Aeon Flux, Talk Amongst Yourselves

Kasracer writes "The movie Aeon Flux has been getting a mixture of reviews since its debut and most tend to be on the negative side. A review posted on BinaryIdiot goes a bit more in-depth than most reviews and gives the movie a fair shot. From the review: "First of all, I have to say that I'm disappointed, but not altogether surprised by the reviews I've seen thus far. Those who review films for a living are notoriously unreliable, and in many cases, they miss the whole point altogether. Rest assured, even though I'm as skeptical as they come, and can find a flaw in absolutely anything, I won't pick on this movie simply because the plot may be too hard for some people to understand." "

Comments

This was a review?

[geeber]

FTFA:

you were able to get into the mindset the movie prepares for you, you'll find these characters as believable and as real as they were meant to be. If you found yourself bored and not at all involved within the first 10 minutes, blame it on your lack of imagination.

and even better:

It's easy to be biased toward Charlize, and if I were capable of being biased toward anyone, it would be her, but I managed to control myself. The way I saw it was that the movie was fantastic and Charlize was phenomenal, but if anyone else had done it (as well as or better) and had that same "it" factor that Charlize has flowing out of every pore on her gorgeous face, I would have felt exactly the same about the film as I do right now. And that is true.

Proof that the ability for any schmo to publish their thoughts for all to see is not necessarily a good thing!

Re:This was a review?

[east coast]

If you found yourself bored and not at all involved within the first 10 minutes, blame it on your lack of imagination.

How is this different from the fanboys who cried out "If you didn't like the Matrix it's because you didn't get the Matrix"? Not that you are one of the fanboys who did that but I recall a time in slashdot history if you said anything bad about the Matrix you got modded as a troll and for those who didn't have mod points to beat you down with you were called a fucktard as they flung daggers at you.

Bottom line? Fanboys suck. I'm afraid that some womans racks is no reason for me to spend 8.50 to see a "geek" flick. That's what eMule is for, after all. I hate to even use the term geek in this context but I guess it is time for me to realize that, frankly, I'm not cool enough to hang with the geek crowd since I don't have the imagination it takes to make crap anime and comic book live action films seem worth my time.

Review summary

[palad1]

1/ Other reviewers are dim-witted and don't look into the real depths of the universe/plot (8 lines) 2/ OMG Charlize is teh Roxor. (40 lines). He may have a point though. (don't you sometimes wish you could mod down an entire story instead of a single comment?)

Re:Review summary

[BarryNorton]

You're reading a movie review on a geek site on a Sunday!

I, for one, am shocked!

[Telecommando]

Aeon Flux had a plot?

That's news to me.

That's not even a review...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a review. It's two or three comments about the movie and a big parahraph about how he's basically got a boner for Charlize Theron. Booooooo.

I saw the movie last night. It was O.K. from a purely entertainment standpoint. I.e. popcorn flick. But I think if you don't know anything about the MTV anime you'll be lost for half the movie (as I was). It was one of those movies that appears to have a ton of backstory but that they had to cut out a lot to make the movie fit in two hours. Jerky editing in some spots too. Bottom line, I think it would've made a decent tv series but not a great movie.

Difficult plot?

[yahyamf]

I won't pick on this movie simply because the plot may be too hard for some people to understand." Who cares for the plot? I only saw this movie because of Charlize Theron, and I understood all about her

I was pleasantly surprised.

[X-rated Ouroboros]

I just went to see Charlize Theron in a series of successively tighter and skimpier leather outfits. While none of her costumes approached the level of Aeon Flux of the Liquid Television era, I wasn't terribly disappointed on that front.

I didn't expect the movie to be very interesting or very good... but it did exceed my, admittedly low, expectations. I don't know that I'd recommend it, but I wouldn't try to talk someone out of seeing it if they were consiering it.

Re:I was pleasantly surprised.

[GreyDuck]

Hear, hear.

I went mainly because my girlfriend wanted to see it. "What? Charlize Theron with dark hair running around blowing shit up? We MUST see this movie!" (Could I love her more? Heh.) I'd seen a few bits and pieces back in the old LTV run, just enough to know that what plot there might be would be fairly thin.

Color me pleasantly surprised. It's not a GREAT movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it held my interest, usually managed a respectable level of internal consistency, and very few of the set pieces or talky bits or wide shots set off my Cringe-O-Meter. The movie telegraphed a couple of the "twists" well in advance, but in a less-hamhanded fashion than one might expect. And for whatever major faults it may have, it looked good through and through... and I'm not just talking about Miz Theron (who makes a far better brunette than blond, it must be said). For instance, the sets don't carry that "we borrowed a university campus for a weekend" feel that we get in so many other B-grade "futuristic" genre flicks.

See it during a matinee, or rent it and watch it on a decent entertainment system. It's worth that, at least.

The problem with the movie

[tkrotchko]

First of all, the movie is a fairly typical Hollywood special effects/sci-fi film. So its entertaining. But it suffers from the same problem as I, Robot, which is to say, it has nothing to do with the what it's named after.

The problem when you watch the original Aeon Flux animated series is that other than people having the same names, it has little in common. Aeon Flux is fairly, er, kinky in the animated series. This is almost a defining part of the role. In the series, the Trevor Goodchild is really a bad guy. In the movie, he's a nice guy who is just misunderstood. In the series, the plots were odd, bordering on bizarre. In the movie, its "good guy trying to save the world".

