First, the movie was made by directors and actors that had the knowledge, skill and money to make a good movie. As an aside, I watched a movie on Mohammed Ali a few years ago that had a great life to make a movie about, and turned it into a boring 2 hours because they didn't know how to make a good movie.
The guys making this movie know how to push audience buttons to make a good movie. The problem, it seems to me, is that this movie undermines the premise all readers, movie-goers, all those who choose to spend any time letting their minds enter a story, give the story teller: accepting the premise of the story or movie won't be abused. There will be enough sense or cohesion to make the investment in the literary fiction worth it.
Spoiler alert This movie, to try to mix the genres, has to abuse the literary fiction to a degree that has the audience questioning the value of listening to stories. First, the only way an 1870's human can have a chance against technology advanced enough to get here from space is for an alien to leave its technology lying around in arm's length of a human.
Then, to get the audience satisfying ending the film maker/story teller wants, the female heroine starts behaving more like a fairytale god mother than either a cowboy or alien. She comes back from the dead, got here by some kind of teleportation yet needs to walk around like us and needs the alien technology to be able to fight/destroy the aliens.
This is a well made movie... except that it abuses the trust we place in good movie makers to not require the audience to ignore all reason and logic. In almost all literature we give the story teller a fiction or two.
This one asks us to not just buy in to a literary fiction, but to really be mindless and or stupid movie goers.
It would be like getting to the end of The Godfather and have someone sprout wings and fly off to get the plot where the movie maker wants it to go.
This movie is neither fish nor foul and simply asks the audience to be dumb so two genres that don't fit together can be toyed with by the movie makers. It would have been just as satisfying to have Daffy Duck pop in at the end to save the day. There are reasons for genres. A large one is so the audience can trust where and how the story is going. Anything less than following certain "rules" and we are just watching random dots bouncing around on the screen without rhyme or reason. What mish/mash can I put together to keep you watching for 2 hours, say these film makers.
Liked the acting. Loved a lot of the cinematography. Hated the way they ignored audience mindset, reasoning and story teller trust.
I had just as soon have had Bugs Bunny convey the clichéd message of the movie: we all hang together or hang separately. At least anything he did I would have known was being done in the boundless arena of a cartoon character.
The guys making this movie know how to push audience buttons to make a good movie. The problem, it seems to me, is that this movie undermines the premise all readers, movie-goers, all those who choose to spend any time letting their minds enter a story, give the story teller: accepting the premise of the story or movie won't be abused. There will be enough sense or cohesion to make the investment in the literary fiction worth it.
Spoiler alert This movie, to try to mix the genres, has to abuse the literary fiction to a degree that has the audience questioning the value of listening to stories. First, the only way an 1870's human can have a chance against technology advanced enough to get here from space is for an alien to leave its technology lying around in arm's length of a human.
Then, to get the audience satisfying ending the film maker/story teller wants, the female heroine starts behaving more like a fairytale god mother than either a cowboy or alien. She comes back from the dead, got here by some kind of teleportation yet needs to walk around like us and needs the alien technology to be able to fight/destroy the aliens.
This is a well made movie... except that it abuses the trust we place in good movie makers to not require the audience to ignore all reason and logic. In almost all literature we give the story teller a fiction or two.
This one asks us to not just buy in to a literary fiction, but to really be mindless and or stupid movie goers.
It would be like getting to the end of The Godfather and have someone sprout wings and fly off to get the plot where the movie maker wants it to go.
This movie is neither fish nor foul and simply asks the audience to be dumb so two genres that don't fit together can be toyed with by the movie makers. It would have been just as satisfying to have Daffy Duck pop in at the end to save the day. There are reasons for genres. A large one is so the audience can trust where and how the story is going. Anything less than following certain "rules" and we are just watching random dots bouncing around on the screen without rhyme or reason. What mish/mash can I put together to keep you watching for 2 hours, say these film makers.
Liked the acting. Loved a lot of the cinematography. Hated the way they ignored audience mindset, reasoning and story teller trust.
I had just as soon have had Bugs Bunny convey the clichéd message of the movie: we all hang together or hang separately. At least anything he did I would have known was being done in the boundless arena of a cartoon character.