• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film: Serenity

rate this

  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img]

    Votes: 10 20.4%
  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img]

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1

    Votes: 34 69.4%

  • Total voters
    49
So you loved the movie and gave it 4 stars.

But hold on, you were bored and it's not your type of movie at all?

I don't get it. If this last quote is you being 'honest', that means the other two above it are you stating an opinion that is contrary to your own and declaring that you contributed to skew voting poll?

perhaps it's not the kind of movie she'd normally watch, she was bored, it was free she went along. she actually loved it and gave it 4 stars. not really much to 'get' there...

But yes, of course, my opinions and comments are invalid.

you have to admit that you look a bit of a fool vehemently criticizing a movie you haven't even seen?

controversy seems to follow you whenever you post in here so i guess it's just SOP and the conclusion, is for many, obvious...

:)

alasdair
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Finder
What fun is a thread where everyone is mutually masturbating to their love of a film/band/song?

Because that's almost as good as being able to fellate the creator of the film.
 
I just watched the first 20 minutes and I think this movie isn't worth my time any further. So I stopped it.
I find it very interesting that you say this but no new votes in the poll have shown up. Clearly, you haven't seen this movie, and you gave it a 1 a long time ago, before seeing it, and you are lying because you enjoy pissing people off. Nice try though!

I apologize if I'm not welcome in this thread but I don't think it's neccessary to tell me I have 'no fucking idea what I'm talking about'.
Talking about how terrible a movie is when you HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE = no fucking idea what you are talking about. This is just simple fact.
 
To be fair, he didn't really say the movie was terrible. This whole debate started because he disagreed with you on the point that Serenity, and by extension its creator Joss Whedon, needs massive public support. Which in my opinion, is not grossly inaccurate. His main point, which has been pretty much lost in all this childish bickering, is that there are indie films and other low budget endeavors out there that could use positive public attention more so than Serenity.
 
Why you gotta be all reasonable and shit, Benefit? ;)

I'm going to try to catch this movie on Friday. I don't think I've been to the theatre since Episode III. :|
 
To be fair, he didn't really say the movie was terrible.
He implied it very strongly.

childish bickering
This childish bickering could have been avoided if someone named souny would simply REFRAIN from making repeated posts on a topic he is ignorant about.

You want to talk about how great indie films are? That's fine. GO START A THREAD ABOUT IT. This thread is about Serenity, a topic on which souny, and many others it seems, have NOTHING TO SAY. So please, if you have nothing to say on the TOPIC AT HAND, go away.
 
DAMN SPOILERS, I had to skip through that post. Please no one quote those until I see it, I don't want to walk through a minefield here. Thanks guys!
 
Originally posted by Benefit
His main point, which has been pretty much lost in all this childish bickering, is that there are indie films and other low budget endeavors out there that could use positive public attention more so than Serenity.

if true, i think he's making a mistake which i see people make all over bluelight: using examples of other cases (best/worst/whatever) places this case in a different relative context but has absolutely no bearing (and is, one could argue, therefore irrelevant) on the absolute values being discussed.

alasdair
 
This afternoon I watched Serenity.

I didn't go see it on opening weekend for a variety of reasons, mainly:
i) I did not want to be carried into the theatre on a wave of cult-like hype
ii) I did not want to suffer through a cult-like five minute applause session at the end of the movie.
iii) I wanted space - both physical and mental

Yes, all that cult-following stuff turns me off a bit. X-Files is dead, there can be no other cults, there can be only one, etc., yadda yadda... :D

So I went this afternoon.

First things first. As someone who has not seen any of the Firefly series, I wanted to know if Serenity could pass as a standalone movie. It passed, with flying colours. The main benefit of someone being familiar with the Firefly series would probably have been a better familiarity with some of the language used in Serenity. I have to admit that on more than a couple of occasions I wanted to turn around and ask the geeks five rows behind me, "What the hell did they just say?!". Yoda-speak was a lot easier to understand on the first go than some of the lexicon used here, for me that is. It really reminded me of trying to understand NYPD-Blue speak.

