Pretty sadly bad.. - Event Horizon (1997) Discussion

[–] FinneousPJ 11 years ago

This movie was released before Sphere :/

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fst5000 11 years ago

while this is true, i still think sphere was pulled off in a better, more believable way.

reply

[–] alekesam 11 years ago

The book Sphere pulled it off believably, the movie however...ugh!

Just my one cent since I can't afford two.

reply

[–] caulkins69 8 years ago

Sphere the novel was a disappointingly weak effort from the usually reliable Crichton. When the solution involves everybody sitting around a table and imagining the difficulty away, that deserves a big eyeroll.

reply

[–] GetWokeGoBroke (645) 2 years ago

fst5000 Event Horizon is way better than Sphere.

reply

[–] NightRider2000 11 years ago

Beavertoof.. lets see you make your own movie so we can be graced enough to watch it... LOL

reply

[–] Nightflyre9 11 years ago

Let's see you make your own movie . . .

This is one of the worst comebacks used on the IMDb, and it's a pet peeve of mine. It doesn't take being able to make a movie to know a good film, just as it doesn't take being able to sing to recognize a good singer. Using this retort as a way to discredit someone else's opinion does nothing to advance your point of view.

reply

[–] Legendary_Badass 11 years ago

It's a particularly poorly conceived comeback when all it takes to make a movie, or be sad to be the one who made a Hollywood movie, is luck. Now making a good movie...

Check out my TV podcast on iTunes:
http://bit.ly/zJzdaF

reply

[–] KobraPower 11 years ago

Dude... if any of these jackasses can dissect an entire movie as far as the writing, the directing, the acting?? Why are they wasting time on someone else's movie? If someone knows so much, then they should apply that wisdom and knowledge and make their own movie.. it's a no brainer.

reply

[–] Nightflyre9 11 years ago

So, because someone hasn't personally directed or written a movie, he or she should refrain from having an opinion about whether a film is well-directed or well-written? You don't realize how illogical and ridiculous that concept is? Most people who watch movies have no desire to MAKE movies; they watch them to be entertained. One doesn't have to actually be involved in the film-making process to have the right to an opinion about movies. That's just basic common sense.

reply

[–] KobraPower 11 years ago

If you don't like a movie, then just say you don't like it.. don't break it down.. most of the surfers on these movie boards are wanna be filmmakers who could not get a film a distributed even if they paid a retailer. I think Death Proof was the dumbest movie I have ever seen.. do I need to break it down, NO, it's just a dumb movie. I leave it that.

reply

[–] Nightflyre9 11 years ago

If there's any place where people are going to discuss movies to death, it's a MOVIE MESSAGE-BOARD! If you've been on the IMDb for any length of time, you must know that listening to people "break it down" is a regular and expected thing here. Sure, there are people like you who can hate a movie and "leave it at that," but there are many others who don't operate that way.

I do agree that some people go into too much detail (I've been guilty of that myself . . . Lol), but everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, whether you think it's warranted or not. And while I'm sure there are some frustrated wannabe film makers stinking up the place, the rest of us are just plain old movie fans who like to talk about the things we love and hate.

reply

[–] jpjeffery 9 years ago

This is one of the worst comebacks used (on the IMDb)...

THANK you! I was beginning to think nobody else felt the same way!

I bracketed "on the IMDB" because this terrible excuse for an argument is used all over the place. From YouTube discussions about user submitted videos, to newsgroup discussions about such-and-such and album by so-and-so band. Almost any time somebody says something critical about an album (for instance) it's almost guaranteed that a big fan of the band/album/song will get upset and write "Until you write something as good as this you can't criticise!"

It's nonsensical. Well, unless the person who said it is willing to accept that by the same logic they can't say an album is great unless they've written something as good as that album themselves...and let's face it, they won't accept that condition on themselves.

It seems to me that they're just taking it as some kind of personal affront that somebody dares to speak ill of something they happen to like a lot. Are they really that insecure? Apparently so. Is their own enjoyment of the film/album/song/play/band really impaired because they discovered someone out there doesn't like it? I'd really hope not, but again, it would appear to be the case.

reply

[–] TVippy 9 years ago

Props to you, NightFlyre.
--------------------------------------------
I own you.

reply

[–] FloodDaga7 11 years ago

Beavertoof.. lets see you make your own movie so we can be graced enough to watch it... LOL

Are you gonna give the same budget Event Horizon got?

Remember... The force will be with you, always.

reply

[–] KobraPower 11 years ago

A film does not need a big budget to be good... unless you want explosions, CGI effects, etc.. some filmmakers can't make a good film without that.

reply

[–] FloodDaga7 11 years ago

I completely agree. But we are here talking about a particular film and someone challenged a user to make one that's better. It's tough to argue that a huge budget makes things easier. Even with digital you still need money for cameras/lenses, a computer, software. That's just to start out, then if you actually want quality actors, props locations...

Remember... The force will be with you, always.

reply

[–] linx90-811-202742 11 years ago

To be honest, I loved the movie mainly for two reasons:

1. Most of the horror sci-fi oldies I have seen throw the big secret at you somewhere in the second quarter of the movie and the plot becomes relatively straightforward. Event Horizon on the other hand did not really reveal what was really going on until the last quarter. So eventhough it's a killing spree like in any other movie, you are not sure why it happens.

