Independence Day: Resurgence **SPOILERS FROM POST 266 ONWARD**

Cantstandsya

Seen it today. Terrible.

syklops

Cantstandsya wrote: »

Seen it today. Terrible.

Care to elaborate?

Cantstandsya

syklops wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Hard to elaborate without getting into spoilers...

Basically, the film seemed a mess... not only a mess in terms of plot but messy in a literal sense... it looked and felt messy. The special effects were bad, the cuts between scenes seemed awkward and ham fisted, all the scenes with people seemed to either be green screen or really crappy sets, nothing seemed "real". The entire thing is presented in a sort of dark tone, I wanted to adjust the brightness of the screen but apparently this is a look Emmerich goes for. Even the music was jarring with parts of the original score added between the new, and totally different - and worse, score.

The look and feel of the movie were really different to the first, to the extent that it didn't really feel like a sequel at all.

The first movie had a sort of warm underbelly, it had a sort of "nice" feeling to it. It had a heart, this film, to me at least, did not.

I'll be interested to see what other people thought of it.

I'll likely go see it again in a few days. I was enjoying the match a bit too much last night so watching this early might not have been wise... But I'd be surprised if my opinion changes on second viewing.

constitutionus

seen it today myself too.

its alright.

not a patch on the first and it loses focus about half way through it but ive seen worse.

the visuals are great though and theres some nice things they do with what already happened in the last. i really liked the idea of what happened in africa for instance and the alien telepathy thing.

and ill be honest with the stuff revealed in this and how they end it i actually wouldnt mind mind seeing a third. its gotta nice "robotech" type feel to it that i cant quite put me finger on. plus it'd get them out of the hole of repeating themselves ad nauseum. if the third is made i'll basically make the first two prologues to a pretty bad ass confrontation

6/10

cant help thinking if they managed to get will smith back it wouldve been better. that said

brent spinner was having a blast. im spoilering this as i didnt even know he was in this, thought he died in the last one : )

EDIT.

Oh and i chose the 2d option. im avoiding 3D when ever i can now.

Mister Vain

Cantstandsya wrote: »

The first movie had a sort of warm underbelly, it had a sort of "nice" feeling to it. It had a heart

I agree. This one had no heart. It was sterile, soulless and just not much fun.

"Hey how can we market this for China?"

That's what I came away from this with.

AMKC

Seen this with the brother this evening. We both thought it was very disappointing. Its just no where near as good as the first one its just basically a woo lets do this bigger and that louder. Its a pity as it started out promising but goes downhill from there. Its a film that you are better of just leaving your brain at the door before you go in. The special effects are good thats about it really. The acting is terrible Id say Brent Spiner was delighted to do it a nice easy gig for him. The story is terrible to a pity as it could have been brilliant if done right. It just seems rushed a bit more thought and time into it and it could have been so much better. There is loads of mistakes in it. 2 out of 5 for the film. There is loads I would like to talk about but do not want to spoil it for anyone so will leave it for now.

saneman

Deleted User wrote: »

"Hey how can we market this for China?"

That's what I came away from this with.

Well if the Chinese like tired, weakly written, tropey nonsense, with dumb set pieces then ID2 has them covered.

I didn't expect to be blown away, but a feeling other than apathy would've been nice. Next time I think to myself "sure it might be okay" about a movie I'm gonna sit in a dark room (with some popcorn and coke, obviously) and wait 'til it passes.

OK - having had a lot more time to think about it (this post is going to be spoilerful, since the movie is out, so don't read if you haven't watched):

It was nowhere near as good as it could have been. It lost all the heart, charm, and wit that the original had - and all of that came from the chemistry that Goldblum and Smith had.

In place of Smith, we get the a bunch of generic good looking people, who have zero comedic timing (or timing in general) and little to no charm. We get a bunch of characters you care nothing about (I mean, I still don't know who the accountant-type person was and his sudden change to a "heart of a warrior" and friendship between he and the unbelievably English sounding warchief made no sense).

Then we have mention of a 10 year war -- where was this during any of the first movie? I mean, surely all the aliens died once the mothership died. At least that's the impression that you get. But then there's a 10 year war and hundreds of prisoners.

Not to mention their drilling to the earth's core. Surely this would have meant that all the water would have just.. drained away?

And then you have the absolute kick in the nuts of 1) killing Will Smith's character -- not in any epic fashion, but in a training exercise. And 2) showing his photo multiple times, pretty much going, "hey, this could have been you!".

