(OT)-Event Horizon (Spoiler)
Jeremy Osborn
This is a spoiler- read no more if you really need to see this movie
First off I'll throw in a few of the Kubrick references for anyone who
cares- The general premise of the movie is a large spaceship which (in
year 2047 or somesuch) is capable of creating a black hole and zipping
across the universe,ship disappears for 7 years then emits a distress
signal, reluctant rescue team led by hardass captain (Larry Fishburne .
.er, sorry- Laurence) and morally weak though once caring scientist who
built the ship (guy from Jurassic Park whose name I forget). They reach
the ship there's no sign of the former crew and bad stuff happens, turns
out the ship is LIVING!!! (Hi HAL!) And it makes the rescue team
HALLUCINATE!!! (Hello Solaris we hardly knew ye.) Plus the ship has been
to Hell and back (really) and now wants to return.
Oh yeah Kubrick stuff, at one point an elevator opens and a river of
blood comes pouring out and drenches someone. The living ship/computer
needs little comment, and there's probably some other stuff there but I
can't remember.
Special Effects are pretty darn good though not awe-inspiring. Lots of
money poured into this baby. The movie is most indebted to Alien series-
there are many moments in the first half of jump in your seat sort of
stuff (the efficiency of which I suspect was the volume of the soundtrack-
silence, silence, silence then "BANG" the cat jumps out of the vent ala
Alien.) The second half is much more explosion filled. Lots of fire and
blood.
Philosophically there may have once been some stuff in the script about
Humankind and Hell with technological hubris thrown in but it doesn't
really come through. The problem with this movie is that once again there
are attempts to flesh out the *characters* but it doesn't really work. We
don't care what happens to these people particularly although the movie
does have the guts to kill some off.
All in all I'd say worthy if you pay matinee prices and are more in the
mood to jump than think.
LEJACKAL
>The crafting behind EH is undoubtedly superior, but the sheer idiocy of
>the screenplay -- rotten science, zero characterization, grab-bag genre
>cliches -- is what is killing the potential for > real< science fiction
>films.
Event Horizon was bloody awful. The story lifted WAY too much from
Alien. Yes, great production design; but so what? I'm getting tired of the
eye candy. Give me a story I can sink my teeth into.
I also found the gimmicky 'scares' to be totally contrived and not at
all frightening. And the ending was a total abortion that never explained
anything about what was going on. All it was was a set-up for the sequel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phil Noir
The crafting behind EH is undoubtedly superior, but the sheer idiocy of
the screenplay -- rotten science, zero characterization, grab-bag genre
cliches -- is what is killing the potential for > real< science fiction
films.
You know that industry pros now convinently refer to the genre as
"sci-fi-action, " as if it couldn't be dramatic without the explosions? I
fear that AI, if it ever gets made, is our "last best hope."
CGI department
LEJACKAL wrote:
>
> >The crafting behind EH is undoubtedly superior, but the sheer idiocy of
> >the screenplay -- rotten science, zero characterization, grab-bag genre
> >cliches -- is what is killing the potential for > real< science fiction
> >films.
>
> Alien. Yes, great production design; but so what? I'm getting tired of the
> eye candy. Give me a story I can sink my teeth into.
> I also found the gimmicky 'scares' to be totally contrived and not at
> all frightening. And the ending was a total abortion that never explained
> anything about what was going on. All it was was a set-up for the sequel.
showed the new trailer for the new David Fincher film, "The Game",
though, which is full of pushed filmstock. It should be interesting, at
least visually.
Matt
geoffrey alexander
sarc...@aol.com (SArcher23) writes:
>> Event Horizon was bloody awful. The story lifted WAY too much from
>>> Alien. Yes, great production design; but so what? I'm getting tired of
>the
>>> eye candy. Give me a story I can sink my teeth into.
>>> I also found the gimmicky 'scares' to be totally contrived and not
>at
>>> all frightening. And the ending was a total abortion that never
>explained
>>> anything about what was going on. All it was was a set-up for the
>sequel.
>>>
> I have to disagree with you. It was what I expected from the trailer
>and early word so I am not disappointed. Actually I found the film to be
>scarier than I thought it would be. A more primal fear similar to the
>Shining and Exorcist. EH is not as good as these two, but it is effective
>in generating suspense and increasing darkness. The cinematography and
>production is superb and the acting is good. I don't think that it lifts
>that much from Alien. I don't recall 7'0 monsters with projecting teeth
>killing people. If you think that every sf movie that has a ship with a
>crew who are sent on a mission is Alien than I guess you would have a
>point.
> Psychological horror + HELL = scary ass movie IMHO. What could be a
>scarier place than HELL, I ask you? The point of the ending is to let
>your imagine decide where the ship went. I think Kubrick fans can
>appreciate the idea of letting the viewer decide endings. The point of
>this movie is not the PLOT. Remember The Shining and Alien didn't have
>much of a plot either. It's purpose is to SCARE THE HELL OUT OF YOU!
>Granted, it's not as good as anything Kubrick does, but then again what
>is?
I haven't seen it yet, though I will in the next couple of weeks, and so I'm
not qualified to comment on the action of the film per se or the
performances (although both Neill and Fishburne are among those actors and
actresses who, fo me, can do no wrong, in therms of individual performance)
but there are a couple of observations I can make based upon what I do know
of it; first, is that >one< comparison with "Alien" may be apt, and that is
that like the former film, this one transposes a wholly differing genre of
film into a sci-fi milieu (the monster in the haunted house in the former
case, a haunted house/demonic possesion/journey to the underworld mixture in
the latter) and of course this is legitimate in both cases -- and just
because Alien was the first film to do this so well and so remarkably
doesn't mean it has to be the last.
Another point works to the film's debit...the idea that one might travel
through another dimension to what would effectively be a redux reality of
our most pervasive cultural myth -- that of a punative, christian-kind of
Hell, and damnation for transgressors of it. One the one hand its a powerful
evocation (or at least can be) but only for those for whom the idea of Hell
isn't already a kind of science fiction (I personally think the Pentateuch
deserves a Hugo....) to atheists or to persons of other religious or
philosophical faiths it's just so much sound and fury, signifying a writer's
conceits. For such pagan supplicants the film offers no redemptive diversion
other than the sheerly technical effect of it's scare-gags.
And a third point bears somewhat upon its inevitable comparison to the
Mother of Haunted House Stories, "The Shining". From what I've learned of
EV's design, it was quite consciously assembled from the visual cues and
architectural motifs of the High Gothic, rife with blood and shadows and
fire and a dank, medieval gestalt. All well and good -- but for a film
which, like The Shining, purports (or seems to, as far as I know the
storyline) that Hell is within us, wanting out, this is a terrible
>non<-psychological and overly objectified scenic correllative. However
effective it is, or whatever virtuosity is effected in its realisation, it,
de facto, the easier way out. Contrast this with Kubrick's work -- whether
in the hallways of the Overlook or the cold, sterile, and seemingly
Frigidaire-like interiors of the Discovery, Kubrick casts his psychological
shadows and senseless murders in the most cold and brilliant light.
Whether the film sucks rhino-dick or not may be an interesting
talking-point, but what's more important (as always) is to try and
understand >why<......
--
Geoffrey Alexander
finger geof...@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us
for pgp public key, website addresses, and other fun things.
Phil Noir
<Whether the film sucks rhino-dick or not may be an interesting
talking-point, but what's more important (as always) is to try and
understand >why<......>
Point well taken, G. Mixing Christian theology in with science (Hell being
a physical dimension one can travel to) only plays to an audience of
theists, and I for one am not afraid of hellfire.
Unfortunately the "why" is not so complex. The business if rife with
nitwits whose memory of film history doesn't stretch any further back than
the X-Files pilot.
They actually believe this derivative nonsense is fresh and daring, with
great twists and unforgettable characters. The folks who finance them
might not know any better, but the screewriter and director should.
After reading the article in Cinefantastique, I was charged up and ready
to pluck my dollars down even if they delivered just half the crap they
promised. After ten minutes I realized that there is simply no hope for
filmed SF. With so many original premises to adapt from the literary
genre, the hacks can do no better than remold films they saw 20 years ago.
SArcher23
Todd
Jimbo
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------FEA422ABF0371C496C915E9C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Saw the film the other day. I remembered thinking "I feel like I'm
watching a Hyams film only this piece of ripped off work is more capably
directed."
--
Jimbo
Tick Tock Tick Tak Tock
--------------FEA422ABF0371C496C915E9C
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jimbo
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Jimbo
n: ;Jimbo
email;internet: rja...@earthlink.net
note: http://home.earthlink.net/~rjacob/index2.html
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------FEA422ABF0371C496C915E9C--
tak
In article <geoffrey....@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us>,
geof...@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us says...
>
>Whether the film sucks rhino-dick or not may be an interesting
>talking-point, but what's more important (as always) is to try and
>understand >why<...
