To be honest, I didn’t totally understand this film’s plotline

I stopped reading at this sentence (the first sentence, as it happens).

gossi | December 15, 15:32 CET

Whenever I see a negative review like that for a film I like, I'm curious enough to see if they explain why they didn't understand it or didn't like it.

It honestly sounds like the guy was either somewhat determined not to like it beforehand or watched it while half asleep, 'cause Serenity's plot was pretty easy to follow (I know 'cause one of the people I went with to the Toronto screening in June had never seen Firefly and wasn't coached on what the film would be about, but easily understood and liked it a lot. Watching Firefly later deepened his appreciation of the characters and their relationships of course, and made him love the movie even more when he saw it on September 30th). Still, this reviewer sounds like someone who would've greatly benefitted from seeing the series first.

Kris | December 15, 15:48 CET

While i don't agree with the reviewer, i do understand his points.
Serenity isn't a movie that everybody is gonna like.

sethsky | December 15, 16:01 CET

here I am, not really “getting” what everyone else seems to have “gotten” out of this movie.

Well, at least he lets the reader know that he's one of the few who didn't "get it." That's either courage or foolhardiness -- likely the latter. This was a pretty silly review by someone nursed on Lucas films who clearly wanted more battle sequences (his interest only picked up at the end), special effects, and clearly-labeled bad guys in black helmets and capes. The subtleties of the film, not to mention the plot, clearly escaped him. Any valid points he might have had are undermined by the rest of the review.

palehorse | December 15, 16:05 CET

I'll admit I didn't read it, negative reviews make me angry.

Don't really understand how some reviews say the effects while not as good as, stand up pretty well against Star Wars (which when I watched Episode III on DVD just looked far too clean and unreal) and yet he reckons they're so-so, unlike liking a story, what are good special effects isn't really a matter of opinion.

Gotta wonder, is he someone that went into it determined to dislike it, the whole build up to the theatrical release he was going on about how he didn't see what the fuss was about, and he didn't bother to see it in the theaters (not really that good for a guy that runs a film review site). It's not the simplest of plots, but there's nothing about it that someone that hadn't seen Firefly shouldnt have been able to enjoy.

Ghost Spike | December 15, 16:38 CET

Yikes, this is a pretty bad review, honestly. I truly don't get how reviews like this come to be published on the web. I used to run the review section of my local university magazine, and would have considered this 'below par'. First of all: if you don't 'get' the movie, why write a review about it at all? Try rewatching it, and if that still doesn't help, let it slide and don't write the review. At least, that's what I'd do.

This reads more like someone's personal report posted on a dicussion forum or in a newsgroup than an actual movie review worth publishing on the net or anywhere else. Lines like "I was bored" or "I stopped giving a shit" give the reader no real insight into why the reviewer thinks this might bore other people and as such it's only one person's opinion with no real added value for someone who may or may not want to go see the movie and wants to be informed before making a choice.

In the end a review is not so much about what the reviewer's opinion is, but rather about how the reviewer reaches that opinion. I've read reviews that gave a movie a bad grade that made me want to go see the movie and the other way around.

But anyway, I'll stop ranting. It's just that I've noticed more and more reviews that don't have any added value published on websites and the likes and it somehow bothers me. I'm lame :-p.

Anyway, to continue with the actual content: there's a bunch of stuff I don't agree with. Adam Baldwin is a poor-man's Ben Affleck? Huh? Colour me confused. I'd say Adam is not only a better actor, but also not the same 'type'. He goes on to say River looks like a skinnier version of Christina Ricci. She does? I seem to have never noticed that before, but maybe that's me? And why is characters using different languages 'questionable'?

Other than that, I agree with palehorse. It seems this reviewer does not like his movies subtle. He likes his bad characters truly bad, his good characters truly good and his plotlines simple. And that's fine, but that's not what Serenity is about. Not that that matters, because there's bound to be people who don't 'get' or 'like' the movie and this guy is obviously one of them. Thankfully the reviewers that díd 'get' the movie seem to be a majority.

GVH | December 15, 16:41 CET

I actually don't usually have a problem with reading a bad review. Not everyone is going to love the same things that you do so it's only to be expected that you will read something negative about a particular favourite of yours, sooner or later.

Can't exactly put my finger on why but this review did annoy me. It's as if the guy wanted the entire plot painted in big red letters for him on the screen. How many movies, particularly when you are talking science fiction, signpost every single detail for you? What would be the fun in that?

