Film Festival

Review: 'Cowboys and Aliens' delivers big star power, but can't connect the dots

Genre mash-up never quite gels as a film despite excellent work from many

  • Critic's Rating C
  • Readers' Rating B
Review: 'Cowboys and Aliens' has star power, can't connect dots

Daniel Craig's ready for trouble in an early scene from 'Cowboys and Aliens'

Credit: Universal Pictures

SAN DIEGO - Handsomely produced, packed with a cast that all do expert work, directed well and polished to a high gloss, "Cowboys and Aliens" largely left me cold.  It's a troubling misfire because it feels like all the elements were in place for something special and fun, and instead, it is an exercise with no result, window dressing in search of a film.

"Cowboys and Aliens" is not a bad film.  It's not unpleasant.  It's not offensive.  I'm frustrated by my own reaction to it precisely because I acknowledge a certain sort of efficiency to the way it's built.  Jon Favreau called his shot on this one when I visited him in the editing room of the film, talking about how important it was to make this a genuine Western first, and then to simply introduce one fantastic element.  I saw the first half-hour of the film on that visit, and then again in December at Butt-Numb-A-Thon when Favreau came down to visit and make the same presentation.  I liked what I saw then, and tonight, when I saw the finished version of that first act, I really admired the construction of that stretch of film.  It opens well.  The problem is, it opens so well that it sets up expectations that it utterly fails to meet.

Basically, the film is a mystery first, a Western second, and a science-fiction action film third.  The mystery begins with the opening shot of the film.  Daniel Craig wakes up in the middle of the desert, alone, bloody, a wound in his side, and he has no idea who he is, how he got there, or what happened to him.  He manages to survive an ambush and make his way to a nearby dying mining town, where he crosses paths with Percy Dolarhyde (Paul Dano), the idiot spoiled son of Col. Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford), a local cattle baron who is single-handedly keeping the town financially afloat.  Their conflict lands both of them in chains, and when the Colonel comes looking for his boy, everything looks to be on the verge of blowing up… when spaceships attack the town.

The slow build is all handled with grace, and that first act sets up any number of character dynamics that are promising and could have delivered over the course of the whole film, but the movies makes a huge mistake when the aliens, during their attack on the town, kidnap about half of the characters, effectively defusing all of the character tension that they'd built up by that point.  In particular, losing Paul Dano from a good 2/3 of the movie is a problem.  One of the real joys of that first act is watching Daniel Craig abuse the crap out of Dano.  Huge, genuine laughs every time, and that's the kind of gift that keeps on giving in a movie like this.  You don't just write one of those characters out early.  In general, the people who are abducted are sorely missed, and that's a testament to how good the supporting cast is.

Want More...

Comic-Con 2011?
  • Avengers640_thumbnail
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
The other thing that I felt just missed the mark was the relationship between Jake Lonergan (Craig) and Col. Dolarhyde (Ford).  There's a great tension in their first few moments together, building up to the two of them trading a single punch each, and the reactions they give to those punches are a nice reminder of why these are our iconic tough guys.  But they seem to get past their problems with one another so quickly and so easily that I don't understand why they ever bother setting up any antagonism.  In general, I like the notion that the introduction of an interstellar threat would make all of the people of the Old West, traditionally divided by class and interests and race, work together as one to defeat the common enemy.  Watching stagecoach-robbing bandits and Apache indians and US Marshalls all ride into battle side-by-side has some real iconic heft, but only if you earn it.  And this film doesn't.  Everyone's so quick to get to the "let's be friends" part of the film that they toss aside all this great tension, and it seems like a waste.  Ford's character, in particular, is set up as a magnificent bastard in his first scene, and the way people talk about him before he's actually introduced, you expect him to be playing the scariest, creepiest monster of a cattle baron.  But it's Harrison Ford, not Henry Fonda, and this is no "Once Upon A Time In The West."  He can't play a bastard for the whole film or even for much longer than a few scenes.  They defang him fast, and next thing you know, he's having heartwarming conversations with the kid played by Noah Ringer and he becomes, at most, vaguely gruff comic relief.  It's nice to see that Ford came to play this time, and he's certainly enjoyable to watch, but some of that charm could have easily been traded out for some sustained menace, and it would have been a better and more honest character as originally defined by the script.

