Quote:
Originally Posted by alkytrio666
I didn't like it- my review's a page or two back if you want articulation.
Theoretically it was well concieved, and there's plenty of good ideas in it, but the central character is as dull and unlikable as they come- so after awhile I was numb to any of his pain.
Effects-wise it was phenomenal, but after awhile I was tired of brain-splatter-camera shots and a film which tried to attain all of its emotional height by close-ups of a man going "Oh fook. Oh fookin shit, man", "You're my fooking wife, man!", "What the fook?!", etc.
|
funny, but it wasnt the documentary approach to the film that achieved realism for me .. it was the man you hated so much.
i thought his character was completely believable. you dont have to like a character for a character to be real. i thought the guy was 100% dead on. there were clues given here and there that painted a much more detailed portrait of the man and his life.. Much more layered than you give credit for.
your criticism to me sounds like the movie isnt cinematic enough .. i can dig it if you dont like documentary style films ..
i dont mind them .. ikeep hearing people moaning about them all being alike ... (but nothing said about the 10,000 of other films all being shot alike in the non documentary style ?
the splatter was real .. these are what these weapons did ..
unless you want to go back to the days of the western where people got shot, bloodlessly held their chest and fell over ... then you might have to deal with realistic violence.
i cna honestly say that there wasnt a frame of this film that ddnt ring true to me with one exception ...
****************************SPOILER*************** ***********
the fuel they needed also triggers a transformation in humans ?
but the film was so good i was easily able to overlook the convenience
edit to add...
now that i think of it- the gun, the ship .. the technology was based on biology - so maybe that wasnt as goofy as i was initially thinking.