Stinker Movies.

[Damocles]

Mission to Mars (2000)

* Factual errors: While looking at a DNA sequence Terri Fisher says that the last two chromosomes are missing. What is missing is actually the last two nucleotides. DNA does not have chromosomes.

* Factual errors: When looking at the DNA model, only a few base pairs of the DNA are shown. All DNA is exactly the same regardless of what organism it comes from. The only differences lie in the sequences of the nucleotide bases. It is absolutely undeniably impossible to distinguish human DNA from any other type of DNA based on the very short stretch of bases shown in the figure at which the scientist proclaims "that DNA looks human." Humans have over 3 billion bases, and almost all of them are in common with other primates. A few bases will never be enough to prove that any DNA is human in any time period or technology level. It is thus a gross contradiction of scientific fact.

* Revealing mistakes: In the weightless scene inside the space station, Woody's watch slips down his arm, indicating the presence of gravity.

* Factual errors: When Woody Blake takes his helmet off in space he freezes instantly. This would not happen, as heat transfer in a vacuum is inefficient. He would probably suffer from oxygen deprivation (and, if he didn't exhale promptly, the bends and pressure differentials) first.

* Factual errors: When on the planet of Mars we continually hear sounds. There is only an insignificant atmosphere and so we wouldn't hear anything except for the radio in their helmet/rocket.

* Factual errors: When the three astronauts enter the alien structure and view the solar system model, all the planets (and the Earth's moon) are revolving in the wrong direction. Viewed from the Northern hemisphere, planets rotate counter-clockwise around the Sun, and so does the Moon around the Earth. It is possible that the alien solar system model is seen from the other orientation i.e. our Southern hemispheres of the planets are on top for them. However a Mars with large ocean masses in the top hemisphere is seen, which is in fact our Northern hemisphere of Mars, assuming that water filled the depressions on Mars long ago.

* Continuity: While viewing the DNA sequence on the computer, the cable on the left side is plugged in, and then out, and then in again.

* Factual errors: Inside the face, Jim checks the screen on his wrist to see what the gasses were in the room. It reads "Nitrogen 57% Oxygen 20% Trace Gasses 1%" which doesn't add up to 100%. The nitrogen should be at 79%.

* Factual errors: The walls of the tent should be fully inflated by the much higher pressure inside, compared to the low atmospheric pressure of Mars.

* Factual errors: Because there is no pressure in the outer space, the astronaut's space suits should look swollen since there is air pressure inside them. However, in the movie astronauts suits look normal when they are in the open space (we can see changing wrinkles). The same is valid for when they are on Mars surface.

* Factual errors: The Mars Recovery vehicle is shown pointing forward before it attempted to go into orbit. Any spacecraft would have to point backwards in the direction of negative acceleration, and thus slowdown, to enter orbit.

* Factual errors: During the scene where Terri attempts to rescue Woody she resets her fuel readout to 100%, it is then stated that by using only 50% of her fuel the remaining 50% would get her back, This is incorrect. The first 50% would allow her to reach a certain velocity in respect to the ship, the remaining 50% would only allow her to get back to the same velocity as the ship not to the ship itself.

* Factual errors: When Phil Ohlmyer shows the "DNA-model" of his dream woman to Jim McConnell, the free floating candy moves in a circular motion around the center of the model. Unless the candy is interconnected, this would be impossible to obtain in real life, as the individual pieces of candy can only have a straight line of motion. Even if you would rotate one candy in a circular motion and then release it, it would continue in a straight line tangent to the circle.

* Factual errors: In the movie it stated that the 23 chromosomes came from Mars about a million years ago and set off the explosive growth on the planet Earth. This is not true at all. Humans are the only organisms that have 23 chromosome sets [we are diploid having 46 actual chromosomes]. Different organisms have a different number of chromosomes so sending 23 chromosomes to earth wouldn't have really started the 'explosive growth of life on the earth'. Ferns for example have over 1000 chromosome sets.