The aliens themselves are a problem, and it's not dissimilar from the same issues in "Super 8." I think this movie handles them a little better than that one did, but I'm tired of these creature designs where, even when you're looking directly at the thing in broad daylight, it's still hard to tell what the hell you're looking at.  What happened to the idea that design should be about creating something recognizable, something that we immediately recognize when we see it?  If you lined up the aliens from this film with the generic cannon fodder bad guys of about two dozen current or recent video games, I wouldn't be able to pick it out.  I have trouble even really describing them the day after the film, except to point out that they have perhaps the single stupidest evolutionary flaw I've ever seen in an organism designed for movies.  Imagine if every time you reached out to pick up the TV remote, your heart and lungs were fully-exposed to attack.  That would be a pretty serious issue, right?  These things are also inconsistently powerful.  There are times where you see them fighting and they are wildly powerful, seemingly indestructible, shaking off bullet hits and savaging humans with one swing of the hand.  There are other times where they seem ridiculously easy to kill, and there's no real reason for the difference.  Early on, much is made of the idea that they can't see well in the daylight, but during the final set piece, set in bright daylight, they don't seem to be hampered in the least by the harsh midday sun.  So why even mention it?  These issues are just the tip of the iceberg, too.  It's one of those films where the more you start to pull at the threads of it afterwards, the faster the whole thing unravels, and I suspect a second viewing would exacerbate that rather than assuaging it.

Olivia Wilde, Adam Beach, and Sam Rockwell really are the MVPs here, continually finding ways to keep their thinly-written characters interesting, and they each make the mechanical payoff to their arcs almost feel organic.  I get what they're trying to do with Doc (Rockwell), and his "big moment" is a good one, but there's a certain perfunctory quality to how they get there.  Wilde is proving to be a smart addition to any genre cast, and she makes her mystery woman more compelling than she should be.  Beach is one of those guys who Hollywood has never really figured out, but he brings some real emotional weight to his role as one of Dolarhyde's ranch hands who wishes he'd been born the Colonel's son instead of Percy.  Likewise, Matthew Libatique's photography is rich and slick and moody when it needs to be, and the rest of Favreau's technical team all delivers above and beyond the call of duty.

If all you want from the film is a laundry list of Western tropes combined with a few action set-pieces built around spaceships and monsters, "Cowboys and Aliens" is fine.  But it's surface-deep, and the basic logic issues I have with it really kept me at bay.  I wanted to love these characters, but the script undercuts its own best impulses in a maddening way.  And as much as I can tell there is genuine affection for the genre at the heart of what Favreau did as a director, I don't feel like he and his small army of writers ever really figured out how to successfully marry all the impulses they had, or how to earn the epiphanies they wanted.  To me, an "almost" like this where all the elements are in place but the ingredients just don't add up is more disappointing than a movie that's rotten from the foundation up, and perhaps your frustrations will not mirror my own.  I just know that I walked into "Cowboys and Aliens" ready for a great late summer escape, and I walked out feeling like I'd just watched a rough draft for something better than we'll never see now.  

 

"Cowboys and Aliens" opens this Friday in theaters everywhere.
 

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Mark

    "I walked out feeling like I'd just watched a rough draft for something better than we'll never see now."

    Just like all of Kurtzman and Orci's screenplays then. Not exactly a surprise.

    July 26, 2011 at 5:05AM EST Reply to Comment


  • Still a must see for me!

