Aeon Flux, Talk Amongst Yourselves 310
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."
"
This was a review? (Score:2, Insightful)
you were able to get into the mindset the movie prepares for you, you'll find these characters as believable and as real as they were meant to be. If you found yourself bored and not at all involved within the first 10 minutes, blame it on your lack of imagination.
and even better:
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
Re:This was a review? This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This was a review? This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I keep coming back for more. Go figure.
Re: This was a review? This is news? (Score:4, Funny)
See? Nothing changes.
Re: This was a review? This is news? (Score:2)
I don't have the nerve to call myself an editor...
Re:This was a review? This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [ldopa.net]
What's sad... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This was a review? This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 NataelRe:This was a review? This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This was a review? This is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
All reviews are opinions.
Re:This was a review? This is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
And other reviews are fact?!? I've not seen Aeon Flux, and probably won't, so I've got no agenda here. But all reviews are opinion. And all of them just point out things they liked and didn't like, which only occasionally line up with the things I liked or didn't like, and they fumble arond to justify their opinion. Professional reviewers often degrade to just throwing insults, sometimes personal ones, at the actors, writer or directors. The really good profesio
The conclusion was only better (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This was a review? (Score:2)
Bored? I was laughing to hard too be bored. That movie was a collision between a Grade B music video and a runway show. The 'fight' scenes were closely shot and rapidly edited to hide the fact the main characters naturally moved in bullet time. Eveyone dressed coutire, every line meant to be poinient or intense to the MTV/Hallmark crowd. This movie is the strongest argument against DRM ye
Re:This was a review? (Score:2)
If you haven't read the Filty Critic's review, you should check it out. His reviews are very entertaining and blunt. And if you look closely, pretty insightful.
Re:This was a review? (Score:2)
Did you expect anything more from MTV Films? Just look at the movies they've made: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/MTVFilms. php [the-numbers.com]
Re:This was a review? (Score:3, Informative)
How is this different from the fanboys who cried out "If you didn't like the Matrix it's because you didn't get the Matrix"? Not that you are one of the fanboys who did that but I recall a time in slashdot history if you said anything bad about the Matrix you got modded as a troll and for those who didn't have mod points to beat you down with you were called a fucktard as they flung dagger
Review summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Review summary (Score:3, Funny)
I, for one, am shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
That's news to me.
My very first thought about this movie.... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, I'm sorry I never got to see Reign. The concept was interesting and I'd really liked to have seen what he would have done with a fully developed study.
As this movie goes, it just screams "renter"
Or a vodcast. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I, for one, am shocked! (Score:2)
That's not even a review... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Heh heh...you said "parahraph"! (Score:2, Funny)
Easy audience & saves on advertising. (Score:3, Insightful)
"remake old movies"
"remake old TV series"
"remake old comic books"
"remake remake remake remake remake"
and "sequel"!
You have an automatic audience of people who saw the original and have good memories of it. And Hollywood is all about automatic audiences.
Difficult plot? (Score:2, Funny)
I was pleasantly surprised. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The Monster as Aeon Flux (Score:2, Troll)
Re:The Monster as Aeon Flux (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a fan really, but Charlize Theron is thin by any stretch of the imagination.
True, but (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, I'm planning on waiting to see the film when it comes out in the dollar theater or rental, but everything I've seen leads me to think that it will be a good action movie, with very little in common with the cartoon.
The orginal cartoon portrayal (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I was pleasantly surprised. (Score:2, Interesting)
I went mainly because my girlfriend wanted to see it. "What? Charlize Theron with dark hair running around blowing shit up? We MUST see this movie!" (Could I love her more? Heh.) I'd seen a few bits and pieces back in the old LTV run, just enough to know that what plot there might be would be fairly thin.
Color me pleasantly surprised. It's not a GREAT movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it held my interest, usually managed a respectable level of internal consistency, and very few of the
The problem with the movie (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The problem with the movie (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, because of the expense of making a film in this style, the studio's are only going to allow something to be made which they can sell. Even some of the bigger studios who're known to take risks (Miramax, for example) probably wouldn't have touched a true-to-the-series Aeon Flux film with a barge pole.