I'm saying all this as somebody who isn't a particular fan of the series. But the movie just misses the point. I would think they would have been better off making more of the animated series; it would cost less, and probably entertain people more.

Re:The problem with the movie

[displaced80]

I get the feeling however that, should the film have attempted to get the point of the original series, it would never have been released.

Sadly, because of the expense of making a film in this style, the studio's are only going to allow something to be made which they can sell. Even some of the bigger studios who're known to take risks (Miramax, for example) probably wouldn't have touched a true-to-the-series Aeon Flux film with a barge pole.

The only ways I can imagine a 'true' Aeon Flux being made is: someone like Canal+, Momentum or similar pick up the rights and make a grittier, less expensive film. If you choose your style carefully, you can mask budgetary restrictions, and often come up with a fantastic film (something like Delicatessen).

Or, Peter Chung takes the characters into full-length anime. That'd be great to see. Or perhaps even some flat-out CGI'd romp... awesome and other-worldly. Sure, it'd never enter blockbuster territory, but a handful of well made, AF animated films, free to indulge in the bizarre world of the original series, could easily become a cult classic.

Re:The problem with the movie

[Evil Adrian]

Sometimes when people make movies from books or TV, they take a good concept and go in a different, more movie-friendly direction with it.

For example, if there was a cartoon on MTV where the characters and basic plot were really good, but each episode was consistently strange, stupid, and always left you thinking "why the hell did I just watch this crap", then they might want to go somewhere different with the story.

You know what I'm saying?

Re:The problem with the movie

[johneee]

I saw it last night, and I liked it. Actually, I really liked it.

It's entirely possible that one of the reasons for this was that I'd never seen the original series. What it came down to for me was that it was a Hollywood action flick with a bit less straightforwardness than ordinary. Yes, the plot was a bit confusing at first, because they didn't give you all the answers right at the beginning, but by the end, they gave you everything, and there was the thrill of discovery along the way. I found that the special effects didn't overwhelm the rest of the movie, and while it may have been a little emotionally detached, it built a kind of atmosphere which at the very least was honest to itself. And yes, Charlize was hot with a capital T. It was an action flick that was worth the popcorn, and better than most.

My full disclosure statement here is that I did see Punisher on TMN the night before, it's possible that pretty much anything would look good in comparison.

Re:The problem with the movie

[Dun Malg]

Sadly, because of the expense of making a film in this style, the studio's are only going to allow something to be made which they can sell. Even some of the bigger studios who're known to take risks (Miramax, for example) probably wouldn't have touched a true-to-the-series Aeon Flux film with a barge pole.

As a co-writer of several scripts (many optioned, none produced), I have noticed there a singular problem with getting approval of "risky" works. The problem is that "hollywood" is actually highly risk-averse. It's such a nasty, backstabbing business that nobody ever wants to stick their neck out. To this end, there is constant pressure for approved scripts to be comparable to something that has worked before. The classic script pitch jokes along the lines of "it's like The Omen meets Cocoon, in outer space" are an exaggeration of the pathological need to have every "new" idea be a permutation or hybrid of something that has been successful before. More points are awarded if another studio is in the process of making a similar movie. This is why you see the same damn movies come out over and over. Remember when all those "funny" cop-buddy movies came out where one of the cops is a dog? (shudder)
The last thing the money men want to hear is "we don't know how this will play, no one's ever made a movie like this". The last thing the pitchmen want is to say that. To that end, every time you go in to show them what you've got, they'll be almost singleminded in their goal of getting you to make your work comparable to something they think the money men will go for. The integrity of your concept is wholly immaterial. They will indeed actually make the most absurd suggestions for how you might change the script to make it more salable. Things like "can you put a scrappy kid in?" or "could you change the setting from fantasy to modern reality, get rid of the magic stuff, and make the main character a handsome young guy instead of a tough old man?"-- these are not exaggerations, this is the kind of stuff they actually say! And even if you don't want those changes, if you sell them the script they'll give it to someone else who will make those changes. On rare occasions it'll end up in the hands of someone who truly understands the underlying idea and we'll end up with something interesting, but for the most part the pressure to turn scripts into pablum leaves us with theaters full of stuff like "Cheaper By The Dozen 2".

Re:The problem with the movie

[n6mod]

The problem is that "hollywood" is actually highly risk-averse. It's such a nasty, backstabbing business that nobody ever wants to stick their neck out.

This is an interesting take on the problem. I have a fair bit of experience with Hollywood, though all from the technical side.

The problem, as I've heard it presented, is basically that the studios are public companies. Especially in this litigious society, that forces the studios to be risk averse. It's easy to defend a long series of moderately profitable formulaic films to the board and shareholders. It's hard to defend four (or ten) flops and a blockbuster.

And you'll never get the blockbusters if you don't make the flops.

Re:The problem with the movie

[blincoln]

The problem when you watch the original Aeon Flux animated series is that other than people having the same names, it has little in common.

I disagree.

There are definitely some significant differences, but consistency wasn't exactly a hallmark of the original animated version. Aeon Flux died on a regular basis, Trevor Goodchild turned out to be (for one episode at least) a hollow shell controlled by a Custodian - which was itself controlled by a strange little bean-shaped thing, etc.