* Factual errors: When Woody removes his helmet, he would freeze because boiling point is a function of pressure. As the suit pressure went to zero, moisture in his body would quickly boil away, and subject to Boyle's law, would rapidly cool.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183523/goofs

There are many more goofs, bad story, and bad acting besides, but you get the point.,

D.

[Kester Pelagius]

Up until I scanned down and saw the link to IMDB I was thinking: "Good gravy, this man either has a LOT of free time or Mission to Mars really got under his skin!"

Still a fascinating read, even if it requires the reader put more thought into the movie than the script writer's apparently did.

:salute:

[Damocles]

Uh. I cite with a link when I post other's research. I forgot to quote encapsulate.

Anyway, its a turkey.

[Dawg]

Hmm. We have a contradiction within the list:

* Factual errors: When Woody Blake takes his helmet off in space he freezes instantly. This would not happen, as heat transfer in a vacuum is inefficient. He would probably suffer from oxygen deprivation (and, if he didn't exhale promptly, the bends and pressure differentials) first.
and
* Factual errors: When Woody removes his helmet, he would freeze because boiling point is a function of pressure. As the suit pressure went to zero, moisture in his body would quickly boil away, and subject to Boyle's law, would rapidly cool.

Can't have it both ways........

I saw the movie. Moving scene. The movie as a whole, though, was a solid "eh".

I did like the way the tiny meteorite punctured the ship and the guy's hand.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Damocles]

Hmm. We have a contradiction within the list:

* Factual errors: When Woody Blake takes his helmet off in space he freezes instantly. This would not happen, as heat transfer in a vacuum is inefficient. He would probably suffer from oxygen deprivation (and, if he didn't exhale promptly, the bends and pressure differentials) first.

and
* Factual errors: When Woody removes his helmet, he would freeze because boiling point is a function of pressure. As the suit pressure went to zero, moisture in his body would quickly boil away, and subject to Boyle's law, would rapidly cool.

Can't have it both ways........

I saw the movie. Moving scene. The movie as a whole, though, was a solid "eh".

I did like the way the tiny meteorite punctured the ship and the guy's hand.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

The word is sublimation:

You can freeze outside and boil inside at the same time, if the pressure is low enough and if you have a separating membrane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(chemistry)

Also time is a factor.

[Dawg]

I am familiar with sublimation. Having grown up with a chemist father, I daresay I am at least as familiar with it as anyone else outside a lab. It is the process by which a solid becomes a gas without the intervening liquid stage. Dry ice is a perfect example, as there is no liquid produced as it "melts", it just evaporates.

Can't quite get the process working with a human body in a vacuum, though. I'll take your word for it because the picture my mind is painting is kind of gross......

;)

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Gemini1999]

Despite the flaws in the storytelling and a large dollop of wonky science, I really enjoyed Mission to Mars. I liked the characters in the film and how they interacted with each other. I largely enjoyed the visuals in the film as well. I just found it entertaining to watch - to me, the difference between Mission to Mars and Red Planet is similar to the paring of "asteroid hits the Earth" films Deep Impact and Armageddon. Mission to Mars makes an honest, but off kilter attempt to show the concept of traveling to Mars, where Red Planet is just an outer space horror tale with an angry robot beast hunting down the characters. Mission to Mars may not be great art, but I enjoy watching it as a form of entertainment. The only two bits of the film that grate on me were the scenes where the ship is holed by a micrometoroid and the deadly slow pacing along with the plodding score that accompanies it. The other is the end of the film that depicts a mysterious Martian hand in the genesis of life on Earth. I've always liked the "life here began out there" idea, but in this film it just falls short of interesting. It reminds me of the underwater alien scenes in The Abyss.

I think I'll have to go buy this on DVD - I've not seen it in a long while...

Bryan

[Damocles]

Vacuum sublimation is caused at the skin (the membrane I mentioned) where the oils and the sweat that you exude constantly flash freezes. Meanwhile, the sudden droip in pressure on you causes you to suffer the bends and as the vacuum works its effects into you internally; your body's inside pressure drops over a minute or so and your blood boils until the cold eventually freezes it solid. Rough analogy: frozen blood sausage subjected to a 5 minute microwaving on HIGH.

