# Osage Reviews...SKYLINE (Blu-ray; Universal)



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

*Studio: Universal 
Disc/Transfer Specifications: BD-50 Blu-ray Disc, 1080p High Definition 2.40:1; Region 1 (U.S.) Release
Video Codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Tested Audio Track: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
Rating: PG-13
Director:  The Brothers Strause 
Starring Cast: Eric Balfour, Scottie Thompson, Donald Faison

OSAGE'S PLOT ANALYSIS:*

I suppose it was simply inevitable. Here we have a complete mish-mosh of a fusion between _War of the Worlds, Cloverfield_ and _Independence Day_, from the brother filmmaking team that brought us the last _Alien vs. Predator_ project. Based on that simple fact alone…could this have succeeded in any possible way? Ask yourself that for a moment…

The duo now calling themselves “The Brothers Strause” – only in ego-infested Hollywood – have managed to crawl from their CGI and super FX bomb shelters they’re so regarded within to create another monster takes over the world semi-gorefest, borrowing themes, sometimes quite literally, from all three of the aforementioned sci-fi thrillers. The trailers looked exciting, as usual – but the end result was just tasteless and makes you feel hollow within. The underlying notion – that strange alien creatures have, again, attacked Earth in order to suck the brains out of human beings so they themselves could regenerate and survive – was a bit far-fetched, and the concept worked much better in Spielberg’s _Worlds_ remake with the aliens sucking human blood instead. The biggest problem with the Strauses’ _Skyline_ (named after the famed and coveted Nissan supercar perhaps?) is that from beginning to end, it just feels like a cheap, amateurish, direct-to-video project (even though it wasn’t, and irrespective of the fact that a big studio like Universal was behind this) with horrendous acting and a paper-thin script that could have been better used as toilet paper. The film attempts to explain the events which occur over several days’ time in, mainly, a section of Los Angeles where a tattooed bad- and his girlfriend from Brooklyn, New York (Eric Balfour and Scottie Thompson) arrive to meet up with Balfour’s old chum, a straight-outta-the-hood but now-driving-a-Ferrari homeboy (_Clueless’_ Donald Faison) who has apparently achieved the good life, living in a penthouse with expensive cars, a gorgeous blonde girlfriend and connections out the ying yang. The whole deal between Faison and Balfour and why Balfour’s “graffiti artist” character needs to come out to L.A. is beyond cloudy and undeveloped, but the main thing is that we’re looking at some attractive female backups and some crazy aliens in no time flat.

After an impromptu party at Faison-the-rich-homeboy’s crib/pad/whatever they call it these days, and everyone is certified drunk off their bony, tattooed-up behinds, strange blinding blue lights appear in the sky outside, affecting first one of Faison’s idiotic friends sleeping with his girlfriend on the couch, who stares into the light from their window, immediately turning him into some kind of glazed-over zombie with strange skin marks and growing vein detail. As suddenly as he is “attacked” by this light, he is swept away out of the apartment, the girlfriend screaming in terror – it must be said that many films in the past have attempted to do the alien abduction thing with greater success, including _Fire in the Sky_ or even _The Fourth Kind_, but the Strause brothers keep things pretty exciting in these sequences, in that we really don’t know what’s going on during this alien invasion. After this Cali dude gets sucked into the strange blue lights, next is Balfour staring into the lights from his room, but he is yanked away by Faison and his own girlfriend (Scottie Thompson), as Thompson herself is also semi-affected by the blasts of light. So, seemingly, the two of them are only “half abducted” – but perhaps there’s a deeper meaning behind this, as Thompson’s character is pregnant.

Some of the most idiotic characters ever put to celluloid are on display in _Skyline_ – way beyond what we’ve nauseatingly witnessed in the _Friday the 13th_ remake, _Fast & Furious_ or _Piranha_; the main draw of this film is the wildly over-the-top special effects which depict the invading aliens and their contraptions. In some shots, they look like exact replicas of the tentacle creatures from _War of the Worlds_, while other shots depict them as being the strange, oddly-moving crab-like monsters from _Cloverfield_ – then there are the “mother ships,” coming out of the clouds above L.A. and other cities in bolts of blue neon lights (similar to Spielberg’s approach, once again, in _War of the Worlds_) who engage in aerial combat with special members of our military, which end up blasting them with nuclear rockets (as was attempted in Roland Emmerich’s _ID4_…remember?). It seems the nuclear blasts work, bringing the strange ships down, but alas, the aliens within merely find a way to resurrect, and they begin flying around in ships of their own, and another sky battle ensues a la _Independence Day_. Meanwhile, the gang of survivors at this L.A. apartment building has been joined by a security guard (“Morales” from HBO’s _Oz_) and the group decides to try and make it to the marina and onto a boat (remind you of Zack Snyder’s _Dawn of the Dead_ at all? It’s amazing the writers of _Skyline_ weren’t sued for plagiarism). What ensues are wild, eye-opening chase sequences between the giant alien crab creatures and the band of survivors desperately trying to get out of the building; smashing everything in their way, the multi-eyed, giant-headed alien beings swallow and devour anyone they dig their claws into – including Faison’s homeboy character (good riddens, I say) and it isn’t long before they’re pushed back into the apartment complex yet again. 