I watched some of the episodes after seeing the movie. It had been awhile, and I was surprised just how much was from the original series (spoilers):

- (Obviously) Sithandra and the run across no-man's-land
- Trevor's cloning experiments
- The in-phase/out-of-phase thing
- The odd flat/detached acting
- Una (although she isn't Aeon's sister in the series)
- The Relicle and Aeon climbing up its tail is right out of "War," although it has a different purpose in that episode
- The jungle outside the city at the end is from the jungle-outside-the-cities episode of the series
- The end of the film story is similar in spirit to the end of the animated series, just under different circumstances
- The "lady in red getting snatched" shot in the film vs. "lady in red gets shot by a sniper, then dragged into a hidden closet by two soldiers" in the series.
- The past lives thing is reminiscent of the animated episode about the drug that erases peoples' memories.

I'm sure there's others, and I haven't finished re-watching the original series yet.

Obviously no Hollywood studio was going to make a film exactly like the original series. But I thought they did a pretty credible job in keeping the same feeling. There were certainly some believability gaps, but that's hardly an issue when we're talking about a film based on a series where a secret agent travels between two connected cities via cars that open a passage between each other through a giant zipper in the freeway.

Strength of Character Acting

[polv0]

While I enjoyed this film, I think that the major reason it receives poor reviews from popular culture critics is the poor character acting. Scenes designed to build emotional rapport between the main characters came of stiltingly, leaving me wondering if the director was so engrossed in the costumes and special effects that they forgot the actors. Charlize Theron is such a brilliant actress (Monster) that I couldn't understand how amatuerishly some of the dialog was delivered. The scene between Aeon and her sister in the market comes particularly to mind.

That being said, I thought the plot of the movie was fantastic, and some of the acting lived up to it. But there's no way a film this far out is going to be accepted by the mass consumers unless they can very closely relate to the characters, as evidenced by the success of Serenity.

Re:Strength of Character Acting

[wampus]

One thing that everyone seems to forget is that all the characters, as far as I understood it, were having severe problems due to remembering their past iterations. In my mind, this explains the flat delivery that just about everyone gave.

Re:Strength of Character Acting

[drsquare]

But there's no way a film this far out is going to be accepted by the mass consumers unless they can very closely relate to the characters, as evidenced by the success of Serenity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Serenity a commercial flop?

Synopsis: if you don't get it you're dumb

[httpamphibio.us]

Did Taco actually RTFA? This isn't a review at all, it's just some TNA starved sci-fi geek saying "no, it isn't" a whole bunch.

The movie has a bad plot. No, it doesn't!
The movie has bad characters. No, it doesn't!
The movie has poor special effects. No, it doesn't!

How very very useful... the only thing that's correct about the review is the fact that it's on a site with "idiot" in the domain name. It's a good thing this made the front page so the guy can get some extra banner ad clicks.

The Review Sucked

[rolfwind]

It actually informed what the movie was about for about a sentence or two - that it was 400 years in the future and 5 million people were left after some disease wiped the rest out.

So there's the set-up, but anything about the plot/storyline?

Not anything coherent (a hint of romance between two unnamed characters), but mostly just fanboyish drooling over Charlize Theron.

This "review" was just pathetic.

Heh heh...you said "parahraph"!

[Anonymous Coward]

Smaller, stouter cousin of the gihraph, of course.

recommended reading

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not having R'd TFA (who does?), but having watched the movie a few hours ago, I must say it reminds me a lot of Arthur C. Clarke's "The City and the Stars". So much in fact that I would call that book a required preliminary for watching the movie. It doesn't make the plot much deeper in itself, and it certainly doesn't help you suspend your disbelief if you need any help for that, but it may bring you to ask yourself more questions about immortality, eternal memories, constrained societies and whatnot. Plus, Clarke's book is required reading for any self-respecting sci-fi reader anyway :)

N.B.: I never really watched the TV series this movie is based on. I guess that would again change my impression.

Re:recommended reading

[Mr. Slippery]

I must say it reminds me a lot of Arthur C. Clarke's "The City and the Stars"....it may bring you to ask yourself more questions about immortality, eternal memories, constrained societies and whatnot. Plus, Clarke's book is required reading for any self-respecting sci-fi reader anyway :)

That sounds like an...odd...comparison to me. But yes, everyone should read that Clarke story.

If you can find it, read the original novella, Against the Fall of Night. I found that The City and the Stars didn't really add anything, and the original version was more direct and compact.

The Clark/Benford book Beyond the Fall of Night, where Benford continues Clarke's story, was IMHO disappointing.

Waxing Autoerotic

[toiletsalmon]

Gee. Looks like SOMEBODY is a fanboy. From the article:

"Charlize gave a terrific performance and she looked just as lethal and capable as the previews promised. She makes for a terrific action hero, leaving the Terminator looking even more obsolete than he was in his last film, and making Lara Croft look like a whiny wannabe. It's easy to be biased toward Charlize, and if I were capable of being biased toward anyone, it would be her, but I managed to control myself. The way I saw it was that the movie was fantastic and Charlize was phenomenal, but if anyone else had done it (as well as or better) and had that same "it" factor that Charlize has flowing out of every pore on her gorgeous face, I would have felt exactly the same about the film as I do right now. And that is true. Reality: Charlize was in it, and she was amazing, and I can't think of anyone who has the talent and the physical grace, strength, and stamina to pull it off as well as she did."