Ugh!

[Damocles]

Mission to Mars is better than Star Trek: Nemesis. I'll give it that.

[gmd3d]

Damocles some times it like been in a class room reading your posts :) :) lucky I can have a peak at a dictionary at time to check on the meaning of some words ..

to the subject .. Mission to Mars .. I never got into and as for STN the less said the better .

[Damocles]

Notice who was featured in STN(k)R?

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/images/issue/420/star-trek-nemesis_420.jpg

http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/StarTrek_Nemesis_560x330_MCDSTTR_PA028_H.jpg

Yeah so bad an actor that they had to hire somebody competent to play his CLONE; because the casting director knew Chromedome couldn't carry off a split role like

http://bp0.blogger.com/_6xoH967aC00/RYE5LOWFfuI/AAAAAAAAAGc/IX0YZlEqouE/s320/st006.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/gallery/images/340/toskirk2.jpg

Yeah that is "The Enemy Within" from which Berman ripped off "Nemesis".

Outkirk Kirk? Can't even lick the shadow of Kirk's footsteps off the floor!

[Gemini1999]

Damocles -

You're going to have to make up your mind about what it is that you want to bash. One moment, you're going on about bad movies, but then the next moment, you're going on about who's a bad actor. Frankly, you've got so many "Why I hate....." topics going, I know a whole lot about what you don't like, which is pretty broad, but almost nothing about what you do actually like or admire. The topic is about bad movies - you started it, now stick to it.


That being said, I'm going to respond to your crticism of Patrick Stewart as an actor. Have you ever seen the man's work outside of TNG? Patrick Stewart may not be the pinnacle when it comes to acting talent, but in terms of his work and the characters he's portrayed, I find him very versatile and layered when it comes to what he's capable of. Comparing Stewart to Shatner as an actor is pretty much an apples to oranges comparison. They're not even the same type of actor, in style or presence. I feel that each has plenty to offer on many levels, but that doesn't make one actor better than another, merely different.

Back to the movie thing - first you start out by saying that one movie is bad, but then you throw in another bad movie that's even worse (Nemesis), but fault Stewart for his performance, but accuse Berman and Braga of ripping off a TOS Trek episode in the process. Either the movie's bad because of the writing, or the performing. If the material is bad, you can't fault the actors for having very little to work with. If the script is bad, not even top notch performances can save it. Conversely, you can have a great script, but have the film ruined by poor performances. In terms of Nemesis, I would put the failure on the writers and the producers because the film is completely unwatchable. I've tried once or twice on AMC when they broadcast it - I'd go as far to say that it is far worse than Trek V, which used to be my least favorite Trek film. Trek V still isn't a great film, but it's not nearly as horrible as Nemesis when all is said and done.

Just on a personal note, I feel that you're stuck in that "I hate TNG" groove even though that's in a different thread. Even if the movie was bad, I really think that it's the TNG connection that bothers you most.

Bryan

[Damocles]

Gemini

A movie is built on five parts:

Story
Character
Acting
Filming technique (direction)
Art of the setting.(the look)

Any one of the five fails and you have a clunker.

An example of a good movie where it all comes together is Forbidden Planet. Here you have a great story "A Midsummer Night's BEM", great actors; Walter Pidgeon, Leslie Nielson, Cameron Mitchell, Ann Francis (eye candy) Jack Kelly, Richard Anderson, Earl Holliman, darn even the robot and the monster could ACT!

You had set design that was fantastic that dictated what would be called the "Irwin Allen Look" when he copied it years later. The story rollicked along crisply with no dead time or distractions from the plotline, Fred Wilcox never did finer work in his life as a director, with what was a rather thin script when you tear into it. Everybody had fun on that movie. It shows! It was ensemble work where everyone climbed above potential-even Earl Holliman as Cookie with his cliche' comic role made something unique as the robot's drinking buddy.

Another example of this is Iron Man. You can't tell that another otherwise could be pedestrian movie wasn't carried on Morton Downey's back. If he didn't make you believe in Iron Man you would notice the average other four elements and not rate that movie very high. He so carried that movie that he forced good performances out of the rest of the cast, overwhelmed whatever the director thought he was doing, and made that movie SHINE.

The rest of the movie just had to be good enough not to distract from Downey. The art was better than good, as was the writing. Both were clean and crisp and didn't get in the way of character. Ironman was a character study of Tony Stark.

THAT is what I like.

Patrick Stewart in other roles?

Remember "I Claudius"?

gs_mMpBpDn4

Like Jamie Bambir, who has the same defects, in a scene he stinks on ice.

[Kester Pelagius]

Why are we bashing on Patrick Stewart all of a sudden? I thought this thread was about MISSION TO MARS. The man wasn't even in it, was he?

:wtf:

I vaguely recollect I, CLAUDIUS when it aired on PBS. In general I liked it, even though it was a plodding bore at times, but then again that's British acting for you. Still he was probably better in that than he was in LIFEFORCE.

But, since we've gone so far off the rails, I'd like to add. .

* That's NOT what the aliens look like.

* They TOTOALLY got the look of the "face on mars" structure wrong. They show it as a large intact metallic structure when, in reality, it's constructed of cermacrete and has impact damage on it's left side.

* The Martian sky is NOT that color.

* The "tornado" is not really associated with the face structure, that happened when the original expedition from the 50s entered one of the large pyramidal structures and started playing with machinery they knew nothing about.

* If you think I'm making all this up as I go along, you've earned a cookie and some milk. Now run along and play children.

:D

[Damocles]

The title is Stinker Movies.

ST:N(K)R is a stinker movie. Patrick Stewart is one of the reasons it skunked on screen.

Mission to Mars was just an example of a stinker movie.

Here's another :

6cid85WBkvc

It weas supposed to be played for dark humor. It was just an Tim Burton ego-trip mess. Not even funny, iy was long, tedious, boring and stupid. "Robot Monster": with the dressed out dino-geckos and the cast hopped on drugs was funnier and better paced.

D.

[Kester Pelagius]

Oh, well, if we're going to discuss 'stinker' movies in general then what about Space Mutiny (http://cosmic-cinema.blogspot.com/2008/06/space-mutinyfirehead.html)?

We can't have a discussion on Colonial Fleets about bad moies without at least mentioning Space Mutiny!

I believe there's a unfilmed BSG script with a similar premise. Anyone know if there's any connection between the two?

[Damocles]

I thought that stinker was made in Canada! Waste of a good actor, Cameron Mitchell.

[Damocles]

A_bNDv0-ZrU

Brown steaming goo. All five key categories.

[Damocles]

George Lucass put the metaphorical gun to his head and killed the franchise with this one>

3W5DVIz6gqs

http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/starWarsE3.html

I could add that the acting was terrible and the story was a complete waste of celluloid, but why bother?

[Gemini1999]

George Lucass put the metaphorical gun to his head and killed the franchise with this one>

I could add that the acting was terrible and the story was a complete waste of celluloid, but why bother?

Note: There's only one "s" in "Lucas"......:D

[Damocles]

Note: There's only one "s" in "Lucas"......:D

Depends on which end of the "horse" you see.

Today's Stinker:

60GR3vNKHt8

This is BORING.

Its right out of every bad anime fight cartoon out there, and that was the GOOD part of that drek movie!

[Gemini1999]

Depends on which end of the "horse" you see.


Sorry, I just thought it was poor spelling (a private irritation of mine). My bad....:D

[Kester Pelagius]

You know it still takes me a moment to read "episode 3" and have my brain click over to "it's the prequel trilogy" - mostly because my brain doesn't want to remember Jar-Jar trying desperately to be Har-Har hilarious but only being a piddling nuisance or. .

:headgosploidy:

[Damocles]

Darn! I was avoiding that whatever it was.

-seLpFsK784

[AJMarks]

By far the worst movie I've sat through (after buying a ticket) was Wing Commander. I kept saying it can't get any worse, and it kept getting worse.

[Kester Pelagius]

But did you find it bad because you were a fan of the game or just simply because you felt it was a poorly scripted movie with a barely believable story and ridiculous looking fighter craft?

[Gemini1999]

But did you find it bad because you were a fan of the game or just simply because you felt it was a poorly scripted movie with a barely believable story and ridiculous looking fighter craft?

I'd like to chime in on that one....

I was introduced to Wing Commander as a PC game through a roommate. I loved playing the game as I found it very challenging and exciting - especially because it was a computer game that was able to entertain.

When I heard that a film was coming out, I was pretty excited about it because at that point, it had been quite a few years since I had played the game. I wondered what it would be like as a film. Would it be just as exciting to watch as it was to play? I could only wonder until the film came out. When Wing Commander came out as a film, I saw little tiny bits of what I experienced as a game, but not much more than that. The film was nearly unrecognizable compared to what I knew. I know that there's always something lost in the translation to film, but in this case, too much was cast aside.

I found the casting to be largely uninteresting and the VFX to be only moderately good. The story......well, it's been a long time and the only thing I can remember is the metaphysical mumbo jumbo surrounding the lead character, which just felt shoehorned into the story to provide an air of mystery. The fact that I've completely forgotten the rest of the film just proves to me that the film didn't have much to remember it by.

There are other films that I have seen way before it - both good and bad, but I remember more about those films than I do Wing Commander...

Bryan

[AJMarks]

Actually I never played the game. The main actor and actress had no chemisty on teh screen for me.

[Damocles]

By far the worst movie I've sat through (after buying a ticket) was Wing Commander. I kept saying it can't get any worse, and it kept getting worse.

I liked Wing Commander! I could point at the screen and make derisive comments and nobody would throw me out of the theater!

d.

[AJMarks]

Most movies made by the sci-fi channel (those animal movies are terrible).

Another movie I didn't like that much (and people will disagree with me here) is Ironman. I don't read the comics and went with a friend and I knew what was going to happen in every scene. It was way too perdicitible.

[Damocles]

By far the worst movie I've sat through (after buying a ticket) was Wing Commander. I kept saying it can't get any worse, and it kept getting worse.

Most movies made by the sci-fi channel (those animal movies are terrible).

Another movie I didn't like that much (and people will disagree with me here) is Ironman. I don't read the comics and went with a friend and I knew what was going to happen in every scene. It was way too perdicitible.

Shrug, I examined Ironman for the five criticals and I thought it met all five goals. Even Gwyneth Paltrow didn't stink and she usually does.

[AJMarks]

Acting was good in ironman, but the storyline for me was way to predictable and therefore too away from would have been a good movie. For me the storyline is the biggest thing, you can have all the best actors, special effects and sounds but if the storyline isn’t there, it will take away from the movie.

[Damocles]

Shrug. Story is important but with the mediocre writers we have today, I'll take what I can get.

[Kester Pelagius]

Bryan,

Never really played WC. Think I had a demo of one of the later versions of the game, but all I remember about it was my joystick awas $#^! and my PC didn't quite seem to be fast enough so I kept veering to the left, shooting late, which for some reason made the other pilots think my character was a traitor so I got fragged. A lot.

However what's really sad is your comments apply to SOOO many other movie adaptations of games it's not funny.

Viz.

I was introduced to DOOM as a PC game through a roommate. I loved playing the game as I found it very challenging and exciting - especially because it was a computer game that was able to entertain.

When I heard that a film was coming out, I was pretty excited about it because at that point, it had been quite a few years since I had played the game. I wondered what it would be like as a film. Would it be just as exciting to watch as it was to play? I could only wonder until the film came out. When DOOM came out as a film, I saw little tiny bits of what I experienced as a game, but not much more than that. The film was nearly unrecognizable compared to what I knew. I know that there's always something lost in the translation to film, but in this case, too much was cast aside.

Amen, brother.

:salute:

[Damocles]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100649/

The Movie is Solar Crisis.

[Gemini1999]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100649/

The Movie is Solar Crisis.

Oh, now...

I've actually got Solar Crisis on DVD. I got it pretty cheap though. I liked the SciFi part of the story. I also liked some of the actors, soundtrack and even the VFX. Considering that it was a Japanese production, it was far better than what people were used to back then. The film came out in the very early 90's as I recall. I first saw it on VHS tape through a local video rental shop around 1993 or so.

The part of the film that just doesn't work is the stuff that takes place on Earth. You'd think that they'd focus on the effect that the Sun is having on our planet, but no....they go with the "evil corporation" crap and have one of the characters be the son and grandson of two other characters in the film. The son/grandson is being hunted down for no real apparent reason (that I recall).

The film had a pretty well known cast for some roles - Charlton Heston, Tim Matheson, Peter Boyle, Jack Palance, Dorian Harewood were in it. The grandson was played by Corin Nemec, who Stargate fans know as Jonas Quinn from Season 6 of Stargate SG-1.

On the whole, the film isn't very memorable, but for some reason, part of the film stuck with me over the years. When I saw it in the 5 dollar bin at Wal Mart, I figured that the price was just about right.

Bryan

[Damocles]

I didn't like it for much the same reason I didn't like Heston's monkey movies. Bad science. Today's stinker:

I8F92p1ept0

The trailer is the movie. Two words: Dolph Lundgrun.

Yetch.

[Gemini1999]

I didn't like it for much the same reason I didn't like Heston's monkey movies. Bad science. Today's stinker:

The trailer is the movie. Two words: Dolph Lundgrun.

Yetch.

You mean Dolph Lundgren?

[Damocles]

You mean Dolph Lundgren?

The correct spelling is "Doof Lungegrunt".

Picky, picky, yeah that "actor".

[Kester Pelagius]

I, too, have Solar Crisis on DVD. Found it at a Big Lots for $3. Sort of watched it. Seemed okay, better than some of my other Big Lots scores. DVDs like:

COVERT ONE: THE HADES FACTOR

Apparently this was a mini-series. Apparently I even watched part of it because part way through it I realized I'd seen a scene. Which makes this is a totally forgettable OUTBREAK/ANDROMEDA STRAIN wannabe.

DECOYS

Imagine you're a low budget Canadian filmmaker. Now imagine you've decided to emulate SPECIES sans the eroticism, big budget VFX, and veteran actors. If you can manage to imagine all that then there's no real reason to watch this movie. Or it's sequel, which I also picked up, but left in the cellophane.

Anyone know if BRAINSTORM, APRIL FOOLS DAY, or EATING RAOUL are worth watching? I picked those up too.

[Gemini1999]

nyone know if BRAINSTORM, APRIL FOOLS DAY, or EATING RAOUL are worth watching? I picked those up too.

KP -

I haven't seen the latter two films, but I have Brainstorm on DVD - It's been one of my favorite films over the years. Not a favorite in terms of a blockbuster film or anything, but this is one of those films that really grabs me. I've always been a big fan of Natalie Wood and this film was the film she was working on when she died from an accidental drowning on 1981. It was her final film and I just had to see it. There are some really good performances in the film from Louise Fletcher, Christopher Walken and Cliff Robertson. The film was directed by Douglas Trumbull who most of us remember him from his special effects work in films like Blade Runner, Star Trek The Motion Picture, Silent Running, The Andromeda Strain and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

If you want to see a trailer for it, they've got one over at Netflix:

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Brainstorm/328880?trkid=222336&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=506863158_0_0

Now that I've been talking about it, I'm gonna have to pull the DVD out and watch it again...it's been awhile.

Bryan

[Damocles]

Another Tim Burton debacle:

I1lZ3un-kcg

Why do they let this guy make movies again?

[Kester Pelagius]

So I popped Brainstorm into my DVD player.

My first reaction was: O-M-G it's a gimmick film and the gimmick is effing annoying! It's a WS presentation and, being far from an expert, I'd say it looks like the movie was originally shot in something like regular 35mm with super 70mm for the "virtual" visualisations and while that may have looked awesome on the big screen it's annoying as h#!! on the small screen. Takes you right out of the movie.

My second reaction after the movie had been playing awhile was: O-M-G I saw this ages ago and it ends with a pyschadellic "trip" sequence. I wasn't sure of the latter but, upon skipping chapters to the end, I ejected the disc in disgust as, once I realized I'd seen the movie, there really was no point to watch it. Nothing happens. It's just one long build up to the VFX ending and the gimmick SFX of switching aspect ratios was too annoying, for me.

However if you've never seen the movie it's not a bad watch, I suppose. But not remotely worth revisiting, IMO, unless it's in full screen or on a theatre screen.

[Damocles]

It skunked the first time I saw it. Silent Running was a nifty little filmTrumball turned out; but this dopey piece of celluloid (Brainstorm) was just a precursor or rather a slightly better first version of Strange Days with none of that crummy movie's technical glitches or half baked story continuity errors that made Strange Days so comical and Brainstorm as a point by the numbers movie, so DULL.

No wonder Natalie Wood killed herself. What a way to wreck a career!

[Kester Pelagius]

That comment about Natalie Wood was a bit harsh.

Back to Brainstorm...

You know, now that you mention it, I didn't really care for Strange Days either. It's one of those movies when you ask someone if it's worth watching the ONLY thing they can think of to recommend it is that someone shows her tatas. Not that I have anything against actresses showing their tatas (in fact I think that's what's missing in movies today, not enough tatas) but when that's the ONLY reason someone gives you to watch a movie that's not explicitly a softcore T&A flick or porno one does wonder how bad said movie must be. :rolleyes:

However, storywise, Strange Days was probably more interesting than Brainstorm. The latter is really a Twilight Zone episode padded out to feature length. But if not for that gimmick of switching aspect ratios so the screen goes from this little box with a picture in a field of black to FULL widescreen (with just black bars top and bottom) I'd probably have enjoyed Brainstorm a lot more. Sometimes a gimmick ruins a movie.

[Damocles]

Harsh, but unfortunately true.

Did you ever get the feeling that Kathy Bigelow, James Cameron, and Jay Cocks somehow watched Brainstorm and glommed onto the Rodney King incident as the actual inspiration for Strange Days? That would explain how disjointed and comical that movie turned out to be to me as written and filmed. Toss in Philo Gant (Phil Spector in all but name) and the LAPD as the usual bad guys and you have a mess that passes for "cyber punk filmmaking".

Shrug. Ultimately the movie was nihilistic, over complex for the stupidly simple story it tried to tell, and no fun at all too watch.

Brainstorm had a single minded story. It missed the mark when it overplayed the mind recording gimmick and failed to exploit the husband wife conflict.

Trumball forgot what made Silent Running work-character.

[martok2112]

You could set out to make your own movie....and see what people think.


BTW, in the clip from I, Claudius, is that Sian Phillips in the scene with Stewart? If so, she also performed in Dune (1984) as did Stewart.

[Gemini1999]

You could set out to make your own movie....and see what people think.


BTW, in the clip from I, Claudius, is that Sian Phillips in the scene with Stewart? If so, she also performed in Dune (1984) as did Stewart.




Ooooo! I love Patrick Stewart as Gurney Hallick! I need to go watch that film again!

Thanks for the reminder Steve!

Bryan

[martok2112]

Ooooo! I love Patrick Stewart as Gurney Hallick! I need to go watch that film again!

Thanks for the reminder Steve!

Bryan

Yeah....I liked him in that role. If you get a chance, watch the extended version of the movie. :)

And, you're welcome.