    July 26, 2011 at 6:30AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Posters-of-badasses-10_talkback_profile

    FelixMontana

    Would you say it is a continuation of the weak summer movie fare ´11 or is it slightly better than... say super 8 or Transformer etc. ... ?

    I really hoped this would surpass our expectations with all the talent involved...

    July 26, 2011 at 6:43AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Jerky

    Whoa! McWeeny actually disliked a movie!

    July 26, 2011 at 9:03AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Jack McWeeny dislikes a LOT of movies. Where the hell have you been for the past fifteen years?

      July 26, 2011 at 1:38PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jerky Let's see, just this year McWeeny's fawned over "Hall Pass", "Rio", "Drive Angry", "No Strings Attached", "The Green Hornet", "Super 8", "Thor", "Transformers", "Captain America", "Unknown", "The Adjustment Bureau", and "Larry Crowne". I get annoyed when people bend over backwards to validate mediocre (or outright awful) entertainment. A good review from this guy means nothing, especially considering he panned "The Tree of Life".

      July 26, 2011 at 3:28PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      mmcb105 Saying he fawned over all of those movies is pretty disingenuous. He may have enjoyed them, but with most of the movies you listed he enjoyed them while also recognizing their flaws. Not every movie is a perfect must-see event. Let me guess, your favorite reviewers hate everything except the combined output of Terrence Malick and David Lynch's. I think the disparity you are noticing is the difference between an optimist and a cynic.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:13PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jerky Quality is subjective so arguing over it is pointless. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I'm not. I go into every film hoping for the best, just wanting to be entertained and more often than not I leave feeling underwhelmed. My two favorite films so far this year have been "Bridesmaids" and "Tree of Life". Take that for whatever it's worth.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:21PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jerky I guess my favorite critics are the ones who aren't afraid to dismantle something that has little to no redeeming value. Movies aren't made out of fairy-dust and magic. They involve hundreds of man-hours and millions of dollars. They're made by human beings who frequently drop the ball. A "critic" shouldn't be afraid to call it like it is.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:29PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      mmcb105 "redeeming value" is too subjective. I'm sure someone out there finds some redeeming value in the chipmunk movies or David Spade movies...Honestly there must be someone. Afraid is not a word I would use to describe McWeeny's style. If it was I'm sure he would have given glowing reviews to the Twilight movies rather than suffer the wrath of a billion confused girls/women/gay men.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:36PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew You define "fawned over" differently than I do, I guess, Jerky.

      I think what you want is someone who bashes constantly. That's not me. I find that with most films, there are elements that work and elements that don't. A good critic should be able to discuss films in more than a binary "SUCKS"/"RULES" mode, but I recognize that may be too subtle for you to understand.

      I did not "pan" Malick's latest film any more than I "fawned over" the film "Hall Pass." In both cases, I described my reaction to the various elements of the films and the things I liked or didn't like about each.

      I'm so sorry I didn't fall into line and worship "Tree Of Life" without reservation. I think it is the least of his films. And I can say that and still acknowledge his other contributions to film.

      It must be nice living in a world where everything is white or black, Jerky. Sure, you have to be an ignorant child to pull it off, but keep on fighting that good fight.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:48PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jerky Perhaps when each movie is shown to you for free, it's easier to be more forgiving. "Hey, at least I didn't blow 10 bucks on that." Most people have to pony up and that makes the deficiencies more glaring when something doesn't deliver. People SHOULD be mad when they paid to watch a movie that sucks. Quality is subject, and I love nuanced film writing as much as they next cinephile. I just don't see that here.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:56PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Feel free to go elsewhere then. No one's forcing you to read my work. I suspect, though, that you simply like to bitch, which is exactly what you're looking for in a reviewer.

      July 26, 2011 at 5:02PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jerky And for the sake of absolutes, we can safely say that you "liked" HALL PASS and "disliked" TREE OF LIFE. "Pan" and "fawn" was a bit overemphatic.

      July 26, 2011 at 5:02PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jerky I think I liked you better when you were Moriarty.

