Film/TV
Jan 7, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Film/TV
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Where's Moon?
I noticed Contact on there too.
I think it must be on the list as a nod to the book, because the movie was a big fat disappointment.
@Lindy: hardy har barf.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs…
(But I still love you and your wonderful reviews too, Lindy!)
@16 Quadruple thumbs up. What The Fuck Do We Know is new age masturbation at it's worst. I can't believe I let someone talk me into seeing that turd burger.
"2001" for example depicts space travel in a very realistic manner for its time, but, regrettably, seriously missed the mark in terms of the time-frame of when its technological level would or even could be achieved. OTOH "Frau Im Mond" probably made the list despite its (to us) myriad of scientific inaccuracies, because it was the most realistic depiction of space travel at the time it was made, and made best use of scientific knowledge then extant.
Total fucking rubbish.
I agree with Gattica and Contact though.
I had totally erased the science nightmare that is 2012 from my brain.
My bad, both 2012 and the core are fucking ridiculous. Followed closely by "The day after tomorrow"
I enjoyed 2012 as a no brains required summer action flick and did not pay any attention to any and if there was any science in it.
Yes, because the initial premise of "2012": that neutrinos generated from a massive solar flare are causing all the natural disasters on earth, is completely IMPOSSIBLE, since: A. of all) neutrinos are the smallest elementary particles currently observable, having no electrical charge and essentially no mass and therefore cannot affect normal matter in the way described, and; B. of all) the earth (and you for that matter) has been and continues to be bombarded with uncountable numbers of neutrinos each and every day, with quite literally no deleterious effects whatsoever.
In other words, a few passing references to good science in no way compensate for the incredibly BAD science that forms the structural foundation of the movie itself.
In that case, please accept my apologies for the "schooling" above.
Nowhere in "TDTESS" (and in this case, I'm sure they're referring to the 1951 Robert Wise directed original, NOT the execrable 2008 Scott Derrickson remake) does Klaatu claim to "stop our planet in its orbital/rotational tracks" (although perhaps that's the rationale used in the remake; don't know, didn't see it, never want to), but rather that he stops all electrical generation; and again, I think we have to presume he's talking about electricity generated by artificial means, not naturally-occurring electricity, since that basically would have killed every living thing on earth.
And regardless of my issues with the film ending of Contact, I have a massive soft spot for that movie and book and will watch it at every available opportunity.