I'm letting people know in advance that other reviews maybe tagged on to this thread.

Simon | September 28, 20:08 CET

It feels like the reviewer, um, thinks the film is nothing more than a mishmash of its influences that isn't at all saying much of anything, and really offers nothing new.

Anybody else think the same thing? I wish his friend, who said, "Was the TV show this good?" had written a review.

[ edited by pat32082 on 2005-09-28 18:16 ]

pat32082 | September 28, 20:15 CET

Wilonsky has never been high on my list of favorite critics. If memory serves, he usually deals with thing on a pretty one-dimensional level and here, he doesn't understand the difference between camp and humor.

[ edited by bobster on 2005-09-28 18:28 ]

bobster | September 28, 20:28 CET

It feels like the reviewer, um, thinks the film is nothing more than a mishmash of its influences that isn't at all saying much of anything, and really offers nothing new.

I agree.

Allyson | September 28, 20:31 CET

Glad I'm not the only one who interpreted it that way.

pat32082 | September 28, 20:35 CET

A couple ways to look at this: It tells people it's worth seeing, and once there people can make up their own minds about the specific slant this review takes in doing so. That's really the most important part, because having seen the film twice now with audiences no dominated by Browncoats, I am becoming more comfortable with the concept that the trick is getting people into the theater for it -- once there, I think they'll go along for thw ride of it.

So anything that gets people into the movie is good for us.

On the other hand, I do wonder why certain reviewers -- who are, after all, people who spend a rather large proportion of their lives inside dark rooms with strangers they never speak to -- feel the need to make cracks like "For those unfamiliar with the story, which is to say for those familiar with sunlight and a pleasant breeze."

The One True b!X | September 28, 20:48 CET

The reviewer's attitude doesn't bother me too much. He doesn't think Joss is doing anything terribly new. Okay, whatever. He fails to get how truly deep Serenity goes - and how successful it is in going there. Okay. But he does say the film is a hell of a lot of fun and is worth seeing. And he did mention the other reviewer in the audience leaning over and asking if Firefly is as great as Serenity is. I'm not bothered. I think this review will get folks into the theater and as theonetruebix points out, this is what most matters now. Once on the seats, people will make up their own minds. It's getting them there that's the big issue.

phlebotinin | September 28, 21:09 CET

The San Francisco Bay Guardian (The SF Weekly's primary competitor, with a substantially larger circulation) has posted a capsule review on its film listings page: http://www.sfbg.com/39/52/x_list_film.html (scroll down a little).

"Exciting and well-written, Serenity isn't exactly a special-effects extravaganza. Instead, it's a character study of a small group of renegades whose revolution was crushed by the wealthy, imperial Alliance (a mishmash of the former US and Chinese governments) several years before the film begins."

bobothebrave | September 28, 21:12 CET

There. See? Perfect.

pat32082 | September 28, 21:14 CET

I've added Hjermsted's link to this thread.

Simon | September 28, 21:17 CET

Thanks for the Bay Guardian link, bobothebrave. Fantastic if short review. I'm so encouraged that all these little independent weekly papers are giving Serenity the general high five. Their writer-reviewers can be rather snobby-snotty, sometimes even more so than the big papers and magazines.

phlebotinin | September 28, 21:18 CET

I was in line (at the press screening) with the guy who wrote the Seattle Weekly review. I guess my fandom didn't turn him off. I don't remember much of what we talked about. I do remember that a friend of his made him watch a few episodes of FF before seeing Serenity.

SpookyRiverFan | September 28, 21:22 CET

I like that the Seattle Weekly review mentions that the film may be "too cerebral for its own good." I'd certainly take sci-fi that is "too cerebral" over crap like The Island any day of the week.

MindPieces | September 28, 21:37 CET

MindPieces- Ha! I like the fact that there are reviews that say "don't think, or the movie will fall apart," and there are others saying it's "too cerebral for its own good." I'd like to think that the former comments say more about the reviewers than the film.

bobothebrave | September 28, 21:41 CET

Is it just me or is anyone else a little put-off by the reviewers that talk about the television budget/look of the film. I have seen a lot of films that look more like glorified TV movies than Serenity and haven't heard this line thrown at them. It seems like laziness born of the film's TV origins than anything else.

Anyone else with me on this one?

Unitas | September 28, 22:05 CET

Totally with you, Unitas.

Chris inVirginia | September 28, 22:32 CET

So with you, Unitas. Not to mention which Joss' TV 'look' is much fancier and more expensive than most TV shows. I mean, Angel and Firefly were shot in widescreen, even, so we're talking prettier than Star Trek by a long shot.

Anyway, I think Serenity's impact is precisely that it doesn't have a TV look -- he's made it all bigger and better.

chickenbird | September 28, 22:38 CET

Judging from the current threads on Whedonesque I'd say definitely yes! Hell I know it's my main pet peeve right now. I really believe most of them would never even say anything about 'looks like TV' if they didn't know the backstory of the project. It feels like easy and cheap cheap shots.

Also, even though this new Times review isn't bad and mostly positive, there are some things I really take issue with (besides the 'TV roots' remarks). One is the idea that Joss kept aliens out of the show mainly to keep the costs low. That's just pure jumping to unfounded conclusions. You don't even need a lot of money to make someone look like an alien (Hell, on Trek it usually just meant a weird nose). It was a deliberate thematical decision and Joss has said that since before Firefly aired.

Another thing is that 'camp' remark. As other pointed out already, it's not camp. And someone who writes for a living should know the difference between camp and dry, off-hand wit.

Last but not least, the other thing already mentioned here, that Serenity is nothing but a hodgepodge of other movies.

Okay.

First of all, point a movie out to me of the last 20 years that I *won't* be able to say that about. Of course there are inspirations and influences to be found. Nothing was ever created in a vacuum. Hell, Star Wars in 1977 was basically just a mix of Lord of the Rings, Westerns, and WWII pilot movies set in space when you think about it! The Matrix has about a zillion 'parents' too. But what these movies did was take all those influences and put a new spin on it. And with Serenity, Joss does that more than those movies.

(And btw, now Zoey is just 'The gallant driver's brave missus'?? Yeahhh, that's an excellent summation of her character....right.)

Still overall a decent piece. I just wonder sometimes if people really watch the movies they're supposed to review or if they're mostly on the phone while occasionally glancing at the screen...

EdDantes | September 28, 22:44 CET

100% with you Unitas. Nice related rant, EdDantes.

phlebotinin | September 28, 22:50 CET

The review was fairly positive, yes, but the reviewer kinda pissed me off with a few comments.

This was, by and large, the chiefest among them (even worse than that "sunlight and a pleasant breeze" crack):



Um...is it just me...or what is so great about Serenity is that it was intelligent? *sigh*

UnpluggedCrazy | September 29, 02:38 CET