Yes, G, that is true, but to argue (as you did in the portions of your post
that I snipped) that the 'exteriorization' of the psychological landscapes
being examined renders a work of art as *de facto* inferior is treading on
dangerous ground. It would imply the outright dismissal of most of the great
pre-modern-era (and a whole lotta modern) novels, plays and visual art.
What about Kafka? Blake? Poe? Bosch? Pynchon fer chrissakes???
The exteriorization of the subconcious into (contextually) concrete fictional
tropes is time-tested and effective, I would argue.
I haven't seen 'Event Horizon', btw, but a friend of mine (who's oppinion in
such things I trust) has, and he had a two word review for me...
Non-event Horizon.
Mt
tak
>>Yes, G, that is true, but to argue (as you did in the portions of your post
>>that I snipped) that the 'exteriorization' of the psychological landscapes
>>being examined renders a work of art as *de facto* inferior is treading on
>>dangerous ground. It would imply the outright dismissal of most of the
great
>>pre-modern-era (and a whole lotta modern) novels, plays and visual art.
>
>My point wasn't that one shouldn't do such things as objectifying internal
>psychology but that EV seems to do it badly, as opposed to Kubrick, who
>always does it well.
>
>ps., you shouldn't have snipped the parts of the post you disagreed with, or
>I could have pointed out what part of it you were misreading... :)
Sorry about that, G. My ISP has laid down the law as far as quotes in posts
equalling more lines than the responses. So, in the interest of giving you
the benefit of the doubt, here goes...
>Another point works to the film's debit...the idea that one might travel
through another dimension to what would effectively be a redux reality of
our most pervasive cultural myth -- that of a punative, christian-kind of
Hell, and damnation for transgressors of it.<
One need not be a Christian (nor even a westerner) to be awed and terrified
by the *concept* of a literal, physical, punitive damnation. (just an aside)
Even if the viewer thinks of the concept of hell as a ridiculous one, the
visceral aspects of its presentation (if done well) can still provoke a
certain frisson, a 'what if' kind of sub-liminal terror at the transcendant
horror at the mere thought of it. And a talented artist can use these
concepts to great effect.
>(I personally think the Pentateuch deserves a Hugo....)<
Did you come up with this? If you did, kudos to you. Great line.
>And a third point bears somewhat upon its inevitable comparison to the
Mother of Haunted House Stories, "The Shining". From what I've learned of
EV's design, it was quite consciously assembled from the visual cues and
architectural motifs of the High Gothic, rife with blood and shadows and
fire and a dank, medieval gestalt.<
I would argue that The Shining is -almost- ANTI-Gothic, although it does
(abruptly) use some of the common gothic motifs in the climactic scenes (the
labyrinth, and Shelley's mad dash through the Overlook). The vast majority
of the film (as has been noted many times) takes place in the glaring light
of day, in a clean, fairly modern hotel with colorful Native American motifs
that betray not a whiff of Goremanghast about the place (not to play devil's
advocate or argue for the sake of arguing here, honestly).
>All well and good -- but for a film
which, ... purports (or seems to, as far as I know the
storyline) that Hell is within us, wanting out, this is a terrible
>non<-psychological and overly objectified scenic correllative. However
effective it is, or whatever virtuosity is effected in its realisation, it,
de facto, the easier way out. <
And here is where I find fault, G. You (pretty clearly) state that a
non-psychological, objectified (with the caveat of 'overly') presentation is,
by its very nature, inferior to the interior representation (favoured by the
moderns). I think they are *differant* from each other, but one is not
superior to the other. Whether our hero is caught between Scyla and
Charybdis or the Scyla of dying in battle and the Charybcdis of cowardice...
I like both of 'em. And one is not just escapist fantasy SIMPLY because it
takes place in an implausible fantasy world (although 95% of everything is
shit, as I'm sure you're aware).
>Contrast this with Kubrick's work -- whether
in the hallways of the Overlook or the cold, sterile, and seemingly
Frigidaire-like interiors of the Discovery, Kubrick casts his psychological
shadows and senseless murders in the most cold and brilliant light.<
Absolutely. No argument here. But his is not the ONLY way...
That was my main point in the previous post.
Mt
geoffrey alexander
t...@passport.ca (tak) writes:
>In article <geoffrey....@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us>,
>geof...@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us says...