The most controversial and talked-about aspect of _Skyline_ comes in its final frames, which divulges the so-called “intentions” of the aliens and how the two original characters of the film play into that (it didn’t really explain any intentions to me, but that’s something else); once Balfour and Thompson are both sucked into the belly of one of these creatures after taking a fighting stand on a rooftop, we see the inner workings of the alien contraptions and beings (we never really know if these are machines or living creatures; they are, perhaps, strange hybrids of the two) as human bodies are piled everywhere within slimy, tentacle-covered catacombs. The couple witness mechanical tentacle things grabbing human heads and literally sucking the brains and spinal columns from them, ingesting the human body parts themselves which immediately seem to “regenerate” certain of the crab-like alien creatures. The whole notion was a bit farfetched, and relied too much on massive waves of over-the-top CGI sequences. Once Balfour’s brain is sucked into a creature, it’s clear that whomever’s brain these creatures absorb, they take on the essence of the human that once owned it – I know this is difficult to imagine by reading words, but you understand it better when you see a giant alien creature looming above a shuddering, horrified Thompson, supposedly containing now Balfour’s brain, and he lowers a giant alien claw hand to protect her unborn baby in her stomach…indeed, it is her boyfriend operating from his brain within this creature now. A sequel is definitely suggested after the Balfour creature turns to face other aliens closing in on Thompson’s near lifeless body, indicating a fight is about to ensue between them. Whatever.

This is modern sci-fi at its trashiest best – it definitely wasn’t my cup of tea, but it was indeed aimed at a totally different and new generation of film watchers who grew up on checking in with mommy via their iPads. The duo behind _Skyline_, as I mentioned, come from a CGI coated background and it definitely shows – the whole film is just California chicks hanging out with their pathetically personality-less better halves, partying brainlessly, not a care in the world, until alien lights show up outside their high rise and begin sucking them in, one at a time. In the right hands, this could have been better – a more genuine attempt at fusing _Independence Day, War of the Worlds_ and _Cloverfield_ into a slick package. But it ends up coming off like a desperate attempt to mimic the young-crowd-caught-by-an-alien-terror vibe that _Cloverfield_ in particular brought to the table. 

*OSAGE'S VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC LOOK?*

Obviously filmed for a certain effect, the visuals accompanying Universal’s Blu-ray transfer of _Skyline_ were murky, out of focus and vividly un-high-def-like. There wasn’t one frame of this 2.40:1 transfer – well, perhaps one or two outdoor sequences – that exhibited sharp, detailed high def elements which immediately let you know you’re not watching a DVD release; the image was drenched in a hazy, gauzy coating, rendering everything soft and unfocused, but, again, this was no doubt a stylistic decision on behalf of the Brothers Strause. This also made contrast levels appear to be blown out and extreme, while black levels mimicked an effect of having your Brightness control up too high. As the action shifted to the outdoors during daylight sequences, the transfer cleared up with solid color definition and decent amount of detail – but this was, by far, not a piece of demo video material. 

*OSAGE'S AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC SOUND?*

As expected, the DTS-HD Master Audio mix in 5.1 was aggressive and rousing on _Skyline_, providing rear channel aggression, channel separation of an impressive kind and crushing bass…which actually was one of the only anomalies on the entire track. I found the LFE on this Master Audio mix to be somewhat “sloppy,” and not defined or tight – the stomps of the alien creatures were stout and heavy enough when they occurred, shaking the room mighty fine, but the bass itself wasn’t tactile or “tight”…the rattles in my room, the normal ones associated with my non-treated resonance points, seemed to be much “looser” during the action sequences of this film, suggesting to me an issue with the LFE track of the mix. It didn’t have that guttural, punch-you-in-the-gut kind of response as, say, the LFE signal on the _Iron Man 2_ Blu-ray did. 

*SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS:*

A nearly literal fusion of _Independence Day, War of the Worlds_ and _Cloverfield_.

Tell me what you thought!!


