Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, December 2, 2010

For Some Reason, I Watched Skyline

Posted by on Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:59 PM

1. The movie storytelling formula is broken. Screenwriters are told to make audiences care about characters by jamming those characters full of bloated backstory and tedious monologues. In terms of garbage filmmaking—by which I mean in terms of Skyline—screenwriters need to realize that the modern audience doesn't need six overt reminders in the dialogue that a character is pregnant; we have spent our whole lives watching movies and we understand a young female character is pregnant when she vomits in the morning. We get it; move on. We have seen this kind of movie a thousand times before, and your job is not to linger over the same basic four pieces of information again and again. Your job is to drown us in information, give us way too much to understand.

2. A good science fiction movie (and here I also mean a good bad science fiction movie) cannot solely rest on one premise. A good science fiction movie has to hint at a world outside the edges of the screen. It needs to present a new good idea every ten minutes or so. I'm not talking about twists. I'm talking about exploration. Science fiction movies are about exploration. You can't linger over the same ten feet of fallow ground—aliens are attacking and they're very powerful!—for nearly two hours. Give us more.

3. Skyline is basically an episode of a sitcom—Seinfeld if we're feeling generous, Friends if we're not—with all the comedy stripped away. A bunch of douchebags are in an apartment and they argue about whether they should leave the apartment or not. Where a clever script would convince us that we should care about these douchebags, we are instead given a series of recursive arguments about leaving the apartment. In both the sitcom and Skyline, the actors stay in the apartment more often than not, usually because of budget constraints.

4. The special effects in Skyline are very good. This is because the directors are special effects wizards. (Curiously, some of the characters are special effects wizards, too, but the lame script never manages to make even one solid joke about this. That is practically a criminal violation of basic screenwriting rules.) Unfortunately, due to the problem presented in point 3—the inability of our characters to leave the apartment—the special effects are presented almost entirely as tableaus to watch. They're not interactive. The characters look through a telescope and then we witness forty-five seconds of what would be a phenomenal video game cut scene. And then we're back inside the damned apartment again.

5. The fucking movie ends exactly where the second act of a decent sci-fi thriller would have started. This is inexcusable, and it's the greatest of Skyline's many failures.

 

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
Wow.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on December 2, 2010 at 4:09 PM
starsandgarters 2
Yeesh. Thanks for the warning--I was planning on renting this for the spectacularly hot Eric Balfour.
Posted by starsandgarters on December 2, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Sargon Bighorn 3
As America becomes more dumbed down every month would one expect its movie entertainment to head in the other direction? No. Movies any more are rarely about good story, good acting, good message, or good brain food. They are about visuals, colors, bombs, and things and people that move fast and jump alot.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on December 2, 2010 at 4:13 PM
aardvark 4
nice post P
Posted by aardvark on December 2, 2010 at 4:21 PM
svensken 5
So this is a drinking movie......thank for the warning.
Posted by svensken on December 2, 2010 at 4:22 PM
aardvark 6
#3 do you think we are dumbing down or are we always this dumb and just getting good at focusing on least common denominators and polling and market share numbers? are we dumbing down really?
Posted by aardvark on December 2, 2010 at 4:24 PM
Joe Szilagyi 7
@2 Balfour is his usual very good and Donald Faison is pretty good too. I literally can't recall any of the other actors. Even David Zayas, who I love to death in Dexter, was boring here.

And Paul, I think this is the first time I ever have said you're being too generous with a movie.

I thought the end as it as presented was dumb and pointless, as it was totally cold, out of context, and they didn't even bother to imply why that one brain was red versus blue. I'm a huge sci-fi fan, and when that rolled by, I said out loud, "Now he's going to be all Sharlto Copley." Ten seconds later, yep. I was waiting him to start beating aliens in the face with a metal rose, but all we got out of him was a pose that was pure Bumblebee defending Sam in a Michael Bay Transformers film. Yes, he withstood the lights a little bit more than others, but they barely even bothered to explain much past that passing visual. Lame. I was OK with them being trapped in the apartment, and the general Alienessness of it--it wanted desperately to be War of the Worlds meets Sky Cthulu, which should be as awesome of a concept as most SyFy Saturday films, but it was just... dull.

The two redeeming things in the film were: 1) The special effects outside of the ships were astonishingly good, end to end. And 2) the entire US Air Force combat/drone attack sequence, as they watched it on the TV feed--very clever, that, so we could see the civilian reactions--with the swelling music in the final bomb run was fantastic MILPORN SCI FI. That 2-3 minute sequence, if it was 120 minutes long, would have made me love this film.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.joeszilagyi.com on December 2, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Paul Constant 8
Joe @7: I agree that it was a dumb destination, but it would have made a great plot beat, I thought.

Starsandgarters @2: If you're watching it for hotness's sake, you could still get away with renting it and giving it a quarter of your attention. Say, watch it while folding your laundry, drinking malt liquor, and catching up on a week's worth of Facebook time.
Posted by Paul Constant http://paulconstant.tumblr.com/ on December 2, 2010 at 4:37 PM
DavidG 9
Didn't they already make Independence Day like 14 years ago?
Posted by DavidG http://portableshrines.com on December 2, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Packeteer 10
Paul's comments about the video game cut scenes reminds me of how blizzards is seriously considering taking all of the cutscenes from Starcraft 2 and stitching them into a movie. The CEO said people would pay $50 to see it in theaters despite the fact that it already exists on youtube.
Posted by Packeteer on December 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Packeteer 11
Paul's comments about the video game cut scenes reminds me of how blizzards is seriously considering taking all of the cutscenes from Starcraft 2 and stitching them into a movie. The CEO said people would pay $50 to see it in theaters despite the fact that it already exists on youtube.
Posted by Packeteer on December 2, 2010 at 5:29 PM
12
3 Local Films in Sundance today. Just sayin'.
Posted by Farts Weird on December 2, 2010 at 5:32 PM
13
@ 3: I suspect Christopher Nolan would vehemently disagree with you whilst counting his giant pile of money.
Posted by Zelbinian on December 2, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 14
If I ever make a film, one thing I won't do is waste time showing people getting in and out of cars.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://yrihf.com on December 3, 2010 at 1:57 AM
yelahneb 15
In a universe with essentially infinite resources, the premise that Earth has something worth the trouble of traveling to and invading doesn't make sense. A species that has the necessary technology and wherewithal to cross the vast distances between the stars would also have the ability to find whatever it needs on any of the tens of thousands of worlds where there is no other intelligent life whatsoever.
Posted by yelahneb http://www.strangebutharmless.com on December 3, 2010 at 9:16 AM
samktg 16
@6, There are just as many illiterate people today as during the middle ages. The only difference is that the illiterate can now read.
Posted by samktg on December 3, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy