In emphasizing poetry over plot, mood over mechanics, Another Earth fails to answer the most pressing question of all: Umm, why haven't the tides been affected?
I am sick of reviews bashing this movie because it is not scientifically possible. I read your whole review and that seems to be your major issue. Newsflash: most movies had at least some aspect that is not possible. For example, you gave positive reviews to the latest Harry Potter, Inception, and District 9, all of which are part sci-fi movie. Why not rate them poorly because of their implausibility, if that is your basis for a bad review of Another Earth? Either you are a hypocrite, or you need to dive a little deeper into your mind and figure out what the real reason was for not liking it.
Aug 12 - 04:21 PM
Right on, Brian M. I'm sick of this pseudo-outrage about plausibility; has the suspension of disbelief somehow died on the vine?
Aug 12 - 09:30 PM
In her defense, the entire "why didn't this effect the tides" thing is absolutely hilarious. This film most definitely built mood and feeling instead of something scientifically feasible, or indeed a solid story, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you have to admit: her comment, if taken light-heartily, is hilarious, and does pose a few good points. I mean, come on! Why WEREN'T the tides effected?
Also, unlike this film, Harry Potter, Inception, and District 9 dealt with ideas unknown to the scientific community, which granted these films flexibility. However, on topic of this film, it is universally acknowledged that a planet with any gravitational influence will effect the tides, so on that note this film did not deal with unknown or new ideas in that sense, not to say this film was unoriginal. I loved it! It was fresh and quiet and pleasing, but it's scientific actuality was a bit iffy.
Nov 29 - 06:08 PM
The thing is, you don't need to be stuck up on matters like this, that's not how you create movies which can labeled as art...
And many people nowadays seem to be so close-minded as to miss the whole point of the movie while wondering about the movement of the tides... Why is symbolism in 21th century such a big problem?
Sep 15 - 10:55 AM
Yes, thank you! This movie is amazing...people with small minds probably can't understand the real meaning behind it. Especially how young this actress is and already writes, acts and produces with such talent :)
Please, way better then any Harry Potty...
Jan 12 - 07:49 PM
Aug 13 - 05:27 PM
Aug 13 - 05:28 PM
It's funny to see how people on here seem to lack the knowledge basic knowledge you can find anywhere about outerspace itself, lol.
Hell, who's to say this "other earth" even has humans on it? And why wasn't there any radio signals coming from it?
Do you people really have any idea how large of a plothole this is, and you compare it to Harry Potter and District 9? That's really sad. I mean, really really really really sad. I think you're pretty out of touch with reality if you agree with that statement.
Aug 20 - 10:00 PM
I understand the laws of physics and I know that it is completely impossible for a planet to coexist with earth the way that it does in the movie. In fact, if this were to occur in real life, not only would the tides be affected, but the gravitational pull between the planets would cause a collision that would exterminate all of humanity, among countless other effects. So please don't accuse anyone of lacking basic knowledge of outer space; we all learned that in grade school.
I am merely saying that the existence of another earth adds another dimension to the movie. My comparison to Harry Potter and District 9 is simply a way of stating that just because something is impossible does not mean that it is a "plot hole" in a movie. Many events that occur in Sci-fi movies are impossible, but it is what it is, and that's the same idea with this movie. I am saying that if you don't like this movie based solely on its implausibility, then you are a hypocrite for liking other Sci-fi movies with impossible elements such as this. I don't care if you don't like this movie, but at least dislike it for the right reasons.
You, like the the original reviewer, seem so caught up in the implausibility of the other earth that you fail to realize that it is just meant to add another layer to the film.
Hopefully this clears things up. To be honest, I didn't even want to respond to this comment, which was obviously not very well thought out. However, I feel the need to clarify that I completely understand the implausibility of this other earth, and that I surely am not "out of touch with reality."
Aug 21 - 12:11 AM
I dont think they are going to get your point. they didn't get the point when they watched the movie.
they wanted Earth 2(tv series), they got something that made their brain hurt...
Nov 17 - 06:15 PM
There was nothing about this movie to make your brain hurt. Anyone who has read science fiction has seen this story done much better a thousand times over. This was a clumsy attempt at a twist that was completely predictable and not especially original.
WHO DIDN'T think the end would manifest as it did?
There were no original concepts in the film to make one's brain hurt.
