DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Serenity (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) (1 Viewer)

[Jeff_A]

I knew nothing about a TV series being involved with this film prior to watching it this week. That said, it very much felt like watching a (too long) TV episode to me. I really don't understand its appeal, but then I'm not really a fan TV/Sci-Fi either.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Again why? What specifically makes it feel like a TV episode? I don't see any evidence of that. Frankly the statement seems like a catchall statement much like saying something or someone is nice. The term has no meaning.

Especially in the light of the fact that some of the most compelling drama is on TV and not the theater. Hey maybe that is what is meant! It feels like TV because the movie focuses on the characters instead of the effects. Wow, what a great compliment!

 

[Ric Easton]

Lou, I agree we hear a lot of lines like that lately. I heard it for every Star Trek movie (good or bad). It's easy to say, but is seldom backed up.

 

[Will_B]

I agre, that's exactly what that criticism means.

Listened to the commentary track last night and it was interesting to hear about the noir elements of Mal's character. I didn't realize how much scifi borrows from that genre (but as a Blade Runner fan I should have).

I'd suggest that even the few who didn't like the film may like to hear the commentary track. As a recent article noted, Joss Whedon's commentaries are near-scholarly.

 

[Tino]

I can answer that Lou.

For instance, the fighting scenes seemed very reminiscent of TV shows. Poor choreography. Also the extras just seemed to act like TV extras. Over exaggerating their movements if you know what I mean. Also a lot of the visual effects were sub par for the big screen, but are adequate for a TV show.

And then you have that dialog. Plus, no offense, no-name actors, generic music, and a storyline that's just not epic enough for the silver screen but ok for a TV show. And so on...

How's that?

Btw, there's a good discussion over in the **Official Serenity Discussion Thread** in the MOVIES section. I suggest we discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of the film there.

 

[Dave Mack]

Well, I for one knew who Adam Baldwin and Ron Glass were before "Serenity". And save for Guiness and Cushing, who knew who anyone in the original Star Wars was back when it came out...?

Totally said with wink and tongue in cheek.

d

 

[Tino]

O.K....mostly no-name actors.

 

[Dave Mack]

d

 

[Will_B]

Yuck, I am just imagining Tom Cruise as Mal and a score done in John Williams pomp style, and Matrix kung fu hyper fighting...
These would not have made a better film.

Is there a place for lower budget science fiction, where characters and story come first? I think there is. Though as has been discussed here, it may end up more profitable in the form of direct-to-dvd releases.

 

[Ryan-G]

With all due respect Tino,

It sounds to me like you're, at least in part, bashing the movie for the sake of bashing.

Poor Choreography? I can go through reams of movies that were released in the theater with horrible choreography, even today.

Extras that act like TV extras? How do you act like a TV extra? It was my understanding that an Extra was an Extra, I wasn't aware there was a proffessional Extra. Considering that the movies that were shot here in Pittsburgh used nothing more than people off the street, I can't imagine that they're any better than what's used in TV shows.

As far as the visual effects go, I personally didn't note anything sub-par for a feature length movie, and certainly the effects were better than some seen in features. Heck, some of the effects in X-men were pretty debatable, like the lightning, but that movie isn't called a "TV show".

The dialogue seems to be a polarizing matter so I won't comment.

The names of the actors doesn't decide if something is a TV show or a Movie, honestly, every actor starts somewhere. I'm certain someone here can list movies who were comprised of "No names" and were quite successfull and not "TV shows".

As far as the storyline goes, honestly, it's no worse than some feature length films. Heck, look at the Blade films, not only are the storylines rather tenuous but you could make a case that it's the same story recycled.

To be blunt, what I'm getting from you is that because it was a TV show originally, it should've been a TV show. As the points you've brought up so far seem very debatable as they're points many movies fail on, even big name ones.

 

[seanOhara]

I don't get this criticism. Are you saying that movies like 24 Hour Party People, Swingers, and Clerks are like TV shows because they're filled with (at the time) unknowns? Are the Law and Order series like movies because they have stars who were famous before the show?

 

[Brandon Klassen]

Again, you're not giving any specific example of something that was sub par.

 

[Henry Gale]

 

[Tino]

Sorry, but it sounds to me like you don't want to have an open discussion. I and others have given you reasons and you have attacked them, not tried to discuss them imo. It seems as though your mind is completely made up on Serenity and you really aren't interested in any one else's opinion.