2. The movie has an original perspective of a foe. It's not cliche like a person with a difigured face or a monster. You have to agree, the "problem" the characters face is a bit more original than a generic monster/alien infestation/invasion.

reply

[–] FloodDaga7 11 years ago

So eventhough it's a killing spree like in any other movie, you are not sure why it happens.

So instead of having an even remotely grounded resolution or explanation which is usually what separates sci fi horror from supernatural horror where anything goes, we are just "not sure why it happens." It's evil. That's hardly original, as you say. They encountered evil, went to hell. Whatever. We only get glimpses of that evil so it never really has a strong impact. I'm fine with movies that don't explain everything and leave it up to the viewer's interpretation. There's a difference when this is a result of laziness on the part of the director, as I really think the script was there. This truly is a direct splicing of The Shining and Alien. The Shining also left a lot up to the viewer, the difference is in how it was handled. It wasn't a movie where scientist rattle off expository techno babble for the whole movie and then all of a sudden at the end we just need to accept that some vague evil is out there. OHHHHH SPOOKY!!!

Again, just how things were handled, it's like Anderson tried to copy exactly what made Alien scary and then exactly what made the Shining scary. The problem is, those are two completely different movies. You can argue the similarities of isolation and confinement, but what makes those films masterpieces can't be copied and pasted together. It doesn't work. The jump scares in this movie were laughable, and it was mostly due to the set up. It was filmed so flat at moments and the director just didn't do a good job getting decent performances out of the actors at these crucial moments. Yes, it is the director's fault. This a solid cast, but Sam Neil in particular was laughable.

The movie has an original perspective of a foe. It's not cliche like a person with a difigured face or a monster. You have to agree, the "problem" the characters face is a bit more original than a generic monster/alien infestation/invasion.

No, I don't have to agree with that. We never see or understand what they are going against. How is that original? It's some vague evil. Not original. This isn't Lovecraft, it's nigh impossible in this medium to get away with just saying how spooky things were "on the other side."

Also, how good a horror movie or any movie is doesn't begin and end with how original it is. It just has to be handled well and leave an impact, then it won't even matter if it's slightly rehashed.

Remember... The force will be with you, always.

reply

[–] ciro_1809 10 years ago

Best post I've read so far about this movie.

The only thing I disagree is that, yes: Something not seen or delved upon can be scary. Too bad that this movie failed to hype up what was on the other side nor gave us convincing reasons on why should we care or convincing performances of the ones that actually saw what was on the other side... Even Sheley DuVall (in The Shining) acted frightened at the sight of a bear performing fellatio on a guy better than the guy who supposedly witnessed Hell in this movie...

reply

[–] O-Face 9 years ago

The enemy is not original, but it's not cliche. Look up Solaris.

reply

[–] mel2000 (244) 2 years ago

The movie has an original perspective of a foe.

This movie showed me that hallucinations make boring and muddled antagonists.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kaydenpat 10 years ago

It actually started off good but then descended into gore/horror. Fishburne and Neill tried their best but couldn't save this movie.

reply

[–] scott-h-moore 9 years ago

I agree. It started as a promising sci-fi and then totally abandoned the science in favour of pseudo-religious nonsense. Essentially, it is just a supernatural horror movie set in space. That, in itself, wouldn't make it a bad movie. But the characterisation also goes to pot - Dr Weir, in particular, descends from being a reasonable character into a cliched joke. So, the first half is quite good, but in the latter half it rapidly becomes a rather bad film.

reply

[–] emptyspaces153 10 years ago

I actually love this movie, its kind of a cult classic, and if you didn't like it in 1997 you probably won't now. Its not THE BEST in any way, but its absolutely not bad either IMO. It definitely is based on Solaris, just like Sphere and a few other similar movies (this came out before sphere). EH is sort of like Solaris meets Hellraiser. Clearly also inspired by Alien. Its just kind of a fun horror/sci-fi flick and its better than most in the genre if you ask me. It has an entertaining plotline (though not too original) and I've loved this movie since I was like 12. Its not American Beauty, and should not be taken too seriously. But even now, I fail to see what it so bad about this movie. Sure, acting isn't great, and sometimes gets corny, but its not one of those straight-to-video B movies and is certainly better than almost any random sci-fi horror flick I might find on netflix. Some lines sound dumb, but that's okay. The pacing, I hear complaints about but I personally think for a 90 min flick, it was done pretty well. I would have liked an extra half hour to explore a bit more about their backstories. If someone made a sequel (better yet a prequel) I would totally watch it. Its not the most epic movie in terms of professional cinema, but i love it for the experience. The bottom line is this movie has something I find special about it, and I don't know how id feel if I just saw it today for the first time, but I happen to love this movie and its definitely a classic for me.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CaptainViggo 10 years ago

Well, I think so many people like this movie because it is so higher quality than Paul W. S. Anderson's other movies. Really it's almost a masterpiece compared to his other works...

But having just watched it for the second time (with good memories), it is indeed pretty average. While the beginning is really enjoyable — conventional but interesting story, good cast, very good art direction, with the mood of a good old space movie — the second part is a real mess to be honest... Too bad, because story-wise it had a lot of potential. Oh, and you easily see, without any subtlety, how much Anderson and Eisner loved Alien.

reply