Story: Again, as someone who is completely unfamiliar with anything preceding this movie that even remotely relates to it, I enjoyed the storyline. I did not enjoy it in the sense, "Wow, man, that was awesome!". More like, "That was surprisingly good.". It did not have the same epic feel of Star Wars. It felt more like a two hour pilot premiere of a TV series, but which should definitely be seen on a big screen, if not THE big screen. Whether I would enjoy any series that would follow out of that two-hour premiere would be questionable, but I would certainly watch that premiere again and would have no problem whatsoever recommending it to others. On that last note, I'll be going to see Serenity again next week, with some friends who saw it on opening weekend.

Acting: This is the one aspect of Serenity that made it feel more like a pilot premiere than a big screen epic. Whatever little humour was in the movie, was so cheesy that it matched perfectly the not so perfect acting jobs of the main characters. Come to think of it, there really weren't any other characters besides the main characters.
the Parliament assassin was a much better actor than Mal, the "hero", the captain. I think Mal did to this role what Scott Bakula did to Star Trek Enterprise - killed it, softly. River was freaking wicked! And here I thought Jessica Alba was the ultimate in HAWT, hehe. "Jayne" was the right person to play Jayne, but his "never afraid" character took a real stumble in the acting department when he showed fear a couple of times.

Overall, it was a long movie - two full hours. It was not, however, a boring movie. I get bored rather easily. I am usually very critical of films. Many of my friends usually say, "Come on, it's just a movie, enjoy it for what it is.", because I am usually that critical. As an example, the last movie i watched on the big screen was National Treasure. I was thoroughly enjoying it until about two thirds into the movie, when
they went down below that curch, where no one had set foot for over two hundred years and someone just picked a lantern off the wall and lit it without any problems. I mean, come on! That lantern had been there for two-hundred-years! Nothing works after two hundred years, especially not a stupid lantern!
See, that's just how critical I get.

In the case of Serenity, aside from some bad acting by a couple of characters in a couple of spots, I have nothing to complain about.

I also said I get bored rather easily, which probably arises from my being a bit too critical to begin with. If the watched movie is on DVD, I end up fast forwarding through the rather obvious dragged out bits. Signs, for instance, was at least twenty minutes shorter on my TV than it was on the DVD that was playing it.

I sat through two full hours of Serenity, not being bored once.

The poll: Had this been a ten-star poll, I would have very quickly voted Serenity an eight. This poll having only four options, one to four stars, makes this job a bit harder, but at the same time much easier. By "a bit harder", I mean it is actually going to make me explain my choice.

Great as a stand alone movie. Good, catchy short name. Acting split evenly: half - better than good, half - worse than great. Effects - great, without being too cheesy or going over the top. Good, closed ending. Nothing worse that that "until next time" hanger at the end of a good movie. Hey look, I said "good movie". :)

That brings me to the "much easier" part from two paragraphs above. Having already mentioned that this is a "good movie" with "great effects" and "better than good acting", we can safely rule out the one and two-star options for my vote in the poll. This leaves the three-star option, which would make the movie, in my view, better than average, and the four-star vote, which would make it "very good" to "great".

Were I to vote this "better than average", I would be saying that, while I enjoyed this movie, I would not be going to watch it again. That is not the case. As I've already mentioned, I will be going to see Serenity again with friends next week. Not only will I be going to watch it on the big screen next week, but I will also be adding Serenity to my DVD collection when it comes out. Thus, this is a very easy and confident four-star vote for me.

P.S. I will probably not be picking up that Firefly DVD now. I don't want to spoil that good Serenity feeling. Maybe later... much later. :)
 
Originally posted by SillyAlien
The poll: Had this been a ten-star poll, I would have very quickly voted Serenity an eight. This poll having only four options, one to four stars, makes this job a bit harder, but at the same time much easier. By "a bit harder", I mean it is actually going to make me explain my choice.

thanks for a well-considered report.

alasdair
 
fairnymph said:
This thread is about Serenity,

He was still discussing the movie. You have to learn to take the good with the bad, like a grown up, and not let your fanatical feelings get in the way of reasonable discussion.:p
 
You cannot discuss a movie you have not seen. If you do so anyway, you are doing so IGNORANTLY. That's not meant as an insult -- it's a fact.

