There were a few obvious duds on there (Virtuosity, The Island of Dr. Moreau), but there were a few surprises on there. I liked Demolition Man, but it was effective as an action movie, but not a sci-fi movie, so I don't object to that. Even Jurassic Park, which was very entertaining, impeccably directed and was a special effects breakthrough may belong on here, because if you take away the special effects, what else is actually left? Were there any memorable HUMAN characters in the movie? Even Samuel L. Jackson faded into the background, because it's hard to be a Bad Mother F****** if you spend the whole movie sitting in front of a computer only to get up and get your arm bitten off.
Anyway, the movies that really did surprise me were Signs and Blade Runner. Don't read on if you haven't seen either of these movies, because there are major spoilers ahead.
First of all, Signs was a great story about how a family bonds together during a crisis, which
just so happens to be an alien attack on Earth. I believe it is M. Night Shyalaman's best movie to date, and has great acting and great directing. Mel Gibson nailed the part and gave an effectively subdued performance as a fallen pastor, and Joaquin Phoenix adds some dry humor to the film as the pastor's younger brother.
Even though I loved this film, I can understand why EW put this on their list as a poor sci-fi effort. They wondered why aliens who are severely harmed by water would try to invade a planet which 2/3 of is covered by water. Oddly enough, a friend of mine also mentioned the same theory when he ripped the movie apart several years ago when it was released. He even asked why the aliens weren't hurt by the dew on the corn and grass.
However, the biggest travesty is the inclusion of "Blade Runner" on this list. "Blade Runner" very well could be the greatest sci-fi movie ever made. EW calls the story "rote at best." Were they watching the same movie? This story is original, thought-provoking, and well-executed on screen. The special effects and visual look were way ahead of their time in 1982. They also call the performances "cold and flat," but failed to mention that these performances perfectly fit the tone of the movie! After all, the movie is about replicants. Director Ridley Scott even mentioned that Deckard, Harrison Ford's character, is a replicant, which becomes all the more believable after repeat viewings. What were they thinking?
1 comment:
I agree with you completely. Signs is a great movie, and it remains great even after multiple viewings. The water thing is kinda ridiculous, but I'm judging it for the great movie that preceded the denouement. BLADE RUNNER???? Un-f******-believable how they can trivialize what is probably the the most important sci-fi film of all time! Every single "original" scifi movie after Blade Runner stole something from it, may it be the look or the story. I have the super duper five disc edition DVD, with five different versions of the movie. Would they really bother if this wasn't a masterpiece? Tell me honestly the chase scene between Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer isn't one of the best that scifi has ever produced. EW, this article needs to shampoo my crotch.
Post a Comment