Skyline - 2010

senordingdong

constitutionus wrote: »

you know every now and again a film gets universally panned for reasons that are quite honestly beyond me.

skyline is one of those films.

im just back from it now and i thought it was fantastic !

yes its a remorseless ripp off off a half a dozen or so films . but you know what ? that doesnt matter when its done well

and this is.

its war of the worlds. in fact its a much much better war of the worlds than the remake speilberg foisted upon us a few years back in that it actually SHOWs us something without forcing a sentimental family story down our throats. its got the action of independance day without the american jingoism and patronisation , and the style of cloverfield with more visuals.

best of all its that rare beast

an alien invasion film, which if it doesnt get a sequel, has humanity losing

i mean FFS.

Its got

aliens sucking peoples brains out of their heads to use as wetware in their weaponry, essentially meaning all the people taken at the begining are fighting us for them as their shock troops. you SEE this on screen.

ok its not art.

ill be the first person the say that, but to say this is the WORST film of the year clearly shows someone that hasnt watched resident evil after life. the acting is no worse than any other Sci Fi films ive seen recently

with again a cast of virtual nobodies which allows practially ALL of em to be killed by the end of this film. in fact the guy MOST recognaisable in this gets offed pretty much first - something that could never happen in a tom cruise film

and if the special effects really HAVE been done for less than 10 million someone seriously dererves an award as theyre top notch.

ok the ending may piss some people off, and it certainly came out of the blue to me but

on reflection this gives us what i said earlier, a devestated earth where people lose. so it stops being the usual "america **** yeah" and starts being a very good survival film

if its not everyones cup of tea thats fair enough, but no way is this the travesty its been made out to be. i'd certainly have no problem going to see it again and i hope it does good enough to get a sequel as the way it ends is intrigueing to say the least.

best film ive seen in ages.

Really want to see this now after your review.

But hey, RE: Afterlife was class.

dr ro

there are some very curious views on here. A lot of forgiving reviews. What a load of crap. The film is Sh1te. 10 million budget? Imagine the films someone with talent could make for 10 million.
You only have to watch this pile, to see it's not a big studio movie.
It must have been embarrassing being connected to this movie at screenings.
I really considered asking for my money back. It does matter when a film is a remorseless rip off of half a dozen others. It's like buying a new cd and finding all old songs you already have and you'd gladly pay for that? There's nothing to enjoy in this movie that you won't find in movies on tv now. The laughter in the cinema and number of people leaving early was testament to that. Don't waste your money with this trash. The brothers' Strausse me ar5e!

vibe666

dr ro wrote: »

there are some very curious views on here. A lot of forgiving reviews. What a load of crap. The film is Sh1te. 10 million budget? Imagine the films someone with talent could make for 10 million.

and because these guys showed that *anyone* can make a movie for $10m a lot more new indie movies are likely to get made.

also, i think you drastically underestimate what sort of movie you can actually make these days for $10m.

scroll about 2/3 of the way down this list (looking at some of the shite movies that cost over $100m on your way down) and look at the kinds of movies that were made for $10m and then look at the next column to see what those movies grossed at the box office in the whole time they were playing. not many of them even made any profit at all any very few of those were made recently.

then consider that skyline made back it's $10m budget in the first 2 days at the box office. actually, maybe that's not such a good point to show you given that you wanted your money back! :pac:

actually, then scroll down to the bottom to see paranormal activity made for $15k and grossing over $100m! :eek:

Johnny Derpp

vibe666 wrote: »

and because these guys showed that *anyone* can make a movie for $10m a lot more new indie movies are likely to get made.

also, i think you drastically underestimate what sort of movie you can actually make these days for $10m.

scroll about 2/3 of the way down this list (looking at some of the shite movies that cost over $100m on your way down) and look at the kinds of movies that were made for $10m and then look at the next column to see what those movies grossed at the box office in the whole time they were playing. not many of them even made any profit at all any very few of those were made recently.

then consider that skyline made back it's $10m budget in the first 2 days at the box office. actually, maybe that's not such a good point to show you given that you wanted your money back! :pac:

actually, then scroll down to the bottom to see paranormal activity made for $15k and grossing over $100m! :eek:

Could also mean we're going to see alot of crap now.

vibe666

some of us actually enjoy a bad movie or two.

i personally love watching a few shitty low budget movies every now and again because it reminds me of my youth when pretty much all movies were shitty & low budget.

