raoulfenderson

I am a huge fan of "evil aliens" movies, plus I absolutely loved the original TV series from back in the day. So of course I was ready to really enjoy this flick. Egad! What a woofer! Nothing you haven't seen numerous times before -- hey, the premise works! it's entertaining in theory! -- but when you've got such low-quality acting, cheesy effects, a meandering script ... blah! The only thing it had going for it was Richard Belzer practically in a reprise of his "cigarette-smoking man" role in "Puppet Masters." It takes a real conspiracy of incompetence to make a "body-snatchers" themed movie utterly fail, but they managed to achieve it with this one. No surprise they never revived the TV series if this piece of dreck was the pilot.

I suppose in a pop-historical romantic epic such as this one, it's too much to expect depth in your characters -- they mostly have to be "writ large" -- but it just won't do to explain this savage religious warfare as essentially caused solely by the whims and stupidity of a few evil leaders. But in a romantic epic you have to have the really bad guys to go with the good guy.

And here's our good guy, Orlando Bloom, who, from his humble beginnings as a village blacksmith, fortuitously acquires the mantle of nobility PLUS incredible fighting prowess PLUS a brilliant command of military tactics, and STILL can't seem to get through a scene fully awake. He's an idealistic young man in a world of cynical land-grabbing hypocrites, with a vision of a "kingdom of conscience" that prohibits him from ordering the death of a rival but not, after all, from sleeping with the rival's wife.

Most of this film lulled me into a state of bemused semi-wakefulness -- I didn't understand most of the dialog, couldn't really figure out who was fighting who or why, but there were nice pastoral landscape scenes, manly knights, and a beautiful damsel -- only to blast me out of my lethargy with the loud, over-cooked, over-extended battle scenes. I wondered about the physics of the medieval siege as I witnessed flaming boulders hurled at the velocity of cruise missiles into the walled city by the Saracen's catapults. Damn, dog, why bother inventing gunpowder, when you've got this stuff? And you know, the Muslims, in addition to the best weaponry, had all the best doctors and philosophers, AND the best all-around guy ever in Saladin, who gave the barbaric Christians a lesson in Christian forgiveness by not slaughtering them all at the end, even though the Christians had slaughtered all the Muslim inhabitants of Jersalem when they had taken over the city. Hmmm, didn't Saladin have factions within HIS army yapping for blood? Of course he did, but maybe it's not the right time in OUR history to let plot get in the way of the story.

I really wish Roger Ebert hadn't "changed his mind" and actually *recommended* this woofer after previously calling it the worst movie he'd ever seen at Cannes. According to Rog, the editing did the trick. Gallo supposedly left a substantial portion of the Cannes version on the cutting room floor. Too little, too late, in my humble opinion. One day, and very soon, the critics who had anything good to say about this film will see the error of their ways; they will repent in sackcloth and ashes, and the entire production will be eternally damned and consigned to the sulphurous, unquenchable flames of cinema hell.

A lot of people post comments on a lot of movies here, and quite often you read the comment, "This is the worst film I've ever seen." I don't want to be one of those people. It's so, well, trite. And usually not true. People just like to blow off some steam. So instead I'll just say that this is a tedious, ghastly, juvenile, inexpressibly awful display of utter dreck.

I tried desperately to find one reason, just one tiny little miniscule reason, to rate this movie higher than rock-bottom. But I can't. In fact, if there were a "zero" rating, I would have to check with someone at IMDb to be sure that "zero" means what I think it means, i.e., totally, absolutely, irrevocably devoid of even a quark's worth of value -- and, having confirmed this, I would devote the remainder of my mortal sojourn upon this earth searching for an even LOWER rating for "Brown Bunny."

You have been warned. And if you're just gonna rent this on DVD to scan to that one scene we've all heard about, do yourself a favor and rent a porno instead. Any porno. Maybe one of those series like "Euro Sluts 20", or whatever. The production values, acting, dialogue, and especially the sound, I guarantee will be far superior to anything you'll "come across" in "Brown Bunny."

As one of the many poor slobs who have been waiting eagerly for the release of this film for (it seems like) years, I must say I was entertained but expected more from Spielberg.

Okay, the special effects are awe-inspiring, but everyone expects that. I'd go further, though, and recommend this movie simply on the strength of the effects. I was wondering how Spielberg would render the "fighting machines," and my jaw dropped when I finally laid eyes on one.

Despite what some other folks have written, the screenplay really DOES follow a good deal of the original H.G. Wells novel in basic structure, with the exception that there's not a gradual build-up of suspense while the aliens hide in their "cylinders" and prepare to attack. Here, they simply strike, and we're off to the races. The Tim Robbins character puzzled me until I realized that he was supposed to be a composite of the unbalanced curate and the tough artilleryman in the Wells novel, a combo which, if you've ever read the book, you'd know is doomed to fail in precisely the miserable way it did.

Other troublesome areas in this movie include the handling of the Red Weed, which was never really explained -- what was it, and what was its purpose? Who the hell were those people on the ferry crossing suddenly attached to Tom Cruise and his kids? And of course, the biggest problem of all, endemic to alien invasion movies, but which I expected some solution to here -- just how is it that super intelligent, super powerful aliens who can travel across light years of space seem to have no awareness of an obvious Achilles heel which will eventually destroy them? Independence Day -- oops, we've got no virus protection for our ships' computers; Signs -- hey, water is kryptonite to our species but we're invading a planet that's 70% water. War of the Worlds -- well, you know the routine by now, Wells used it too. But in the 1890s, it may have seemed a little less like "deus ex machina."

Tom Cruise, yeah, he can act. He's good in this role. Dakota Fanning I'd like to smack upside the head and get those vacant eyes of hers rattling around in her skull a bit. If there were an Oscar for screaming, she'd get it. They should have waited a few more years to remake King Kong, she'd grow right into the female lead. The kid who played Cruise's son should have been incinerated in the first carnage scene, he was absolutely useless. He's only there to keep reminding us what a crappy father Tom's been, yadda yadda yadda.

Overall, it's worth the price of a ticket. In fact, I'm gonna see it again, but only because these kinds of movies are my favorite kinds of movies. You know, the ones where civilization is destroyed and millions of people are indiscriminately slaughtered by some pitiless force, but everything is okay at the end because Joe Average and his family are safe and reunited.

In the name of all that is holy, shun this movie with every fiber of your being. The very best that can be said for it is that it's only 88 minutes long, but these are precious minutes that you will never get back, minutes during which you could be doing more enjoyable things such as driving knitting needles through your cheeks or administering suppositories to dysenteric pachyderms.

The ultimate cosmic mystery is how anyone with any shred of taste or sanity could have read the script for this abomination and thought to themselves, "Oh, yes, let's make a movie!" The story could possibly make sense to some people -- say, Charles Manson on acid. In fact, I'll have to check the credits again, maybe he collaborated on the screenplay. Another major bafflement is how the two talentless kiddie stars managed to get through an audition and get leading roles in ANY film. In an orderly universe overseen by a beneficent deity, this could not happen.

Ach, I don't even like writing about it! Let's just forget all about it and move on with our lives!

I normally don't post comments, but after watching this cretinous paeon to wine snobbery on DVD last night, I felt compelled to vent my spleen.

Yes, bits & pieces of it are amusing. But the two main characters are such contemptible losers, and the interminable chatter about wine is such a bore! I suppose if you're as obsessed with wine as these idiots, you might put this movie in your top ten something-or-other list. Then you may want to seek professional help.

I can't fathom why this depressing, tiresome drivel generated such widespread critical acclaim. Hmmm, maybe the conservative wingnuts are right about the "Hollywood liberal elite" being totally out of touch with reality.