I don't know. For me, complex is good, especially when backed up with a outcome that makes sense. Add to that well written characters and excellent acting an you have what i would call a fantastic movie.

WhedonTrivia | December 15, 17:01 CET

Other than Adam Baldwin’s (a poor man’s Ben Affleck

Oh no, he didn't!

He goes on to say River looks like a skinnier version of Christina Ricci. She does? I seem to have never noticed that before,

Actually I've seen(or read?) Summer Glau bring that up before.

[ edited by eddy on 2005-12-15 15:28 ]

eddy | December 15, 17:21 CET

Yeah, I heard they couldn't get Ben Affleck for Full Metal Jacket (conflict with junior high), so they had to go with Adam. Too bad.

dreamlogic | December 15, 17:34 CET

Agreed. I actually like reading reviews that disagree with my own personal opinion of a movie, or at least I do when the reviewer lets you know how he or she formed his or her opinion. It keeps things fresh, and more often than not helps you consider why some of the things that did not work for the reviewer did work for you and may ultimately lead to more insight into the movie.

Having said that, I do tend to dislike reading negative reviews of Serenity, but I guess that's just a touchy subject ;-). I do, however, try to read 'em to see where people had problems. And some of the critisisms mentioned dó make sense. However, not so much in this review, which has lots of opinion and not much foundation.



So Summer herself thinks she looks somewhat like Christina Ricci? I still don't quite see it, but who am I to argue with the lady herself ;-).

GVH | December 15, 17:49 CET

I wonder if reviewers aren't always sold on the effects because the effects aren't some NEW creation (like the millions of clones in SW) or pushing any envelopes (like The Matrix). I thought they worked perfectly in Serenity, and by that I mean, I watched the story and never noticed the effects, for good or bad. I didn't notice the little squares like you can see in the original SW, nor did it appear over slick like the later SWs, as someone mentioned above. It was just a ship in space. Obviously, they weren't trying new fancy stuff like when the first Matrix came out so perhaps that's why reviewers aren't "impressed?"

Not sure I'm explaining that right. Does that make any sense? :)

[ edited by Grace on 2005-12-15 15:55 ]

Grace | December 15, 17:53 CET

Far as who Summer reminds me of (or more specifically, when she's not glammed up and she's playing River), even as far back as early Firefly episodes I could see a lot of a young Sigourney Weaver in her. Even moreso in some shots in Serenity. Anyone else get a bit of that from her?

Kris | December 15, 18:26 CET

clunky spaceship

*grumbles*

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, this one just happens to be wrong. Serenity isn't a clunker, she runs on love.

nixygirl | December 15, 18:32 CET

LOL @ nixygirl. That was cute. Kaylee-level cute, even.

And by making that comment he showed that he really didn't get the point of those two or three jokes about Serenity's condition in the film. That the crew is desperate, not filthy or even moderately rich, and that duh--this isn't Star Trek! They aren't meant to be a viable threat to even the dinkiest of Alliance ships, hence not owning a battle-ready starship. Also the reason Mal takes advantage of the Reaver armada.

Kris | December 15, 18:40 CET

Agreed that it's a shoddily written review, but it does give some idea of why it didn't do as well at the box-office as we'd hoped. I'm sure he echoes the opinion of a lot of movie-goers who are unable to shovel popcorn into their mouths and follow a non-signposted plotline peopled with fully fleshed characters at the same time.

I know some people who didn't bother watching it because the budget wasn't big enough. Presumably they only read books with pictures too.

Special Agent Dale Cooper | December 15, 19:07 CET

Opinions vary. I wouldn't get too worked up about it. The movie/dvd is receiving widespread praise. It will find a healthy word of mouth audience. I know I'm giving out more than a few Serenity dvds as Christmas presents...

Shakespeare | December 15, 19:25 CET

Ok...again, I can't think that being able to follow the plotline has much to do with knowing the tv show. Plenty of newbies have followed it just fine. It's not that complex. Now something like, say, Syriana, was a bit hard for me to follow bit by bit, but I still understood the plot. Maybe that's why the guy really didn't like it. He didn't understand it.

