Skip to main content

Seeing the Independence Day Sequel is an Easily Preventable Mistake

I am fascinated by certain things in movies regardless of other cinematic merits. Spaceships. Aliens. Ray guns. Cities being blown up. Mysterious conspiracies. Brent Spiner.

The original Independence Day met all of these criteria and more my 19-year-old self hadn't even thought of. It was the first movie I spent my hard-earned money seeing multiple times. Yes, in retrospect (maybe even while watching it), the movie is flat-out ridiculous. The plot holes are large enough to fly one of the floating death frisbees through with plenty of shoulder room to spare. The speech from Bill Pullman (President Whitmore) is more than a little cringe inducing and Randy Quaid's character annoyed the hell out of me. 

But that movie did have considerable heart for all of its silliness. And, perhaps because of the limitations of budget and special effects, the movie suggested way more than it actually showed. We never got an unobstructed view of the aliens or their mother ship or much of their society. The movie was 100% better because of that. I rewatch movies that leave places for imagination.

I think that's precisely where the sequel Independence Day: Recrudescence (possibly mistaken title)  falls down the hardest for me. The characterizations are basically as thin and superficial as the original and the ending is way, way too pat (almost to the point of self-parody) but the part that took me out of the movie the fastest was simply the sense that we were seeing all there was to see. A whole new alien species is introduced early on and we basically learn all we need to know about them by the half-way point in the movie. There was some fun stuff about how earth has adapted the alien's technology for its own purpose but the sense of a lived-in reality for the characters is undermined by scenes where soldiers point to glowing infrared dots and say stuff like, "each one of these dots is an alien."

'Aliens' -- really?!?

Not Greys? Or Squids? or Slimy Bastards?

Let me expand upon that because of all the ludricuous things this movie asks us to swallow this is the one that really bothered me. According to the movie, in 1996, a huge swatch of the planet was destroyed, a substantial portion of the population disintegrated, and yet two decades later people are still calling them 'aliens?' And then when another alien race shows up, they call them aliens too? Have the creators of this movie ever met actual human beings? There is literally no way we would call the saucer people 'aliens' after all of that carnage. 

Anyway, this is one of those movies that I am condemned to watch even if it scored far, far lower on Rotten Tomatoes. You are not me and I hope you draw more lessons from the past than the humans in this movie did. 

Do not watch this movie, especially in the theaters. If you absolutely have to watch cities get blown up and aliens get punched in the mouth, just watch the original movie. I guarantee you will have a better time.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

With the title World War Z

Early on in the mostly disappointing zombie epidemic thriller World War Z, UN Investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) hides out in a Newark apartment, trying to convince a family living there to flee with him from the hordes of sprinting, chomping maniacs infesting the city. The phrase he uses, drawing from years of experience in the world's troubled war-zones is "movement is life." Ultimately he's unsuccessful, the family barricades their door behind him and they join the ever-swelling ranks of the undead. As far as a guiding philosophy goes for a pop-action thriller like World War Z, 'movement is life,' isn't bad. And for the first half of the movie or so, it follows its own advice. Similar to other recent zombie movies (Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead) the warning signs of what the rest of the movie will bring are subtle and buried until all hell is ready to break through. The television mentions 'martial law,' Philadelphia traffic snarl
I’m going to take a slightly abbreviated approach to this year’s best-of lists and mostly focus on movies. It’s not that I didn’t read or listen to music but for whatever reason I feel uninspired to talk about either topic. C’est la vie! So in no particular order are five movies I greatly enjoyed watching this year. Firstly, Avengers: Endgame. Well, I guess there is some order to this list because literally the first thing I thought of in terms of movies I’ve seen is this movie. It is inevitable! This is the one MCU flick it’s hard for me to remember as simply a super-hero film. Although I found its predecessor a bit more more compulsively watchable, I really enjoyed this film. First of all it’s tone, which veered from despair, heist hijinx, parental reconciliation, to epic mega-brawl was never boring. Even the gorgeous mess which is that final fight has its own interior logic and sports some of the best looking cinematography this side of Black Panther. With Endgame MCU found a

Stephen King's 2017

Despite the release of a single novel and a few short stories, 2017 has to rank up there as one of the more Stephen King ascendant years. No less than four movies based on his works appeared, including one of the most successful horror films of all time, the first part of IT. 'The Mist' (Stephen King) by Dementall.deviantart.com Of course, with King, for every high, there are plenty of lows and 2017 also provided a number of examples of how to do his works wrong. But let's start with the good stuff. The movie adaptation of IT, directed by Andres Muschietti and starring a number of talented young actors (including Finn Wolfhard of "Stranger Things" fame) really captured, for me, a lot of what I liked about the original novel. Being scary certainly helped, but with King, the horror slice is never really the whole cake. What makes King King, at least for me, is the combination of earthy, believable characters with lurid, "Tales from the Crypt&quo