Two Alternative and Highly Informative Reviews of "Cowboys & Aliens"

[Lumenskir]

First Review: About a third as entertaining as this. (http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/4569/cowboysandaliensfarside.jpg)

Second Review:
Q: What temperature would it have to be before you break down and willingly pay to go see Cowboys & Aliens in the theater in order to make use of the air conditioning?
A: 108 degrees Farenheit.

[Nique]

But... Olivia Wilde :(

[Azisien]

That's too bad if its crap. But on the other hand, I still have to see Deathly Hallows Pt 2, Captain America, and Attack the Block. Saved me some money!

[Marc v4.0]

Worth a box of popcorn and two tickets.

Shit was entertaining, that should be plenty enough out of a summer action movie called Cowboys and Aliens

[Magus]

Hmm, I inexplicably never got around to seeing this this weekend despite all plans to do so.

Perhaps the universe itself was keeping me from spending five dollars on this?!

Because clearly the universe is interested in keeping individual people from wasting money on bad movies (though for some reason it didn't keep me from seeing Max Payne).

EDIT: So wait did you actually see the movie Lumenskir and it was bad or was just the general idea putting you off? Because it looked okay to me, anyway, since I'm sure they're at least partially aware they have created a science fiction western.

[Lumenskir]

But... Olivia Wilde
Yes, Olivia Wilde in quite possibly the dowdiest Western garb imaginable. Unless you have a massive hard on for her face, don't go in expecting much. Also, if all you're interested in is her, grab Alpha Dog.
Attack the Block
Not playing near me :<((((
Worth a box of popcorn and two tickets.

Shit was entertaining
Except none of this is true.

It was a mediocre and mostly boring Western punctuated every so often by anemic alien attacks.* They had the good sense to hire a bunch of great actors, but none of them are given anything to do. In fact, I'd say that the fact that they managed to cast Keith Carradine as a lawman and Walton Goggins as an outlaw and still couldn't make them work is downright criminal (although that's mostly because the former gets abducted right when he is getting interesting and the latter gets like five minutes total of screentime).

*Seriously, they owe massive royalties to that Far Side comic strip seeing as every alien ship appearance apes it constantly.

And it isn't even entertaining in a 'turn off your brain' kind of way since it's boring (like three and a half action sequences in a two hour movie) and it wants you to be involved with the characters (I'm guessing, since they talk constantly without saying anything worth anything) but the characters have absolutely nothing going for them. Daniel Craig has a mediocre American accent and spends 90% of his lines saying he doesn't know who he is, Harrison Ford looks perpetually woken up from a nap, and the rest are playing cookie cutter archetypes with no seasoning. When they actually do fight the aliens it's mostly just guys randomly shooting pistols around before an alien tackles them off their horse, repeated over and over.

Seriously, just see Captain America again. Or possibly Crazy, Stupid, Love.
Because it looked okay to me, anyway, since I'm sure they're at least partially aware they have created a science fiction western.
They really didn't, at least not in a self-aware "Oh we're making a movie based on a ridiculous premise" kind of fun way. This movie would be exactly the same if you changed the aliens to rampaging Indians.

I mean, because it is still fresh in my memory, there's a scene in Captain America where a Nazi holds a kid hostage, then throws the kid into a nearby river and runs off, and the Cap looks in the river and the kid's floating along happily and is like "I can swim, go after the Nazi!" and you realize the writers were aware of ridic cliches and how to play with them. Cowboys & Aliens is like a western written Mad-Libs style where 'aliens' is scribbled over and over again, and they think that's enough failing to realize they haven't actually done anything inventive or fun.

[Kroze Gamegod]

Oh god... THIS movie... so bad...

My BRUTALLY honest review that I would personally like to think is actually more entertaining then the actual movie itself. (http://comicsonline.com/node/1963)

Thank god I got into a press screening and didn't have to pay actual money to see that crap!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Haven't seen it but allt he reviews have led to me believe its not just aliens and cowboys having a super fight with ridiculous over the top stock characters and cheesy 50s special effects which is how I would have made it.

[Marc v4.0]

Except none of this is true.


Damn, really? I felt entertained, I was sure of it...:ohdear:


edit: Good news, I double checked and it turns out I WAS entertained, and DID feel it was worth the price of popcorn and tickets! I am relieved.

[Lumenskir]

Thank god I got into a press screening and didn't have to pay actual money to see that crap!
I actually snuck in after seeing Crazy Stupid Love for an impromptu double feature.