Phony Scott

I just returned from the film. It’s highly derivative of a number of films, particularly 'Transformers' (meets any alien invasion film) with a bit of ‘Night of the Living Dead’ thrown in for good measure. The story is threadbare, the dialogue is lazily, the acting is nominal (but typical of sci-fi), the characterisation is hopeless and the continuity is iffy in parts…but I still left the film having enjoyed it!

I can only repeat the comments made by Constitutionus; this was the least patronising alien invasion film I’ve probably ever seen.

No heroes, no warnings, no build-up, no jingoism, no explanations, no science, no win the day against insurmountable odds, no ponderous looking at the space-ships as they fly over head, all this topped off with an ending in which suggests that the bad guys win!

Hugely refreshing.

Ok, it might sound like I’m suggesting that the film has no clichés, well it’s rife with them, but I think it was counterbalanced by the above quite well. ‘Skyline’ is a mess, but an interesting one if you can look past its huge faults. 6/10

Edit:

Actually, I have to change that score. About maybe twenty minutes in, I did nod off for a few minutes, until a few moments before the

nuke.

So...5/10

vibe666

i just siad it in the "Monsters" thread, but i think it's worth mentioning again.

people have gotten far too snobby about movies and the bar that they set.

everyone needs to watch a few Steven Segal movies made in the last few years (or any year come to think of it) and then they'll know what a bad movie is all about.

azezil

I really enjoyed the parts shown in the trailers, but that's it. Everything else was abysmal. I'm a HUGE sci-fi and b-movie fan but this movies actors were just atrocious. Turk pulls the same faces as he does in Scrubs, the 'oh mai gawd everythings so dramatic lets be heros!!!!!' ****e really got on my nerves. Myself and my mate looked at each other several times throughout the movie and just laughed at how insanely bad the acting and plot are.

One part we found particularly funny was the dog fight featuring the UAVs and stealth bombers; somehow followed seamlessly by the telescope and shown on the tv... :rolleyes:

5/10 and that's just for the pretty visual effects (really enjoyed seeing all those bodies being sucked up to the ship hehe).

senordingdong

vibe666 wrote: »

everyone needs to watch a few Steven Segal movies made in the last few years (or any year come to think of it) and then they'll know what a bad movie is all about.

I've reported this post.

azezil

And for those of you harping on about it only costing $10mil , go watch Ink, that only cost $250,000 and is infinitely better!

vibe666

senordingdong wrote: »

I've reported this post.

cruel and unusual punishment?

azezil wrote: »

And for those of you harping on about it only costing $10mil , go watch Ink, that only cost $250,000 and is infinitely better!

i actually tried, but after about 30-40 minutes, i just couldn't bare to sit through it any longer, sorry.

--LOS--

vibe666 wrote: »

i just siad it in the "Monsters" thread, but i think it's worth mentioning again.

people have gotten far too snobby about movies and the bar that they set.

I like some so bad they're good movie, like a lot of sh!tt horrors, those however I would watch again and again, this one I definitely wouldn't! But it did pass a Sunday afternoon nicely.

azezil wrote: »

I really enjoyed the parts shown in the trailers, but that's it.

The bits that weren't even in the actual movie? :P

Einstein

I do like crappy movies from time to time too
This was a little toooo crappy. The effects were fairly sweet in fairness...

If the scripting had been just a little better, i'd have eenjoyed it a LOT more!

tough__cookie

Skyline was the WORST film I have ever seen. The acting was so bad I had to laugh at one stage. Don't even get me started on the **** ending!!

constitutionus

reckon we'll be getting a sequel.

its only opened in 6 regions outside america since the 11th but its taken in another 10 million plus there too (according to box office mojo)

ruskies seemed to have taken to it best, 5 million alone there.

100% profit is hard for studios to ignore.

particularly after 6 days.

EDIT.

oooh and on the crap movies stuff.

battlefield earth lads !

that sets the bar for bad.

Morlar

I sometimes go to see movies which I have not read the reviews for and not really watched the adverts for.

Sometimes it works out quite well but sometimes it is a complete disaster.

Skyline is probably the worst movie I have seen in the last decade or so. I can't actually think of a worse movie I paid into at the moment but there must be one.

Morlar

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Reminds me of Independence Day

I'd say it's a cross between independence day (without the plot or characters or pace or production values or dialogue or music etc) and the video game crysis - (without the element of it being interactive or any good whatsoever). Jesus that was a turkey of a movie.

Phony Scott

constitutionus wrote: »

reckon we'll be getting a sequel.

...and I'll be waiting! Keep watching the Skis. Uh, Skies!

vibe666

you people really need to see some proper shitty movies if this is the worst film you've ever seen.

