Posted on 6/14/10 08:37 AM
There's a question you can ask yourself when you're having a tough time deciding wether a movie of this kind is good or bad. Was watching it an entertaining journey, or a chord? The reason why I am confused about this movie's state revolves around the movie having good elements, as well as mistakes from the part of Paul WS Anderson (yes that prick) and the terrible writer that was onboard that put a negative weight over all the positives. You've got visual wonder combined with uninspired elements that are partly stolen from other films, characters that are challenged but contrivedfully so, an intriguing and out of the ordinary promise that falls flat as the movie tries to sound smart, and so on.
In Event Horizon, there's some ship that's been gone for 7 years that just came back from some place for some reason. At this point, the crew became mutated monsters and everything has been messed up pretty badly. Too bad the audience can never find out why. All the information we ever get is that this place is a sort of hell. There's some excitement as the alive-for-now crew discovers stuff inside. Unfortunately, all ambiance falls apart as it becomes clear that Paul Anderson is unable to set up a constant atmosphere and writer Philip Eisner is unabe to set up consistent or believable characters. It's hilarious how the nameless black character pulls his friend out of a freaking black hole absolutely horrified and then the next minute he's just craking jokes and easy with everyone.
The same thing can be said of pretty much every single one of the redshirts who go through the floating wreck and try to get off. Everything they do is unsubstantial. It goes on and on, giving the impression that there is a substance. It's just a bunch of random things happening on top of each other. Much like in Solaris