BONUS Crazy Stupid Love Review: Not bad for a date, but definitely something you can file away in the unofficial ledger as something you "Did For Her" in order to cash in on some minor entertainment later. Just don't immediately waste it on convincing her to sneak into Cowboys & Aliens.
Haven't seen it but allt he reviews have led to me believe its not just aliens and cowboys having a super fight with ridiculous over the top stock characters and cheesy 50s special effects which is how I would have made it.
If by 'special effects' you mean "Guys in silver spray-painted cardboard boxes with colander dishes for helmets and dryer tubes for arm coverings" I am totally there.
edit: Good news, I double checked and it turns out I WAS entertained, and DID feel it was worth the price of popcorn and tickets! I am relieved.
The proper protocol then is to crouch such statements in subjective wording like "I found it was entertaining yada yada" instead of making blanket objective statements that fly in the face of the movie's objective suckiness, hth.

[Red Fighter 1073]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but I remember seeing the trailer for the first time, seeing all of the high-profile actors, seeing an interesting premise (albeit a little ridiculous sure, but at least it's different), thinking that it might be worth seeing, and then just being completely turned off by the incredibly bland "Cowboys and Aliens!" title.

Ehh I was willing to overlook the terrible title and ridiculous premise to check out the movie, but I'm not so sure now...

[Nique]

Harrison Ford looks perpetually woken up from a nap

TBH this is pretty much Harrison Ford's MO for every role since 1999

[Nikose Tyris]

The proper protocol then is to crouch such statements in subjective wording like "I found it was entertaining yada yada" instead of making blanket objective statements that fly in the face of the movie's objective suckiness, hth.

The proper protocol is to remember that your opinion =/= everyone's opinion and that you should also be crouching such statements in subjective wording instead of blanketly assuming that everyone feels the same as you do. Regardless of holding the popular opinion or not, hth.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

The proper protocol then is to crouch such statements in subjective wording like "I found it was entertaining yada yada" instead of making blanket objective statements that fly in the face of the movie's objective suckiness, hth.

Are you an entirely different different Lumenskir than the one that was posting here before? Because that old Lumenskir believed wholeheartedly in the objective reality of his opinions.

To whit, the rejection of the subjective reality of one Marc 1.0 for that former Lumenskir's version.


Except none of this is true.


Cause I just really don't know what to think when you're giving Marc the runaround for not putting enough 'I think' and I founds' in his post when you're right there at the end of yours openly calling it objectively terrible.

objective suckiness

objective

suckiness

SUCKINESS AIN'T EVEN A GOSH DARNED WORD.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

WHy is it in every movie thread it descends into "Well I like it so there- this invalidates all your criticism and now I'm going to mock you for your criticism despite raising no points besides I liked it".

While everyone can like different movies and no one can take away from you the movies you like it is possible to list bad and good points about a movie even to get some measure of its quality on a general level, it is possible to analyse why you liked it and why you didn't and to present these points to others to help them decide whether they would like it too/to discuss what they liked didn't like about it. Just going on the attac of "Well I liked it so shut up" is not helpful and just shuts down debate and it happens in pretty much every thread.

[PCD]

I did come out of the movie enjoying it, but it really wasn't anything special. It didn't feel like it gave anything more than it promised: Cowboys and Aliens. And I think it did do just that, cowboys and aliens, well. The cowboys were cool. The aliens were... alieny. but It wasn't a fantastic movie. It had a couple plot holes here and there, but they didn't really bother me all THAT much...

The thing that really drove me insane was whatserface, Olivia somethingorother? The girl. When the fuck will the industry learn not to shoehorn in love interests into action movies? No one gives a shit, guys, cut that the fuck out. And seriously, making her a surviving alien from a previous race added absolutely NOTHING at all to the movie. If anything, it just made me more annoyed, for a wide variety of reasons.

[Marc v4.0]

WHy is it in every movie thread it descends into "Well I like it so there- this invalidates all your criticism and now I'm going to mock you for your criticism despite raising no points besides I liked it".

While everyone can like different movies and no one can take away from you the movies you like it is possible to list bad and good points about a movie even to get some measure of its quality on a general level, it is possible to analyse why you liked it and why you didn't and to present these points to others to help them decide whether they would like it too/to discuss what they liked didn't like about it. Just going on the attac of "Well I liked it so shut up" is not helpful and just shuts down debate and it happens in pretty much every thread.

Except, what happened was:
"I didn't like it"
"I liked it"
"That isn't true"
"Uhm, Yes it is, I liked it"
"Well, you are still wrong because I didn't like it"


As for WHY? Because it entertained me. I enjoyed the action, enjoyed the story and the settings. I didn't find Craig's acting to be 'bored', he was playing a cool-headed outlaw of few words that carried himself like he wasn't afraid of or interested in petty, noisy thugs. Actually, none of them seemed to be phoning anything in, their characters just weren't super-rich fonts of award-winning material, but not every character and every movie has to be all the time.

making her a surviving alien from a previous race added absolutely NOTHING at all to the movie.