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

I agree 100% and sadly it was actually very successful in box office terms. It's $10 million budget grossed over $67 million worldwide. Hopefully there will be no sequel...:rolleyesno:


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Dale Rasco said:


> I agree 100% and sadly it was actually very successful in box office terms. It's $10 million budget grossed over $67 million worldwide. Hopefully there will be no sequel...:rolleyesno:


Thanks for the reply, Dale! Did you get the same feeling about the end "stance" by the Balfour creature as I did, suggesting the sequel?

I wasn't aware of its theatrical box office response...interesting.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

Hey Osage, the ending definitely felt like a setup for a sequel. We can only hope it doesn't get picked up. The brothers actually financed the original themselves and filmed it at one of their apartments so there's nothing to really keep them from doing it again. Also, google "Skyline Battle LA lawsuit", you'll find some interesting info on that one.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Osage_Winter said:


> This is modern sci-fi at its trashiest best – it definitely wasn’t my cup of tea


Great review  This was a case of some of the very best marketing of one of the worst films ever made. The previews looked good, yet the film reeked. I didn't care about any of the characters and in fact found nothing I liked about any of them. 

The stills in the end credits are the best part. I intentionally didn't use spoilers because there is nothing to spoil with this film. 



> *OSAGE'S VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC LOOK?*
> 
> Obviously filmed for a certain effect, the visuals accompanying Universal’s Blu-ray transfer of _Skyline_ were murky, out of focus and vividly un-high-def-like.


And I thought it was just me. I have a Constant Image Height system using a precise anamorphic lens. The video was so bad to me, I actually checked my projectors focus and astigmatism adjustment of the A-Lens. 



> *OSAGE'S AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC SOUND?*
> 
> As expected, the DTS-HD Master Audio mix in 5.1 was aggressive and rousing on _Skyline_, providing rear channel aggression, channel separation of an impressive kind and crushing bass…which actually was one of the only anomalies on the entire track.


To be honest, I was so distracted by the video (and the very bad story) that I didn't pay that much attention to the audio. 


> *SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS:*
> 
> A nearly literal fusion of _Independence Day, War of the Worlds_ and _Cloverfield_.
> 
> Tell me what you thought!! [/FONT]


My thoughts: this film is BAD. The three films mentioned are actually quite good in their own right. In fact I actually enjoyed CLOVERFIELD, even though many did not. If you have not seen SKYLINE, don't bother. Save your money for something else. I am glad my rental of this film was free.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Dale Rasco said:


> Hey Osage, the ending definitely felt like a setup for a sequel. We can only hope it doesn't get picked up. The brothers actually financed the original themselves and filmed it at one of their apartments so there's nothing to really keep them from doing it again. Also, google "Skyline Battle LA lawsuit", you'll find some interesting info on that one.


Hey Dale,

Thanks for getting back to me! Indeed, to me, the way he turned to face the other creatures closing in -- as I pointed out in the Plot Analysis -- felt like a fight sequence was to ensue, suggesting a sequel...

I didn't mention the elements of the Strauses filming at one of their apartments in the review, but it is in fact true and worth mentioning to readers of HTS now. What was the deal with Skyline and Battle LA and their legal trouble -- did they rip off one another or something?


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Hey Mark,

Good to hear from you again old buddy, since the ol' days of Home Theater Discussion, eh? 



Mark Techer said:


> Great review


Thank you, my friend! I appreciate that! Thank you for reading! 



> This was a case of some of the very best marketing of one of the worst films ever made. The previews looked good, yet the film reeked. I didn't care about any of the characters and in fact found nothing I liked about any of them.
> 
> The stills in the end credits are the best part. I intentionally didn't use spoilers because there is nothing to spoil with this film.


I have to agree on all accounts here -- I didn't even sit through the stills of the end credits. As for spoilers, I could have added a warning to the review, but felt like everyone had seen this already and if they hadn't, they could still make whatever they wanted out of that end sequence even without my attenton to detail. If I did spoil it for some who haven't seen it yet, my sincere apologies -- I will provide a warning in the next review. 



> And I thought it was just me. I have a Constant Image Height system using a precise anamorphic lens. The video was so bad to me, I actually checked my projectors focus and astigmatism adjustment of the A-Lens.


No -- it definitely wasn't you. The transfer was soft and foggy, even on my rear projection set, but this wasn't a transfer issue; it was a stylistic intent on behalf of the director brothers. There was little to no detail, and everything was coated in a "milky" film, it seemed like... 



> To be honest, I was so distracted by the video (and the very bad story) that I didn't pay that much attention to the audio.


It was an average action Master Audio track, but I did notice the LFE, as I said, to be a bit "sloppy" and not tight and tactile... 



> My thoughts: this film is BAD. The three films mentioned are actually quite good in their own right. In fact I actually enjoyed CLOVERFIELD, even though many did not. If you have not seen SKYLINE, don't bother. Save your money for something else. I am glad my rental of this film was free.