And .. to finish.. it became Cloverfield in the end.

Disappointing. Very disappointing.

Actually.. thinking about it, the biggest issue is the fact that they weren't willing to let scenes breath. Instead we get quick cuts, leaving everything feel disconnected and rushed. The best example is -- Pullman's aide tells his daughter that Pullman collapsed. Normally it would show her running to her father and then discovering that she's been misled. It would've led to tension and a possible comedic moment. Instead we get to see the deception as it is happening.

Outlaw Pete

Liked this first one. A good popcorn muncher for the time.

But this was boring nonsense with as many cliche's shoehorned in as they could muster. Few blatant Encounters rip offs to boot. Terrible stuff.

The only part of the film that interested me was the all too brief shot of Robert Loggia. It's credited on IMDB as being one of his last films (two others to be released dated 2016). The shot looked like CGI though. I wonder was it perhaps shot green screen. Anyway, genuinely the only thing of interest in the film for me.

Cantstandsya

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The only part of the film that interested me was the all too brief shot of Robert Loggia. It's credited on IMDB as being one of his last films (two others to be released dated 2016). The shot looked like CGI though. I wonder was it perhaps shot green screen. Anyway, genuinely the only thing of interest in the film for me.

I honestly thought that shot was CG... amazed it wasn't. Just shows how bad the film looked.

Harry Palmr

Deleted User wrote: »

your review

Who'd have thought that a film that was itself frankly not much cop by the standard of high quality cinema now looks so much better than its belated sequel. The 20 years since ID4 have become infested by bad plastic values of McQ, Michael Bay and Zack Snyder where there is no room for light wit, subtly or grace of even the most basic sort. China teenagers may even not think much of this.

Hb6g6

Seen it last night, it was what it was, the primary plot of this movie doesn't make much sense in context of the first film e.g.

They suddenly know there's a Queen Alien and if you kill her all of the rest die. Kinda stupid idea when you compare that to the plot of the first one when there was no Queen involved

Hb6g6

Hb6g6 wrote: »

Seen it last night, it was what it was, the primary plot of this movie doesn't make much sense in context of the first film e.g.

They suddenly know there's a Queen Alien and if you kill her all of the rest die. Kinda stupid idea when you compare that to the plot of the first one when there was no Queen involved

That's why the 10 year war doesn't make sense. They theorize that there must have been a queen on the ship they destroyed, yet who were they fighting for 10 years? And why was there so many prisoners?

Hb6g6

Deleted User wrote: »

That's why the 10 year war doesn't make sense. They theorize that there must have been a queen on the ship they destroyed, yet who were they fighting for 10 years? And why was there so many prisoners?

Also why were the ships still there from the 1996 attack if they go back to space when you kill the Queen, I was actually liking the idea of a war after the 1996 attack but the unravelling plot just killed it for me.

Sad Professor

Spoilers allowed from this post onward.

Cantstandsya

Ok, now that spoilers are allowed I'll say a little more...

People have already mentioned the 10 year war thing. This annoyed me while watching the movie. The alien prisoners in Area 51 are described as being "catatonic" since the destruction of the mother ship and we learn that this was because there was a queen on board. We're told that the key to victory is killing the queen as this will stop the aliens in their tracks... but then we're simultaneously told that a group of holdouts fought a war for 10 years after the death of their queen... Further, we're told that the beam cutting down to the "molten core" will magically turn off the second the queen is killed and the ship will fly away. This is all inconsistent nonsense and not even worth picking apart.

In the prequel novel and the movie novelisation (which yes, I read) some of the rubbish in the film is fleshed out a bit more... not to the extent that it is any good but it at least makes some sense. Some examples:

1) The President does nothing in this movie, simply going to a bunker which the aliens then attack. In the novelisation she's involved in the plot with the queen searching for the sphere. The reason the aliens attack her bunker is so that the queen can personally interrogate her to find the location of the sphere... The President stands up to the queen before being killed (indeed, one of the trailers shows this confrontation with the President addressing the queen... it was obviously cut out). It's still a fairly pointless plot but at least gives the character something to do.

2) David's father driving across the country in a school bus is completely pointless in the movie, resolving with the bus being chased by the queen for no reason. In the novel the bus arrives just as the queen is shot down, same as the movie, but she then begins to stumble out of her suit only for David to drive the school bus into her head, killing her... it reminded me of the deleted ending for the original where Russell Case flies his crop duster into the alien weapon.