That sorta bugged me for a brief moment, but it was more of a "That was a little weird..but ok"

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

WHy is it in every movie thread it descends into "Well I like it so there- this invalidates all your criticism and now I'm going to mock you for your criticism despite raising no points besides I liked it".

While everyone can like different movies and no one can take away from you the movies you like it is possible to list bad and good points about a movie even to get some measure of its quality on a general level, it is possible to analyse why you liked it and why you didn't and to present these points to others to help them decide whether they would like it too/to discuss what they liked didn't like about it. Just going on the attac of "Well I liked it so shut up" is not helpful and just shuts down debate and it happens in pretty much every thread.

What else could happen when you're talking about subjective viewpoints?

"Oh wow you're so right the scene transitioning was bad! I guess my enjoyment was fake!"

[Lumenskir]

It had a couple plot holes here and there, but they didn't really bother me all THAT much...
I think the movie's greatest flaw, beyond the languid pace and characters that can't fill in the non-action blanks, was the fact that because it was written, re-written, and co-written by approximately more people than there are molecules in the universe there are filmic equivalents of those areas in games where the developers had to dummy out a section but left in all of the dialog references, and then gave us plenty of time to stew with all of the unanswered questions.

Like, the upside down steam boat. Sure, as a one time visual it looks cool, but it has absolutely no point or reason to be in the movie (it's function as a place to stay the night could have easily been done by a ghost town or something). But, since one writer thought it looked cool and no one at any point seemed to edit anything away, we have an upside down ship that just raises way too many questions*: We only see the aliens using those single person jalopies, so are we supposed to assume they got like thirty of them to lasso the ship and drag it inward? And why? For the miniscule amount of gold on board relative to the mine? For more captives? If it was for captives, why not stop capturing more people there since they would have gotten, conservatively, 100-200 people? And why the fuck do they need to capture people anyway? To 'study' us in the event that they want to invade? I don't want to besmirch my own people, but it's pretty obvious that we die instantly if you shoot us with the hand cannon every one of them wears, right?

And so on and so on. There just seems to be way too many unfollowed idea threads that just end up being distracting.

*To be honest, I am perfectly fine with questions or ideas that don't get raised, but I usually prefer them to come in the middle of a movie that's moving along so fast I can't keep track/don't care because there are more interesting things happening to take my mind off the questions.
And seriously, making her a surviving alien from a previous race added absolutely NOTHING at all to the movie. If anything, it just made me more annoyed, for a wide variety of reasons.
I think they wanted her to be the exposition fairy, but failed to realize that everything she could offer would have been better done by just having Daniel Craig remember everything earlier.

Although I guess her being an alien was the only way we could find out the invaders had bad eyesight in the daylight...except for the final fight where they fought in broad daylight and had absolutely no problem seeing everything. So yeah, she added nothing.
Except, what happened was:
"I didn't like it"
"I liked it"
"That isn't true"
"Uhm, Yes it is, I liked it"
"Well, you are still wrong because I didn't like it"
Nah. I gave two alternative and highly informative reviews. You said the movie was entertaining (not that you 'liked it' or thought it was entertaining). I said the movie was not entertaining, and provided examples and explanations. You then changed it to saying that you were subjectively entertained, and I said that it was objectively sucky.
SUCKINESS AIN'T EVEN A GOSH DARNED WORD.
Ok, I'll fall on this sword. The movie was instead objectively atrocious, in that it had aspects of an objective atrocity. Like, Pol Pot taking a dump on the Baby Jesus's eyes level of atrocity.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Nah. I gave two alternative and highly informative reviews. You said the movie was entertaining (not that you 'liked it' or thought it was entertaining). I said the movie was not entertaining, and provided examples and explanations. You then changed it to saying that you were subjectively entertained, and I said that it was objectively sucky.

From my perspective the thing is you're pouncing on Marc's post when it could just be a case of neglecting to properly format with "I thought"s "I think" and "I found"s and if you just read between the lines and act as though it's a subjective viewpoint it still makes perfect sense, and it makes sense to do that anyway because we're talking about a totally subjective thing. But you're out and out being objective with the subjective like its nobodies business even as you criticize him for it.

Ok, I'll fall on this sword. The movie was instead objectively atrocious, in that it had aspects of an objective atrocity. Like, Pol Pot taking a dump on the Baby Jesus's eyes level of atrocity.