And yeah, if you don't understand something, you're more likely to be bored by it. But some of his lines just irked me.

as very little about her background was forthcoming

No, not every little thing gets spelled out all the time. You have to *gasp* use your brain a little.

manipulated by the “Alliance” (baddies running the future universe),

Again, I think it's too simplistic to call the Alliance 'baddies', but that's probably just me.

The film’s “bad guys” also weren’t all that great with one badass dude with a sword

So 'bad guys' are only effective if they have an army of men. Which, oh! He did! But he was quite capable of handling himself for most of the movie. Which you'd think might be appreciated in terms of 'why do the bad guys always gang up on the good guys', as this wasn't the case.

so-called “reavers” also didn’t do much for me, as they’re mentioned throughout the film…but rarely seen.

Well...that's kind of the point. The Boogeyman is less scary if we see him sitting around all the time having tea and cake! And 'so-called' Reavers...what does that even mean? I can almost hear this guy going, "Those weren't Reavers. Back in *my* day, we had Reavers terrorizing everyone all the time, so I know Reavers..."

The movie also tosses some questionable sequences into the mix...characters speaking out in different languages from time to time, and two crewmembers stopping in the middle of a wicked gun-battle to talk lovey-dovey to each other.

Questionable? Why is it questionable that people speak different languages in the future? Did he not get the whole 'blending of cultures' that was highlighted in other areas of the movie? I guess not, maybe he was too busy looking at River's bug-eyes or something... And stopping in the middle of a gunbattle to talk lovey-dovey...right, this has never been done in any other movie ever. And they were at the start of the gunbattle. Waiting. That's the tension of that scene. A few shots are being fired, but in the meanwhile, you wait to...die, essentially. What better time to have that 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' conversation?

Well, it's obvious this guy didn't 'get' it. And that's fine. I just don't understand most of his complaints.

Rogue Slayer | December 15, 19:35 CET

I think that what struck me the most was that the reviewer admits that most of the reviews have been good, even that of someone he respects, and yet he says "he didn't get it". That would have made me wonder if the fault were my own in some way. I think it might have given me pause and that I might have watched it again - possibly with an open mind and paying attention this time.

Sure, I'd seen Firefly, and seeing it certainly sets the stage, but there was no way a person of normal intelligence, who was paying attention, could not understand the plot of Serenity, IMHO.

TexLuvsAngel | December 15, 19:50 CET

"I know some people who didn't bother watching it because the budget wasn't big enough. Presumably they only read books with pictures too."

Hee hee! But seriously, that's crazy. Budgets don't make a good story!

I saw Serenity without seeing Firefly and I thought it was an excellent movie. And I haven't liked anything lately. There have been so many movies that seemed like they were going to be great, that I have been disappointed by.

Van Helsing, Underworld, League of Extraordinary bad movie-making, and yes, the last three Star Wars movies.

You can have all the brilliant special effects in the world but if you can't make me care about the characters, it isn't a movie. It's an extra-long commercial for tie-ins.

I am still not particularly invested in the Firefly Universe, I would go see a sequel, and I wish you all the best, but I don't really care the way I do about the Buffy/Angel universe.


And by the way since I liked the movie I went back and forced myself to watch the Firefly marathon. It grew on me but there were still elements I didn't like.

But Serenity was an EXCELLENT movie.

Xane | December 15, 20:15 CET

This same JoBlo who gave Serenity 4/10 also gave Into the Blue 6/10, apparently based on the film's success at showcasing Jessica Alba's admittedly incredible ass, which he mentions no fewer than seven times in his review. Maybe Serenity would have scored higher in his book if Summer, Gina, Jewel and Morena had all been costumed in thongs throughout the movie. Joblo = his favorite aspect of Alba anatomy.

jaynelovesvera | December 15, 20:54 CET

FWIW - I too thought River looked like Christina Ricci at one point during the movie - right after she's massacred the Reavers and she's standing there - arms akimbo, blood dripping off the blade - just before she looks back over her shoulder at the Alliance members who've just pulled down the wall behind her. That's the only time I thought it and I think it had more to do with the way her hair framed her face (making her chin look more pointed) and the shadows all around.

Eden | December 15, 20:59 CET

Maybe the reviewer is related to Joe Bob Briggs, whose movie reviews include breast counts as a regular assessment of movie quality.

As I've noted before, the web is the world's largest vanity press. With all that entails.