I have no problem taking the good with the bad, Tanuki-who-can't-read-my-name-properly, however, NO BAD THAT IS RELEVANT HAS BEEN POSTED. Everyone who has actually SEEN the movie, has loved it. So there is only good, when it comes to the actual MOVIE.

Why the hell are you talking to me about 'reasonable' discussion when you and souny and others are attempting to bash a film YOU HAVE NOT SEEN?

Do you not understand this extremely basic logic? I really can't put it anymore clearly for you.
 
fairnymph said:
You cannot discuss a movie you have not seen. If you do so anyway, you are doing so IGNORANTLY. That's not meant as an insult -- it's a fact.

I have no problem taking the good with the bad, Tanuki-who-can't-read-my-name-properly, however, NO BAD THAT IS RELEVANT HAS BEEN POSTED. Everyone who has actually SEEN the movie, has loved it. So there is only good, when it comes to the actual MOVIE.

Why the hell are you talking to me about 'reasonable' discussion when you and souny and others are attempting to bash a film YOU HAVE NOT SEEN?

Do you not understand this extremely basic logic? I really can't put it anymore clearly for you.

You are right. Ill ask somebody whos seen it. Especially not some obvious rabid Wheldon fan. How about some bad reviews. Or so-so for that matter.

'Serenty' audience has no peace of mind
By Jeff Reese
Published: Thursday, September 29, 2005
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1

"Serenity" follows a crew 500 years in the future that will take on any mission for money, money which shouldn't be spent on watching this film in theaters.

The adaptation of the TV show "Firefly" written and directed by Joss Whedon tries to cover all bases. The action/sci-fi/drama/adventure/comedy is much like a track star trying to run a 400, a relay, and poll vault all at once - it is just too much.

"Serenity" follows captain Malcom "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and his crew as they run a transport-for-hire ship around the outer edge of the galaxy. The crew of the Serenity has recently taken on Dr. Simon Tam (Sean Maher) and his telepathic sister, River (Summer Glau). They are hiding from The Alliance, the coalition that is running the universe.

River was taken as a child and had been brainwashed as part of The Alliance's plan to create the "perfect weapon." Her brother's "daring" rescue of her sister from The Alliance lasted 30 seconds and was about as visually stunning and entertaining as a cardboard box.

After escaping from The Alliance, Mal and his crew have a run in with the Reavers, a cannibalistic group of people that sweep in and kill everything they see. No one knows where the Reavers came from, or how they have become the way they are, but The Alliance seems quite content with denying they even exist.

"Serenity" has a few high points that make the movie worth renting once it comes to video, which probably won't be that long. Seemingly out of nowhere River snaps and literally wipes out everyone in a bar and doesn't even get touched. By far the best fight scene in the movie, she knocks out 30 grown men in a matter of minutes and would have killed Mal if her brother wouldn't have said the safe word, which immediately causes her to pass out. The other two major fight scenes are involving the assassin sent by The Alliance (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Mal, which are mildly entertaining but still dissatisfying compared to the destruction that River rains down upon the bar.

The other upside is the twist, it keeps the movie going (and is somewhat creative). It comes at a time when you start to wonder what exactly is the point of this movie. The crew, thanks to River, finds out a secret that The Alliance will do anything to keep. Mal and his crew go through a transformation that everyone can see coming. They put aside their own agendas and fight for the greater good, they fight to make sure that everyone knows The Alliance's secret.

"Serenity" is not overly predictable, but that is largely based on the fact that a majority of the movie the audience is left wondering what exactly is the purpose. It is rated PG-13 for scenes of intense violence and some sexual references, most of which come seemingly out of nowhere and are actually pretty funny. Do yourself a favor and wait until it comes out on video, get some microwave popcorn, buy a 2-liter, and save yourself ten bucks.