Phony Scott

vibe666 wrote: »

you people really need to see some proper shitty movies if this is the worst film you've ever seen.

I agree. I'm temped to draw up a list of films which are far worse than this, but I need to think about it.

dr ro

what about the bit where they barricade themselves into the "directors condo" using - a washing machine?????? Anyone else notice that. Didn't notice them plumbing it from the water supply or elec but they must have. Surprised they didn't show that bit actually. Would have wasted a bit more time used for crappy dialogue or regurgitated scenes. Whatever about rehashing scenes from better scifi movies, in this pile, they replayed the same scenes!

Galvasean

vibe666 wrote: »

you people really need to see some proper shitty movies if this is the worst film you've ever seen.

Phony Scott wrote: »

I agree. I'm temped to draw up a list of films which are far worse than this, but I need to think about it.

Deepest darkest parts of the mind, locked away in a sealed vault....

One thing that grates me, particularly on online forums, is that every time a poor film comes out it's "WORST FILM.. EVER!" time. I guess either people have short (or indeed selective) memories or have just been lucky enough to miss out on the REALLY bad films.

Zillah

vibe666 wrote: »

well, even after reading the thread i still went to see this and just dialled back my expectations accordingly (as well as not mentioning to the wife it had gotten slated so she didn't try and back out of going ).

something most people don't seem to be aware of about the movie is that it isn't a big studio movie, it's an indie film that was put together solely by an fx studio, not some big production company.

the strauss bros. went out and bought all their own camera's (the stunningly good (for the money) red mx series) and lenses etc. and filmed the whole movie in and around their own apartment in L.A. with only a single day of aerial shooting to get some wider shots.

the budget for the movie was $10m all in and the whole thing from the initial concept to cinema release was less than 12 months.

they never intended it to be an oscar winning character piece, it was made from day one to be a low budget brain free sunday popcorn action & sfx fest and i think they did exceptionally well at hitting that mark imho.

yes the acting was cheesy and the script was thin at best, but it was never meant to be anything other than what it is and i think they should be commended for it and all the people here saying it was the worst movie ever REALLY need to see some more sh1tty movies because there is a lot worse movies in existence and plenty of them cost more than $10m to make.

if you're a scifi fan its well worth a watch as long as you take all of the above into account and don't expect a $100m multi-oscar winning epic. grab a large coke and big bag of popcorn on your way in, turn your brain off, suspend your disbelief and just enjoy it for what it is and appreciate the fact that there are guys out there who are brave enough to take the reigns away from the big studio's and make things happen for themselves.

vibe666 wrote: »

and because these guys showed that *anyone* can make a movie for $10m a lot more new indie movies are likely to get made.

also, i think you drastically underestimate what sort of movie you can actually make these days for $10m.

scroll about 2/3 of the way down this list (looking at some of the shite movies that cost over $100m on your way down) and look at the kinds of movies that were made for $10m and then look at the next column to see what those movies grossed at the box office in the whole time they were playing. not many of them even made any profit at all any very few of those were made recently.

then consider that skyline made back it's $10m budget in the first 2 days at the box office. actually, maybe that's not such a good point to show you given that you wanted your money back! :pac:

actually, then scroll down to the bottom to see paranormal activity made for $15k and grossing over $100m! :eek:

No. Just no.

There is a large and healthy independent movie scene all around the world, frequently creating well written and thoroughly worthwhile films for significantly less than ten million.

Decent actors, directing and scripting are not all that expensive. Saying that you "only" have ten million is an excuse for an awful film is complete crap. Some of the greatest films in history were made on an absolute pittance, and many films today have modest budgets. The Secret in Their Eyes was made for about two million. Lost in Translation was made for four million. Run Lola Run, 1.75 million.

As independent cinema goes, ten million is quite a generous budget. And they squandered it on an incredibly shiny load of crap. Volver was made for about ten million. No one is making excuses for it, because they don't need to, because it's a damn good film. These guys got carried away on an orgy of CGI extravagance and showed that they haven't the slightest idea how to make a decent film.

irishjay

going to see tomorrow night ......i saw the trailor and it has me guessing ... good or muck?

Bacchus

irishjay wrote: »

going to see tomorrow night ......i saw the trailor and it has me guessing ... good or muck?

Do you really have to ask? The last 2 pages of this thread is full of negative comments (and a few "ah sure it's a switch your brain off and enjoy the effects" comments). I was going to see this but no way am I forking out my money for something which such sweeping bad reviews. I'll watch it on RTE in 4 years on a cold Tuesday night.

azezil

azezil wrote: »

And for those of you harping on about it only costing $10mil , go watch Ink, that only cost $250,000 and is infinitely better!