I almost felt dirty reading this guys review. Should you trust a movie review from a guy you woldn't shake hands with??

Bah! I'll probably just wait for the DVD...

Re:Waxing Autoerotic

[ezzzD55J]

That reads just like e.g.

Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town.

Re:Waxing Autoerotic

[StikyPad]

Exactly. The way you tell it, ninjas sound like they'd be able to beat pirates, but only a ninja fanboy would believe that.

Low Budget

[Snap E Tom]

At the first fight scene, I was wondering why the director kept using closeup shots. You couldn't see the setting that well. Without a background, I thought it took away from the whole majesty of a good martial-arts fight (See Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Matrix). Then I saw the the military uniforms. God awful. Wow, they were cheap looking. These guys looked like they came out of an 80's Sci-Fi Movie. I realized that this is probably a pretty low-budget flick. A simple search on Google confirmed it.

Basically, Charlize is ok. The actors were pretty good. It was helluva lot better than SW Ep I-III acting. I the story was out there, but it's sci-fi, so I'll let it slide. The cheap look, though, really took away from the one area that I was expecting it to excel.

Re:Low Budget

[greginnj]

...It was helluva lot better than SW Ep I-III acting.

Wow, your standards are low!

Re:Low Budget

[Quelain]

I don't watch a lot of TV, I prefer wasting my time playing Anarchy Online, which is a sci-fi MMORPG.

The funny thing is that I had seen the in-game video billboards showing advertising for 'Aeon Flux', which I assumed was a bit of a joke by the Funcom developers about crappy sci-fi movies still existing in the year 29000.

I was quite surprised when I found out it was for real.

Childish review

[FlynnMP3]

The reviewer ends up daring the movie watcher to enjoy the movie. I thought the movie was great. Mostly because it has a very strong and believable science fiction plot. The trailer I saw on TV had me thinking second thoughts about it. It cast this IMO negative light on it about it being another action thriller. True the movie did have it's action sequences and a couple were integral to moving the plot forward, but the rest of the 'action' was thrown in to presumably make the movie appeal to the larger movie going crowd. But it certainly wasn't needed. It is true that if you missed a critical 10 minutes of the movie spread out into small segments, a watcher could be left very confused about what the heck is going on. I plan on seeing it again. The movie has that quality of being one of those that can survive multiple watchings. I never did watch the MTV series. I had heard about it and always wanted to, but never made the time. No matter, the movie was very entertaining to me and well worth the 8.50 I spent on it.

-FlynnMP3

Talking about biased movie reviews...

[Fearan]

I don't know but I get the feeling this reviewer has some biases towards Charlize in skin tight outfits. And maybe instead of insulting the audience that "doesn't understand" this movie, he should analyze the issues they bring up instead of saying they're wrong?

I'll give the guy some points though, the movie was better than made out to be in a lot of reviews. But I still don't understand how this random review gets on the front page of /..

Plot: whose fault

[Himring]

A movie critic said something once that stuck: if I don't get the plot it's not my fault....

Re:Plot: whose fault

[espressojim]

What if you get a movie's plot, and the guy next to you doesn't? Are you then too smart, or is the movie shit?

I don't know that a movie has to reach everyone to be a good movie, just like not everyone will understand certain music or art. Does everything have to be dummed down to the lowest common denominator?

My very first thought about this movie....

[StressGuy]

was, "Well, noone will be able to accuse him of deviating from the original story line." Back in the Liquid TV days, this seemed more about an artist having a little creative fun with a character without being hindered by any consistent storyline. Oh sure, toward the end he played around with an actual story, but I always got the impression that this was just a character study.

On the other hand, I'm sorry I never got to see Reign. The concept was interesting and I'd really liked to have seen what he would have done with a fully developed study.

As this movie goes, it just screams "renter"

Slashdot "experts" strike again.

[mumblestheclown]

"Those who review films for a living are notoriously unreliable, and in many cases, they miss the whole point altogether."

This is the main slashdot arrogance. Basically, "everybody who disagrees with my view is an idiot, shortsighted, underinformed. I, as a coder, am much more capable of being objective and have a wider ken than credentialed or recognized professionals in:"

• Law (especially pertaining copyright, etc.)
• Politics
• Economics (especially the economics of copyright, etc.)
• Business (especially when it involves telling copyright holders how to run theirs..)
• and now... movie reviews!

Double plus extra my comment if the subjet matter involves one of the following:

• intellectual property / copyright
• geek lore ("Aeon Flux", "Star Wars", "Lord of the Rings", "Simpsons").

Re:Slashdot "experts" strike again.

[foniksonik]

Does this also apply to analyzing people you've never met and don't know a thing about? If so , then you're spot on.

Re:Slashdot "experts" strike again.

[ivan256]

Every single poster to slashdot is a copyright holder. Doesn't it seem to follow that we'd all have opinions on the matter?

Many of us create "Intellectual Property" for a living as well, so it's not like everybody here is talking out of their asses on the subject; especially since most people here aren't wealthy enough to lobby to have revenue legislated for them, and all we can do is sit on the sidelines and bitch when other orgainizations manage to pull off such things.

If self reflection reveals that you find no subject matter on which you can consider yourself expert enough to post authoritatively about, then fine, but don't assume that the rest of us are uninformed, inexperienced idiots that just like to rant for the hell of it too.

Re:This was a review? This is news?