It's funny, the Blockbuster clerk I spoke with when I was looking for this film weeks ago said the same thing you did -- that I shouldn't bother, and that I wasn't missing anything. I enjoyed Cloverfield as well, and have it on DVD. For some reason, this didn't entertain me as much as that did -- and it had such potential, with the blue lights coming from the sky, the mass abductions...it could have been better in more talented hands.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Osage_Winter said:


> Hey Mark,
> 
> Good to hear from you again old buddy, since the ol' days of Home Theater Discussion, eh?


Yeah I stopped posting there not long after they changed the name to Home Theatre In A Box. I just found it attracted too many whiners complaining about the cost of some AV gear that they couldn't afford. This site (I was invited here by a mod) is much more friendly and I am finding it is great place to both learn and share information about this ever changing and very exciting industry. 



> I didn't even sit through the stills of the end credits.


You were discussing the possibility of a sequel and the stills actually contain him (the main guy, now as an alien) not only defending his pregnant girl friend, but also engaging other aliens in combat. So yeah, a sequel showing how "you can't beat the human spirit" and "one life for billions" (Flash Gordon) could be used for another CG fest sequel. 



> It's funny, the Blockbuster clerk I spoke with when I was looking for this film weeks ago said the same thing you did -- that I shouldn't bother, and that I wasn't missing anything. I enjoyed Cloverfield as well, and have it on DVD. For some reason, this didn't entertain me as much as that did -- and it had such potential, with the blue lights coming from the sky, the mass abductions...it could have been better in more talented hands.


I think what made CLOVERFIELD good (even though it was shot as if done on a home video camera) was, like ALIEN you don't see the whole creature until right at the end of the film. You catch a glimpse here and there and that is it. You don't really know what it is your up against. And even at the end when we see "Clover" in full sun, the camera is out of focus. The fact that there is no back story to explain where it came from is OK for me in that film because of the way the story is told - you are a pawn in a much larger game of Chess and your not supposed to know and probably why many didn't like it.

SKYLINE doesn't pull you into the film at all. The Brothers Strauss turned AVP-R around from the video game style film of the original AVP to make it almost good. Yet this film is 10 massive steps backwards IMO.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

I swear I am the only guy that liked this film. It amazes me how films like 2012 and an Independence day are allowed to pass yet this isnt, when ultimately there is little difference between how the films are made. The effects in skyline are at least consistent, something I am convinced Roland goes out of his way to avoid.

This is a good old plain and simply Alien Invasion movie. I like the fact everything isnt explained. It isnt hard to imagine the abduction of humans is merely the method by which to create your invading army (save transporting your army through the vastness of space), and why do we need any reason for the attack, doesnt the Independence Day excuse of need resources just work.

I hate how most films baby feed us through the plot like we are some brain dead viewers, and the thing I like about Skyline is it actually doesnt try to do this. I mean seriously, would an invading army announce its arrival, introduce itself, and then kindly explain that its going to wipe us from existence and there is nothing we can do about it - I think not.

The effects are not mind blowing, but they are better than some films which have been received with more warmth, and they kept me quiet when it one thing I generally moan about, or at the very least have ideas on. OK, so the acting isnt the best in the world, but it isnt that bad really either, and it felt more like real people lost and clueless, which I found refreshing.

District 9 was no better than this IMO (another film I really liked), yet that film was very well received. Why Skyline is getting trashed to me is more about the audience than the actual film. I think this day and age the audience has an obsession with cast iron plots, characters that grow, and explanations that give everything total plausibility. For once, we have a film that concerns itself with non of this, and I for one actually found that a nice change, and in any case, if you cant figure out whats supposed to be going on in this film, then perhaps the genre just isnt for you.

Anyway, I liked it, and may even buy the BR :bigsmile:


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Moonfly said:


> It amazes me how films like 2012 and an Independence day are allowed to pass yet this isnt


ID4 was a fun 90's pop corn flick. This was not fun, 90's or even a pop corn flick. And I didn't like 2012 either. 



> District 9 was no better than this IMO (another film I really liked), yet that film was very well received.


DISTRICT 9 was cool because it was so different and it has become almost a cult film. I doubt this will ever reach that level. 

I missed this at the cinema and only saw it on BD. The mistake I made was watching the trailer before the film. As I said, the trailer was a very clever marketing tool and I just felt let down by the film after that. 

Enjoy your copy on BD though.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Mark Techer said:


> Yeah I stopped posting there not long after they changed the name to Home Theatre In A Box.


I didn't even know they changed the name...what kind of name is that? Does it not suggest, at least to me, that it's a place to talk about cheap HTiB systems? 

