It's interesting to me that they say they were "disappointed with the way Serenity sounded in theatres" because it wasn't until something like my 17th or 18th time that I discovered the depth of and the attention to the sound design and mix in the movie.

Literally, there were sound elements I had no idea existed until that particular showing.

Credit that discovery to the astonishing Cinetopia theater in Vancouver, Washington, which remains the only theater at which I saw the movie that actually had a sound system that revealed the proper design and mix.

theonetruebix | January 08, 14:15 CET

Great review.

...And is it just me, or is the reader backlash at the bottom kind of surprising? I know that not everyone nearly worships Joss' work as most of us here do, but almost all of the non-fans I've talked to really liked it. It seems to me that the hate for the movie isn't rampant, but likes to converge in certain groups at certain places (i.e. DVD Times, the Best & Worst board at IMDb [though those on the Classic board love it]).

UnpluggedCrazy | January 08, 14:50 CET

What I cannot comprehend is how can anyone call Joss' work bland... what part of it don't they understand? Did they have their humour chip removed?

sushi | January 08, 15:04 CET

In my experience there are very few places on bigger boards/blogs, especially the tech and movie ones where the discussion thread is little more than everyone jumping up and down saying "Hey look at me!". This usually takes the form of sharp, opinionated "I know what I'm talking about" criticism. Bleh.

herb | January 08, 16:05 CET

I believe you are right, herb. That's exactly the impression I got from some of the snarky comments at the end of the review. The review itself was excellent, and I wish it could be posted in every establishment that shows, rents or sells films!

sandyg | January 08, 16:12 CET

I like the review, but I do wish somebody had done a little more proofreading. Am I alone in finding it fishy that Mal is a troubled sole? Or in being amused by: a series of colonised planets, terror firmed to support human life - the terror in question being undoubtedly the Reavers?

As for the snark, not all film-viewers are as intelligent and perceptive as Whedonesquers...

Gill | January 08, 18:08 CET

Some of those comments just made me angry and want to go and lie down somewhere. I think some people just instantly dismiss something because they don't think they will like it, and deliberately go out to prove themselves right.

For instance, I have a friend who says he hates Joss's work, and dismissed Buffy's death in season five and Joyce's death as "emotionless", even though I think he was only going on rather hazy memories. I thought that even if you weren't a Buffy fan you might have accepted that The Gift was supposed to be emotional and upsetting, even if you didn't feel at all upset personally.

Then I tried explaining the technical merits of The Body- the long scenes, the camerawork, the harsh lighting, the strangely uncomfortable, voyeuristic feeling Joss so effortlessly evokes, the lack of score music, the completely realistic performance from Sarah Michelle Gellar, when she could have so easily went too far... and got no response, from someone who claims to pride himself on knowing about the technical side of film/TV, who discusses actor's performances and film scores and director's work.

I just hate that some people are so know-it-all and instantly dismiss something because of the premise, and even if they were to enjoy it, would pretend not to because of the opinions of others like them. And that's what I was getting from a lot of the comments there.

But the review was pretty good. I agree that perhaps Joss's direction wasn't perfect but I think it was better than "good".

Razor | January 08, 18:25 CET

Well, far be it from me to bash the bashers, but it does bring up a question that I often ponder: Are we as a culture losing context? Unlike th edark ages, when libraries were being burned and knowledege was scarce (thank you Irish monks) we are now awash in contnet – media in every form imaginable and nearly ubiquitous. What we seem to be missing is context, the "why" and "how" of things and the consequences, which is something Whedon is very good at IMHO.

I'm afraid the general tone of the comments reflects this (as I'm also afraid that the current trend in the horror genre toward "synthsnuff" - "Wolf Creek", both "Saws" and "Hostel" also reflect a similar and disturbing trend. Yet on this I do find it interesting the rise of presentations of torture during a time when torture is a matter of debate for national policy. BUt I mega-digress....).

For an excellent (and highly readable) treatise on the stuff check out "The Twilight of American Culture" by Morris Berman.

I truly wonder if there is a degree of content-junkies out there who just want bigger and cooler thrills with each successive cinematic experience.

Laptops running out of juice (and I need a new power cord- don't ask). Later.

malformed | January 08, 18:51 CET

>>Then I tried explaining the technical merits of The Body ...<<

Razor, I think if you have to try and explain this episode to someone ... that someone won't get it. I re-watched it last week ... I shouldn't try it again without an oxygen mask, because it literally takes my breath away. It's a brilliant piece of raw pain, achieved through masterful employment of the "less is more" approach, and if I could only take one piece of Joss Whedon's work along to the proverbial island, I think this would be it. Not that I wouldn't miss the FIREFLY crew something fierce, mind. *s*

(As for that -- interesting, indeed -- review, could someone explain to me why it's _surprisingly_ that Joss proves to be a good action director? Seems to me that he's always done bits of action, and that they've always been done ... _surprisingly_ well for TV.)

bschnell | January 08, 19:02 CET

I'll stay away from the snark/cultural comments...I've been an irregular in the troll wars, have my own theories about the cause of much snark and schaudenfraude, so I'll leave that alone.

But, re: sound. I saw the movie five times in theaters and my reaction to the sound varied from "just fine" to "ohmigod, must run and tell the managers they're ruining the #$@#$@# film! Now!!" only to return to a borderline comatose theater....

But then I watched the DVD at my sister's house (alone, sadly). They have an very good home theater system, and I was pretty stunned by how much better it sounded. At least on DVD, "Serenity" really does have a terrific sound mix, and not one movie theater I saw it in managed to really do it justice.

Small wonder that more people are avoiding theaters entirely while a few very high end theaters like the "the Bridge" in West L.A. and the Arclight multiplex next to the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood ($14.00 on a weekend!) are also doing well.

bobster | January 09, 01:07 CET

bschnell, of course I knew I couldn't do the episode justice but it was a last resort in attempting to defend Buffy against someone who just wouldn't give it the time of day, even though he evidently hadn't watched the episode properly or at least using his "highly developed" knowledge of the biz.

Razor | January 10, 00:47 CET