>>
>>Another point works to the film's debit...the idea that one might travel
>through another dimension to what would effectively be a redux reality of
>our most pervasive cultural myth -- that of a punative, christian-kind of
>Hell, and damnation for transgressors of it.<
>One need not be a Christian (nor even a westerner) to be awed and terrified
>by the *concept* of a literal, physical, punitive damnation. (just an aside)
>Even if the viewer thinks of the concept of hell as a ridiculous one, the
>visceral aspects of its presentation (if done well) can still provoke a
>certain frisson, a 'what if' kind of sub-liminal terror at the transcendant
>horror at the mere thought of it. And a talented artist can use these
>concepts to great effect.
Yes, if one is proposing mere decoration, it can be brilliant; but I would
think that the people who are proposing these images intend to be making
some point.
When the depiction makes enormous and obvious reference to the
literalness of a >particular< mythology, then the affective impact of that
depiction is limited to the visceral effects 0f the imagery itself, and the
conceptual impact is obviated. That is why concentration-camp scenes are so
horrifically involving and expressive of evil -- the only ideology they
represent is one of pure, maniacal hatred. Take the Nazis away, substitute
succubi, and tell us this is all takes place in a supernatural dimension of
a universe in which Christian cosmological dogma ranks alongside or slightly
above the laws of physics in terms of ontological verity, and I'm gonna
yawn.
>>(I personally think the Pentateuch deserves a Hugo....)<
>Did you come up with this? If you did, kudos to you. Great line.
Thanks. Unfortunately (it seems) I went on to say.... :)
>>All well and good -- but for a film
>which, ... purports (or seems to, as far as I know the
>storyline) that Hell is within us, wanting out, this is a terrible
>>non<-psychological and overly objectified scenic correllative. However
>effective it is, or whatever virtuosity is effected in its realisation, it,
>de facto, the easier way out. <
>And here is where I find fault, G. You (pretty clearly) state that a
>non-psychological, objectified (with the caveat of 'overly') presentation is,
>by its very nature, inferior to the interior representation (favoured by the
>moderns). I think they are *differant* from each other, but one is not
>superior to the other.
I see your confusion here.
Obviously then I >wasn't< pretty clear about what I meant, because I mean
nearly the opposite of what you assume. The word "overly" as I use it isn't
a caveat, but the whole argument....
Actually it was the high-priest of literary Modernism, T.S. Eliot, who gave
the concept its imprimatur of necessitude in regards to >all< literature: he
called such extarnal/dramatic representation of internal states of being the
"Objective Correlative", and phrase Kubrick himself has used at least once
in one of his (rare) original articles on filmwriting, and which concept
thereof is used in nearly all great novels & plays from the beginning of the
modern period (Shakespeare) to its culmination (Joyce).....
But to work properly, it has to be an OBJECTIVE concretisation of an
internal state of awareness, belief, conceptualisation, or attitude; the
mythology of Christian damnation is ALREADY (as mythology has a a major
funtion to do so) concretised an EXTERNAL expression of a partuclar
culture's psyche. Not, the issue is, that the OC is a form of The Metaphor,
and as such the referent should itself be as >objective< as possible (as
opposed to allegorical, which is a different matter, and I'll get to that in
a moment...). Now as for methaphor, there are certain qualities there of
which resgister its effectiveness; for example, to say "The stars are
shining like the eyes of some predator tonight" is an interesting simile,
but rather flat; "The stars are a predator's glance tonight, shining like
that" is true metaphor, though too diagrammatic to be engaging; "The stars,
the shining glance the predator gives, to still-soft night..." is fully
metphoric, and affectively engaging as the reader extracts the referent
by way of >participating< in the imagery; the placing of the methaphor
>within< the image is what imparts the energy to >propel< the reader >into<
the image; this is combined with the other function of metaphor --
extensibility of meaning -- to drive the reader (or viewer, as may be)
deeper into the conceptual world of the author....
Now, it should go without saying that the referent of the metaphor should
itself NOT be another metaphor; consider the line "The stars are Beelzabub's
eyes, shining..." etc.; this is bad writing, and there is an >objective<
reason why -- the referent itself is >not< 'objective. This does not mean
there cannot be a mythic level to the reference; there must only be
imagistic objectivity when the mise-en-scene is used as a metaphor; the
twisted turnings of The Labyrinth (whether in the myth of the Minotaur or in
the hallways of the Overlook, where in both cases they represent, among
other things, the convolutions of the mind, the soul, or the psyche) is a
powerful image, and works upon us primally, even as the later incarnation
draws addition power from its likeness to the earlier one -- Kubrick's
allusion to the Minotaur is throughly implicit, as opposed to
diagrammatically explicit, even to the extent such a reference could be
entirely the product of the viewers' imaginations and not that of SK's
intention [and Kubrick's further genius in the handling of metaphor is scene
is the conceit of the hedgemaze, a brilliantly allusive objectification
which at the same time makes explicit the "Maze" function of the
scenography, provides a second level of metaphor for its >mirror< image in
the hallways of the Overlook, and allows a THIRD level of metaphor in the
form of its 'map' (literal and figurative) posted both outside the Maze and
in the form of a model on a table in Jack's lounge, which in an enormously
affecting scene is linked, with great immediacy, to Jack's corrupted
psyche...)
