MovieChat Forums > Stranded (2002) Discussion > A masterpiece--people that don't like ...

A masterpiece--people that don't like it aren't sci-fi fans.

posted 20 years ago by willywants
12 replies | jump to latest

"Stranded" is a brilliant sci-fi film that is intelligently written, brilliantly directed, also sporting AMAZING special effects, an intelligent script, awful actors (Yes, I'll admit that), excellent production values, great sets, a realistic mars setting, good atmosphere & suspense, a wonderful musical score, a great ending, and amazing realism.

The script is highly intelligent. The reason it SOUNDS weird to American Audiences is because they are used to over-rated Hollywood actors spouting illogical "Cool" dialogue, not unknown actors having intelligent conversations.

This film is also visually stunning. The sets, design, special effects, cinemotography--they all look AMAZING!!!!!!! The final shot is one of the greatest effects ever, period. I don't know how they accomplished it, but it was incredible! The spaceship looked like a real ship, not the model that it probably was, the sets are great, accurate, AND realistic, the production values were classy as ever.

Okay, so there is some bad elements--some pretty bad acting, the lead actress is terrible but some of the other's are quite good.

"Stranded" is one of the few REAL science fiction films out there in recent memorie. There are no space fights, slimy aliens, big stars, illogical dialogue, or big explosions. Ther are realistic characters in realistic situations, and with the help of intelligent dialogue, excellent special effects, great sets and an good atmosphere, stranded succeeds more than any bigger-budget sci-fi film ever could.

People who don't like this film are either not sci-fi fans or are members of the MTV generation, who have degrated intelligent films to cheesy hollywood blockbusters.

One of the best films in a long time, period.

I love all...except people that aren't me

[–] federico_zamora 20 years ago

Maybe what Willywants is forgetting is the meaning of the genre. Sci-fi means science FICTION. Emphasis on the fiction part. If you want a realistic view of Mars, then just log onto the NASA website and watch the stinking rovers. Those real martian landscapes really are "great, accurate AND realistic". For those of us who know what real science fiction is supposed to be, we know that "Stranded" is just a meager and failing attempt at reaching such status. I wouldn't even call this a film, period. The whole purpose of watching a movie is to escape and be taken to a place beyond what the imagination can conjure. Now, does that mean that Star Wars is a good science fiction movie? Absolutely not the newer ones. So what if they were? Just because they're multi-million-dollar blockbuster, doesn't mean it detracts from the genre it pertains to. Bottom line is that the only thing scientificly fictitious about 'Stranded' was its artificial script, actors, sets, score, RUNNING TIME and well, the fact that it was produced in the first place. What a waste of shelf space at BLOCKBUSTER. I guess that's the only way that word could ever be associated with this movie.

[–] Nightcop 20 years ago

I don't think you quite understand the genre yourself, or at least not the full extent of it. Focusing on the purely escapist nature of Sci-fi (or any movie) is to miss the core of truly satisfying and intellectually stimulating works of fiction. Perhaps fantasy is a more appropriate term for what you think sci-fi should be. Real sci fi makes you think by posing plausible events and questions with realistic characters. That's why it's "science" fiction. It's based in science. What's the point of calling it science fiction if the whole point is to put the "emphasis on the ficition part" and thus make it all up? Real sci-fi is of far greater relatablity and thus emotional significance than hollywood fare anyday. So you're right. This is a waste of shelfspace at BLOCKBUSTER because it belongs in a place where someone who's looking for something interesting rather than formulaic can find it. The fact that you mainly diss this movie for it's realism, running time, it's similarity to "the stinking rovers" makes it clear that you have a poor attention span and little appreciation of just how amazing actual space exploration is. Others have hit the main positives about this movie and yes, it is a little rough in some spots (acting, sound quality...), but the fact that it still carries itself on plot and script makes it just that much more impressive. This is a quality piece of work that suffered slightly in production but shines regardless. Please don't listen to ignorant nay sayers. This is not hollywood tripe. OR even B grade attempted hollywood tripe. This a thinking man's movie that will be appreciated by anyone who is looking for more than a way to forget their lives for 2 hours.

[–] tumelot 20 years ago

I dont speak english very well but i have to say that this movie was great.
one of the best scifi movies i have ever seen.

[–] paweli 20 years ago

You talk about realism. You talk about realistic Mars... May I ask you... What do you actually now about Mars to say that this movie was "realistic"? I think you're the one who just enjoys the movie's setting. Not the realism, which this movie utterly lacks. Setting and plot of this movie is quite good, actors are... well.. d-class at best. But hey, dump the realism, will you? Because if you're looking for realism... heck, even Mission to Mars offers more actual MARS realism than this.

Expect me when you see me.

[–] sidewind69 19 years ago

Hey just saw this movie on satellite
wow!!
any NASA guys out there care to comment?
or anyone? heh this one looks to be fairly intersting study
i'm involed with a project related to Mars and yes it's inperfect
however very hopefull.. the operative word

[–] ch6499 19 years ago

I totally agree that true science fiction makes you think. It leaves you wondering at the end. and taking you to different possibilites that you never thought of before. I "get" this movie, because I as a youngster used to enjoy reading science fiction. especially the likes of Isaac Asimov, who was one of the greatest sci fi writers of all time. Today most sci fi movies that hollywood churns out ,year after year, to me, is nothing more than futuristic shootem up -bang bang tripe that uses the basic lure of sensationlism to keep an otherwise low attention spine generation watching. Typical for people who never ever crack a book open.

[–] enekoacedo 18 years ago

This is a very very good film, best seen in the last 6 years. The important thing in a sci-fi movie is not that the situation in wich the characters are involved is realistic, but the reaction of these characters to that situation is realistic and credible. And that is what this film achieves, and not the superproductions of hollywood whith cool conversations.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fordfan2003 18 years ago

Some good comments here and I have to agree.. a really good movie. Sure it lacks in some areas but overall it is just great to watch...

[–] mr23m78 18 years ago

Gallo was the only ONLY reason to watch this movie. I wished he would have killed both those blond bitches and took over the movie.

[–] Scifi71 11 years ago

Agree, thought it was very good and intelligent, It had some flaws, but I got past them.

Humankind cannot bear very much reality. ~T.S. Eliot

[–] bureau203 10 years ago

I don't understand the mindset of people like this. Everyone has to agree with them and their opinion, and if they don't, they're stupid, or they're not "true sci-fi fans".

I consider myself a "true sci-fi fan" and I thought this movie sucked.

I would point you to the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy, but I don't think you would understand it.

"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."