No. It isn't and it didn't.
It had qualities you subjectively didn't like, but there's no objectivity in that. Nor anymore validity in your viewpoint than his.


Edit: This is all the more hilarious because you didn't put any "I think" "I thought" or "I believe"s in your first post either. Taken literally your first post makes the statement that you can scientifically prove that the movie is only a third as entertaining as an image of a cowboy and a flying saucer and that the temperature must be 108 degrees Fahrenheit for it to be worth watching.

Edit2: I've begun work on a formula to objectively prove Monty Python's Life of Brian is the best Monty Python movie. Progress is slow.

[Lumenskir]

This is all the more hilarious because you didn't put any "I think" "I thought" or "I believe"s in your first post either. Taken literally your first post makes the statement that you can scientifically prove that the movie is only a third as entertaining as an image of a cowboy and a flying saucer and that the temperature must be 108 degrees Fahrenheit for it to be worth watching.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm aiming to impart some sort of subjective op-ed, when in fact my function is more akin to a reporter delivering facts in as objective a way as possible. People's interpretation of those facts is where subjectivity comes in. So when I say that this movie and its carbon copy characters and dismal action is an atrocity on par with Zombie Ronald Reagan rubbing his zombie member across Picasso's Guernica, you can take that statement to the bank as the truth and do with it what you wish.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

You seem to be under the impression that I'm aiming to impart some sort of subjective op-ed, when in fact my function is more akin to a reporter delivering facts in as objective a way as possible. People's interpretation of those facts is where subjectivity comes in. So when I say that this movie and its carbon copy characters and dismal action is an atrocity on par with Zombie Ronald Reagan rubbing his zombie member across Picasso's Guernica, you can take that statement to the bank as the truth and do with it what you wish.

I can take a handful of lint and string to the bank and act like it's money but they're still not gonna let me deposit it.

[Marc v4.0]

only on the Internet

Ok, I'll fall on this sword. The movie was instead objectively atrocious, in that it had aspects of an objective atrocity. Like, Pol Pot taking a dump on the Baby Jesus's eyes level of atrocity.

my function is more akin to a reporter delivering facts in as objective a way as possible


for Fox News, maybe

[tacticslion]

While I'm subjectively being very entertained by the devolution of this thread, might we be better served by - instead of arguing our own merits and others' fallacies - adding to the merits and fallacies of the movie in question?

Also, I dunno, I haven't seen the movie, probably shant, but not because of reviews, but rather time. Prepping for baby takes time. So does movie. Movie loses. Subjectively, of course. :D

Edit: alternatively, I think, it would be quite entertaining to watch people arguing their own arguments' fallacies and others' arguments' merits, all, of course, subjectively!

[Lumenskir]

I just found out that the little annoying kid in this movie was the same kid who played Ohng in M. Night's Airbender movie.

brb gotta vom

[Magus]

But I liked when that kid attacked the alien's weak point for massive damage!

Anyway, I liked the movie. It reminded me of the other five or six science fiction action movies I saw this summer and I can't really discern a major difference between this movie and X-Men or Thor or Captain America (other than...genre? If superhero movie is different from sci-fi). I certainly liked it better than Green Lantern or Transformers 3. Also it had Harrison Ford, who was pretty good in it and played more of a "villainish" character for once (but with a heart of gold out of the blue, for some reason). He's Harrison Ford, after all.

In fact I liked it so much I have already come up with the name of the sequel: Cowboys and Aliens 2: Defend Fort Knox!.

Probably the worst part of the movie was the big battle scene, as Lumenskir mentioned. The aliens literally kill like ten humans a piece before even breaking a sweat, and even adding in the Indians that inexplicably join the party, there was no way they could have survived, let alone "win" by forcing the aliens to leave Earth, since logically all the humans should have been dead within about five minutes. Instead more and more extras seemed to show up out of the blue only to be murdered.

There were also a few plot holes and dropped threads, as mentioned, of course, but again, reminds me of most of the action movies I've seen this summer.

However, I liked the movie as a whole. I certainly don't feel like my time was wasted like it was with Green Lantern.

[Lumenskir]

I was personally conflicted throughout the whole of the last fight, because I always try to root for the non-stupid side in every movie fight.

So, on the human side, we have a bunch of morons standing around in the open shooting at the 90% bulletproof aliens without aiming. We also have a bunch of morons shooting bows at the 100% arrowproof aliens, although at least then we know when they've made a worthless hit.

BUT, on the aliens side, EVERY ONE OF THEM HAD A BLASTER. They literally could have just sat on the main ship and picked off everyone they could see. Instead they just went feral and didn't kill Harrison Ford as he spent like fifteen minutes sitting out in the open cradling his Indian son surrogate.