[StateOfTheUnion]

This so called "review" is exactly why I've fallen away from posting on /.

This isn't a review. Its an opinion . . . and it seems to have been posted by someone that thinks the movie is "great" but really cannot or chooses not to explain what made the movie great (a single actress alone does not make a good movie). He attacks other reviewers for not understanding the plot and attacks those that aren't captivated by the film for having no imagination . . . but he offers very little of his own opinion. He attacks others . . . but fails offer a convincing opinion of his own . . . except that it was an "awesome" film. I finshed reading the article and I was unconvinced . . . there is very little substance to the review . . . except that other reviewers are wrong . . . and this one is right . . . like the logic of a six year old.

Is it just me or has slashdot been posting a lot more lame articles like this? I'm not sure but I get the opinion that the editors have changed tack and are going for a more inflammatory style. The rhetorical questions that they post at the end of their first posts are often poorly thought out and sometimes just plain illogical or indicative that they failed to read the article or pay attention when they read the article.

I can only assume that inflammatory opinions posted as reviews or illogical rhetorical questions serve as flamebait to drive up the number of posts on /. As circumstantial evidence of competitive pressures I submit ancedotally that /.'s competitors such as Digg and other sites have been getting more press lately.

I don't know whether the editors will read this comment or take it into account . . . . but I have to say that I have been highly underwhelmed with the recent content of slashdot. This inflammatory attack on other movie reviewers that is thinly disguised as a movie review is more evidence that Slashdot is using a strategy of posting material that might otherwise be considered flamebait to drive up the number of posts.

Actually went to the movie

[esconsult1]

I went to the movie without any pre-conceptions and without knowing anything about AeonFlux. I've not read the comics, or anything.

I was wary going in because of bad reviews, but the movie was surprisingly, evenly good. There was a good story, and the acting was fair. Here's the main difference between AeonFlux and the Matrix, in my opionion:

Both movies start off with jaw dropping premises. AeonFlux actually carries the premise through to the end in a satisfactory conclusion.

The conclusion was only better

[Poltras]

Bottom-line: A fantastic thriller with a rare combination of action and imagination; two entities that we rarely see together on the same screen. Even more, it fucking rules.

This guy knows how to finish a "serious" review with a NPOV. It looks very ethical and pro.

I gave up

[rsilvergun]

when they gave her a backstory (the ever popular family killed/revenge story). wtf, she's suppose to be all mysterious and crap. All I can figure is Peter Chung had to bend over backwards to get this made, just like when The Tick made evil his bitch.

movie was not aeon flux..

[Lord Bitman]

I dont understand why they named it "Aeon Flux" when all it shared were poorly-placed references to the series. This might have been a half-okay-maybe movie (*I doubt it) if they just called it The Clonus Disaster or something. All that was gained by calling it Aeon Flux was my thinking "Why would you try to tack on some silly lame-ass reason for Aeon and Trevor's relationship?"

Re:movie was not aeon flux..

[damsa]

Hollywood likes doing that, redoing a TV series without actually doing the work of redoing a series. So you have movies like Bewitched and the Brady Bunch movie. The reason is simple, it is easier to market something with a built in brand name, and face it the original shows that were on weren't even that great in the first place.

Re:This was a review? This is news?

[geeber]

Oh, I don't know. I think that Slashdot has always been much like it is today. You can see it as a good thing, or a bad thing, but at least they are consistent. Poor spelling, off base comments at the ends of postings, lame articles that make the front page, and the dubious practice of calling themselves editors when they don't have been here at least as long as I have, back in '96 or '97.

That said, I keep coming back for more. Go figure.

MTV series

[tedgyz]

As someone who saw the original MTV series, I actually liked the film. I realized that it was not going to be identical and once accepting that, it was enjoyable. I give it a 7/10.

Looking back at the series, there was definitely more bizarre behavior, sexual ambiguity, and such. They briefly hit on these points, but if you never saw the series you might not even notice. I'm kinda glad they didn't try to replicate the tall, anorexic species. It's much more enjoyable watching Charlize instead of some 7' tall freak. :-)

BTW, I didn't RTFA. The title said talk amongst yourselves. Based on the comments, it looks like I saved myself some time.

There are reasons for the negative reviews...

[sargosis]

I made the mistake of actually watching the movie, and i would like to point out that there are good reasons for the negative reviews. For starters, a plot that lacks the ability to make sense from mone moment to another is not "complicated." It just sucks. If you read the reviews that showed this movie in a positive light, you'll ind that the majority are adolescents that justify all of the rest of the movie's shortcomings with the simple phrase "but she's hot, so it's ok." The public should recieve a formal apology from the director, producers, and writers of AeonFlux for releasing something so horribly done.

Re:Not just any TNA starved sci-fi geek...

[BushCheney08]

I liked your .sig. Is that a quote from someone?

I lifted it from a book by Richard Dawkins titled A Devil's Chaplain. Specifically, it comes from 'The Great Convergence'. There are about 30 pieces in there, from book reviews to lectures, published and unpublished essays, along with a couple of eulogies (including the one he gave for Douglas Adams). Highly recommended reading.