MissKittysMom | December 15, 21:20 CET

Dude theres no point of even talking about this reviewer, he clearly saw the movie with half his brain in his head. He felt no emotions, probably stuffed his face with popcorn and left. Why he wrote a review?........He must be bored and his site must need visitors and us browncoats are clicking.

ChosenOne5376 | December 15, 21:23 CET

He didn't like it, guys. What's the big deal? The other writer at the site, Arrow, gave the film 3.5/4 stars. There wasn't an inherit bias.

And I completely understand anybody who thinks Serenity had so-so special fx. The Reaver/mule chase especially sports a couple of especially bad shots.

The Dark Shape | December 15, 21:35 CET

It isn't the most ignorant review I've ever read, but I do disagree with several points.

Perhaps he didn't find the characters interesting, but I certainly did, right from the first time I was ever introduced to them. Maybe that's a completely subjective thing. I do agree that the characters don't immediately strike out at you as being really shockingly unique, but neither do they seem like one-dimensional stereotypes if you spend any length of time watching the film or series.

I don't get the comparison from Adam Baldwin to Ben Affleck at all. I didn't think Ben Affleck was seen as a "macho dude character". Again I heavily disagree about the costumes, special effects and "unfunny repartee" but that again might be a subjective thing. However I thought the costumes were great, they were interesting whilst generally remaining practical, unlike sci-fi films where the characters are wearing really elaborate, unrealistic costumes.

The special effects were fantastic, the only thing was that Joss didn't want them to be the focus of the story, so you don't have massively long CGI sequences that people expect to see these days, especially in sci-fi. Joss uses them as a way of expressing his story, and I thought they were impressive but used appropriately.

The whole idea of the Reavers being barely seen is Joss making use of dramatic tension, which is used in so many art forms for so long that I can't understand why this would be a bad thing, and only makes them more frightening and creates tension in the film.

And I can't remember two characters stopping in the middle of a gun battle to speak lovey dovey to one another. Kaylee and Simon were talking before the battle, having already prepared as much as they could, and I felt it was refreshingly unstereotypical, with Kaylee's eagerness for sex subverting the audience's expectations of how the scene was going to go, giving us emotional satisfaction spiked with humour.

Razor | December 15, 21:40 CET

I find it a refreshingly honest review. He doesn't get it. He knows most people do. Given all that, the review went on longer than it need to, but he was upfront about his bias.

Lioness | December 15, 21:45 CET

This is a broader issue than just "one bad review." There are questions of integrity and quality; as palehorse noted way up-thread, if he knew that he didn't "get it" then he shouldn't have written this. The review reflects badly (very badly) on the reviewer, not on Serenity, and if the reviewer isn't aware of that, then he shouldn't be writing for public consumption.

Unfortunately, this sort of "know-nothing" journalism is becoming all too common. I sincerely hope that no one paid him to write this. If this is "professional" work, then the publisher isn't getting their money's worth.

MissKittysMom | December 15, 21:47 CET

What? He walked into a film and reviewed it. You're saying anyone who hasn't seen Firefly shouldn't be allowed to review Serenity?

That's ignorant. The man didn't like the movie. Move on.

[ edited by The Dark Shape on 2005-12-15 19:55 ]

The Dark Shape | December 15, 21:55 CET

No, I just expect some intelligent discussion of the movie, whether he liked it or not. "It sucked because I didn't like it" doesn't cut it.

MissKittysMom | December 15, 22:03 CET

Let's be careful of name calling, both of the writer of the review and of each other. We're all entitled to our opinions and I think we can discuss this without being condescending, insulting, and spiteful.

zeitgeist | December 15, 22:16 CET

You know, Jaynelovesvera, the reviewer was OBVIOUSLY not paying attention, as Gina has the finest backside I've ever seen on television or in film. It is but one of the many reasons I adore her.

[ edited by GrrrAargh on 2005-12-15 22:49 ]

GrrrAargh | December 16, 00:48 CET

GrrrAargh, One of my favourite moments in the movie is when Inara walks onto the bridge and past Jayne who just automatically looks at her backside as she walks by him. Adam Baldwin brings so much to Jayne that I find it hard to believe how much I disliked the character when I saw it on TV.

[ edited by Lioness on 2005-12-16 01:12 ]

Lioness | December 16, 03:12 CET

Oh I can't believe I missed that Lioness! Hurry up and get here already DVD!

nixygirl | December 16, 04:40 CET