Dec 6 - 10:01 AM
Agreed - LOL...who cares about the realism of the earth 2...its the meaning of the movie...since when are movies based on reality anyway!
Jan 12 - 07:42 PM
Impossible is an absolute; there is no such thing as "more impossible." Adolescent wizards teleporting and casting spells in a parallel reality accessed through a brick wall is impossible, and the events unfolding as they did in Another Earth are too. If your criteria for plot-holes is "impossible," then you aren't allowed to say any plot-holes are larger than others.
(And if you think you are, then that's really sad. I mean, really really really really sad.)
Nov 8 - 03:24 PM
Carlos Díaz-Valdés A
so, i guess that kids flying on brooms are possible...
Nov 8 - 11:16 PM
Did you watch the film? Without going into specific spoilers, it's pretty obvious that there are, in fact, humans on that other planet. The SETI doctor on the live feed, for one, and the very last shot before the credits roll for another.
Jan 9 - 05:25 PM
Um...I think you missed the entire point of the movie. It was about forgiveness and redemption and second chances, not about physics. The whole Earth 2 concept was an interesting way to talk about those things. If you got hung up on the tides and the scientific implausibility, then this was never meant to be the movie for you...
Aug 27 - 11:54 AM
Adam Di Giorgio
Maybe you shouldn't watch art films; you have too much of an aversion toward the impractical and the immaterial. Your bent on watching rubbish and enjoying it. Eat shit.
Sep 7 - 11:06 PM
Haha, "Why haven't the tides been affected?"
That analysis of a SciFi film has all the intellectual maturity of questions like, "Why would the school hire a 22ish year old to be a janitor? I mean, where do you ever see attractive blond janitor girls?"
What do the tides have to do with the narrative? Ridiculous.
Nov 17 - 10:28 AM
Well, if it were a rift through time and space to an alternate reality, then the mirror planet isn't really orbiting earth, there's just a window to access it. Maybe I'm watching too much Doctor Who tho...
I also like the idea that someone else put that the whole story is taking place in her mind while in prison, and that meeting "herself" could signify that she's facing herself in her mind, not a twin.
Nov 22 - 12:50 AM
who the fuck cares about the tides if the movie brings catharsis? this reviewer's review is just another example of intellectual snobbery. take your Physics with you and shove it up your ass. this movie isn't intended to be shown in a Science convention. the Sci-Fi element in this movie is intended to be a vehicle for the story, in no way was it intended to be the driving force. Between an emotionally moving movie full of plot holes and a scientifically, plausible, logically perfect movie that doesn't move me, I will choose the one with the plot holes.
Nov 25 - 12:29 PM
The problem that people with analytical minds like myself and others apparently including the reviewer have with the science aspect, is that it's hard to suspend disbelief when events in a given film aren't consistent and plausible in the environment where it is set.
You go to see Harry Potter, you should already know that you're going to see a fantasy film set in a world where magic is possible, and therefore isn't *this* one, so the expectation is only for it to be self-consistent.
As for District 9, yes this is set in the real world. However, it doesn't go against any of the rules of the real world, since it's entirely possible that someone could spot a damaged alien ship travelling towards earth tomorrow. Unlikely, yes, but possible.
So District 9 is consistent with our current understanding of the real world.
With this film, just from the trailer I can see that the film is set in something resembling the real world, and there's no reason to expect that the laws of physics, etc, would not apply. However, there's glaring instances of the laws of physics being totally ignored, which are completely jarring to some of us, and suspension of disbelief becomes very difficult, and the film just becomes a bad joke.
So I hope that explains why some of us have a problem with it :-)
Dec 6 - 05:42 AM
I can understand why you have a problem with that. I had that exact same problem myself. But then I opened my perceptions to the other areas of myself, the intuitive areas, the feeling areas. This isn't like a Star Trek episode or the typical disaster movie where the central characters know the full details of what's going on, or why. The central characters in this story are the people who wouldn't even be in the frames of a typical SF film, their concerns and their exploration are framed in the context of their personal problem.
The challenge in this movie is to accept the one thing that you can't explain logically and take it on faith that it works in context even if you can't understand how. Once that's done you can get what is at most not even a minor plot detail out of the way and explore the real meat and tenor of this film.
