Posted on 12/04/2012 4:25:58 PM PST by Carbonsteel
This vaguely creepy children's' movie, boasting a cast of Toni Braxton, Christopher Lloyd, and Jaime Pressly, proved to be the biggest bomb of all time. Though the movie cost around $60 million, including marketing and advertising, it took in barely $1 million at the end of the day. While it might not be a movie disappointment on par with "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," it certainly wasn't good news for the poor sots who invested in this flick.
(Excerpt) Read more at movies.yahoo.com ...
Yes, that was probably part of the problem though, it was a thinking man’s movie, but a lot of the audience heard “Alien prequel” and wanted a sci-fi action flick. Instead, you got Blade Runner’s subtle philosophical dillemmas mixed with Alien’s undercurrent of menace, and not so much in the way of action.
So says a Red Dupe who has a soft spot in his mushy head for Communist dictatorships and a loathing of Republicans.
I never saw the movie or the remake but it is a FACT that the Soviets almost launched a MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION attack on the United States because their instruments falsely indicated there had been a US missile launch.
The Russian at the post ignored the launch order. He was reprimanded and much later celebrated.
The date was 9-26-1983.
"Cold War paranoia" my butt. Soviet Communism sucked and so do liberals who get their revisionist history from the blacklisted Communists of Hollywood.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was just a lot of laffs to these sorts as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
If you liked the original with Swayze and C. Thomas Howell. You will like this a lot. The story is different enough to keep it interesting and the tactics are more believable.
“Next year doesn’t look any better, with “Robocop,” “Carrie,” and “Annie” remakes scheduled to hit the theaters.”
With Will Smith’s daughter as Little Orphan Annie. Might as well have cast Will Smith himself as the little white girl. Bet they have taken Harold Gray’s anti-FDR politics out of it as well.
Think about the bin Laden take out.
“Why did the Engineers suddenly decide exterminate us after creating us in the first place?”
I have a theory on that one, and I think it’s all kind of suggested by the movie, in a roundabout way.
Most people, including characters in the movie, make some assumptions before they get to that question. First, they assume that the purpose of the ship going to Earth was to exterminate us, because it was carrying the black goo, which seems to be a weapon. They also assume that what the ship was going to do wasn’t the original intent of the Engineers from the very beginning, but that something provoked the response. I don’t think either of those assumptions is quite correct.
First, we see from the murals in the “head room” that the Engineers know about the xenomorph, and seem to hold in high, perhaps religious, regard. If you look closely, it seems as if there are two engineers being “sacrified” to facehuggers in the bottom corners, with a large xenomorph presiding over the scene. Wherever the black goo came from, the engineers knew that it was not strictly a weapon, but a mutagen that could alter and create lifeforms, and they knew that the lifeforms it created were specific to the hosts and methods of exposure.
So, the worms on temple floor exposed directly to the goo, the scientist who inhaled the goo, the scientist who was impregnated by the worm-thing, and the scientist who drank the goo, were all transformed in different ways. It was only once the face-hugger type creature was created by a specific vector, that the Engineer was infected and the result was a xenomorph. So, to get from goo to xenomorph, a specific infection vector had to happen with specific hosts.
Now, we know that humans and Engineers had very similar DNA profiles, and we know that humans infected with facehuggers produce xenomorphs, just like the Engineers. So, it would make sense to think that the Engineers created us, not for any benevolent purpose, but simply as substitute hosts for the xenomorphs. We were just engineered to be dumb livestock with similar DNA, so the Engineers didn’t have to sacrifice themselves to make the creatures they desired, for whatever purpose.
There’s no sense in breeding xenomorphs until you need them, since they aren’t controllable, so it would be counterproductive. So, why not just breed a planet of defenseless hosts, and when you need the xenomorphs, round up as many of them as you need and infect them?
So true.
Cannot be blamed on "substance" abuse because there was none!
I liked the first one better. The idea of the communist country who invaded us was laughable. The producers should have stayed with the original antagonist but they caved in to pressure.
That said the action and graphics were good.
Saw it yesterday with my son. The wife dosn't like action type movies. There were 3 other people in the theatre. It was a good movie. The original is better but it would have to be ... it had Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, Powers Boothe, Ben Johnson and Harry Dean Stanton in it. I couldn't name any of the actors in the new one.
The chair is against the wall.
3 1/2 stars out of 5 - but that is just my opinion.
It made me wonder why i spent the money. j/k. I thought it could have stood on its on without the tie-in to the Aliens franchise.
Prometheus stank on ice. The crew was too stupid to live.
“A dead guy is knocking at the airlock door. Lets open it and let him in!”
I don’t know. I didn’t go in with high expectations because of previous Daniel Craig Bond movies. So I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was fun and I liked the characters.
All I know is that because we’re long time customers Directv keeps sending us coupons for free movies on their Cinema whatever it’s called which supposedly shows recent releases, but we never can find anything that looks worth watching, even for no charge......
I liked it better the first time ... when it was called Alien.
Problem: those characters were the worst cliches. Calling them two dimensional would be crediting them with two more dimensions than they deserved.
Battleship, though was worse. It made Pearl Harbor (2001) look brilliant.
Atlas Shrugged Part II was a letdown because they didn’t keep any of the cast from Part I. You have to have read the book several times to keep any of the continuity going. It’s like they were saboutaging their trilogy. The one saving grace is the quotable dialog just like tyhe book.
I personally haven’t seen it but my teen saw Red Dawn with a huge group of his pals. They really liked it. He did say that the first one was great (for its time) but the new one made more sense( the teens in the movie were trying to capture some item to render the enemy weak). IMHO.
See post #36. Sorry, FrogMom.. I didn’t read your post before I posted or I would have included you. My bad...
made more sense??
North Korea invades America makes “more sense”??
That wasn’t what I meant. By “made more sense”.. the first Red Dawn, the teens were just sort of participating in warfare the best they could. The second Red Dawn involved capturing some item that would assist them in crippling the enemy. I would ask him about the item (since I didn’t personally see it) but he is asleep right now. Sorry.
My wife and I went to see it. The trailer looked O.K. We just wanted an entertaining movie evening. What we got was the most vile, MF this and that, intimate jailhouse sex descriptions, and worse. They made Tony Montana look like a choirboy. We walked out after giving it a few minutes to get past what we thought was a shock grenade thrown for the first 5 or 10 minutes. It never changed. We would have settled for serious gratuitous violence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.