The fire burns cooler for this space thriller
FOX series turned film lacks understanding of original idea
By Grace Devuono
Published: Thursday, September 29, 2005
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1

Fans of the short-lived FOX television series "Firefly" campaigned for a movie version, arguing that 14 episodes just weren't enough to tell the story right. Serenity may just disprove that theory.
Creator and cult icon Joss Whedon (creator of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel") supposedly had creative free reign over this project as writer and director, so why he betrayed the integrity of his story is a mystery. A sci-fi western, "Firefly" leaned a little on the western side, one of its winning, unique points. But it seems Whedon has tired of the western genre, and chosen a strictly science-fiction plot for Serenity. It's unfortunate that he couldn't save it for another project and do the wild west tale a little justice.

In "Firefly," nine crew members of the spaceship Serenity all struggled to find a place for themselves in the universe. There's the unrefined mechanic who crushes on the high-born doctor; the dim-witted mercenary who bonds with the troubled man of god; the tough warrior married to the mild-mannered pilot; and the alluring courtesan in love with the emotionally cut-off captain. But all of these dynamic, interesting relationships are more or less ignored in the film.

The character at the forefront of the story is River Tam (Summer Glau), a young genius turned psychic and a weapon of the inter-planetary government, whom Capt. Malcolm Reynolds (Nathan Fillon), who is less likeable and effectual than most lead characters, is sheltering on his ship. She is interesting enough, but the film's treatment of her remains superficial. She's been conditioned as an assassin, and at one point Mal questions whether she is a "person or a weapon," but the film leaves this question hanging.

Like any good western, "Firefly" dealt with morality - the notion that when you live beyond the reach of the law, you have to decide for yourself what's right. Serenity focuses more on concepts than individuals, however. It turns the frontier into a dystopia, examining the horror of government failure and its consequences on a large scale.

Serenity does do a couple of things right. The dialogue is appropriately punchy and smart. The set, identical to the TV version, works beautifully outside of the confines of the TV standard. Direction is nice and the CGI is impressive, but the characters falls flat.

Those who have never seen the show may be a bit confused, but won't necessarily detest Serenity, though they may want to rent the DVDs.
Mindless Whedonites, who believe the man to be God Almighty, will find no fault. But even devoted lovers of the character-centered drama must prepare themselves for disappointment.




Far Future, Old West

'Serenity' boasts space outlaws, space Apaches and the best space captain since Shatner shed his velours

By Richard von Busack

THEY SAY THAT it is not seemly for a writer to show all that he knows. But Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, has made a career of doing just that. As a third-generation TV writer, he is soaked in the history of the tube and knows just how to manipulate its machinery. He knows when to lower the boom on an audience, when to rustle up a "Scenes We'd Like to See" worthy of Mad and when to spray a group of actors with the shrapnel of an exploded cliché.

Whedon's Serenity is based on his 2002 TV series Firefly, sabotaged in the usual fashion by the Fox Network—first, broadcast the show without the pilot episode, for maxim confusion of the viewers; second, show the episodes out of order and pre-empt them with little warning.

Fortunately for Whedon, the sci-fi fans are the most vocal and organized of all TV-gazers. Firefly's rabid supporters, self-described as "Browncoats" (after the losing side in a space rebellion), stuck with the show long enough to bring it around to a full-length movie.

So, welcome the outlaw Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), the true successor to Capt. Kirk. His 26th-century space ship, Serenity—held together with Bondo and bailing wire—is named in honor of the Battle of Serenity Valley, a space Gettysburg where rebels fought against government forces. Happily, the captain didn't catch one in the face. Fillion has the improbable handsomeness, the good-humored slouch, of Victor Mature in his cowboy roles.

His wanderin' crew consists of six specialists of various degrees of gung-ho. The three who stand out are Jayne (Adam Baldwin), more powerful and more intelligent than a box of rocks; Gina Torres, a leather-clad Super Lt. Uhura; and River (Summer Glau), a waifish, half-sane stowaway mind-reader whom Mal plans to use on his raids. It helps to have someone who knows if a robbery victim plans to draw a gun. River turns out to be a Buffy-style martial arts maniac when triggered by a code.