Yeah, I just couldn't stand some of the characters there -- harassment leading types such as Bru, Lee S (he wasn't so bad) and "Logic 7" or whatever his name was...



> I just found it attracted too many whiners complaining about the cost of some AV gear that they couldn't afford. This site (I was invited here by a mod) is much more friendly and I am finding it is great place to both learn and share information about this ever changing and very exciting industry.


Well, I could very well fall into the "cry about gear I can't afford" camp, but I won't let that get too out of hand (LOL), but yeah, you'll find that here, there is beyond a zero tolerance for harassment and flaming. 



> You were discussing the possibility of a sequel and the stills actually contain him (the main guy, now as an alien) not only defending his pregnant girl friend, but also engaging other aliens in combat. So yeah, a sequel showing how "you can't beat the human spirit" and "one life for billions" (Flash Gordon) could be used for another CG fest sequel.


Ahhhh...I see. Good to know. Thanks. A sequel is probably in the works then, unfortunately. 



> I think what made CLOVERFIELD good (even though it was shot as if done on a home video camera)


That was the point (the home video camera POV throughout) and although effective to a degree, it did get very nauseating after awhile (something many critics still lash out at about that JJ Abrams brainchild). 



> was, like ALIEN you don't see the whole creature until right at the end of the film. You catch a glimpse here and there and that is it. You don't really know what it is your up against. And even at the end when we see "Clover" in full sun, the camera is out of focus. The fact that there is no back story to explain where it came from is OK for me in that film because of the way the story is told - you are a pawn in a much larger game of Chess and your not supposed to know and probably why many didn't like it.


Interesting points, and good ones. 



> SKYLINE doesn't pull you into the film at all. The Brothers Strauss turned AVP-R around from the video game style film of the original AVP to make it almost good. Yet this film is 10 massive steps backwards IMO.


Also interesting points. But as I said in the review, indeed, this could have been so much better in the right hands -- the notion of these blue beams of light coming through the clouds over Earth's cities was creepy enough to run with, even though the final result was a fusion of creatures from different films. 

All in all, I wouldn't say it was really bad or terrible, but it really just is a rental at most, in my opinion. I didn't see repeat viewings going on in my own system should I have purchased the BD. :rolleyesno:


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Moonfly said:


> I swear I am the only guy that liked this film. It amazes me how films like 2012 and an Independence day are allowed to pass yet this isnt, when ultimately there is little difference between how the films are made. The effects in skyline are at least consistent, something I am convinced Roland goes out of his way to avoid.
> 
> This is a good old plain and simply Alien Invasion movie. I like the fact everything isnt explained. It isnt hard to imagine the abduction of humans is merely the method by which to create your invading army (save transporting your army through the vastness of space), and why do we need any reason for the attack, doesnt the Independence Day excuse of need resources just work.
> 
> ...


Hello Moon,

You indeed make some very good points and arguments for the positives of Skyline -- thank you for them. I can see your point about the fact that Skyline doesn't rely on needing to tell a backstory to spoon feed us through a script and such, and in retrospect, perhaps that was refreshing. And as far as the comparisons to the other films which I made in the initial review, indeed, it's not that these films got a "pass" for being just as brainless as Skyline (Independence Day does feel like, after awhile, some Star Wars-obsessed freak created the action chase sequences between the aliens and military), it's just that they were done before, and when Skyline came along, it felt like a total fusion of themes borrowed from those films -- and that's all I was trying to point out. I also feel like the blood-being-sucked-from-humans thing was done more effectively in War of the Worlds (remake) than the brain-sucking going on in Skyline; just my observation. The tentacle things with the lights at the end of them made me immediately think of the creatures in War of the Worlds when they dip the humans in and out of the water -- and the strange crab-like walking of the monsters in Skyline made me think, right away, of the "thing" from Cloverfield.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

So to sum up, SKYLINE may attract a select group of followers, but for most, it is a rental with repeat screenings not being required


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Osage_Winter said:


> Hello Moon,
> 
> You indeed make some very good points and arguments for the positives of Skyline -- thank you for them. I can see your point about the fact that Skyline doesn't rely on needing to tell a backstory to spoon feed us through a script and such, and in retrospect, perhaps that was refreshing. And as far as the comparisons to the other films which I made in the initial review, indeed, it's not that these films got a "pass" for being just as brainless as Skyline (Independence Day does feel like, after awhile, some Star Wars-obsessed freak created the action chase sequences between the aliens and military), it's just that they were done before, and when Skyline came along, it felt like a total fusion of themes borrowed from those films -- and that's all I was trying to point out. I also feel like the blood-being-sucked-from-humans thing was done more effectively in War of the Worlds (remake) than the brain-sucking going on in Skyline; just my observation. The tentacle things with the lights at the end of them made me immediately think of the creatures in War of the Worlds when they dip the humans in and out of the water -- and the strange crab-like walking of the monsters in Skyline made me think, right away, of the "thing" from Cloverfield.