Supposedly the upcoming Monsters had a budget similar to that - $400,000 if I'm not mistaken? That's open to correction.

dr ro

Bacchus wrote: »

Do you really have to ask? The last 2 pages of this thread is full of negative comments (and a few "ah sure it's a switch your brain off and enjoy the effects" comments). I was going to see this but no way am I forking out my money for something which such sweeping bad reviews. I'll watch it on RTE in 4 years on a cold Tuesday night.

I wouldn't bother.

vibe666

Galvasean wrote: »

One thing that grates me, particularly on online forums, is that every time a poor film comes out it's "WORST FILM.. EVER!" time. I guess either people have short (or indeed selective) memories or have just been lucky enough to miss out on the REALLY bad films.

its like the people who love some unknown band and tell everyone how cool they are and how great their music is right up to the point where the album hit the top 40 album chart and then all of a sudden it's "too mainstream" and "too commercialised" and the same band that it was cool to be into a few months earlier become totally crap by virtue of nothing other than getting popular. :mad:

Magic Eight Ball

Deleted User wrote: »

Supposedly the upcoming Monsters had a budget similar to that - $400,000 if I'm not mistaken? That's open to correction.

The budget for Monsters was more like 7 grand.

Bacchus

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

The budget for Monsters was more like 7 grand.

It's at least $15,000 anyway.

Bacchus

Bacchus wrote: »

It's at least $15,000 anyway.

Seriously? From looking at trailers for it, there's some pretty epic CGI going on there. It just goes to show that you don't need to spend hundreds of millions to get amazing movies and I can see Hollywood moving this way in future

Kashkai

Went to see this yesterday and tbh, it was the 21st century equivalent of the 1950's B movies where some guy dressed up in a rubber suit and walked out of a swamp or they stuck fins onto the back of iguangas and called them dinosaurs.

It was cheap and cheerful and passed 90 minutes. It wasn't the worst film I've ever seen but the storyline and actors left a lot to be desired. There were so many things about this movie that just wouldn't have happened if "real aliens" invaded, e.g.,

Putting a few snipers on roof tops to shoot at 60 foot tall monsters

If the mini alien drones could take down fast moving predator drones and B2 stealth bombers, why the hell were they using much slower Blackhawks?

There are shots of a US Navy Carrier fleet close in to shore in the battle scenes. This would never happen in real life as a fleet such as this needs deep water to manouver and operate - I was proved right though as this fleet gets sunk

Finally, what did the Aliens want with teh humans? I initially thought we were a food source but then realised that they wanted

our brains??? Why did Gerry have the capacity to regain control of his brain to take over the alien's body? Why did the Aliens spare his girlfriend when they found out she was pregnant?

So many questions that I won't lose sleep over tbh. This is one that will head for the bargain bin when released on DVD but its worth a watch and is an improvement over the Brothers Strausse previous megabuck effort, AVP Requiem

helimachoptor

My own comments below

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

Putting a few snipers on roof tops to shoot at 60 foot tall monsters

There as recon rather than direct action

snipers

i'd say

If the mini alien drones could take down fast moving predator drones and B2 stealth bombers, why the hell were they using much slower Blackhawks?

How else are the soldiers meant

to get to the buildings by air?

There are shots of a US Navy Carrier fleet close in to shore in the battle scenes. This would never happen in real life as a fleet such as this needs deep water to manouver and operate - I was proved right though as this fleet gets sunk

Agreed

Finally, what did the Aliens want with teh humans? I initially thought we were a food source but then realised that they wanted

our brains??? Why did Gerry have the capacity to regain control of his brain to take over the alien's body? Why did the Aliens spare his girlfriend when they found out she was pregnant?

I think we are a food source, at the end didnt they chaps eating the brains just pretty much cr*p them used brain out? Only Gerrys was a different colour and ended up with him taking over the body.

senordingdong

constitutionus wrote: »

reckon we'll be getting a sequel.

Wonder if the sequel will see investment and as a result, better quality?

Kashkai

I don't know about a sequel. From what I saw the Aliens

basically hoovered up mankind in teh final shots where they have attacked London, Hong Kong, New York etc.

.

Any sequel would have to be based on

the Alien ship with Gerry the monster and his pregnant girlfriend settling down to family life together - "Whats for dinner today dear, oh no, not more fcuking brains!"

helimachoptor

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

I don't know about a sequel. From what I saw the Aliens

basically hoovered up mankind in teh final shots where they have attacked London, Hong Kong, New York etc.

