Prompted by the DVD release of Jumper last week, I wrote this gallery about some of sci-fi’s greatest misfires. Read the full post.
Jun 16
2008
02:42 PM ET
In defense of the sci-fi misfire
- Comments 63
- Add comment
Latest News
- 'DWTS': Season 14 winning team is...
- 'American Idol': Notes from inside the Nokia
- 'American Idol' poll: Jessica or Phillip?
- 'True Blood': New showrunner is...
- 'Deadliest Catch' clip: Rescue at sea!
- Michael McKean hit by car in NYC
- 'Great Gatsby': Gonzo new trailer
- Nick Offerman: Blond to 'have more fun'?
Most Commented
Top 5 Most Read
- ‘Dancing With the Stars’: Season 14 winner is….
- On the scene at ‘American Idol’ finale: The audience at Nokia Theatre clearly liked Phillip Phillips better than…
- ‘Glee’ season finale: Who made it to New York?
- ‘American Idol’: Did Phillip or Jessica win the night?
- ‘Deadliest Catch’: Greenhorn medical emergency on the Wizard — EXCLUSIVE VIDEO
Well, most of these did have at least an argument for why they ended up on the misfire list… the exception being Event Horizon. You watch an sf/horror film, and then declare it a failure because, “Oh, I dunno, the whole ‘Passing through an alternate dimension and bringing back something that is inimical to mankind’ just seemed kinda horror-movie inspired.” That is perhaps the single stupidest thing I have ever read by a professional writer. I mean, back in third grade, didn’t they teach you that when you’re assessing something, “Oh, I dunno, um, it sucks” is not, in fact, criticism or assessment. It is immature nonsense. “Oh, sure, Citizen Kane was interesting, but that whole ‘detective hunting down clues’ thing felt kinda weak.” There. Can I have your job now? Or do I have to put a screenshot next to my “review?”
I can’t believe there’s any question about Blade Runner’s greatness, at all. I have nothing against Jurassic Park, and am even amused/pleased with the fact its being judged up against such epic classics as Blade Runner, but, really? We’re at a point in which its legitimate to be nonchalant about Blade Runner? It was always good. Depends which version you pick I suppose, but enough of this “visually good, potentially better” business. Really? That’s such an empty argument. Any film could arguably be narratively stronger, or even vaguer, ‘better’. I can’t believe I was offended/moved enough by the original boring and shallow remarks to write this.
How ridiculous. I don’t understand how you could say that all the time in the movie was spent staring at dinosaurs and they never did anything. Within the first 5 minutes of the someone was already killed, if gore is what you want. And I can’t agree that only the last twenty minutes had action, what about the Jeep chase? Or the death of Gennaro? The attack on the cars? The suspenseful journey to the shed? You must have the attention span of a gnat. Not to mention, all the characters you care about are not recovered. Muldoon and Arnold, both very likeable characters, are eaten.