Okay, neither of these cut down plots are any good but at least they make some sense in the novel, as opposed to the movie where their half inclusion is jarring and senseless. I have to wonder why they were left in at all considering their incomplete state? The President does nothing and David's father does nothing. Both of these plot lines should have been completely removed and the new characters fleshed out some more.

On the topic of new characters... what was the point of Will Smith's son? He has no charisma at all. His character and Liam Hemsworth's should have been combined into one. If you need a Chinese presence for that market then make Hemsworth's friend Chinese. There were 4 pilots in that plot line, there only needed to be one, maybe two for marketing in China.

Thing is that even if all of this stuff were cleaved out of the movie what was left would still be junk. I really think this was an awful, awful film.

I went to see it last night with a friend. He said the funniest parts were glancing over at me to see me annoyed at various parts of the movie.

On the plus side, there was a nice little Star Trek joke.

MilesMorales1

It was alright? I dunno. It wasn't unpleasant to watch, but I wasn't terribly passionate about it either.

I haven't seen the first one, but how does the 1996 war work with that 10 year war in africa?

johnnysmack

Just watched it. Terrible dialogue, cringe worthy characters, awful through and through, highly recommend it 10/10!

Unearthly

I thought it was alright. New characters didn't really add much, very much a case of ticking all the diverse boxes rather than trying to get them to blend in naturally.

Problem is that Independence Day struck gold by having the most charismatic young actor in Hollywood in Will Smith. Hemsworth and the guy who played Dylan are dull.

It's fun though.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

MilesMorales1

We're pretty much guaranteed a third one from that ending as well.

Mitch Connor

I was thinking "not too bad, better than expected" til siri bot started talking.

wreade1872

This is my pitch for the what the sequel should have been. A little late now i guess .

The president guy is still in charge, he's made himself president of earth and suspended term limits, civil liberties etc. because he thinks he's the only one who can protect the world.

A second fleet of ships show up, these are actually the civilian ships the others were the military. They have little in the way of weapons and pose no threat but can't move on because they're running short of resources. Pulman launches an attack against them and Goldbloom etc have to fight earth to save all the little alien babies.

The daughter gives the big speech against dictatorships and the overuse of national security etc. It ends with Goldbloom convincing the aliens and earthlings to join their technology to terraform Mars as a new permanent home for the aliens.
There, there's your damn sequel .

FunLover18

I'm so glad it wasn't just me!!!! I was sitting watching this thinking 'Was the first one this corny?' The writing in this was awful with the first hour or so being all tell and no show, 'can you believe that today is the 7,280th day you've been in a coma?', the opening speech reads like a 'previously', it was just awful. There was no chemistry between the pilots and their "banter" was atrocious. What was the point of the psychologist? She was bloody dreadful and they completely ignored David's ex from the first film.

I wouldn't mind so much but there were some generally interesting ideas; President Whitmore having PTS was a really nice twist I thought, as was the mental connection with the aliens (just leave out the **** psychologist) and the pilots doing Die Hard on the mother ship would also have been cool.

Sleeper12

Myself and my wife saw it on Thursday. We were very disappointed. My wife loves the original. She has seen it dozens of times in the last 20 years. In fact I remember seeing it a few times in the cinema.
Story has more holes than Swiss cheese, dialogue was bad & even the acting wasn't great at times. At times it felt downright cheesy.

Bacchus

Saw this last night.... not sure how I feel about it. It ticked a lot of the nostalgia boxes and some of the mass destruction and battles looked pretty spectacular. However, it just didn't capture whatever it was that made the original so great.

I know the original was corny and the plot was full of holes but that was amplified here and without the sense of adventure and the inclusion of so many side plots that go literally nowhere it just made all the holes here that bit more unforgivable. I HATE that they went down the "hive" route with a Queen that rules them all. It just left the whole thing (and elements of the original) a bit of an over-complicated mess. I mean, why do the alien leave when the Queen dies?! They were seconds away from achieving their goal (the molten core) and then just pack up because the Queen dies. Such an anticlimax as well as being stupid.

Another thing that really bugged me in this was the fluctuating strength of the alien shields. The original was straight forward. Shields impenetrable and then taken down by virus. This though... small ships shields taken down by a few shots, but then there's these little devices that put a shield around a BIG bomb and they survive, and THEN the Queen's shields hold up for ages under fire. It's probably a bit nit-picky for a movie like this but as I said the was nothing to hide behind in this as there was in ID.