Movie was great, review was right on target

[caffiend666]

The movie was great. I was a little disappointed in the start, nothing more than nuevo-kung fu action. But, as soon as the story actually get's going it's riveting from there on in. The movie is not a re-interpretation of the series or a continuation, to me it was more of an explanation and a conclusion. If you looked at the Aeon Flux animated series as trash, you will not like this movie. If you looked at the Aeon Flux animated series as pure action, you will not like the movie that much (costumes aren't skimpy enough, and the scenes are too pretty, the animated series, was, well, disgusting and morbid...). If you looked at the series as a precursor for something more, this movie is that conclusion. It's always interesting to see mind benders like the series come out making sense, this is one of those rare times when they pulled it off. Why is Trevor Goodchild a good/bad guy? Why does everyone (including Aeon) keep dying? How will it all end? What is the point? Also, one warning, a Yahoo individual review said that this is an art film, if you can't stand art films you shouldn't see the movie. As far as I'm concerned, they only made one mistake all in all, and that was with the ending (which was still good)....

Re: This was a review? This is news?

[Black Parrot]

> Oh, I don't know. I think that Slashdot has always been much like it is today. You can see it as a good thing, or a bad thing, but at least they are consistent. Poor spelling, off base comments at the ends of postings, lame articles that make the front page, and the dubious practice of calling themselves editors when they don't have been here at least as long as I have, back in '96 or '97.

See? Nothing changes.

I watched it yesterday - may contain spoilers

[GuyFawkes]

Good points -

The tech stuff was nice, like the "living" gardens that were bio-engineered permieter security systems.

The lead actress was worth looking at.

The over all look and feel was nice and clean, it looked fresh and sharp.

Bad points -

The plot could be summed up as pandemic hits the world, a few are immunised just in time to save humanity and congregate in a single "utopian" city (movie starts here) the cure has a side effect, infertility, so they started cloning each other, 7th generation clone leader/dictator searches for a cure only to discover nature has spontaneously fixed the problem somehow, clone leaders clone sibling tries to supress this to maintain the status quo, cue lots of fighting scenes.

The action was cartooney, eg not credible, blade runner did it right, one "soldier", no matter how well trained, cannot take on and defeat hordes of other soldiers with at least equal access to military tech

The acting was two dimensional, but then that's all this film ever called for.

The ending was of course utterly predictable.

Was it worth watching? -

Seeing as I downloaded it for free from usenet it was worth the expense and the 90 minutes of my time to watch it, I've seen a __LOT__ worse films.... eg compared to the dukes of hazzard this was a masterpiece, but compared to blade runner it was trite, it was on a par with a trekkie type movie mebbe

If I'd paid ten UK pounds for a cinema ticket I'd have been well pissed.

HTH

Liquid Television...does anyone here miss it?

[SirDaShadow]

I was wondering if anyone here remembers LTV back in the day...it was a really nice segment that was unique and refreshing...does anyone here miss it at all in the middle of the mud that is reality tv?

Re:This was a review? This is news?

[jeffehobbs]

That said, I keep coming back for more. Go figure.

I bet the last portion of the topic headline ("Talk Amongst Yourselves") is actually the reason why you keep coming back to Slashdot; it's certainly why I keep coming back. Increasingly, the articles that slashdot will link to (including this one) are completely irrelevant and what is truly interesting and informative reading are the comments that the article elicits. Slashdot should have more posts that are completely opinionless "talk amongst yourselves" kind of posts; the community and the moderation system will assuredly provide content far more interesting than one link to one guy's smoldering blog. Slashdot should act as the "Tim Russert" character, bringing up the topics for discussion and then getting out of the way.

~jeff
my smoldering blog

Aeon and Narnia

[technoCon]

I went to Aeon Flux with a bunch of guys from Work Friday afternoon, and then to a late-night showing of Narnia with some friends from Church. I enjoyed both.

And each makes a cultural / mythic statement, touching a part of human nature. Aeon Flux did a good job of showing the MTV cultural milleiu from which it sprang. Fairly nihilistic / materialistic showing the alienation of living in a comfortable prosperous society. When Aeon says there's something wrong inside everyone, that wrongness resonates with me. (The Pope said something about America's "culture of death" and I wondered how much he had this in mind.) Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Aeon Flux a lot. I'd seen it on MTV but hadn't been able to catch enough episodes to grok the story arc. Seeing it all at once, it made sense. I thought it said something significant about human nature.

Narnia also said something about human nature. I like to think myself something better than I am. In truth, I'm more like Edmond the traitor in the Narnia story. Almost everyone in Narnia was flawed in some way. And that's the point of that story. How does one cope with one's own flaws? How does one cope with a loved one who betrays us?

Both movies' plots turned upon a traitor among siblings. Each story adopted a different strategy for dealing with traitors. Aeon Flux and Trevor Goodchild were heroes of one sort. The Pevensies were heroes of another sort.

Re:This was a review? This is news?

[Jasin Natael]

Amen. That's the way it is already. Posts about a specific RFC or patch digress quickly into a political / technological debate about the merits of the underlying technology, the fix, or the fallacy of penetrate-and-patch. Any story containing "Web 2.0" or "AJAX" turns into a philosophical melee about the direction of Internet content, Applications, and inevitably ends with posters deriding the buzzword simply because they can't put it on their resume. Stories about aviation and space exploration digress into discussions of interplanetary flight, colonization, terraforming, the long-since dead X25, and the over-political nature of state-sponsored flight. Biology and evolution stories turn into religious flamewars faster than you can say "bang".