      July 26, 2011 at 5:04PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew The problem with pulling those two titles out for comparison is that I'm not comparing them to each other when reviewing them. You review a movie based on what that movie is trying to do. Either it succeeds or fails, and no other movie outside of that needs to enter into the conversation at all.

      I think "Tree Of Life" is beautiful and ambitious and, ultimately, sort of dopey. It's the first time Malick has tipped into self-parody, and I found its attempts at transcendence to be obvious and even hollow.

      "Hall Pass" is a dick and fart and titty joke movie with a gender imbalance that made it more interesting than I expected.

      On any sliding scale, I'm going to say that "Tree" is more worthwhile, even as a miss. But that doesn't mean I think Malick hit the bull's-eye.

      By all means, though, keep coming here to make pointless personal shots and keep your running tally that you want to try to embarrass me with unsuccessfully.

      July 26, 2011 at 5:10PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jerky No personal shots were taken. I don't even know you. I just know your work.

      July 26, 2011 at 5:13PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Hans Moleman

    The recipe for a successful Orci and Kurtzman penned movie is to have either an amazing cast (Star Trek) or amazing spectacle (Transformers) to distract from their shitty script.

    Guess the producers underestimated the shit their writers were bringing to the table this time around...

    July 26, 2011 at 9:28AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Matt C.

    The one thing I appreciate about you Drew, is that when you don't like a film, you can tell in your writing that you REALLY wanted to like it. The disappointment is palpable.

    It makes it easier as the reader to connect with you, for sure.

    My heart broke when I saw that Green Lantern was a horrible mess of teen-soap over-dramatic cliche's written by Greg "Dawson's Everwood" Berlanti. The second he had Hal Jordan quit his training (after FIVE MINUTES!) an run back to earth was the moment I knew just how bad the film was. Hal Jordan NEVER quits or runs away. If Berlanti couldn't understand that, the film had no hope of being good.

    So, knowing the truth of some earlier reviews of films you wanted to be good, I know there's about a 95% chance I'm going to have the same issues you had with C&A. So far, Favs has had an interesting directorial career. Zathura was great but wasn't seen by anyone. Iron Man made him famous. Iron Man 2 was a mess that tried to serve too many plot masters. And now C&A which seems to be technically great, but lacking the warmth and heart of the first Iron Man.

    I hope Favs finds his voice and warm heart again. That voice and warm heart that was so great in Zathura and Iron Man.

    July 26, 2011 at 10:13AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      johnnyrocket "The one thing I appreciate about you Drew, is that when you don't like a film, you can tell in your writing that you REALLY wanted to like it. The disappointment is palpable."

      Exactly. And I feel the asme way as I read the review.. Disappointed because I really wanted to like the movie..

      July 26, 2011 at 1:48PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    The Gas

    "I have trouble even really describing them the day after the film, except to point out that they have perhaps the single stupidest evolutionary flaw I've ever seen in an organism designed for movies."

    Even worse than skin and muscles that dissolve in water? When one is trying to invade a planet where the stuff covers three fourths of the surface AND FALLS FROM THE SKY?

    July 26, 2011 at 10:14AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Tattoo_talkback_profile

      Hatfield Well, he did say PERHAPS

      July 26, 2011 at 10:48AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    sabich

    And now we know why failed screenwriters shouldn't be allowed to review movies

    July 26, 2011 at 10:53AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Tattoo_talkback_profile

      Hatfield Because they have opinions? GASP!

      The world is so unfair when people disagree with you, isn't it?

      July 26, 2011 at 11:12AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      sabich Differences of opinion make the world go 'round. That's not a problem at all.

      Picking apart a movie called "Cowboys & Aliens" for gaps in logic? Really?! Lighten up! This is a fantastic, crowd-pleasing summer popcorn movie. Have some fun! I sure as hell did! And so did the audience I saw it with. One of the best times I've had at the movies all year.