I started to just root for Team Out Of Nowhere Killer Meteor.

E: Ok, now that I think about it, the aliens are clearly the stupider side, seeing as they apparently mastered FTL travel and have been 'studying' us for however long and still resorted to idiot tactics. So good job winning by default, humanity.

[Krylo]

Edit2: I've begun work on a formula to objectively prove Monty Python's Life of Brian is the best Monty Python movie. Progress is slow.

That is because you're trying to prove a false premise.

[Fifthfiend]

Haven't seen it but allt he reviews have led to me believe its not just aliens and cowboys having a super fight with ridiculous over the top stock characters and cheesy 50s special effects which is how I would have made it.

I would have used modern CGI special effects to ape shitty 50s special effects as closely as possible.

Basically I am saying I would spend four hundred thousand dollars per minute of screentime to create the most breathtakingly realistic nearly-invisible strings holding up my incredibly realistically CGI'd fake-looking alien spaceships that have ever been captured on film.

[synkr0nized]

Stupid aliens and a go-nowhere-plot was made tolerable by James Bond and Han Solo. And a few beers.




But I mean don't spend money on this. Go to Captain America instead if you are choosing among the two.

[Fifthfiend]

What else could happen when you're talking about subjective viewpoints?

"Oh wow you're so right the scene transitioning was bad! I guess my enjoyment was fake!"

Literally nobody ever has re-evaluated their views of something after being exposed to and considering alternative viewpoints.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

That is because you're trying to prove a false premise.

Meaning of life had some incredible moments, possibly the best individual sketches without a doubt. But Life of Brian had the best overall experience, and the best scene.

[Marc v4.0]

Literally nobody ever has re-evaluated their views of something after being exposed to and considering alternative viewpoints.

This is considerably different. I am not going to suddenly realize that all the entertainment I got from this movie was completely fake because someone else says it was because they didn't like it.

This is something I can assure you, without a doubt.

[Lumenskir]

This is considerably different. I am not going to suddenly realize that all the entertainment I got from this movie was completely fake because someone else says it was because they didn't like it.

This is something I can assure you, without a doubt.
Hmm, I think we've been on different fields of battle for a while now. I'm not trying to convince you about what you felt, I'm trying to convince everyone else not to go see this...

Actually, go ahead and go see this if you really want, just don't pay for it in any way that money reaches the creators. Make your own 2-for-1 double feature day, acquire it through totally legitimate measures or just wait a few years for it to play constantly on FX*. Just don't give money to them is all I ask.

*Don't worry about missing out on water cooler talk, I can't really see anyone excluding you for not seeing this as soon as possible. And if they do exclude you, I'm fairly certain that's a Class 5 OSHA violation, so call your nearest Congressman.

I've just been giving examples of what this movie entails so that people can make their own choice, while the pro-C&Aers have just been saying it's 'entertaining' which is meaningless without reference to what else that person found similarly entertaining. But yes, I think I've pointed out this movie's flaws enough, and nobody who actually liked the movie has come forward with in-movie evidence beyond "The actors are not award worthy but aren't really trying to be," so here are some objectively good things in it.

-For about half a minute at the beginning of the movie, Daniel Craig does some pretty good "Jason Bourne with the numbers filed off" fighting.

-I made light of it before, but if you do happen to find Olivia Wilde's face appealing (and she is very pretty) then you are in for a smorgasbord of close ups of said face, which never looks anything less than beautiful regardless of whether the close up happens in bright daylight, or in darkness, or the pouring rain, or right after she has been lassoed and then tossed into a river. Just a great face.

-Walton Goggins has some sort of wooden/silver/fake teeth thing going on that somehow makes him look even more like he should be living in the Wild West. Good on you production designer!

-If you haven't watched Game of Thrones all the way through yet, the scene where someone dies due to molten gold is decent.

-Uhm...

[Marc v4.0]

Certainly different battlefields, because I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything at all despite assertions.

It was entertaining to me, and I didn't really say more then that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Edit2: I've begun work on a formula to objectively prove Monty Python's Life of Brian is the best Monty Python movie. Progress is slow.

It is the most movie-like film. But meaning of life is far more hilarious. And that's what I'm looking for in a python film.

I would have used modern CGI special effects to ape shitty 50s special effects as closely as possible.

Basically I am saying I would spend four hundred thousand dollars per minute of screentime to create the most breathtakingly realistic nearly-invisible strings holding up my incredibly realistically CGI'd fake-looking alien spaceships that have ever been captured on film.

I wholly endorse this as far better than my idea.