I've been here for a long time (I'm apparently missing a digit in my UID), and it's never been any different. I don't expect it will. You can't stop the community from discussing the topics that are interesting to it. But, the articles are usually good enough to bring out an informative, relevant discussion on the topic. Enough posters put up links to relevant materials online that sometimes it's better to read their links instead of the actual FA. At least the editors don't post every dot-zero-one update of the Linux Kernel anymore. Or maybe I set my preferences to filter those out. I can't remember.

Jasin Natael

I actually enjoyed the movie

[Cyric]

I don't consider myself a hardcore fan, but I am fairly avid. Suffice to say I've never understood how the show hasn't continued or been picked up again ... I liked it enough to think it should, but wasn't dedicated enough to go looking it up.

I take movie adaptations for what they are ... typically minor modifications made to better appeal to the masses. I took the changes in stride and they really didn't bother me. I suppose anyone seriously bugged by the changes is also peeved that Chung re-did the animated show in a DVD set to reflect what he originally wanted ... and took out MTV's adaptations. It's his show - his prerogative to do with it as he pleases - but in paticular I think it's good he went back and made things as he originally intended. George Lucas, on the other hand, changed characters to pander to the masses.

Anyway, I was originally hyped to see AF. Before going, I read some reviews which didn't contain plot spoilers ... by far most were negative. So I kept my hopes in check, and was pleasantly surprised at how good it was.

The movie was a wonderful extention of the show. It takes place between two episodes - giving a little more detail to the animated show. Trevor appears to have been split into two people ... which I thought was necessary if the movie was to appeal to anyone who wasn't familiar with the show. The animated Trevor was a rather complicated individual. The movie also did a wonderful job of explaining part of the relationship between AF and Trevor.

Re:This was a review? This is news?

[Dirtside]

This isn't a review. Its an opinion

And most reviews are, what, unassailable fact? All reviews are opinions. It's not a very well-written review, but that doesn't mean it's not a review.

My review of the movie

[stinky wizzleteats]

Much better than I expected. The acting was good (Trevor is a hard character to get right, and Marton Csokas pulls it off brilliantly), the action was everything you'd expect, and the set design and shooting locations were breathtaking.

The story was well conceived, written, and executed - perhaps too much so. The original concept didn't trouble itself too much with plot, but the movie comes across with an interesting scifi story in its own right. It would have been very easy for a director to invest too much into the movie story at the expense of keeping to the simplicity of the original concept. While the two don't seamlessly combine in the movie, it reflects very well onto the director and producer that the movie story didn't completely overwhelm the movie and leave us all in WTF land ala Highlander 2. I was expecting 2 stars, and I give it a 3. Nice job, guys.

I think the "technical inconsistencies" pointed out by some readers are clearly bullshit - you have a problem with clones remembering their past lives in a world with strap-on transdimensional travel suits and complex multimedia messages being suspended in aqueous solution? Gimme a break. It wouldn't surprise me if all memory of your past lives was stored in a parasitic frog embedded in the abdomen of your next generation. How can you fail at suspension of disbelief in what has always been a consummately unbelievable world both in the cartoon and the movie?

Or a vodcast.

[crovira]

A lot of movies get made and you wonder "WTF? How did this piece of drek ever scare up the capital?"

And for every turkey that covers the screen with its gibblets, there are some movies out there aren't getting screen play or even finding investment money.

Theatre owners and broadcasters are to blame for the entire "supply-side" mess that we're finding ourselves in.

You pour in $100,000,000 of money and it has only got 2 or 3 weeks to run when it's got to make that money back, or you can hope that it makes dough being broadcast and then comes the video rentals.

And the process of making actual movies doesn't cost $100,000,000 but the process of fighting for the screen time does. You're NOT getting your movie money's worth. Ever!

I think that the audience will be the winners what the 'internet effect' comes to movies (like its already begun to come to radio with podcasting, giving the ClearChannels and Infinity Broadcasting oligopolies of the world a hollow victory [There's no one else left standing, but the pool of listeners is shrinking, FAST!]) as its starting to with TV shows coming to the iPod.

Instead of just being viewed as passive vessels for content and cows waiting to be milked of cash, we, the audience, will be active participants in what we actually watch and listen to.

We could/should/would be funding projects, pooling resources and uniting to make sure that 'demand-side' economics get us the most bang for the buck instead of letting the supply-siders waste our money like drunken sailors on their first night ashore in six months.

Movies right now lose money because they are limited in the time they run and the extreme costs of promotion. The 'supply-siders' are in control. They make their money by creating and capitalizing on the foment that having too producers fighting for an audience with access to too few 'supply-siders' media outlets.

They make even more money and exercise more power by restricting what consumers can actually get at the end of the process. Can't stand Brittany Spears? Tough! And you can't avoid her either. And the medium costs the same as it always has despite its vertiginous drop in real value.

Enter the internet where:
* on the production side, you can hunt for capital sources, produce and promote your content and distribute it for practical amounts of money, and where,
* also on the production side, you can hunt for a project you feel would be worth your investment, and where,
* on the consumption side, you can hunt for content of interest to you, for reviews of interest to you, and download this content for filling your senses at a time and place of your choosing.

Content, audio and movies, produced on the 'demand-side' CAN'T lose money.

They're time-shifted, media-shifted and inherently of interest to someone, either the funders who can be garanteed to be in the audience or the producers themselves.