The only ways I can imagine a 'true' Aeon Flux being made is: so
Re:The problem with the movie (Score:2)
Anyway, sorry for the appalling sentence structure
Re:The problem with the movie (Score:5, Informative)
As a co-writer of several scripts (many optioned, none produced), I have noticed there a singular problem with getting approval of "risky" works. The problem is that "hollywood" is actually highly risk-averse. It's such a nasty, backstabbing business that nobody ever wants to stick their neck out. To this end, there is constant pressure for approved scripts to be comparable to something that has worked before. The classic script pitch jokes along the lines of "it's like The Omen meets Cocoon, in outer space" are an exaggeration of the pathological need to have every "new" idea be a permutation or hybrid of something that has been successful before. More points are awarded if another studio is in the process of making a similar movie. This is why you see the same damn movies come out over and over. Remember when all those "funny" cop-buddy movies came out where one of the cops is a dog? (shudder)
The last thing the money men want to hear is "we don't know how this will play, no one's ever made a movie like this". The last thing the pitchmen want is to say that. To that end, every time you go in to show them what you've got, they'll be almost singleminded in their goal of getting you to make your work comparable to something they think the money men will go for. The integrity of your concept is wholly immaterial. They will indeed actually make the most absurd suggestions for how you might change the script to make it more salable. Things like "can you put a scrappy kid in?" or "could you change the setting from fantasy to modern reality, get rid of the magic stuff, and make the main character a handsome young guy instead of a tough old man?"-- these are not exaggerations, this is the kind of stuff they actually say! And even if you don't want those changes, if you sell them the script they'll give it to someone else who will make those changes. On rare occasions it'll end up in the hands of someone who truly understands the underlying idea and we'll end up with something interesting, but for the most part the pressure to turn scripts into pablum leaves us with theaters full of stuff like "Cheaper By The Dozen 2".
Re:The problem with the movie (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an interesting take on the problem. I have a fair bit of experience with Hollywood, though all from the technical side.
The problem, as I've heard it presented, is basically that the studios are public companies. Especially in this litigious society, that forces the studios to be risk averse. It's easy to defend a long series of moderately profitable
Re:The problem with the movie (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, if there was a cartoon on MTV where the characters and basic plot were really good, but each episode was consistently strange, stupid, and always left you thinking "why the hell did I just watch this crap", then they might want to go somewhere different with the story.
You know what I'm saying?
Re:The problem with the movie (Score:2)
Re:The problem with the movie (Score:2, Interesting)
It's entirely possible that one of the reasons for this was that I'd never seen the original series. What it came down to for me was that it was a Hollywood action flick with a bit less straightforwardness than ordinary. Yes, the plot was a bit confusing at first, because they didn't give you all the answers right at the beginning, but by the end, they gave you everything, and there was the thrill of discovery along the way. I found that t
Re:The problem with the movie (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree.
There are definitely some significant differences, but consistency wasn't exactly a hallmark of the original animated version. Aeon Flux died on a regular basis, Trevor Goodchild turned out to be (for one episode at least) a hollow shell controlled by a Custodian - which was itself controlled by a strange little bean-shaped thing, etc.
I watched some of the epi
Strength of Character Acting (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Strength of Character Acting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Strength of Character Acting (Score:2)
Re:Strength of Character Acting (Score:3, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Serenity a commercial flop?
Re:Strength of Character Acting (Score:2)
Synopsis: if you don't get it you're dumb (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Not just any TNA starved sci-fi geek... (Score:2)
The article was written by BinaryVixen who is identified, on the BinaryIdiot forums, as the Webmaster's girlfriend.
Lucky webmaster!
Re:Not just any TNA starved sci-fi geek... (Score:2)
Re:Not just any TNA starved sci-fi geek... (Score:3, Interesting)
I lifted it from a book by Richard Dawkins titled A Devil's Chaplain. [amazon.com] Specifically, it comes from 'The Great Convergence'. There are about 30 pieces in there, from book reviews to lectures, published and unpublished essays, along with a couple of eulogies (including the one he gave for Douglas Adams). Highly recommended reading.
Re:Synopsis: if you don't get it you're dumb (Score:2)
No, it doesn't!
Re:Synopsis: if you don't get it you're dumb (Score:2)
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.
Well you paid for the five-minute argument. How can there be an argument if he doesn't take a contrary position?
Re:Synopsis: if you don't get it you're dumb (Score:2)
The Review Sucked (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
recommended reading (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:recommended reading (Score:2, Insightful)
That sounds like an...odd...comparison to me. But yes, everyone should read that Clarke story.
If you can find it, read the original novella, Against the Fall of Night. I found that The City and the Stars didn't really
Waxing Autoerotic (Score:4, Informative)
"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...
Re:Waxing Autoerotic (Score:3)
Re:Waxing Autoerotic (Score:3, Funny)
Low Budget (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, Charlize is ok. The actors were pretty good. It was helluva lot better than SW Ep I-III acting. I the story was out there, but it's sci-fi, so I'll let it slide. The cheap look, though, really took away from the one area that I was expecting it to excel.
