First off there is no need to be condescending which your reply comes off as such , and secondly did you work on the film in some aspect? You defend it more so than a fan would seem to.
It's text not a conversation. I genuinely try not to
sound condescending as a result, but your entitled to your impression. Of course, an impression I cannot control and hence won't apologize for.
I didn't work on the film, but I am privy to a wide library to compare it to and take many things into account to justify any position I have or see others have for any film either subjectively or as seen here, objectively. Mostly, I'm interested in people's reactions to films.
As stated in my original post, the object the ship was soaring off to was white not red, and the moon is closer than mars. I paused it and went back to it several times to make sure it wasn't red, again perhaps it was because of the directors cut edition I was watching ?which cut out 9 minutes of the theatrical cut. "Closer inspection brings up arguable landmarks?" What landmarks? You were able to decipher certain stars from the couple second clip? Yes if they ship went to Mars it would be quite ironic and it would surely compliment the film.
It would be peculiar that a Director's Cut version actually omits footage and showcases unfinished CGI, but it's not unheard of. The version of the completed project was most assuredly red. I read that the film was screened on a limited run so it is entirely possible that you seen an unfinished version for critics. These types of fanfare films are shamelessly shown to several magazines in the same vein (i.e. Fangoria, etc.) for marketing. As for your other question it would be pointless until you had the version I have. But for astro-study I suggest starting here beforehand:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-some-major-landmarks-on-mars.htmLogic, coherency, tightness would not be adjectives I would use to describe this film in any manner. The set design and cgi started out strong and towards the end there were some good cgi scenes but the main set design used and cgi for the bulk of the movie was underwhelming in my personal opinion and clearly the opinion of the majority of users on here.
Key word mentioned were that said adjectives were surprising. Again, you have to look at those commenting and the demographic most likely to get their hands on a copy of this film. I did not expect it to be made as well with such a limited target as a consequence.
The film was indeed coherent. The viewer always knew what was going on, why the plot was progressing as it was, and why the cast emoted as they did. In fact, this was done with very little background plot beyond Ron Pearlman's monologues. That's impressive. The logic is sound because, you have to remember, the context of the story itself is crazy so it requires the players behave in that world to maintain a similar existence. And we see, they have religion, use swords instead of contemporary weaponry for efficiency at dispatching the mutants, and withstand a suspension of belief in a hopeless situation in proportionate amounts on their journey. It carried well, albeit not the best work ever done, but was done so when needed between sets. Again, impressive. The tightness I was referring to was the expeditious nature of the story. Even though editing/lack of budget butchered much of the plot progression the viewer was still able to follow the acts accordingly. Independent of the story within the acts this film nevertheless had a defined beginning, middle, and end.
That cast ensemble was great if they had acted up to their potential as they are all much better actors than their performances in this film, but perhaps they just worked with what they had. Equilibrium is very well done Science Fiction film in every aspect and I certainly would never put this in the same class as it. If that was the same demographic the makers of this film were going for then it did not succeed. I am an avid fan and viewer of the Sci-Fi genre and would appreciate a worth addition. As I stated in my op; everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and this film is clearly up your alley and certainly not mine nor the majority of users on here. Cheers!
John Malkovich was criminally underused in this film something illegal. It almost overshadows the performances by the supporting cast altogether. However, Miko, Jane, and Pearlman acted their usually niche within cinema more or less the same as with other roles they played.
To be more specific on what I mentioned, again, I referred to high-quality science fiction overall and not individual subtypes within it. Usually these are visions written, produced, and directed by one individual or a group. Clearly Equilibrium, Ultraviolet, and Aeon Flux belong in another class from that of this work simply by the means that the former deals with dysopian futures a la 1984 while the latter is species survival/alien/lore fiction. I myself tend to be more forgiving on all entries. This film is by no means perfect, I just opt to look more closely at those who dislike it and their reasons; as if there were a lot of other science fiction releases to choose from.
Enjoy movies, critique life
reply
share
Absolutsublime1
14 years ago
You try to not sound condescending and hence won't apologize for it? That's fine, but come on , "what did you want him to do a half-mutant half-human jig?" that was very condescending. As for the fact that you claim ; "Closer inspection brings up arguable landmarks?" and you further provided a link referencing mars and astro-study, I call b.s. on that. There is no way you could see any "landmarks" from a small quick picture in the movie, you would have no clear point of reference, it didn't zoom in anywhere and you wouldn't be able to define any stars or surface like that, it's just hearsay. Also I certainly do not need a lesson in astro-study and providing such a link is humorous given what is being discussed; The Mutant Chronicles. HOWEVER I will retract my statement if the theatrical version actually zooms in, as the version I saw did not do so and again there was no red planet just a white moon like object.
The version I saw was the 2 disc Directors cut which I purchased on Amazon, so I highly doubt it was unfinished or just for critics as it is mass produced. There was 9 minutes edited out of the movie apparently to help the pacing and flow.
