NO topic for this here? (Didn't see it, please move this and redirect me if I missed it. I was really looking to find other's opinions).
Not that I think there really NEEDS to be one. As part of my revisiting of my early adulthood I watched this cut-out-bin acquisition last night.
Didn't like it then on original release at the theater, the only time I ever saw it. Didn't like it now.
It started out OK, kind of a time period relic of the "touchy-feely" San Francisco self help scene, but it lost me fast. Sutherland giving one of his post-Hawkeye laconic walk-throughs (he's never been a favorite), Goldblum being Goldblum (another one who bugs me), Nimoy proving why he should indeed be grateful for the role of Spock, etc. Best performances belong to McCarthy and Siegel!
Has that overly muddy grainy cinematography that sometimes shows up in 70's fare and just looks cheap to me. Of course, it might be the transfer, which is non-anamorphic. The opening "space-stuff" looks cheap and amateurish to me. At almost 2 hours it drags and drags.
Unlike the THING remake I watched the night before, this one just makes me miss the old one. Yet I know critics like it (Maltin, Pauline Kael on the box) - and Kaufman has his admirers too, but I've always found him a bit too self important, and I certainly feel that here.
I think I can wait another 29(!) years to see it again.
SAM33
Not that I think there really NEEDS to be one. As part of my revisiting of my early adulthood I watched this cut-out-bin acquisition last night.
Didn't like it then on original release at the theater, the only time I ever saw it. Didn't like it now.
It started out OK, kind of a time period relic of the "touchy-feely" San Francisco self help scene, but it lost me fast. Sutherland giving one of his post-Hawkeye laconic walk-throughs (he's never been a favorite), Goldblum being Goldblum (another one who bugs me), Nimoy proving why he should indeed be grateful for the role of Spock, etc. Best performances belong to McCarthy and Siegel!
Has that overly muddy grainy cinematography that sometimes shows up in 70's fare and just looks cheap to me. Of course, it might be the transfer, which is non-anamorphic. The opening "space-stuff" looks cheap and amateurish to me. At almost 2 hours it drags and drags.
Unlike the THING remake I watched the night before, this one just makes me miss the old one. Yet I know critics like it (Maltin, Pauline Kael on the box) - and Kaufman has his admirers too, but I've always found him a bit too self important, and I certainly feel that here.
I think I can wait another 29(!) years to see it again.
SAM33