Well, anyway, as I was saying, to use an explicitly metaphoric
mise-en-scene obviates the use of metaphor in expressing the mise-en-scene;
thus, one cannot use an explicit myth as the objective correlative. One CAN
use an explicit myth in this way -- that usage is called allegory; but in
fact it is the exact opposite of the OC, as by the use of such a setting it
is the >internal< state of the protagonists et al. which is made
diagrammatic; consider the greatest allegory ever written, Dante's 'Inferno'
-- it begins, engagingly, in a thoroughly 'OC' manner, a deep wood wherein
the narrator is lost, and explicit "medias res" which delimits the epic form
of the narrative to follow, and which functions as purely objective image in the
delineation of the narrator's psyche. When the scenography is revealed as
Dante's visionary abstract of Hell Proper, the attention we pay is directed
away from the pertubation of the narrator's internal thoughts to towards the
objective analysis of the scene which he describes; what is happened TO him
is of less concern than what is happenning >around< him. And this is the
function of allegorical narrative -- the scenography itself does not exist
to reveal or infer the psychological dimension of the characters, but
vice-versa.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you to decide whether EV makes an effective
allegory -- which, by the explicitly concrete references to Christian
cosmology it is limited to being -- or not. My perception of it is that it
tries to have it both ways, as a telling of the genre-myth of the haunted
house AND as an allegory of damnation. There is a third possibility, that
some great artist has actually achieved the literary equivalent of cold
fusion, and has >successfully< combined them. Has that happened here?
>>Contrast this with Kubrick's work -- whether
>in the hallways of the Overlook or the cold, sterile, and seemingly
>Frigidaire-like interiors of the Discovery, Kubrick casts his psychological
>shadows and senseless murders in the most cold and brilliant light.<
>Absolutely. No argument here. But his is not the ONLY way...
As I've just illustrated. But either way you go, you have to know what you
are doing in order to do it right. Or, if you don't know what you are doing,
you can just copy from this and that, and assume that since the one thing
worked for Dante and the other thing worked for SK (or Ridley Scott), like
peanut butter and chocolate it'll all work even better together.
I doubt I've made myself clearer, but I hope at this extent I can't be
misapprehended..... :)
Andre18604
>With so many original premises to adapt from the literary
>genre, the hacks can do no better than remold films they saw 20 years
ago.
>
>
Right on man. When are they going to start making more movies based on the
genius of Phillip K. Dick?
Wixpix1
In article <19970826023...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
andre...@aol.com (Andre18604) writes:
>>With so many original premises to adapt from the literary
>>genre, the hacks can do no better than remold films they saw 20 years
>ago.
I was recently in a meeting where someone stated "we should start remaking
the remakes." It is indeed a sad state of affairs.
Also, the Hollywood reported that since the remakes of older films (from
the 30s and 40s) did not fare as well as high as expectations would have
them, that Hollywood is now going to hit the 50s, 60s and even the 70s.
Wow....the Godfather remade....I can hardly wait. :-p
Phil Noir
<Also, the Hollywood reported that since the remakes of older films (from
the 30s and 40s) did not fare as well as high as expectations would have
them, that Hollywood is now going to hit the 50s, 60s and even the 70s.
Wow....the Godfather remade....I can hardly wait.>
The Nick at Nite generation is behind the wheel. I actually heard someone
walking out of the local theatre showing "George of the Jungle" saying,
"that was just like a live-action cartoon!"
Martel art
Geoff wrote:
<<Another point works to the film's debit...the idea that one might travel
through another dimension to what would effectively be a redux reality of
our most pervasive cultural myth -- that of a punative, christian-kind of
Hell, and damnation for transgressors of it. >>
Interesting that, science having banished heaven and hell from space and
the earth's core respectively, their last refuge is now outside the
universe completely in some trumped up 'hyperspace.' Despite the design, I
left midway through and waited for my friends in the lobby of some
hyperplex in Columbus, figuring out the Photoshop tricks on the LOST IN
SPACE teaser poster (upside down Mars, lens flare filter). Hmmm, maybe
that's where hell is these days.