–] dragonfire836 15 years ago

Ok I'm gonna let you in on a little secret, are you ready?

(not everyone thinks like you)

Try to keep that in mind. It will come in handy in the future. Trust me.

reply

[–] J_Weezy 15 years ago

One thing I thought was odd: when he contacts San Fransisco for clearance aboard the EEV...doesn't it take at least a few minutes for the transmission to propogate through that vast amount of space? I mean, Sirius more than 8 light-years away from Earth. You'd think there'd be some delay. But no, it was instant communication. Heh, so much for realism. It was still a good movie.

reply

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 15 years ago

. . . doesn't it take at least a few minutes for the transmission to propogate through that vast amount of space? I mean, Sirius more than 8 light-years away from Earth.

Yeah, about 8.6. Which means the signal would take not "a few minutes" but more than eight and a half years to reach Earth, and Hendricksson wouldn't get a reply for at least another eight and a half.

But we have to assume they have something equivalent to Star Trek's "subspace communication," not only for that scene but for the communications at the beginning of the movie. For example, the message from Secretary Green is obviously not eight years old. (Of course it turns out to be fake, but Hendricksson clearly doesn't expect messages from Earth to take eight years to arrive.)

We probably have to assume they have faster-than-light travel too, since for example Hendricksson clearly expects to survive a trip to Earth in that shuttle.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

reply

[–] dbb79 15 years ago

I cannot believe people post stupid posts like this one. I mean, this post just SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

reply

[–] megArnold 14 years ago

Yeah, I cannot believe I read that post through from the beginning to the end!

No paragraph structure, low budget punctuation, cheesy grammar special effects, and the dialogue is forgettable! Then we get "warm4yrfrm", this Gene Siskel/Roger Ebert wannabe dude, who can't write himself out of a shoebox, I mean that post just SUCKS!!!!!!

You keep waiting for some reasoning, but you're never rewarded with much and you don't really care! I kept thinking that everyone involved knew it was total crap! One of the worst posts I've read in ages!

reply

[–] Inconnux 14 years ago

The problem these days is that everyone expects SciFi movies to be full of cutting edge special effects... honestly, this emphasis on special effects over substance can be blamed on Star Wars... if you don't like this film because of its 'low budget'... please go back to your jar jar and ewoks...

reply

[–] TheEtherWalk 14 years ago

I remember watching this when I was about 3... and i still remembered details about it years later. This movie is way better than people say.

Take it easy Charlie. I've got an ANGLE.

reply

[–] borislav_mitev 13 years ago

...nice one. BTW I still haven't seen the last Transformers and prolly won't. I'd love to see the Screamers though.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrAgmoore 11 years ago

I liked the movie but it works best as the original short story.

reply