The thing is with the sci-fi genre is that its open to interpretation, and not just by the film makers, but the audience too. It really comes down to how open minded you do or dont want to be. 

So, Skyline. An invading army is sent to earth for what ever reason. The reason doesnt matter, the invaded wouldnt be sent a memo, so dont stress yourself thinking about that. If you need a reason, well every other film seems happy to go along with planetary resources, so lets live with that. The army is some kind of bio mechanical army. The harvesting of humans is for no reason other than to supply the army with a brain to work, hence the lights arriving first and humans being harvested. Makes sense, if your so advanced then why bother fighting a war yourself, or bother with the probably pretty boring trip through space. Then again, maybe they have evolved to become the machines and the way they reproduce is through assimilation, after all, how would you transport earth resources back home any way. Maybe they have some kind of portal they use to travel through space, so could portal the resources back anyway, which would explain how the army got to earth as well I suppose, but then why use a bio mechanical army and not just come themselves. Oh, hold on, why fight a war yourself when you can have an army do it for you. Yeah thats a good idea, then when earth is defeated they could just move onto earth. Maybe they dont want to move onto earth though, they might have a home world they dont want to leave, and they just need resources. Then the army is also the work force. Hmm, who knows, who cares, why do we need to know all this anyway, we just want to see aliens blowing stuff up dont we?

It a simple concept really, no need to look me in the eyes and nod every time something happens to ensure I understand whats going on (2012, I am looking at you and your terrible production). We can argue all day about the plot if you want, but thats pointless, this isnt what this film is really trying to do. We could ask endless question on what the aliens plan to do once the humans are defeated etc etc, but again, pointless - we all die anyway - or so it seemed.

So, the characters. Well, why do we need to know anything about them. Nobody worries about all the other people getting sucked into the ships, the crowds of nameless victims disappearing into the sky. Why should it be any different for the small group the film follows. If you treat them the same way as those victims, then simply watching their reactions is enough to get you through the film without questioning each ones relation ship with their farther. Its like when there is a hero of a film and the audience is question why this guy is the one that survives, instead, we should simply look at the film as the story of the survivor and it takes care of such questions. I for one thought they did ok, the acting was good enough to pass in this film, and all they really had to do was act confused, lost and a little scared, which they did. I didnt want to bond with the characters, and at the end of the day, why would I?

There are obviously films out there with more elaborate plots etc etc, but for once, the lack of all the spoon feeding was the biggest thing going for Skyline. It let me stand on my own 2 feet and just watch the action unfold. The action was ok IMO too. The effects were consistent and good enough to pass. The earth army fought back better than we usually see in these films, and for once the aliens didnt have shields and transporters and all the things that are really far out. In Cloverfield, at the end, the creature gets carpet bombed, but it isnt even phased, and I am sorry but any bio material is going to be effected and affected by those carpet bombs, yet no review picked up on that because they were busy moaning about a shaky camera. In Skyline, the aliens can be hurt, their ship is flattened by a mini nuke, and they dont come across as god like. Instead, its the inherent design of their technology and the fact they can reassemble that gets them through, and I found that a nice change. The process was done well too, with the giant ship taking a long while to repair compared to the smaller creatures (see, consistency), which lets not forget, I simply consider machines as well really.

Like I say, we can pick apart any sci-fi film of this type if we wish, or we can just accept it for what it is. My misses moaned about how she hated the ending (there isnt one really, and certainly no resolution), but why do we always need a happy ending (War of the Worlds, ID4, I am looking at you), or any ending at all. Sure, I guess they could have done a JJ on this film and made it more profitable, but I tire of the flashy predictable films sometimes, and every now and again something different comes along, gets trashed by everyone, and I find that a nice fresh breath of air :R

I liked Cloverfield a lot, but it had problems. I liked Star Trek, but it destroyed the genre I grew up with and didnt want to see changed. I enjoyed ID4 despite being full of implausible problems and production flaws. District 9 was good despite the fact I had problems with aspects of this film too. OK, so I am a sucker for a sci-fi flick anyway, but if your gonna watch these films, you gotta at the very least have an open mind and accept some things regardless, or at the very least stop thinking about them.

For me, this is a sc-fi pop corn flick like any other, you just need to put your head into sc-fi mode and be done with it. If you dont have that mode, then its true you need to give this one a miss. One thing I think this film could do though, is make for a pretty decent sequel in the right hands. Like T2 and Aliens, the first film is perfectly vague on a lot of details the second film could really capitalise on. Only issue here, is not enough people have probably watched the first film.


