AHHHHHHHHHH!!!! The spoiler tag wasn't there when i read it. I just got to where they were telling what happened in the begining, did i read it right? lol...oh damn life.

CaptMEL | August 24, 00:49 CET

For some reason, as long as the review isn't too horrific, I tend to prefer to read negative reviews. I know this movie is gold, what I want to know is what people didn't like about it.

MySerenity | August 24, 00:55 CET

It's amazing to think that the two reviewers saw the same movie...then again, I doubt they did! Is it just me or has virtually every so-called critic who has been negative towards the movie expressed, in one manner or another, the idea that folks who do TV are genetically inferior to the great minds that do movies?

Calledon | August 24, 00:59 CET

I find it some what worrying that all the negative reviews are from people who haven't seen the series and therefore don't get the characters. I just hope this isn't the consensus of everyone else who is watching it without having seen the show.

Jackal | August 24, 01:04 CET

The first reviewer seems more concerned with stating how unoriginal SERENITY is (mentions of Star Wars, Star Trek, Blake 7, etc.) than stating an actual opinion. A movie doesn't have to be wholly original to be enjoyable. Heck, most movies aren't original, but the action/dialogue/characters are fresh enough to make up for it. My only real concern with this review is how he felt he didn't have any background info and that he couldn't keep most of the characters straight due to lack of screen time.

I really, really, really want this movie to do well! I guess we won't know how much of an audience it'll attract outside of Whedonites until October 10th.

RogueScribner | August 24, 01:08 CET

Why October 10th?

eddy | August 24, 01:12 CET

I don't have a problem reading negative reviews. At the very least, this person seemed to give the movie an honest watch and spoke their mind. Truth be tolded, I rather read these type of reports at this point to get a feel of how 'Serenity' will strike the general movie goer. To date, the positive reports have far outweigh the negative ones. I kinda' got the feeling the first reviewer didn't quite "get" Joss' vision of the story. Then again, we've read the same on BtVS and AtS so this is nothing new to us.

Madhatter | August 24, 01:44 CET

As much as I hate to admit it, there's a small part of me that agrees there's some truth in that. I loved Serenity, but without the backstory of Firefly I think I might have liked it, but I don't know how much it would have moved me. And I think that's due not so much to the film's failings, but just the limitations of a 2-hour action piece for the kind of storytelling Joss does best. I'm much more a movie fan than a TV fan, but I think Joss's big gift is for telling fabulous stories that take their time in being told – with good, consistent character development who we grow to love and care about over time, small moments that tell a lot, growth and change and interwoven plots. I think he does a good job on the big screen, and did a good job with Serenity, but there just isn't room in that tight two-hour format, especially with so many characters and so much that needs to be explained, to leave time for that sort of storytelling in which his genius really shines.

There are definitely the quintessential Joss quips and one-liners and humor, which are great, but it's that longer, episodic storytelling that I found I missed a bit.

Again, don't get me wrong. I loved Serenity, and think it has a lot of potential to appeal to non-fans and coule well (fingers crossed!) be a big success. I just wish people who have never come across Joss's work could see more of what I consider his biggest gifts than they'll get a chance to (IMO) with this movie.

acp | August 24, 01:47 CET

CaptMEL, I am SO sorry. I swear only a minute went by before I had a horrifying "Oh no" moment of realization and went back to put the Spoiler tag on.

Partly this happened because I got a bit angry reading the negative review and started to skim a little. I really feel that the positive review is not spoilery, and I did read that one more carefully because I liked it better. This is no excuse and I'm sorry you got spoiled.

However, I do think it is rather interesting that the positive reviewer had enough respect for the viewer and the genre not to be spoilery, whereas the negative reviewer got a little blathery about the plot in his attempt to show how "unoriginal" he thought it was.

chickenbird | August 24, 01:49 CET

If it says review, best put a spoiler tag on it automatically.

There's also a some what negative review over at Screen Daily. Also spoilers apply for that too. I'll add that one to your subject line as it's been a very busy day here and I don't want duplication of effort so to speak.

Simon | August 24, 01:55 CET

How bizarre. That Screen Daily review also repeats the "Whedon's wife Jewel Staite" claim. I'm hoping that the reviewer just got it from the Variety article – if that were the case it would mean he;s guilty of taking at face value another publication's claims and not fact-checking, but at least there wouldn't be some totally incorrect press release floating around. Hopefully someone corrects the error soon before it gets repeated many more places!

acp | August 24, 01:58 CET

Yeah I noticed that too. Piss poor fact checking by Variety and Screen Daily.

Simon | August 24, 02:00 CET

Thanks Simon. I really am sorry -- I just had one of those "realized I put no stamp on the letter just after dropping it in the letterbox" moments.

It behooves those of us who've already seen the movie to be VERY vigilant and always click "spoiler" no matter how remote the possibilty of it might be. I'm very thankful only one person got zapped instead of dozens, but I still feel really remorseful for having spoiled that one person.

I agree that reviews should be consolidated as much as possible. I had trouble finding the "Variety" review today, because it disappeared pretty quickly.

chickenbird | August 24, 02:03 CET

The Screen Daily one repeats the Jewel being Joss's wife error. I'm wondering if someone saw a picture of Joss on his knees at comic con and just put two and two together. ;-)

newcj | August 24, 02:04 CET

Some people should never be allowed to write as much as their first name.

TheZeppo | August 24, 02:05 CET

And The Screen Daily article also sports a fun new error, calling Rivers character by the name of "Rain."

[ edited by SaltyGoodness on 2005-08-24 00:09 ]

SaltyGoodness | August 24, 02:08 CET

chickenbird, don't beat yourself too much over the spoiler. I think we all made that mistake a time or two. Just hang a tag when in doubt and allow a MOD to make the call.