I have not been able to find a definite list of which scenes were edited out and if the Mars ending was different in the directors cut or not. I can only assume that is the case. I might try to take a screen shot of the movie and post it somewhere to give a better idea of the ending I saw.
I disagree with a lot of what you said especially in regards to the coherency and logic, the editing had much to do with this, however it is pointless to try to convince someone of an opinion.
I full heartedly agree that John Malkovich was criminally underused. I completely disgree that the rest of the supporting cast acted accordingly with the other roles they have played in different movies. I've read other posters on here say their performances were "mailed in", which I wouldn't go that far it was clear it wasn't their best performances but perhaps they were told to underplay their reactions and lines.
I will say I try to not be as harsh as I know a lot of these movies are a labor of love for the writers/directors and everyone involved often put their blood, sweat, tears into a movie. That being said I still cannot give this a pass for being a stand out feature. While above average in a select few aspects, it was slightly below average for me overall.
I am curious, what did you rate this film out of 10 stars?
reply
share
MightyMolecule
14 years ago
You try to not sound condescending and hence won't apologize for it? That's fine, but come on , "what did you want him to do a half-mutant half-human jig?" that was very condescending.
No, I was actually being serious to further stress my point of how inappropriate an exuberant display of joy would have been for Jane's character there and then after all of which I mentioned transpired. That question wasn't rhetorical,
what did you expect?
There is no way you could see any "landmarks" from a small quick picture in the movie, you would have no clear point of reference, it didn't zoom in anywhere and you wouldn't be able to define any stars or surface like that, it's just hearsay. Also I certainly do not need a lesson in astro-study and providing such a link is humorous given what is being discussed; The Mutant Chronicles. HOWEVER I will retract my statement if the theatrical version actually zooms in, as the version I saw did not do so and again there was no red planet just a white moon like object.
The link is to demonstrate elementary support for a very simple observation of Mars over Moon theory. I hope this doesn't read too condescending but the humor, actually, is your disbelief to the contrary and disregard to the matter despite ironically maintaining the topic you originally posted about. The fact I required "proof" in the form of anything (i.e. url) further showcases this. Furthermore, your opposition to a friendly suggestion for an initial query starting point implies you don't want to solve your own question, maintain suspense to the matter, or perhaps too stubborn to believe anything else other than the Earth's moon....
The version I saw was the 2 disc Directors cut which I purchased on Amazon, so I highly doubt it was unfinished or just for critics as it is mass produced. There was 9 minutes edited out of the movie apparently to help the pacing and flow.
I have not been able to find a definite list of which scenes were edited out and if the Mars ending was different in the directors cut or not. I can only assume that is the case. I might try to take a screen shot of the movie and post it somewhere to give a better idea of the ending I saw.
I have the "cutting room floor" version so to speak so perhaps it is what I am viewing as the version not completed. In my studio now and I have quickly pulled up a freeze frame and transitional crop with a 5 second interval. All 1080p - 400Hz runs. Depending on the freeze it will appear many hues of auburn. The sequence crop does it more justice and is definitively Mars. The initial scene start has a mostly opaque, non-white planet with easily discernible Pavonis Mons and Olympus Mons landmarks of which the planet saturates increasingly towards a red hue every hundred of a second until fade out to black. Perhaps the producers went back and arranged a full-white intro that was maintained for the duration of the scene (if not longer - say every 1:1000) in order to create confusion to the destination. I will eventually get ahold of the commercial version and run the entire Adobe CS5 gauntlet on it (production pro, premiere, etc.) for funzies to see the actual numerical levels of color for any change.
I disagree with a lot of what you said especially in regards to the coherency and logic, the editing had much to do with this, however it is pointless to try to convince someone of an opinion.
I value your opinion. If it isn't too much go ahead and list/support why, of those particular aspects, you felt they weren't up to snuff. I'm easily convinced on supported positions.
I full heartedly agree that John Malkovich was criminally underused. I completely disgree that the rest of the supporting cast acted accordingly with the other roles they have played in different movies. I've read other posters on here say their performances were "mailed in", which I wouldn't go that far it was clear it wasn't their best performances but perhaps they were told to underplay their reactions and lines.
Go back to Equilibrium with Sean Pertwee, Sin City with Devon Aoki, and more-or-less most of Pearlman's works and compare the roles/performances once again. Verbatim acting turnout. Benno Fürmann and Tom Wu were surprises. Pras' character was the only benign figure apart from the underused character of Constantine. Again, I said the script was tight but cliched, I never said it was stellar.
I am curious, what did you rate this film out of 10 stars?
No, I actually didn't rate this film to be honest. I suppose a 6-7 is in order if I were to. Make no mistake, I am a fan of sci-fi as a collective. I decided to answer your particular question on this forum because I thought the destination of Mars was immediately inferred from one viewing.
Enjoy movies, critique life
reply
share
SATerp
13 years ago
My guess is, somebody did an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" job on the Director's Cut, turning it from a fairly 'evil' ending into a benign one.
In the version I saw, the rocket flies past a white orb, pretty obviously the moon, then a few seconds later in a second shot heads toward what is clearly Mars.
reply
share