      July 26, 2011 at 11:37AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      WarDrums Newsflash Sabich, most film critics are failedscreenwriters. That's why they are critics. They suck and have no idea how to tell a story.

      July 26, 2011 at 12:48PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      mmcb105 Why is turning your brain off acceptable for any type of movie? You said it yourself, its a difference of opinion. In your opinion the logical gaps didn't hurt the movie, in someone elses they did. I'm sure Drew wishes he could just shut his brain off to enjoy things, being stupid makes everything better and more enjoyable...except of course things that are hard.

      Also, I wouldn't exactly call McWeeny a failed screenwriter considering he has work thats been bought, and some even produced. He's not at the level of, say, Charlie Kaufman, but really who is.

      July 26, 2011 at 12:49PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      mmcb105 Wardrums, untrue.

      July 26, 2011 at 12:50PM EST
    • Tattoo_talkback_profile

      Hatfield The problem remains that you whined about Drew's opinion of the film by way of a cheapshot that has nothing to do with anything. Your second comment, while I still disagree with it, at least isn't making it personal for no reason. Drew had high expectations based on the pedigree of this film, and apparently they weren't met. You should just be happy you liked it so much.

      July 26, 2011 at 1:09PM EST
    • Batboy_talkback_profile

      Rev. Slappy Drew's had work produced, so I think that disqualifies him from being a "failed" screenwriter.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:09PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Ahhhh... we're back to the old "turn off your brain and don't think about it!" argument.

      I will never make you happy, Sabich, if that's what you want from me. Move on. Find another place to read. It's fine.

      I didn't even catalog half of the things that bother me about this script because there just isn't any point. Let me ask you one basic question: why are they stealing people?

      I understand what they said in the film, but that doesn't make a lick of sense based on what we actually see. So tell me... why do the aliens need dozens of people to be kept alive in a room while they go out and steal more of them, and what does any of that have to do with what they're really after?

      Nothing.

      Not a blessed thing.

      Convince me otherwise. And that's not a nitpick. That is a question about the thing that drives EVERY SINGLE ACTION by the aliens in the film. And if you can't answer it, that's more than a plot hole.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:51PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Davi OP Wish everyone of us could be a "fail" that worked with John Carpenter and Larry Fessenden. I'm not much into saying these kind of things, because they read like ass kissing, but Drew is a screenwriter and not a failed one at all. "Cigarette Burns" has a great plot, great pace, great structure, great characters and was complemented by Carpenter's direction.

      July 26, 2011 at 11:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Clem Nickel And now we know why wannabe film critics/trolls shouldn't be allowed to comment on the writings of professional movie reviewers.

      July 27, 2011 at 3:28PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    sabich

    Differences of opinion make the world go 'round. That's not a problem at all.

    Picking apart a movie called "Cowboys & Aliens" for gaps in logic? Really?! Lighten up! This is a fantastic, crowd-pleasing summer popcorn movie. Have some fun! I sure as hell did! And so did the audience I saw it with. One of the best times I've had at the movies all year.

    July 26, 2011 at 11:41AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    mmcb105

    Hey Drew, Do you think that seeing the first half hour of the movie affected your opinion negatively because the anticipation built up from a promising start was amplified over time?

    I think that maybe audiences who watch it through fully might enjoy it more as a whole experience because they won't be as let down by the weaker parts that come later.

    Anyways, good review.

    July 26, 2011 at 12:42PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Tattoo_talkback_profile

    Hatfield

    Your comments about the abductions do not give me great hope for the longevity of the characters played by Clancy Brown and Keith Carradine.

