I saw the X-Files film over the weekend and it was exactly what i expected
the movie ran like a long tv episode. i went to see it cuz i was a fan of the series, and it appealed to my 90s nostalgia. i didnt' go in expecting a fascinating thriller...i was jes interested to see what they created. the theatre wasn't packed, but modestly full...though i figured everyone in there was a fan. i'd warn of spoilers, but not sure i give any. read at your own risk. the flick itself was not bad. but it was not great either. jes so happens, as an old X-Files fan, i've seen better episodes. if this had been the first of its kind, without all the classics from memory, it might have been really good. but as it was, it was like a "so-so" episode. there were no aliens. there was no conspiracy. and i kinda thought that was good, because who wanted to open up that can of worms again? the conspiracy at times was interesting, at times overly convulted and drawn out. there were some hints however to it--allusions to Mulder's sister...to the lost "baby", etc. the plot trended more towards "silence of the lambs" with some incidental supernatural happenings n some freak science like i said, i seen betta episodes. mostly the story dealt with mulder and scully's alienation from the FBI (they're like retired superheroes with very mundane day jobs) and dealt heavily on those introspective issues that have plagued them forever (i.e., the supernatural x-files as metaphor for scully's inner turmoil over her scientific training vs her catholic faith). lots of philosophical wranglings. if its action someone expects from this film, they'll be disappointed. no buildings get blown up. no great chase scenes or shoot-outs. mulder and scully aren't even in the FBI--they're jes called in as old-heads to help out. dialogue is alright, though some it seemed contrived. there are bits of humor. there's a minor cameo appearance of an old character--but nothing to make you gasp. the film doesn't hint at there being any follow-ups. it seems to stand alone, outside of the x-files series but yet alongside it. there's no sense that the creators of this movie had any intent to gain a new fan base or to jumpstart the franchise. its like they made it just to say, "remember these guys? well here's what they're up to now in case you were wondering." tho' they keep callin it a sequel, when it was done i felt more like i had just finished watching an epilogue. i can't be sure, but i think this is it for the x-files. and i'm not saying that because it didn't make all the required money (the whole "who-made-more-than-who numbers racket at the box office irks me as much as judging good rappers at who goes platinum). the movie itself simply read like a "farewell," intended for old fans who will either come away satisfied or not. mho of course. Sin --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Tracey de Morsella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was a die hart fan, but I'm barely interested enough to rent it when it > comes out on DVD now. I think they teased us with the plot so much, that > most of us long ago realized that the truth was NOT out there, just audience > manipulation. There was no truth, just twists and turns to string us along. > Add all that to that fact that they simply waiting too long and you have > lost the fan base. I know you think it is the overcrowded blockbuster > schedule that is the problem. But I remember when they announced they were > going to do the movie, many people I know (some former loyal fans) and a few > here asked WHY?? If the fans are asking why instead of when, you know you > have a problem. > > They might have overcome that by kicking out a kick ass script like the one > of the episodes you mentioned. I saw some of the marathon you mentioned. > They were great. Word of mouth with the good story would have brought many > of the former disillusioned fans out to the theatre, or at least looking > forward to the DVD. A great preview like with Batman or Ironman would have > also helped. The previews make it look like one of the not so good > episodes. Even some bad movies have well-crafted previews. Not the case > with the X-files. > > I will probably rent the DVD, but I can think of a whole lot of other movies > that will be higher in my rent que > > -----Original Message----- > From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:12 PM > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: "X-Files" Past its Prime? > > Why aren't you interested in the movie? Too much time gone by? Not > interested in an extended ep on screen that doesn't really solve any of the > mysteries? > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: "ravenadal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am a diehard "X-files" fan but I haven't seen the first X-files > movie and I had no desire to see the latest one. In fact, instead of > going to see the movie on Sunday, I watched a mini-marathon of X- file > episodes on Sunday morning that included several of my favorite > episodes - like the one ("Home")about the inbred Peacock brothers > featuring black character actor Tucker Smallwood as "Sheriff Andy > Taylor" and the excellent episode ("Humbug") about a trailer park of > retired sideshow freaks starring the late, great Vincent Schiavelli. > > ~rave! > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, KeithBJohnson@ wrote: > > > > Well, to repeat my "I hate the whole summer blockbuster concept" > rant, part of this is due to X-Files getting lost in the shuffle. > All anyone's really talking about is The Dark Knight, with > sprinklings of family-friendly stuff like Wall-E, Mummy 3, Journey to > the Center of the Earth, etc. Heck, I know lots of folks still > catching Hancock or even Iron Man where it's still being shown. Not > disagreeing that the X-Files itself hasn't lost some steam. It has, > but putting it out at this time of year was madness. > > Also, the studio did a poor job of marketing. I watch enough TV and > follow movies and scifi enough to catch wind of most upcoming events > (except for "Watchmen", which caught me off guard). There was very > little marketing for "X-Files" until a week or two before the movie > premiered, and again, by then everyone was talking about Gotham City. > > > > ********************** > > 'X-Files' fans aren't alienated - now, they can find fantasy > everywhere > > Tuesday, July 29th 2008, 4:00 AM > > X marked the spot - the spot where a "cult following" ended and > reality kicked in. > > "The X-Files: I Want to Believe" opened at No. 4 this past weekend > with a supernaturally low $10.2 million, about half of what box- > office trackers predicted. The truth was certainly out there: Off the > air for six years and a full decade after the first film version, the > buzzless Mulder and Scully had as much heat as an alien corpse at > Area 51. > > Where were all the true believers who made the TV series such a > touchstone? Besides the mundane possibilities (barbecues, Little > League, working overtime to afford gas), there's also this: A cult > following doesn't cut it anymore, because the cult now owns pop > culture. > > From video games to TV to the multipart movies Hollywood is > creating, what was a land of the lost has become the world of > tomorrow. And all of those various media - as well as graphic novels - > have, this summer, cemented their hold on the multiplex. Ten years > ago, when "The X-Files: Fight the Future" was released with an > opening of $30 million, its siblings were really just flop revisits > to "Lost in Space" and "The Avengers." Quality still counts, but no > longer do fans feel like they only get one trip to the fantasy-film > buffet. The table belongs to them, and they're picking up the check > to boot. > > Some things, however, still have to go beyond their core base: > Frank Miller's "The Spirit" (due at Christmas) will need to entice > more than just fans of the Will Eisner comic strip to make it > another "Sin City." And even the rebooted "Star Trek" movie (beaming > in May 8) will have to blast past the same kind of niche appeal that > seems to have sunk "X-Files." > > The huge superhero movies of summer 2008 - especially "The Dark > Knight's" jaw-dropping event status - are, among other things, a > signal that superhero movies are more than just the accepted form for > modern fables. Now they're capable of appealing to most audiences 50 > and younger, who don't need to know about graphic novels or be > regular attendees of Comic-Con to get wrapped up in Peter Parker's > troubles or the Joker's villainy. > > If that is the mystery of "X-Files'" fast disappearance, it may > actually be a good sign for "Watchmen," the eagerly anticipated film > of Alan Moore's 1986 graphic novel about an alternate-reality society > overrun with powerless costumed adventurers who are seen as > vigilantes by an oppressive U.S. government. > > "Ten years ago, being a fan of these things meant something. Now > there's plenty of product to indulge in," says Tony Timpone, editor > of the fantasy-sci-fi magazine Fangoria. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links >
