Slashdot Mirror
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."
"
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?)
Aeon Flux had a plot?
That's news to me.
Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
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.
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.
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
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.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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.
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.
sig.
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.
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...
A movie critic said something once that stuck: if I don't get the plot it's not my fault....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
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: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.
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.
Download my free songs!
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.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
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
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 NataelTrue science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
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.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act