The ship's hand-to-mouth existence is complicated by Reavers (of the planet Faulkner?)—howling savages who splash war paint on their space ships and use skeletons as hood ornaments. Hunting Mal is "The Operative," a government samurai (English stage actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, the duplicitous pianist in Melinda and Melinda). The Op crosses space to run Serenity down, while never seriously raising his well-spoken voice. His dirtiest trick is making a hostage of Mal's lady love, Inara (Morena Baccarin), a sacred courtesan (but shoot, the dance-hall gals in those Westerns were always sacred prostitutes).

This morsel is battered with a crunchy crust of crash landings, fight scenes and much neurotic complaining by the crew. Its anti-government qualities will warm a lot of hearts. And a subplot about psychoactive pharmaceuticals will bring comfort to those believers of a certain sci-fi-based religion—the ones who think Hitler invented Trazadone.

To unearth the double-meaning in the title, Mal needs faith in faith itself, a higher power to help him find the serenity he needs. The captain's spiritual plight is counteracted by the Reavers' nihilism. Folks around here say these savages were driven mad by the sight of the edge of the universe. (In the words of existential comedian Brother Theodore: They looked into the void, and the void looked into them, and neither one of them liked what they saw. The muscular Jayne, untouched by spiritual worries, grunts, "I been on the edge of space. And all it was was more space."

Whedon hasn't made the hyperjump between small- and big-screen composition. Serenity is visually noisy, with the restless jitteriness that is the way of distinguishing a TV show from a film at one glance.

Otherwise, Whedon's first film is a low-tech treat, as witty and nimble-minded as it is low-budget. It's a happy reminder of the days when a tree was a tree, a rock was a rock and Vasquez Rocks was Mars. All the planetary surfaces look like the rugged side of the Antelope Valley, except for a futuristic academy surrounded by ornamental ponds and cypresses (some Theosophical Society's water garden).

Against these economical but reassuring backgrounds, Whedon stages a yarn about space Apaches, blazing carbines and a captain who doesn't stick his neck out for anybody. George Lucas may make sure every window on an imperial palace gleams in a different way, but he's long forgotten the good, dirty, meaty storytelling that's in Whedon's blood.




Good with the bad . . .
 
Oh and I never tried to bash the movie. Get your facts right.

Why cant people bash a movie without seeing it? You were telling everyone to go see it without knowing it was good.
 
Last edited:
fairnymph said:
I find it very interesting that you say this but no new votes in the poll have shown up. Clearly, you haven't seen this movie, and you gave it a 1 a long time ago, before seeing it, and you are lying because you enjoy pissing people off. Nice try though!


Talking about how terrible a movie is when you HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE = no fucking idea what you are talking about. This is just simple fact.

I haven't even fucking voted 8)

I watched 20 minutes of the dvdr, it sucked.

what can I say? Whedon has disapointed me this time around. but i'm not a fan of the show either.

fairnymph said:
Everyone who has actually SEEN the movie, has loved it. So there is only good, when it comes to the actual MOVIE.


just because people are saying this movie is shit and the fact that you are so clearly a fanboy of it proves the fact that you can't take the good with the bad. it's ignorant to believe that all people that watch this movie will "love it"

and no, I didn't give this film one star. again, you're jumping to conclusions that are complete crap. I was waiting until I watched the movie before I voted, but seeing as I could only watch 20 minutes before getting bored, I don't even think it's fair that I do vote, until I complete watching the movie (if I ever do)

fanboy.JPG
 
Last edited:
^but his point is noted. ;)

massive overhyping vs. the pessimistic reactions that follow. Ahhh the eternal battle that lives within film supporters.

In the end, it only helps the film in terms of viewership. Personally I like seeing movies with zero hype at all...but I can understand people going nuts for certain films. Let's just remember that hype can ruin others' experiences watching movies, and having a wider range of opinion on a film or the hype behind it is healthier for discussion than not having it at all, as Finder alluded to.

I'm actually interested in seeing this in the theaters...except none of my friends want to "waste their money" on it heh.
 
Top