    July 26, 2011 at 1:11PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    johnnyrocket

    Even when I don't like what I'm reading with your reviews I have to respect it.. Because they usually turn out to be the exact impression I'm left with... So assuming you're analysis is spot on, I guess what I really lament about this is the increasing practice of throwing 5-6 writers at a project like this; None of which seem to place internal story logic or continuity above their own wish list of concepts. Why do the 'aliens have trouble seeing things at night' plot point mean nothing in the third act? Probably because different writers wrote it. Favreau's failure here seems to be not playing script cop as much as a director should. I guess I'm also surprised, looking at the producer pedigree of this film, that something like that gets by both Ron Howard and Steven Spielberg; let alone the notoriously script/logic conscious Harrison Ford.

    July 26, 2011 at 1:46PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Jzarbaugh My guess is that some of the stuff that could have filled in the blanks was left on the edit room floor for the sake if improving the running time. Sometimes an editor makes or breaks the story. Either way, it is a real shame.

      July 26, 2011 at 2:03PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Alyfox

    I like Drew's writing, nothing against it. I guess I just differ (not having see the film) on two points:
    1) When others mentions Drew's screenwriting background, it makes sense, because he is looking for things that the average moviegoer isn't. That can be both good and bad.
    2) I saw the first trailer, liked it, and refused to watch anything else, for fear of overkill. Drew is seemingly following this movie every step of the way; watching cuts, talking to the director, etc. How can he NOT be biased? How can he NOT have extremely high expectations, thusly, how can he NOT be disappointed?

    July 26, 2011 at 2:23PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      mmcb105 You bring up an interesting point, but then wouldn't this preclude any reviewer that follows the industry from liking any movies?

      July 26, 2011 at 4:25PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      chaburchak Maybe you should go to a movie site where the reviewer doesn't really follow movies, that way his opinion will be more geniuine for you...

      July 26, 2011 at 4:34PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I love it.

      When I visit an editing room and like the final film, it's because I'm biased because I visited the editing room.

      When I visit an editing room and I don't like the film, it's because I visited the editing room and ruined it for myself.

      In other words, there's no scenario in which you people won't blame my opinion on something other than the film itself.

      I think the first act of the film is very confident. I think the rest of the film is a mess. That has nothing to do with when or where I saw a piece of the movie.

      It really is just that simple.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:43PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      BlackRobertDowneyJr What do you mean by "you people?"

      July 26, 2011 at 4:47PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew "I want to read movie reviews by someone who doesn't understand the process of filmmaking! I only want to read criticism from someone who has no idea who anyone in a film is or what else they've done!"

      Are you familiar with Alex Billington?

      July 26, 2011 at 4:54PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    bob poppo

    I haven't seen it yet, but this is exactly how I felt about every movie that came out this summer. Thor, Super 8, Captain America, Paul, Bridesmaids, Horrible Bosses... All had such great potential and like you said with a great analogy, felt like the dominos were too far apart. What is up with that? I feel like this is the year of the independent films. Hollywood read one too many comic books.

    Plus Nolan didn't make anything this year.

    July 26, 2011 at 2:27PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Gideon Stargrave

    Sounds like the performance you wanted from Harrison Ford is the kind in which Anthony Hopkins specializes.

    July 26, 2011 at 4:50PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Luke_vader_talkback_profile

    DAGOBAH

    Drew, I agree with you to an extent.

    I think the first 30 minutes of this film is really incredible, some of the best filmmaking we’ve seen this summer. And if the rest of the film was as well paced as this it would be flawless. And I agree that the second act (after they spend the night in the boat) slows down and gets a bit messy (except for the incredible horse ride chase scene, which was a great spin on some iconic western action scenes).

    But I’d have to disagree with you about the third act, I think the film gets it shit back together towards the end and, for me, it’s last half an hour was just as good as it’s first.

    It’s disappointing that middle section let the rest of the film down, but saying that I’d still rate it as one of my favourite films for 2011 so far behind Your Highness, Paul and Thor.

    But I have a feeling the film which will really stand out this summer will be the one that tried to fit "of the" in the title one too many times....