The resources made available to the producers and content originators will reflect the involvement of the resources of the audience.

The content will remain available for download and continue to provide a revenue stream (even if its only a steady trickle) to the content producer, as opposed to the largely useless 'back catalog' of content that's being obscured by new content churned atop of it.

Re:This was a review? This is news?

[Snaller]

This isn't a review. Its an opinion

All reviews are opinions.

Re:This was a review? This is news?

[localman]

This isn't a review. Its an opinion . . .

And other reviews are fact?!? I've not seen Aeon Flux, and probably won't, so I've got no agenda here. But all reviews are opinion. And all of them just point out things they liked and didn't like, which only occasionally line up with the things I liked or didn't like, and they fumble arond to justify their opinion. Professional reviewers often degrade to just throwing insults, sometimes personal ones, at the actors, writer or directors. The really good profesional ones do it well with scathing wit. But it certainly isn't any more than opinion.

Cheers.

Re:The Monster as Aeon Flux

[EnronHaliburton2004]

If you think that Charlize Theron is "Fat", you are one warped motherfucker. Perhaps you should spend less time looking at cartoon images of women and spending time with real, actual women.

I'm not a fan really, but Charlize Theron is thin by any stretch of the imagination.

The orginal cartoon portrayal

[Rogerborg]

Has about a 12 inch waist. No adult female can look anything like that. Please feel free to go back to wanking over drawings of pre-adolescent girls with implants.

Easy audience & saves on advertising.

[khasim]

The same thing with the entire:
"remake old movies"
"remake old TV series"
"remake old comic books"
"remake remake remake remake remake"
and "sequel"!

You have an automatic audience of people who saw the original and have good memories of it. And Hollywood is all about automatic audiences.

Aeon Flux. Good Sci-fi, Bad Aeon Flux

[Gyorg_Lavode]

The Aeon Flux in the theater is a good science fiction movie. The plot is unique and interesting. The problem with the movie is simply that it is not Aeon Flux. Aeon Flux is independent, cold, and calculating. She has a professional admiration for trevor but their relationship is in no way emotional. Second, Trevor is a bad guy.

In the movie aeon is emotionally fragile. Aeon needs a team to cover her. Aeon is having a very caring relationship with trevor who is really a good guy.

Aeon flux the movie is good as far as Sci-fi movies go. It's just not Aeon Flux.

The plot wasn't "difficult" to understand

[Durandal64]

It was just a stupid movie. Seriously, a virus that wipes out 99% of the population on Earth? How the fuck did that thing spread? Did it travel on the backs of photons? And a society which has mastered genetics to such an extent to be able to clone humans and yet it can't handle something as simple as invitro fertilization? They have to enact a complicated scheme to secretly implant women with cloned embryos unknowingly? Give me a break. Oh yeah, and I forgot. Love conquers all.

Beyond the stupidity of the plot, the action was just boring and uninteresting. It's Aeon breaking people's necks for 2 hours. We never get any explanation at all for where she's acquired these amazing acrobatic skills and killing techniques. We get no information at all about her background in this resistance, who the freaky resistance leader lady actually is, etc ... Beyond the boring action and complete lack of any context at all for the central character, there's the stupid techno-wanking. Seriously, Aeon breaks into a "surveillance center" that looks like some sort of suspended waterfall. And to destroy it, she pulls a fucking drain plug, and all the water swirls down. Who the fuck comes up with technology like this? Anime sci-fi geeks. And the chairman's security perimeter consisted entirely of tree pods that shoot ... well, something, and grass that turns into knives. The latter could have been defeated with a pair of steel-toed work boots.

Beyond that, Charlize Theron looked positively awful. I don't know what it is with anime geeks and making women's hair look like an oil spill (see Trinity in The Matrix for another example), but it looked terrible. Theron's a blond and was just the wrong choice for the role entirely. The outfits weren't exactly flattering either. I don't know why geeks have this unified vision of the fashion of the future being composed entirely of jump suits, but it's fucking stupid. It may work when you can draw women who have a waist line as thin as my LCD, but real women actually have midsections. And what the hell was with Aeon wearing an all white jump suit when she was trying to break in to the surveillance center at night?

This movie was not worth $7.50 and driving through shit weather to get to. It's not even a good rental. It's just stupid.

Umm, I think I'll trust Rotten Tomatoes more

[Jugalator]

This "movie" at RottenTomatoes. Yay, a 10% rating.

It's pretty obvious to me the "reviewer" above was making an advertisement for his site on Slashdot (compare the author URL with the "review" URL, it sure is becoming common these days), and gets a boner from Charlize Theron.

True, but

[pavon]

I concur that Charlize is not fat. However the one sentence that I do agree with in the GP's stupid rant is that she was not skinny enough to play aeon flux. Aeon Flux wasn't just skinny, muscular and skimpily dressed, she was ridiculously so. The strangeness and grotesqueness of that cartoon is half of what made it interesting. The whole artistic direction of this film doesn't appear to share anything in common with the cartoon. Of course, you would be hard pressed to find a real person with the same measurements as Aeon, however, they definitely could have done something more stylistically inline with the cartoon, compared to the standard slick futuristic feel which they went with.

Anyway, I'm planning on waiting to see the film when it comes out in the dollar theater or rental, but everything I've seen leads me to think that it will be a good action movie, with very little in common with the cartoon.