Final criticism. What was the point of all those little side plots? ID wasn't a screenplay masterpiece but at least all the little threads linked up and impacted the outcome. Here, the bus trip... what that about? They could have at least had the Dad ram the bus into the Queen at the end so there was some point to the Dad's story. He'd get a second book out of it too.

In the end though, I enjoyed it. It's a dumb blockbuster sequel to a slightly less dumb blockbuster movie. I like the addition of the intergalactic war too. It opens up some great potential for further sequels.

Corniest line... "the molten core is secure"

Apolloyon

Well that was terrible. Easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen and I watched I, Frankenstein the other day! It was full of generic one note characters, I couldn't give a damn about. Floyd? Lloyd? Who cares about you? No one. None of the plot connects in any way with the last movie. There were too many plot holes with the queen being brought in. If there was a queen in the last mother ship, how come they had a ground war with the aliens afterwards.

I have no idea if Liam Hemsworth or his bland co stars can act including Incompetent Sidekick, Not Jaden Smith and Asian Girl who does Nothing. I know she was shoehorned in for the China market but they could have given her something to accomplish.

Which brings me to another point. I'm not usually so annoyed but because it was so blatant, it really turned my stomach. I'm not an uber sensitive social justice warrior. But I found the misogyny really offensive. Women existed in this movie either to die or to be saved by other men. This macho BS is just the limit. Plus they killed another gay character...again.

The only positive points wee the special effects and Bill Pullman's performance.

Other than that, there is no rewatch value to this movie.

SimonTemplar

Just saw it. Pretty rubbish soulless sequel to a charming entertaining original.

Has Judd Hirsch aged at all in the last 20 years?

Mr E

I've been following this thread for the last few days and knew about all the negativity. I went in with very low expectations and you know something? I didn't hate it. I'd go as far as to say I enjoyed it. I knew it wasn't going to be Citizen Kane 2, but I left my brain at home, got my popcorn and coke and just had a good time.

Yeah there were plotholes. At the start the mothership was "in danger of slicing the planet in two" but took an awful long time to drill for the core. After the queen died, why didn't the harvester ship just cut its losses and destroy everything?

The returning cast (plus Maika Monroe) all did a good job. There was humour (despite many reviews saying otherwise) and there were some nice nods to the original, like Whitmore's broken character (and sacrifice) compared to Russell in the first movie, and Julius' slow driving.

Not sure I'll see it again in a hurry, but I've had MUCH worse times in the cinema than this.

Those who say "it was the worst movie I've ever seen" need to watch more movies. From just this year, Gods of Egypt, Alice Through the Looking Glass, Angry Birds, Batman vs. Superman, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, Zoolander 2, Dirty Grandpa, Ridealong 2, The 5th Wave and The Danish Girl were all less enjoyable than this.

silverharp

Apolloyon wrote: »

Which brings me to another point. I'm not usually so annoyed but because it was so blatant, it really turned my stomach. I'm not an uber sensitive social justice warrior. But I found the misogyny really offensive. Women existed in this movie either to die or to be saved by other men. This macho BS is just the limit. Plus they killed another gay character...again.

you sound like one in fairness :pac: , the president was a woman , the ex president's daughter was an awesome mary sue fighter pilot and we had the female chinese pilot and the scientist character in Africa.
and whats with they "killed another gay character", lots of people died in the movie, its one of those movies where you dont really care who they kill



I saw it today its ok, wasnt as good as the first, no memorable action sequences , no humour and the cast of characters were forgettable. interesting plot addition for the next movie. forgetable summer movie

BoJack Horseman

the original is currently on RTE 2.

Why attack a ship the size of a city with little air-to-air missiles.
Thank god for Randy Quaid's sacrifice.

The new one seems another level of planetary destruction.

Harry Palmr

Its dead Jim (the foreign sales will rescue it)

Resurgence, which opened in 4,068 theaters this weekend and pulled in an estimated $16.8 million (including $4 million from Thursday night screenings) is on its way to an opening around $41-44 million, a poor opening given the film's $165 million budget. The film scored a "B" CinemaScore.

ancapailldorcha

This was even worse than the Mrs Brown's Boys movie. Worst thing I've ever seen. Every cliché in the book, every tired trope and a cast which couldn't possibly be less likeable or bland.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Its dead Jim (the foreign sales will rescue it)

Definitely a flop (estimates but they tend to be pretty accurate)

FRIDAY $16,800,000
SATURDAy $14,000,000
SUNDAY $10,800,000

Its a nostalgia film

Taking second was Fox's Independence Day: Resurgence, which carries a reported budget of $165 million and opened with an estimated $41.6 million. Coupled with negative reviews and a so-so "B" CinemaScore this one may have a tough time doing anything more than $100-110 million domestically. Demographically, Resurgence played to an audience that was 58% male vs 42% female, with 64% over the age of 25.

FunLover18

When does it open in Chine? They've done a lot to target that market.

wp_rathead

that was fncking brilliant!
I dunno what alot of ye were expecting, I laughed whole way through and had a great time which is what I want from a silly blockbuster movie

PhiloCypher

wp_rathead wrote: »

that was fncking brilliant!
I dunno what alot of ye were expecting, I laughed whole way through and had a great time which is what I want from a silly blockbuster movie

Don't know about "****ing brilliant" but I thought it was pretty entertaining. Is it as iconic or have as many star making performances as ID4 . Nope. but it is better then the miserablists say here imo.

Shelga

I thought it was ok. Better than the dire new X Men movie that I was dragged to a few weeks ago. The main thing I didn't like was the way everything was so futuristic- felt totally detached from the characters because they weren't from this world as we know it. Also wisecracks and banter between Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum Who looks amazing for his age!

I'd give it 5 or 6 outta 10.

MilesMorales1

This movie really felt the lack of Will Smith, or at least a Will Smith replacement. With the except of Monroe, none of the new cast were up to much.

Ironman76

Worst movie I have ever seen.

Absolutely terrible. Avoid at all costs.

Loved the original.

SuprSi

Ironman76 wrote: »

Worst movie I have ever seen.

Absolutely terrible. Avoid at all costs.

Loved the original.

I agree, as bad as the 2nd Transformers movie, I face-palmed more in this than any other movie I've ever watched. I too loved the original but this was just stupid on so many levels.

Kiith

Saw it this evening. That was the one of the worst movies i've seen in a long time...and i really enjoyed it. Ah so many bad moments, plot holes and awful dialogue, but it just worked for me :P The last 20 minutes was so beyond ridiculous that i have to assume they knew just how bad it was, and just decided to go with it anyway.

I think picking apart the movie afterwards with my friends helped though, as that was hilarious

Wedwood

Haven't seen the movie yet, but considering the first beloved movie concluded with a triple whammy of the aliens being defeated by suffering a Windows virus, a nuclear explosion that destroyed the mothership, but our heroes survived in the alien fighter and Randy Quaid flying his biplane up a flying saucer laser gun, I'll reserve judgement till I see the new film.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in deleted scenes from the previous movie explain why they were able to interface? I'm not sure why it was removed, really.

Drumpot

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Don't know about "****ing brilliant" but I thought it was pretty entertaining. Is it as iconic or have as many star making performances as ID4 . Nope. but it is better then the miserablists say here imo.

Agreed....

I don't think it was any more corny then the original and in many ways had the same formula. For anybody who enjoyed the original in the cinema I think we can forget that 20 years of life can change our perception, tastes and likes, particularly in movies. I think our rose tinted perception of the original can skewer our ability to objectively rate a similar one today.

While I wouldn't recommend this movie to anybody, I went in with low expectations and came out feeling like it generally met my expectations. The biggest gripe for me is that it felt rushed and savagely edited , that I wouldn't put down to the director. I think Fox panicked and edited it down for 2 hours. There were moments were scenes only needed an extra 5-10 seconds for big moments/dialogue to be given a bit more tension.

eviltimeban

There was no tension. That was the best part of the original, the creeping menace, with satellites going off, no one knows what's going on, even after the alien craft appear, they sit there for a couple of days before attacking.

That's where ID4 went downhill, once we got into the military action and the dogfights, and "welcome to Earth" and all that. It went from being a possibly very good alien attack movie to a dumb, though enjoyable, summer blockbuster.

The new one has none of the tension, and all of the dumb summer blockbuster.

Still the best most recent alien attack film is Spielberg's War of The Worlds. That doesn't pander to it's audience. In fact, it's what it *doesn't* show is what makes it work.

Harry Palmr

The Rotten Tomatometer gives it 32% fresh from critics reviews but much worse just 38% of public reviews and 5.7 on IMDB which is pretty bad as early reviews tend to be the most gushing and obviously "fixed"

FAILSAFE 00

Wedwood wrote: »

Haven't seen the movie yet, but considering the first beloved movie concluded with a triple whammy of the aliens being defeated by suffering a Windows virus...

Actually, it was a Mac. I know... The irony.