.

Any sequel would have to be based on

the Alien ship with Gerry the monster and his pregnant girlfriend settling down to family life together - "Whats for dinner today dear, oh no, not more fcuking brains!"

PD, a narrow view, the sequel will be a made for scyfy TV movie a la War of the Worlds 2, where the folks holed up in Cheyenne mountain and non population centres figure out how to fly some top secret new jet to win the fight

Kashkai

I can think of many films that need a sequel but Skyliners is not one of them :D

constitutionus

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

I don't know about a sequel. From what I saw the Aliens

basically hoovered up mankind in teh final shots where they have attacked London, Hong Kong, New York etc.

.

Any sequel would have to be based on

the Alien ship with Gerry the monster and his pregnant girlfriend settling down to family life together - "Whats for dinner today dear, oh no, not more fcuking brains!"

i thought

the reason gerry brain (who's name i couldnt even remember ! ) was because he got dragged away from the light after being exposed to it for a fair amount of time. they show in the film it made him physically stronger so maybe it affects his brain too.

as to the sequel

IF they do one i reckon theyll expand on that.

gerry cant be the only one that got tackled out of the way of being snatched by the light so i reckon they will all team up and form a kind of resistance group fighting the aliens in their own weaponry with whatever people are left.

on the wife being spared, i was under the impression they WERE going to kill her too but the delay in scanning her to determine she was pregnant gave gerry the time to get to her in his new body.

kevincaz

Just watched this movie and all i can say is the acting is worse than days of our lives and the story was tripe.

Do not waste your money or time on this it is a pile of smelly steaming dog turd.

I lost 90mins that i can never get back and my god i already want them back!

Richard Dower

Yeah, i'll wait for the DVD.

Cantona's Collars

Just after watching it-had to make up my own mind on how bad it was so expectations were low.It wasn't as bad as I was led to believe,it's no masterpiece either but switch off the brain and don't analyse it and it's ok as a popcorn movie.

vibe666

helimachoptor wrote: »

PD, a narrow view, the sequel will be a made for scyfy TV movie a la War of the Worlds 2, where the folks holed up in Cheyenne mountain and non population centres figure out how to fly some top secret new jet to win the fight

maybe it'll be barry pepper in a harrier jumpjet like in battlefiled earth. now THAT'S a sci-fi turkey with a much bigger budget than skyline had. i'd much rather watch skyline again than BE if i had to choose between the two.

Sagat06

truly awful bloody movie I was rooting for the aliens cos' the actors were offensive to my senses :rolleyes:

Richard Dower

Ah-a!....right then, i'll see now just how bad this movie is!

Richard Dower

LOL!....just watched it, basically this is a bigger budget Saturday SyFy movie...the effect shots are pretty decent, but not enough of them imo, yeah the UCAV battle was the best. But how exactly did the building they were in survive after

the nuclear weapon went off?

- jaysus.

The script, plot and acting was woeful...again what you'd expect from SyFy, it was laughable in alot of places. I'm a sucker for Sc-Fi, even cheesy low budget crap....but this was pretty bad!

But for what it is, in the context of the $10 million buget, and in the spirit of SyFy or The Asylum....you could do worse.

2.5/5

It's earned almost 60 million, not bad...expect a sequel.

vibe666

Richard Dower wrote: »

But for what it is, in the context of the $10 million buget, and in the spirit of SyFy or The Asylum....you could do worse.

that's the biggest thing people are forgetting when they say that this is the worst movie ever.

if you really think Skyline is the worst movie ever, try ANY of the following Asylum movies and then come back here and say it again. :pac:

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0043571/

i double dog dare ye.

somuj

I cant believe I wasted money on this. I'm actually shocked. Was looking forward to the DVD even tho the reviews were so bad because any scifi is good scifi. Complete nonsense it is.

Richard Dower

It did have an interesting end tbf, it sets up a sequel.

Linguo

Haha we rented this last night, it was so awful it actually stunned us:D

Still we got a good laugh at it! Paranormal Activity 2 is on the cards tonight, hope it's better!!

TonyD79

Richard Dower wrote: »

2.5/5

It's earned almost 60 million, not bad...expect a sequel.

I wouldnt even give it a 1/10. Know from reviews it wouldnt be up too much but it reminded me of a SyFy "Original" production.Awful stuff. I will give it a one though for the scene with the stealth bomber which was class.