Oct 18 - 11:13 AM
This ridiculous movie could have used any other sort of vehicle to tell this story. They did not need to include a theory that the writer obviously did not understand to tell the story of this troubled teen. This movie was an exercise in false advertising. It looked like it might be a speculative science fiction piece, but it turned out to be a movie clumsily using a scientific theory as a premise to get inside a pretty girl's mind. The 20 minute story should not have taken 90 minutes. This story was completely run of the mill. Very disappointing, as this had the potential to be a good science fiction movie. Hopefully the science fiction fans will be able to warn others away.
The world was completely unbelievable and lacked any internal consistency. The marketing company did well though. The trailers made the movie look like good speculative science fiction. Those movies are hard to come by. MOst science fiction is raddled with sensationalism. If the director understood the theory he could have made this a good piece instead of 'another twist movie' drivel.
Dec 6 - 07:46 AM
yes i agree dissapointing movie :(
Dec 12 - 06:11 PM
Apparently you call this movie ridiculous just because it was not what you would have written. Well, I guess they don't make movies to please you, do they?
According to rottentomatos, this is labeled as drama, not sci-fi. That should tell you something.
Jan 4 - 10:26 AM
Wow. This is like asking how Edward Cullen gets an erection when he has no blood.
You do realize that there was a scene showing flowers floating in air to implicate that gravity on earth was affected? It was deleted because it was IRRELEVANT to the narrative.
Dec 31 - 05:35 AM
I'm confused by some of the "tomato" reviews as Entertainment Weekly listed it as one of the WORST films of 2011. Hmmmmm.
Dec 31 - 08:41 PM
The only inconsistency related to this movie is how all of you who are complaining about the physics seem to have been somehow misled by this movie...
is the most pressing question why the tides weren't affected?? really??? or why wasn't there any radio signals coming from Earth 2???
If you would have paid more attention, and seriously read and watch the trailer as you imply you did.... why did you watch this in the first place? or why didn't you stop watching it from the very begginin?
It is clear from the trailer and the description that this second Earth appears all of a sudden in the sky, but you all seem to have no problem with that. To me, that makes you look ridiculous ... so in 2011 nobody noticed an earth-like object approaching us but what you wonder is why the tides weren't affected?
Personally, I love science, and as I said, from the very description and the movie poster it was obvious this was not going to be scientifically rigorous... so please, make up your own minds first, the only hole is in your heads.
Jan 4 - 10:16 AM
I've been reading all the negative comments pertaining to the unscientific premise and suddenly another implausible but decent movie popped into my head...Signs. To a scientific mind, any form of life should be expected to NEED water...not the other way around. But either way, it was a creepy movie about people dealing with every day people issues. Another Earth is exactly that, minus the creepy aspect. It should have been evident to anyone watching the trailer that the movie is an art picture that explores human emotion. That might sound pretentious, but if you watch movies and watch trailers, by now you should be able to decipher what a movie is going to be about....I mean...most trailers practically depict the entire film. Also, any work of fiction is set in a fictional universe. With that in mind, the movie IS still plausible because of the things it doesn't show. It doesn't show the News reports about the tides and we don't know where Rhoda lives, therefore it can be assumed that crazy things are happening, they just don't really affect Rhoda in her world 'cause she's too caught up regretting her past decision. Someone said something about a wormhole or something that would make Earth appear closer, but it doesn't actually have to be...it's only visible and accessible given the window of opportunity. These "scientific minds" piss me off anyway. If everything were done by the book and we followed every scientific law and learned every little thing, we'd be a pretty boring and unimaginative society (which seems to be where we're headed anyway.) The guy in the movie (can't remember his name) said it best with his Plato's cave reference. Only think of this....what if leaving the cave only brought you eventually to a darker one. Why is the analogy always assumed to have a happy ending (meaning the things seen outside the cave...not the getting beat up part). Anyway, all rambling aside, this movie isn't for everyone (not 'cause anyone's smarter or less imaginative) but it's a good drama in my opinion with just enough scifi flare to draw you in. I did not expect Rhoda's final decision and I was completely surprised by the ending as I was so drawn into the irony of the situation between Rhoda and the guy that having a giant duplicate Earth in the background didn't make me wonder about the tides except in passing. Reason didn't ruin my ability to see the better aspects of this movie.
Jan 13 - 05:41 PM