criterionforum.org

I'm probably going to see it just because I haven't seen word of mouth this bad in a long time.

DrewReiber wrote:I'm probably going to see it just because I haven't seen word of mouth this bad in a long time.

Well, at least have the common decency to buy a ticket for something else and then walk into this

DrewReiber wrote:I'm probably going to see it just because I haven't seen word of mouth this bad in a long time.

I'm out of the loop. What's the story?

Highway 61 wrote:I'm out of the loop. What's the story?

In short, the studio took the film away from Hirschbiegel, and the Wachowski Brothers were brought in to rewrite while their protege James McTiegue reshot two-thirds of the film. Frankly, that makes me more intrigued to see the film. I love the look of the film from the trailer and if anything I'll see this for three reasons: Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig and Jeffrey Wright.

Also, the one sheet for the film is pretty nifty.

Oedipax wrote:Well, at least have the common decency to buy a ticket for something else and then walk into this

No way, the world needs more movies like Bloodrayne and Stay Alive. I would rather pay the value of a ticket price on total garbage that's a laugh riot than sit through another round of the disappointment that was Spider-Man 3. I know no one goes to see movies produced by Hollywood Pictures (Disney's dump brand) or directed by Uwe Boll, so I'm not really worried about it. If people are really dumb enough to fall for another moronic horror film from Joel Silver, my ticket purchase for all the wrong reasons is just a drop in that bucket.

Highway 61 wrote:I'm out of the loop. What's the story?

The film was finished in December of 2005 and Joel Silver didn't think it was very good, so he hired the Wachowski's to write new scenes and hired James McTeague to shoot these various changes. The ending was reshot in fall of 2006 and a major action sequence was produced just this spring, that almost resulted in Nicole Kidman's death... twice.

3-4 of the early reviews so far have all said exactly the same thing. The movie is edited in the most innappropriate manner possible, intercutting shots from further in the timeline into scenes playing out in the present. Any and all suspense is completely shattered and the footage shot by McTeague doesn't match the performances or internal logic of any pre-existing footage. Kidman's accent changes intermittenly and the action scene blatantly disregards the tone of the film and behavior of the aliens.

I won't ruin it for anyone who doesn't want to look at the signs, but the ending is incomprehensibly pretentious, absurd and an outright copout of a resolution. The reviews started stacking and so someone issued a rebuttle that was extremely panderous and immediately labeled as a plant. I can't emphasize enough how every negative review had the same complaints, not the least of which was "this is the worst editing I've ever seen in my life". I would be shocked if this was screened for critics.

I can't wait to see this.

too bad the matrix idiots re-did this...
I was looking forward to this ever since I saw Downfall.
now it'll just be Hollywood trash.

miless wrote:too bad the matrix idiots re-did this...
I was looking forward to this ever since I saw Downfall.
now it'll just be Hollywood trash.

Look on the not so likely bright side, maybe the film will do terrible in theaters and Hirschbiegel will get a chance to complete his vision of the film (ala Paul Schrader with The Exorcist prequel).

lord_clyde wrote:Look on the not so likely bright side, maybe the film will do terrible in theaters and Hirschbiegel will get a chance to complete his vision of the film (ala Paul Schrader with The Exorcist prequel).

10 years later?

miless wrote:

lord_clyde wrote:Look on the not so likely bright side, maybe the film will do terrible in theaters and Hirschbiegel will get a chance to complete his vision of the film (ala Paul Schrader with The Exorcist prequel).

10 years later?

Is that a Payback reference? Cause that Schrader cut came out in a hurry when the other one tanked.

Thanks Drew and Antoine. I'm fascinated by that kind of backstage backstabbing. I wonder if Hirschbiegel is the good guy in this instance? Downfall didn't exactly win me over. Ambitious, I suppose, but it lacked any significant insight into Hitler or Nazism in general, making the whole exercise rather sensationalistic. Still, I can see why Hollywood came knocking at Hirschbiegel's door, and I'd be very interested in seeing his original version to know whether it was a disaster a la Jeunet's Alien Resurrection, or if it was simply uncommercial. Regardless, the release version seems like it will be worth checking out just to see all that talent assembled for a massive train wreck.

between this and The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, I'm getting pretty pissed off with Hollywood.

Highway 61 wrote:I'd be very interested in seeing his original version to know whether it was a disaster a la Jeunet's Alien Resurrection

At least the full version of that movie made it abundantly clear the movie was a supposed to be a big joke.

miless wrote:between this and The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, I'm getting pretty pissed off with Hollywood.

Don't forget Across the Universe.

I hate it when studios interfere with a director's vision/intention. (i.e. Brazil)

Has there ever been a film that's better with the cuts made by the studio or the producer?

malcolm1980 wrote:I hate it when studios interfere with a director's vision/intention. (i.e. Brazil)

Worse still, the Magnificent Ambersons.

malcolm1980 wrote:Has there ever been a film that's better with the cuts made by the studio or the producer?

I reckon that the tinkered '73 version The Wicker Man makes more sense, is better paced and is generally a better film than the Directors cut, but I can't think of any other examples.

Napoleon wrote:I reckon that the tinkered '73 version The Wicker Man makes more sense, is better paced and is generally a better film than the Directors cut

There's a lot of sloppy edits that made little sense in the theatrical cut and wasn't clear at all unless you saw the extended version. They even retained reaction shots to dialogue that had been removed.

First saw it as the theatrical version in the late 80's. Long before I saw the directors cut. Never had a problem with it.

malcolm1980 wrote:Has there ever been a film that's better with the cuts made by the studio or the producer?

Well, not cuts made directly by the Studio, but when the Weinstein's got Tornatore to cut Cinema Paradiso down, he made the right decision in what needed getting rid of. The extended original cut of the film destroys a pivotal character, and until someone can tell me otherwise, I'll ignore it's existence.

Let's get this discussion back into the realm of reality - even if Warner's gave Hirschbiegel the final cut of the film, I don't think anyone was expecting a film of Magnificent Ambersons or Brazil like importance. It's a summer blockbuster remake of an alien invasion film. While I never like studios tampering with directors and their films, we're not talking about a highly ambitious personal vision. This is Joel Silver produced picture and he's just making sure he gets the return on his investment.

To me, the trailer looks pretty great and seems like it could be a lot of fun. I happen to like the original Matrix film and appreciated aspects of V For Vendetta and if there is that kind of visual pizzazz in the film, sign me up.

I'm more concerned about studio interference on projects like The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford and Across The Universe than on a remake.

Antoine Doinel wrote:While I never like studios tampering with directors and their films, we're not talking about a highly ambitious personal vision. This is Joel Silver produced picture and he's just making sure he gets the return on his investment.

The problem seems to be that a "Joel Silver picture" wasn't what was delivered. Hirschbiegel's cut has been described as "artsy," "talky," and "not exactly a summer tentpole." Sounds like it might have been a good movie, but I suppose Silver's not exactly in the Good Movie Business.

Here is the original story which all of the other movie blogs picked up on.

"Less talkin', more explodin'!"
-Joel Silver

Maybe I need to go back and rewatch the trailer, but I feel like everyone saw something different from me. I was actually looking forward to this film when I first heard about it, and the problems it has had both disappointed me and made me curious, but the film looks like a real stinker. It seems like a direct copy of the body snatchers story, just set in the current day, with nothing new, no attempt to make the story fresh or spin it like Kaufman did with his remake.

And the fact that the people behind the film kept stressing that this wasn't going to be a remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (or at least I remember reading people behind the production saying something to this effect) seems like a joke! This feels like a carbon copy. Still, I'll probably check it out because I enjoy sci-fi and I'm interested by the troubled production, but I don't think this looks like a good movie at all.

Antoine Doinel wrote:It's a summer blockbuster remake of an alien invasion film.

That statement belies an extremely dismissive attitude toward one of the most important science-fiction classics in American cinema. Just because Hollywood has remade it to smithereens does not lessen the value of the concept. I don't see why you must attack it's relevance to excuse something that looks and sounds terrible.

This is Joel Silver produced picture and he's just making sure he gets the return on his investment.

The Reaping, House on Haunted Hill, Gothika, Ghost Ship, Thirteen Ghosts, and House of Wax. This is every thriller Joel Silver has produced since 2001. Why are you acting like he knows what he's doing?

To me, the trailer looks pretty great and seems like it could be a lot of fun.

You're getting excited because you saw a poster and trailer designed by Warner Bros' ad team. It has already been long established that the editing in the trailer does not reflect the films unique post-production at all.

I happen to like the original Matrix film and appreciated aspects of V For Vendetta and if there is that kind of visual pizzazz in the film, sign me up.

Well, then a handful of scenes thrown together at the last minute and uncredited by the Wachowski's and McTeague will undoubtedly shape the film into visual pizzazz.

You're working way too hard to convince yourself to see this movie.

DrewReiber wrote:That statement belies an extremely dismissive attitude toward one of the most important science-fiction classics in American cinema. Just because Hollywood has remade it to smithereens does not lessen the value of the concept. I don't see why you must attack it's relevance to excuse something that looks and sounds terrible.

You are putting words in my mouth. I have nothing against the original and I understand it's stature among sci-fi heads, but Invasion - no matter who is helming it - aspires to be a summer blockbuster. Nothing more, nothing less.

DrewReiber wrote:The Reaping, House on Haunted Hill, Gothika, Ghost Ship, Thirteen Ghosts, and House of Wax. This is every thriller Joel Silver has produced since 2001. Why are you acting like he knows what he's doing?

Again, putting words in my mouth. In case it isn't clear, I never said he was successful at it, but he's doing what every studio and every producer does in Hollywood - trying to make sure their films break even.

DrewReiber wrote:You're getting excited because you saw a poster and trailer designed by Warner Bros' ad team. It has already been long established that the editing in the trailer does not reflect the films unique post-production at all.

As far as I know, this is the first trailer to emerge for the film -- well after the film has wrapped. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm glad you pointed it out to me that Hollywood has deceptive advertising practices - I had no idea.

DrewReiber wrote:You're working way too hard to convince yourself to see this movie.

God, are always this condescending?

Antoine Doinel wrote:You are putting words in my mouth.

No, it was your choice of words. Your generalization of Invasion of the Body Snatchers' concept followed on a preposition. It may not be what you meant to say, but you didn't leave another interpretation.

DrewReiber wrote:Again, putting words in my mouth. In case it isn't clear, I never said he was successful at it, but he's doing what every studio and every producer does in Hollywood - trying to make sure their films break even.

Your statement spoke of Silver "making sure" to get a return investment, followed by positive comments about his productions. You spend far more time implying that he knows what he's doing than providing an opinion on the criticisms or problems offered in the thread. I honestly don't understand how else you expect me to interpret your replies.

As far as I know, this is the first trailer to emerge for the film -- well after the film has wrapped. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm glad you pointed it out to me that Hollywood has deceptive advertising practices - I had no idea.

You excitedly posted a huge image of a poster that quite clearly had more to do with advertising than the film. You also bragged about a trailer when you already knew what the situation was with post-production.

DrewReiber wrote:God, are always this condescending?

You've followed two of my posts about the problems inherent to the production and finished film with enthusiasm generated by cheap promotional gimmickry on part of the producers. Your posts are filled with remarks intended to discredit any deeper analysis of this release with phrases like "Let's get this discussion back into the realm of reality" or generalizations based on the season or genre. I also think you need to consider what might be read as condescending before you inform people what expectations of theirs are realistic.

As for your earlier comments about James McTeague, I think you should consider that the rumors about the amount of shooting his done may be exaggerated in Silver's favor. If McTeague had indeed reshot 2/3 of the film, it would no longer be credited to Hirschbiegel as per DGA rules.