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

I watched it the other day and I was entertained for the length of the movie. I laughed out loud a few times during the movie when it wasn't supposed to be funny and had fun trying to guess who would get taken out next. I look at it as a 'B' movie, something you might find on the Sci-Fi channel except with much better effects. It's worth a rental but I don't think I'd watch it again.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Mark Techer said:


> So to sum up, SKYLINE may attract a select group of followers, but for most, it is a rental with repeat screenings not being required


Indeed, Mark, indeed...perhaps that is one way of summing it up. :T


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Moonfly said:


> The thing is with the sci-fi genre is that its open to interpretation, and not just by the film makers, but the audience too. It really comes down to how open minded you do or dont want to be.


Yes, I can see and accept that. I just didn't think Skyline was particularly executed well for the reasons I provided -- but of course, this genre -- and _any_ entertainment medium really -- is completely open for personal interpretation, and that's what makes entertainment so great. 



> So, Skyline. An invading army is sent to earth for what ever reason. The reason doesnt matter, the invaded wouldnt be sent a memo, so dont stress yourself thinking about that. If you need a reason, well every other film seems happy to go along with planetary resources, so lets live with that. The army is some kind of bio mechanical army. The harvesting of humans is for no reason other than to supply the army with a brain to work, hence the lights arriving first and humans being harvested. Makes sense, if your so advanced then why bother fighting a war yourself, or bother with the probably pretty boring trip through space. Then again, maybe they have evolved to become the machines and the way they reproduce is through assimilation, after all, how would you transport earth resources back home any way. Maybe they have some kind of portal they use to travel through space, so could portal the resources back anyway, which would explain how the army got to earth as well I suppose, but then why use a bio mechanical army and not just come themselves. Oh, hold on, why fight a war yourself when you can have an army do it for you. Yeah thats a good idea, then when earth is defeated they could just move onto earth. Maybe they dont want to move onto earth though, they might have a home world they dont want to leave, and they just need resources. Then the army is also the work force. Hmm, who knows, who cares, why do we need to know all this anyway, we just want to see aliens blowing stuff up dont we?
> 
> It a simple concept really, no need to look me in the eyes and nod every time something happens to ensure I understand whats going on (2012, I am looking at you and your terrible production). We can argue all day about the plot if you want, but thats pointless, this isnt what this film is really trying to do. We could ask endless question on what the aliens plan to do once the humans are defeated etc etc, but again, pointless - we all die anyway - or so it seemed.
> 
> ...


Well, most of this is personal interpretation and feelings on the film and its inherent "role" within the sci fi fold, and that's fine, but let me just address the last paragraph -- I agree that for once the alien army didn't have some sort of shield or advantage over our powers, but in the same respect, I have always believed that if an "alien" civilization (and remember: they're "alien" to us, but to another race that may be out there, we're just as "alien" to them) had come from light years away to wage a war against mankind on Earth, it must be assumed they have some kind of greater technology that far surpasses our limits of science -- it's just a feeling and hunch of mine. Given that, I believe that it's possible should there ever be such a battle or war, it is more than possible that these aliens will have spacecraft that could be inpenetrable or unstoppable. I agree with you assesment regarding Cloverfield -- that because of the Abrams' inspired "shaky cam" method, most reviewers, critics and audiences simply overlooked many of the plot's shortcomings and inconsistencies like you pointed out. The creature deflected all these attacks, yet it continued to rumble (although it was suggested that the creature crumbled between the buildings from one blast it received if I recall). 

I see what you're saying about the creatures in this film not coming across as being "G-d like" and completely unstoppable, and perhaps that was refreshing, but don't forget that in War of the Worlds (Spielberg remake), once the shields were down around the tripods, our military had the advantage -- I realize that you're saying "yeah...but that was after we had to break through their so-called "shields" but again I think it can be assumed on some levels that such craft that arrive here will have a superior technological advantage and it's possible that their ships are equipped with shield systems...