Madhatter | August 24, 02:27 CET

Well, that's a clear case of Phoenix syndrome - between Summer Glau and River Tam, the writer clearly got befuddled and, in desperation, plumped for the wrong sister . . .

SoddingNancyTribe | August 24, 02:38 CET

Humm, the Screen Daily reviewer not only makes the mistake of calling Jewel Staite the wife of Joss, he then proceeded to indicate that her character was the "weakest" of the lot...in a manner that I take as a rather thinly veiled suggestion that being his wife was more important than talent during casting. Now maybe I'm reading too much into this and maybe his negative critique of Jewel's character is simply coincidence...or maybe he's confusing Jewel with Sheri Moon Zombie...just makes me wonder what's behind this "review"?!

Calledon | August 24, 02:44 CET

Seriously, Calledon. I guess we just have to accept that not everyone's going to "get" the movie, just like people didn't "get" the series. It's a good thing critics don't run this business, or Serenity's future for that matter.

TheZeppo | August 24, 02:47 CET

Calledon, I noticed that too. I do not think you are reading too much into it at all.

newcj | August 24, 02:49 CET

Has anyone emailed the author to let them know about the errors?

Willowy | August 24, 02:52 CET

Collectively, I think critics do matter to a degree, but it's still very, very early. Also remember, however, that just about everyone who's reviewed that movie is a small timer so far. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. Sometimes I'm a small time critic myself.)

And, the bad reviews are not really all that bad. And they all seem to be overly influenced by the "I didn't watch the TV show so this movie is not for me" syndrome. I'll be very interested to see what the real critics, Roger Ebert, Kenneth Turan, etc., have to say.

bobster | August 24, 03:07 CET

I'm still cracking up over Jewel is Joss' wife thing. I can hear the internet rumors now. Which left field did that come out of? Seriously, if I was going to post a news article on the 'net, you could bet your bottom dollar I would do some hard research to get my facts straight. Creditably is golden.

Madhatter | August 24, 03:08 CET

River? Summer? Rain? It's all the same really. ;P

nixygirl | August 24, 04:07 CET

Again with the "Jewel is Joss' wife" thing? Where is this misinformation coming from, and why are so many people printing it? Did someone say something at the premiere to make it seem they were married?

As for the reviews themselves, I'm finding it interesting that they are such a mixed bag. It will be interesting to see how Serenity fares on rotten tomatoes.

mnspnr | August 24, 05:45 CET

Aren't critics sent a press kit by the studio? I thought this is where they got plot summaries, cast lists, character names, etc., for their reviews. Maybe Universal accidentally listed Jewel as Joss' wife in the press kit.

These negative reviews remind me of the people who didn't like Buffy - especially with the attacks of unoriginality. Joss is interested in tweaking and combining genres and genre conventions - so on the surface, his plots and characters are based on archetypes, and are therefore seemingly conventional.

Serenity isn't original in the sense that it's the first space western, or the first movie with a ass-kicking female, or the first movie with a implacable British villian - all that stuff has been done before, yes. Where the originality comes in is in the way Joss combines genres that haven't been combined before, adds irony and wit to genres that were previously completely self-serious, and so on. Some people just refuse to see that.

bonzob | August 24, 06:44 CET

Bonzob, it's a possibility but I seriously doubt it. I've been involved with press kit creation before, and that stuff is checked obsessively and usually gets final approval from someone like Joss.

binkaboo | August 24, 07:03 CET

It seems a shame because underlying this "she's his wife" misinformation I'm getting a "that's why she got the role " vibe, which is very dismissive of Jewel's ability as an actor.

m'cookies actual | August 24, 08:36 CET

I just had another theory about these reviews. I was looking quickly at one of the write-ups describing how the festival went "mental."

It occurs to me now that there's its kind of annoying to see a film with a really demonstrative cult audience when you are not a member of the cult. It's entirely possible what we're reading is sort of an instant backlash.

Hopefully, most critics will get the see the movie in more normal circumstances.

bobster | August 24, 10:27 CET

Someone explain to me why it's usually the negative reviews that are full of errors? A stalemate between Alliance and Independents? A flashback? Either this movie really IS confusing for newcomers or he isn't used to movies that actually require you to shut up and pay attention (or the fans were too loud *g*).

Trienco | August 24, 10:57 CET

eddy said:



That would be the Monday following the second weekend of release, so we'll know for sure whether the movie is taking off at that point, or if it's just fans who are going.

RogueScribner | August 24, 11:16 CET

Another couple thoughts occur to me as to why the negative reviews have the most errors.

1. They did not like it, so they did not care enough to get the details right.

2. They did not see the movie.

Many decades ago it was suspected that a certain theater critic was reviewing shows he had not seen, He got caught when a show was cancelled at the last minute because of an electrical blackout or something, but his rather negative and detailed review appeared the next day just as if the performance had actually taken place. Just a thought.

newcj | August 24, 15:54 CET

You are probably right newcj about some reviewers not seeing or seeing just a few minutes of something. Some early reviews of Serenity came from folks who obviously did not sit through the same film I did. Not because they didn't like it or something like that, but they just had too many facts wrong or paid zero attention. I am not bothered by mixed reviews at all. I predicted that would happen. I am bothered when the most negative reviews are full of errors. I did try to email one reviewer but couldn't because I wasn't a member. But not enough reason to sign up, imho.

April | August 24, 16:51 CET

Actually, it's pretty unlikely that the negative reviewers didn't see the movie -- though it might seem to us like they weren't paying attention. However, nearly all the ecstatic reviews so far have, unfortunately, been from fans of the show (profesional or otherwise). If you've seen the show, obviously, you're much more likely to get things like character names right without help from fact checkers.

bobster | August 24, 21:36 CET