Re:Low Budget (Score:2)
Re:Low Budget (Score:2)
Someone else can add something about a woman directing a
Re:Low Budget (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Low Budget (Score:2, Funny)
The funny thing is that I had seen the in-game video billboards showing advertising for 'Aeon Flux', which I assumed was a bit of a joke by the Funcom developers about crappy sci-fi movies still existing in the year 29000.
I was quite surprised when I found out it was for real.
Childish review (Score:3, Interesting)
-FlynnMP3
Ok so this can only mean one thing.... (Score:2)
Talking about biased movie reviews... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll give the guy some points though, the movie was better than made out to be in a lot of reviews. But I still don't understand how this random review gets on the front page of
Plot: whose fault (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Plot: whose fault (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know that a movie has to reach everyone to be a good movie, just like not everyone will understand certain music or art. Does everything have to be dummed down to the lowest common denominator?
movie ok, go get animated series DVD set (Score:2)
Go see it for the eye-candy, and then go home and watch the newly-released complete DVD set of the original animated series for the true Aeon Flux experience.
Obligatory link to highly rated DVD collection... (Score:2)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000B8I9XQ/qid=1
Accept no live-action, wanna-be, bottom of barrel, low-rating imposter.
Aren't you contradicting yourselve? (Score:2)
movie looks bad (Score:2)
I have not seen the movie, but in curiousity have read several review. Universally, the plot, the actions, and the characters do not seem as free. But even if the plot and acting and all that is excellent,the live action movie would have a difficult time being Aeon Flux. Aeon was as much about the animnation as the writing and character. Without the complexity introduced by Peter Chung, I fail to see what hope any of this has.
Slashdot "experts" strike again. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Re:Slashdot "experts" strike again. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashdot "experts" strike again. (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot "experts" strike again. (Score:2)
But I do agree that this is arrogance (and it's even worse when it comes for somebody who doesn't get the point himself).
Re:Slashdot "experts" strike again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of us create "Intellectual Property" for a living as well, so it's not like everybody here is talking out of their asses on the subject; especially since most people here aren't wealthy enough to lobby to have revenue legislated for them, and all we can do is sit on the sidelines and bitch when other orgainizations manage to pull off such things.
If self reflection reveals that you
Actually went to the movie (Score:3, Interesting)
I went to the movie without any pre-conceptions and without knowing anything about AeonFlux. I've not read the comics, or anything.
I was wary going in because of bad reviews, but the movie was surprisingly, evenly good. There was a good story, and the acting was fair. Here's the main difference between AeonFlux and the Matrix, in my opionion:
Both movies start off with jaw dropping premises. AeonFlux actually carries the premise through to the end in a satisfactory conclusion.
I gave up (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I gave up (Score:2)
I guess back when the MTV series was playing late at night, Peter Chung was glad to get paid anything. MTV owned the rights and made the movie. It still sucks that they left him out of it. MTV +10 roll for chaotic evil.
movie was not aeon flux.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:movie was not aeon flux.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:movie was not aeon flux.. (Score:2)
Re:movie was not aeon flux.. (Score:2)
MTV series (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
There are reasons for the negative reviews... (Score:2, Interesting)
Filthy says: 1 finger (Score:2)
No seriously, read it: I cannot begin to summarize how bad he considers the movie.
Off to see Harry Potter at 70mm...
Re: (Score:2)
Logan's Run (Score:2)
I say this because it's what hollywood does... they take screenplays that worked and use them as the basis for anything that might have a cultural hook to it, to appeal to a younger audience.
I also say it because the interpreted premise of Chung's world (which I don't recall being quite so detailed
Movie was great, review was right on target (Score:2, Interesting)
Translation: (Score:2)
I watched it yesterday - may contain spoilers (Score:3, Insightful)
The tech stuff was nice, like the "living" gardens that were bio-engineered permieter security systems.
The lead actress was worth looking at.
The over all look and feel was nice and clean, it looked fresh and sharp.
Bad points -
The plot could be summed up as pandemic hits the world, a few are immunised just in time to save humanity and congregate in a single "utopian" city (movie starts here) the cure has a side effect, infertility, so they started cloning each other, 7th generation clone leader/dictator searches for a cure only to discover nature has spontaneously fixed the problem somehow, clone leaders clone sibling tries to supress this to maintain the status quo, cue lots of fighting scenes.
