Philip J Fry said:
Horrible stupid movie.
schmendeler said:
The name of the movie is disclosure day. Not Disclosure aftermath.
FtWorthHorn said:BCG Disciple said:
Meh.
Our belief in God is so incredibly fragile that the existence of life outside this world means we would worship it and/or fundamentally cease to believe. It was important for them to repeatedly make this point, despite my going in having zero concern that aliens had anything to do with belief in Christ.
Also, it was silly. Main bad guy just stops because 5 years ago he was a good man. Kind of. It's unclear. We are kind of led to believe since the Nixon admin it was a good organization that only recently lost its way? And the back up bad guy just decided to run off with all of his men instead of actually doing something.
Frst 75% kept me entertained. The landing left me wondering why I wasted my time.
Yeah I said this elsewhere. Two of the foundational elements of this movie are:
1. The presence of aliens will create a conflict with religion so severe that maybe we should cover it up, and
2. The revelation of aliens will be so stunning that humans will put aside their fights because they are struck by awe.
Neither one of these things seems earned or supported by the movie.
TCTTS said:FtWorthHorn said:BCG Disciple said:
Meh.
Our belief in God is so incredibly fragile that the existence of life outside this world means we would worship it and/or fundamentally cease to believe. It was important for them to repeatedly make this point, despite my going in having zero concern that aliens had anything to do with belief in Christ.
Also, it was silly. Main bad guy just stops because 5 years ago he was a good man. Kind of. It's unclear. We are kind of led to believe since the Nixon admin it was a good organization that only recently lost its way? And the back up bad guy just decided to run off with all of his men instead of actually doing something.
Frst 75% kept me entertained. The landing left me wondering why I wasted my time.
Yeah I said this elsewhere. Two of the foundational elements of this movie are:
1. The presence of aliens will create a conflict with religion so severe that maybe we should cover it up, and
2. The revelation of aliens will be so stunning that humans will put aside their fights because they are struck by awe.
Neither one of these things seems earned or supported by the movie.
That is JANE's view at the OUTSET of the movie.
Not the movie's "foundational" view.
Not Spielberg's view.
Not a point he's "repeatedly" trying to make.
It is a single character's Act One view.
In screenwriting terms, this is called the "anti-thesis."
An anti-thesis that is effectively shared by the movie's antagonist, Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth), but for entirely different purposes (power, greed, a lack of empathy, etc, i.e. not religion).
Once Act Two begins, Jane is then introduced to the "thesis" of the movie - by both Daniel in his own, blunt, stubborn way, but then, increasingly, by Sister Maura, in her more eloquent way - that religion/God CAN flourish in the new world of disclosure.
To that end, Jane's character finally comes to "see the light," so to speak, toward the end of the movie when Sister Maura clarifies to Jane over the phone that Genesis "says we are God's supreme creation on Earth," and then asks, "Why would he make such a vast universe, yet save it only for us?" Everything Jane has been through up to that point (being "possessed" by Scanlon, etc) + Sister Maura's words are then what finally allow Jane to complete her character arc, going from "disclosure is bad/will destroy religion" to "disclosure is good/religion can survive." This is symbolized by *Jane* being the one in the third act at the studio to give Margaret the key MacGuffin - the final mysterious alien rod - which is what allows both the metaphorical and literal LIGHT to return, the broadcast/message to be delivered, and thus the "synthesis" of the movie's thematic elements to be achieved: "Margaret's final "Listen" before the movie cuts to black.
veryfuller said:
Hot take: Always is way underrated
AozorAg said:
Damn. I love alien movies. I wish this had been good. Was semi looking forward to streaming it one day. Oh well.
AozorAg said:
Damn. I love alien movies. I wish this had been good. Was semi looking forward to streaming it one day. Oh well.
You clearly haven't watched every one of his films to say that bull**** commentCliff.Booth said:
100%, goes into Top 5.
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:AozorAg said:
Damn. I love alien movies. I wish this had been good. Was semi looking forward to streaming it one day. Oh well.
Or you could just be your own (wo)man and go see it for yourself rather than letting a bunch of negative opinions decide for you. I mean, just a suggestion.
TCTTS said:FtWorthHorn said:BCG Disciple said:
Meh.
Our belief in God is so incredibly fragile that the existence of life outside this world means we would worship it and/or fundamentally cease to believe. It was important for them to repeatedly make this point, despite my going in having zero concern that aliens had anything to do with belief in Christ.
Also, it was silly. Main bad guy just stops because 5 years ago he was a good man. Kind of. It's unclear. We are kind of led to believe since the Nixon admin it was a good organization that only recently lost its way? And the back up bad guy just decided to run off with all of his men instead of actually doing something.
Frst 75% kept me entertained. The landing left me wondering why I wasted my time.
Yeah I said this elsewhere. Two of the foundational elements of this movie are:
1. The presence of aliens will create a conflict with religion so severe that maybe we should cover it up, and
2. The revelation of aliens will be so stunning that humans will put aside their fights because they are struck by awe.
Neither one of these things seems earned or supported by the movie.
That is JANE's view at the OUTSET of the movie.
Not the movie's "foundational" view.
Not Spielberg's view.
Not a point he's "repeatedly" trying to make.
It is a single character's Act One view.
In screenwriting terms, this is called the "anti-thesis."
An anti-thesis that is effectively shared by the movie's antagonist, Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth), but for entirely different purposes (power, greed, a lack of empathy, etc, i.e. not religion).
Once Act Two begins, Jane is then introduced to the "thesis" of the movie - by both Daniel in his own, blunt, stubborn way, but then, increasingly, by Sister Maura, in her more eloquent way - that religion/God CAN flourish in the new world of disclosure.
To that end, Jane's character finally comes to "see the light," so to speak, toward the end of the movie when Sister Maura clarifies to Jane over the phone that Genesis "says we are God's supreme creation on Earth," and then asks, "Why would he make such a vast universe, yet save it only for us?" Everything Jane has been through up to that point (being "possessed" by Scanlon, etc) + Sister Maura's words are then what finally allow Jane to complete her character arc, going from "disclosure is bad/will destroy religion" to "disclosure is good/religion can survive." This is symbolized by *Jane* being the one in the third act at the studio to give Margaret the key MacGuffin - the final mysterious alien rod - which is what allows both the metaphorical and literal LIGHT to return, the broadcast/message to be delivered, and thus the "synthesis" of the movie's thematic elements to be achieved: "Margaret's final "Listen" before the movie cuts to black.
TCTTS said:
So you haven't even seen it for yourself yet?
Because I wouldn't listen to half of the reactions in this thread.
It currently has an 81% critics score and a 72% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, along with an average to favorable score on every other ratings site/system.
In other words, it's no where near the disaster some here are making it out to be.
Is it flawed? No doubt.
Is it middle-of-the-pack Spielberg? Yep.
But it's still a Spielberg movie. Meaning top-notch filmmaking and a start-to-finish effort that he so clearly put a ton of thought and care into.
IMO, it's a good movie with flaws, not a bad movie. Not by any stretch.
For you, it may not be worth a theater run (though I personally think it is), but it's absolutely worth a watch on streaming.
javajaws said:
Instead of this he's gonna watch those "perfect 10" made for streaming alien movies instead because they are all so much better than this Spielberg crap!