Perhaps I'm wrong but, As I said, if you would like to discuss Serenity, there is a discussion thread in the Movies section.

See you all there.

 

[CraigF]

I liked it better the second time. And after watching the extras, I think I'll like it better the third time. The extras explain a lot, or at least just enough to set the context/scenario. I wish I had watched them FIRST.

Look, I said it *felt* like an extended TV episode. Feelings don't have to be "backed up", they just are, and they're not right or wrong. Logic doesn't apply.

It also extremely looked like episodic TV to me (who doesn't watch TV except on DVD, and not a huge amount of that)...wow, strange I'd say that considering it comes from a TV director. Besides, if you didn't know this came out of a TV series, would you question me saying it looks TV-like? It's just an opinion, doesn't mean anything...

One specific thing Whedon does that is very TV-like is this sudden cut of a major character movement (not a scene), like a couple seconds before it would end naturally. Look for it, it's there a lot. I'm not talking about rapid scene-changing editing. If you watch a lot of TV you may be so used to it you don't notice it anymore. You can call it a style, but it's a TV style...up until now. Almost looks like a bad local TV station cut for a commercial...

And from everything I heard on the extras from Joss, this is wholly in place of a final TV series to wrap things up. That was its purpose. What do you say to that? That's why I said I felt like an "intruder".

To anybody reading this who hasn't watched it yet: watch the extras first. It only takes a half hour or so and I bet it will help without spoiling anything.

 

[RobBenton]

Did anyone see where it was the 3rd best selling dvd this week on the top ten list? I was hoping for one but 3rd isn't bad especially since I bet it will hang around the list for awhile.

 

[Max Leung]

Serenity fight choreography subpar? WTF? Oh wait, I guess Tino never saw Batman Begins, where you can barely see who is fighting who. Or even worse, Bourne Supremecy, where each fight is an incomprehensible mess because they must have hired the camera operator from the Blair Witch Project to film them!

I will grant you that the fight scenes in Serenity aren't as good as the ones in the Lord of the Rings trilogy - but hey, Joss didn't have inexpensive New Zealand stunt actors and the same DP as Peter Jackson!

I've seen far worse fight scenes in many major motion pictures - Rambo, Total Recall, Commando, that Mad Max Thunderdome flick, Dune, any Jean Claude Van Damme movie (look, he's kicking with his right leg - again and again and again! Wow, I never saw that coming!). Heck, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon had some not-so-great fight scenes too (why did they even bother digitally removing the wires? It would seem more realistic if they left them in!).

I actually liked the fight scenes in Serenity - refreshing because you can actually see what is going on. You can actually see the difference in the characters' fighting styles, plus it did allow them to use real acting skills instead of a CGI'd model with a contorted plasticky facial expression a la Matrix Reloaded's Burly Brawl scene. The fights looked real and you don't need to reach for the Gravol to watch it!

Perhaps it isn't the fights you didn't like, but the banter between blows? I can see that turning off some people - you see that in a lot of James Bond films and the classic 80's action fare.

 

[Henry Gale]

You go Stephen!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

The fights in Serenity were excellent.

That said, I see someone trotted out the Burly Brawl to make their point, insulting the 30 seconds of a 5 minute fight to pump up a 10-20 second fight in Serenity. The Brawl was about 100,000,000 times more challenging than anything in Serenity. Let's not go overboard. And about 80+% of it were people fighting people, not the CGI characters. But The Matrix sequels had way more money, so there you go. And the fights in Batman Begins weren't as "choreographed" as Serenity, because that film was going for straight reality. Not a 90 pound girl having the mass of a 200 pounder in a bar fight. Let's not pretend any of these are "realistic". Serenity violated as many laws of physics as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon did. Just not the law of gravity.

 

[Max Leung]

Just because the Burly Brawl was "100,000,00 times more challenging" doesn't mean it was any good. The CGI in it looked like crap and took me right out of the film. I guess it could be chaulked up to bad editing too!

A fight can be realistic-looking but still (sort of) defy physics. Hell, 95% of fights in Hollywood movies are like that...look at the cheezy-but-cool barfights in Westerns.

All in good fun...