The action was cartooney, eg not credible, blade runner did it right, one "soldier", no matter how well trained, cannot take on and defeat hordes of other soldiers with at least equal access to military tech
The acting was two dimensional, but then that's all this film ever called for.
The ending was of course utterly predictable.
Was it worth watching? -
Seeing as I downloaded it for free from usenet it was worth the expense and the 90 minutes of my time to watch it, I've seen a __LOT__ worse films.... eg compared to the dukes of hazzard this was a masterpiece, but compared to blade runner it was trite, it was on a par with a trekkie type movie mebbe
If I'd paid ten UK pounds for a cinema ticket I'd have been well pissed.
HTH
Liquid Television...does anyone here miss it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aeon and Narnia (Score:3, Insightful)
And each makes a cultural / mythic statement, touching a part of human nature. Aeon Flux did a good job of showing the MTV cultural milleiu from which it sprang. Fairly nihilistic / materialistic showing the alienation of living in a comfortable prosperous society. When Aeon says there's something wrong inside everyone, that wrongness resonates with me. (The Pope said something about America's "culture of death" and I wondered how much he had this in mind.) Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Aeon Flux a lot. I'd seen it on MTV but hadn't been able to catch enough episodes to grok the story arc. Seeing it all at once, it made sense. I thought it said something significant about human nature.
Narnia also said something about human nature. I like to think myself something better than I am. In truth, I'm more like Edmond the traitor in the Narnia story. Almost everyone in Narnia was flawed in some way. And that's the point of that story. How does one cope with one's own flaws? How does one cope with a loved one who betrays us?
Both movies' plots turned upon a traitor among siblings. Each story adopted a different strategy for dealing with traitors. Aeon Flux and Trevor Goodchild were heroes of one sort. The Pevensies were heroes of another sort.
Rotten Tomatoes (Score:2)
Aeon Flux is currently running about 10%, which even amongst other craptastic cgi-fests, is suprisingly poor. That rating puts it about even with movies like Catwoman, and Elektra, which should tell you all you need to know.
My review of the movie (Score:3, Informative)
The story was well conceived, written, and executed - perhaps too much so. The original concept didn't trouble itself too much with plot, but the movie comes across with an interesting scifi story in its own right. It would have been very easy for a director to invest too much into the movie story at the expense of keeping to the simplicity of the original concept. While the two don't seamlessly combine in the movie, it reflects very well onto the director and producer that the movie story didn't completely overwhelm the movie and leave us all in WTF land ala Highlander 2. I was expecting 2 stars, and I give it a 3. Nice job, guys.
I think the "technical inconsistencies" pointed out by some readers are clearly bullshit - you have a problem with clones remembering their past lives in a world with strap-on transdimensional travel suits and complex multimedia messages being suspended in aqueous solution? Gimme a break. It wouldn't surprise me if all memory of your past lives was stored in a parasitic frog embedded in the abdomen of your next generation. How can you fail at suspension of disbelief in what has always been a consummately unbelievable world both in the cartoon and the movie?
Aeon Flux. Good Sci-fi, Bad Aeon Flux (Score:3, Interesting)
In the movie aeon is emotionally fragile. Aeon needs a team to cover her. Aeon is having a very caring relationship with trevor who is really a good guy.
Aeon flux the movie is good as far as Sci-fi movies go. It's just not Aeon Flux.
The plot wasn't "difficult" to understand (Score:3, Informative)
Beyond the stupidity of the plot, the action was just boring and uninteresting. It's Aeon breaking people's necks for 2 hours. We never get any explanation at all for where she's acquired these amazing acrobatic skills and killing techniques. We get no information at all about her background in this resistance, who the freaky resistance leader lady actually is, etc
Beyond that, Charlize Theron looked positively awful. I don't know what it is with anime geeks and making women's hair look like an oil spill (see Trinity in The Matrix for another example), but it looked terrible. Theron's a blond and was just the wrong choice for the role entirely. The outfits weren't exactly flattering either. I don't know why geeks have this unified vision of the fashion of the future being composed entirely of jump suits, but it's fucking stupid. It may work when you can draw women who have a waist line as thin as my LCD, but real women actually have midsections. And what the hell was with Aeon wearing an all white jump suit when she was trying to break in to the surveillance center at night?
This movie was not worth $7.50 and driving through shit weather to get to. It's not even a good rental. It's just stupid.
Umm, I think I'll trust Rotten Tomatoes more (Score:3, Informative)
It's pretty obvious to me the "reviewer" above was making an advertisement for his site on Slashdot (compare the author URL with the "review" URL, it sure is becoming common these days), and gets a boner from Charlize Theron.