    July 26, 2011 at 9:25PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I wish I felt the same way about that third act. By that point, I didn't care about what was happening, and I don't think the generic "get the bomb to the core of the ship" ending was twisted in a way that made it fresh.

      I'm glad you enjoyed it, though, and I suspect there are people who simply won't care about any of my story or character issues and will just enjoy it as a ride. As I said, I do think it's expertly made.

      July 27, 2011 at 1:08AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    warblecroaker

    Oh bummer. What a shame. I was a bit worried, the trailer gave me an impression of inconsistency, but with all the talent involved I was hoping for the best. Alas, I didn't take into account the screen-writing. And that Favreau didn't successfully overcome scriptwriting problems with Ironman 2 -though here he seemed to have more power of decision.
    Drew is a great, observant, and interesting writer and mostly spot on, one of the very best in my experience. Coming here to read his opinions just to bitch and be insulting to him is the kind of juvenile attitude that got really tiresome when/where he was called Moriarty. But Drew, I wish you would consider, at least when someone is disagreeing with you and not merely being obnoxious, isn't it better to respond with the same kind of measured diplomatic anger you have at lazy film-making?

    July 26, 2011 at 9:51PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Fair point, sir.

      I always look at this way... I genuinely enjoy conversation with you guys, and I am up for it until the moment someone starts being insulting for no good reason.

      I agree I shouldn't rise to the bait, but if someone were to speak to me like that in my living room, they'd be shown the door. Quickly.

      July 28, 2011 at 2:01AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jerky And hey, for the record: I wasn't laying down any "bait" or "personal attack" when I claimed that Drew had exceptionally low standards for what constitutes a "good" movie. This is just a personal opinion. It's not a fact. Drew is a big boy. No need to be so defensive.

      July 28, 2011 at 3:44PM EST
  • Alexd_talkback_profile

    alexd

    I agree with Drew on the "Generic alien" front. they seriously could have put more work into them, and given them more of a personality. It was definitely a choice not to. This is a western with some aliens in it, not a western/sci fi combo.
    Otherwise I had a great time, I think lots of people will like it.

    July 27, 2011 at 1:21AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Fisherman

    Drew, having seen it last night I commend the tone in your writing. It is disappointing, when so much was going right at the beginning. And that disappointment only feels that much greater in that it feels like watching your favorite team fall apart on the field by introducing half-baked plays that weren't fully realized. On triumphant technical aspect I feel worthy of mention is the costumes by Mary Zophres . Literally the genius ins defining characters she did through wardrobe in True Grit was surpassed brilliantly here. Then again to come out of a major Summer film and only be able to say "the costumes were great" ain't a whole lot is it?

    July 27, 2011 at 9:34PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    bobbyZ

    Really ?? To Sabich and others..."Turn off your brain and just enjoy it"??

    I don't have Drew's history with the material (I don't know Favreau, I didn't visit his editing room etc) but the movie WAS all surface and if you think about it for 3 seconds, had huge internal logic problems. I don't expect a scifi/fantasy/western to stick to Einstein/Hawking physics or anything like that, but internal to it's own story, it's just lazy and crosses the "suspension of disbelief" line several times.

    NOT the worst movie of the summer (by far) but disappointing. More disappointing is this "turn off your brain" mantra we're supposed to buy into and the geeks seem to push as an excuse for any bad movie ("Tron: Legacy being a prime example). I guess that's why we get such crap like "Green Lantern" and "Transformers 3"(and 2 and 1) that Hollywood expects us to swallow and say "I'll have another please" is the norm now. The "video gaming" ("great graphics...plot/character, who cares, turn your brain off) of movies continues.

    July 28, 2011 at 10:25AM EST Reply to Comment
Drew McWeeny

About This Blog

Los Angeles has changed since 1990, and Drew McWeeny, all-around Chauncey Gardner of movie fandom, has seen it all as an industry insider and screenwriter who wrote for 12 years as "Moriarty" for Ain't It Cool News.

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook