Change Your Image
Liederhoseni
Other than that, I guess I don't have much to say.
Reviews
Quest of the Delta Knights (1993)
Heinlein Pirated!
I just want to inform some people that Robert A. Heinlein wrote a wonderful novel called CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY. It is one of my favorite science fiction novels.
However, I am annoyed by the movie QUEST OF THE never mind I don't even feel like completing the title.
Why do I mention it?
When I first saw this on MST3K, I saw so many things that had apparently been lifted right out of the beginning of CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY: The slave boy in bandages purchased by the beggar who turns out to really be a spy... At the auction scene, the beggar even does the same thing in his bidding--he bids a certain number, but several denominations of currency lower than expected, and is sold the slave after all because nobody else wants him.
To those who said there were some neat things that could have been done with this movie, I say read Heinlein's CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY.
Impostor (2001)
Clarification
Certainly, IMPOSTOR might not rank in the ten greatest science fiction epics of all time, but I just want to make clarifications.
First of all, several commentors have said that this movie borrows heavily from BLADE RUNNER and TOTAL RECALL. Some are aware of this, but many of the reviewers seem to be ignorant of the fact that all works were written by the same author.
Second, many of the best movies--especially science fiction movies--were despised and lambasted in their own times. Sometimes this is because the plots are too cerebral, but sometimes it's because the style of the film is not what is popular at the time.
I say this not to chastise those who say they do not like this film. I say this only to reprimand those who feel they have the moral obligation and divine right to call this the worst film ever made. A request for all reviewers: tell me your opinions, but do not tell me what mine should be.
Dah svidanya.
Le Cinquième Élément (1997)
Relax
I think its fairly danged obvious that this film was not made to be taken seriously. It certainly doesn't take itself seriously. It's just a fun movie. The Anti-Blade Runner, if you will. Does every science fiction movie have to suffer the endlessly pointless scrutiny of a thousand Star Trek fans and somebody who has read a physics book?
Certainly, it's not the best movie I've ever seen, and it probably won't be showing up on any AFI lists, but there are some times whenever I don't want to watch Citizen Kane or even Brazil, but just an entertaining little flick.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1981)
The proper frame of mind
I see all of these comments for HGG, negative and otherwise, and feel I must point out what Adams himself said. He said that basically, each time he made a version of HGG, it contradicted the previous version. The book contradicts the radio show, and is in turn contradicted by the TV treatment. Even within the mediums, they contradict themselves. While reading the books will help you understand what is going on in some places, it must be remembered that they are separate works, and are freely allowed to run amok because thats what Adams wants. For instance, in the TV treatment, the gang goes to Milliways from Magrathea, but from Frogstar World B in the book, the Magrathea again (before?) in the radio version. Now, if you watch the show and grade it on its own merit and still hate it, fine enough. I for one like seeing it done differently, because it gives Adams a chance to bring out some completely new material and situations that he wouldn't be able to explore if he followed the "original" text by the letter.
The Road to Wellville (1994)
There have only been four movies I have hated.
I won't bother with the other three right now, but this is one of them. You see, hating a film for me requires much more than not liking it. I didn't like INDEPENDENCE DAY, but I didn't, by any means, hate it.
In order for me to hate a film, I must first have some excuse to like it. This film, for instance, has three of my favoriteactors (Broaderick, Cusack, and Hopkins) and is based off of one of my favorite novels.
Many, in defending this film with their reviews, have stated that it was a remarkable portrait of the odd health fads back in the days of high quackery. For those, at the risk of sounding cliched, I recommend T. Coraghesson Boyle's (not certain of the spelling) novel.
I started watching this film the day that I finished reading said novel, and was gravely disappointed in fifteen different directions. The novel had all the intricacies and depth of character as one of Dickens's better novels (HARD TIMES, for example) but the movie reduced this remarkable work into a cheap sex comedy. (I have always felt that writers who go for sexual jokes are going for a cheap and easy laugh. Give me substance!)
However, I'm not going to tell everybody to hate this movie. I'm not a git who thinks that my opinions can be reasonably argued by logic. I do implore, though, that if you are the sort to read a novel, read this one before you jump into the movie.