You know, Moon, all this talk about ships and shields is reminding me of Trek -- and I realize you address this below, so I shall get to that: :T



> Like I say, we can pick apart any sci-fi film of this type if we wish, or we can just accept it for what it is. My misses moaned about how she hated the ending (there isnt one really, and certainly no resolution), but why do we always need a happy ending (War of the Worlds, ID4, I am looking at you), or any ending at all. Sure, I guess they could have done a JJ on this film and made it more profitable, but I tire of the flashy predictable films sometimes, and every now and again something different comes along, gets trashed by everyone, and I find that a nice fresh breath of air :R


Agreed on many fronts -- we don't need the sappy, happy ending at the conclusion of these alien films and at times it even seems super syrupy (ID4, yes, I am talking to you too)...what I have always argued about with regards to a film like Independence Day in particular is that sure, the president congratulates the hero pilot and computer whiz who saved our planet (actually, it wasn't really Goldblum and Smith who saved us, it was that idiot Randy Quaid who played "Cousin Eddie" in the Vacation films -- can you imagine? Cousin Eddie saved Earth when he rammed his fighter into the "primary weapon" of the ship over Vegas?) and the ships began to fall, but did anyone think logically about the fact that the planet where these aliens came from is eventually going to get curious as to where their fleet went and why it didn't come back...and send more attackers? Hollywood needs this "happy ending syndrome" for everyone to applaud at the end of a theatrical run, so that's why Emmerich had to drop this sappy conclusion on, so I understand what you're saying there. 



> I liked Cloverfield a lot, but it had problems.


Surely; it was just good camp though -- I mean, taking the camera shots out of the equation for a minute, you have this group of idiotic 20-somethings who are completely meaningless to us partying at some skanky NYC apartment and suddenly, their world, and everyone else's, is turned upside down by some strange attack just blocks away by a strange massive monster. The action was kept thick and palpable, and I enjoyed the flick for what it was (many called it the "CGI Coated Godzilla for the iPOD generation", and I suppose rightfully so) although my wife HATED it and still despises it to this day (she won't be in the home theater room when I'm viewing the DVD). However, I thought the ending was a bit weak, what with the military finding the camcordered video of the kid's "report" throughout the night and his romps with the girlfriend in Coney Island, Brooklyn, as we never really find out what happened to the creatures or the people of New York. 



> I liked Star Trek, but it destroyed the genre I grew up with and didnt want to see changed.


UGHHHH...don't even get me started about Abrams' travesty that was nothing like the Trek I grew up with or was fed as a kid...I totally agree, and I ripped that reboot a "new one" when I reviewed it for the theatrical presentation. That WAS NOT Trek by any stretch of the imagination -- whether new fans to the fold disagree or not -- and it didn't even remotely tell any kind of backstory to the legendary characters in any sort of way, regardless of how Abrams and company claim the polar opposite. There were just SO much wrong with that Trek that I can't even go into now -- the whole thing with the old Spock was just plain dumb as well, and was an obvious desperate attempt by the filmmakers to put a familiar element in the mix for old fans but it just ended up coming off as poking fun at Nimoy's character, which was an insult. Add to that the fact that I will NEVER buy Chris Pine as a young Kirk, nor will I of the ones who portrayed Bones, Scotty or Sulu, and that I will NEVER buy the "intimate" connection between Spock and Uhura, and you just have a mess...and young Kirk is speeding in a classic muscle car blasting "Saboutage" by the Beastie Boys? WHAT? 



> I enjoyed ID4 despite being full of implausible problems and production flaws. District 9 was good despite the fact I had problems with aspects of this film too. OK, so I am a sucker for a sci-fi flick anyway, but if your gonna watch these films, you gotta at the very least have an open mind and accept some things regardless, or at the very least stop thinking about them.


Don't get me started on District 9, either -- I had such high hopes for that film after watching all the teaser trailers and pre-media screenings...it really did feel like it was going to be something beyond an alien re-colonization piece, and the final result was very disappointing in my opinion. 



> For me, this is a sc-fi pop corn flick like any other, you just need to put your head into sc-fi mode and be done with it. If you dont have that mode, then its true you need to give this one a miss. One thing I think this film could do though, is make for a pretty decent sequel in the right hands. Like T2 and Aliens, the first film is perfectly vague on a lot of details the second film could really capitalise on. Only issue here, is not enough people have probably watched the first film.


Hmmm...as Dale and I have been discussing, I don't really look forward to a sequel here -- but I can agree that one's mind just needs to be shut down a bit and put into pure sci-fi mode to enjoy it; I personally didn't care for it immensely, but it was far from the worst film ever made, regardless of genre. :T


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> I watched it the other day and I was entertained for the length of the movie.


Thanks for your thoughts, Infra...



> I laughed out loud a few times during the movie when it wasn't supposed to be funny and had fun trying to guess who would get taken out next.


While I didn't really "laugh" at any particular sequence, I could see where some would be funny -- I think I actually cheered when the idiotic "homeboy gots a Ferrari" character was devoured by the crab creature.

However, I DID gawk at and drool over the blonde who played homeboy's girl...in every shot she was in...:clap::unbelievable:



> I look at it as a 'B' movie, something you might find on the Sci-Fi channel except with much better effects.


As I pointed out in the review, it seemed to reek of a "direct to video" production, but with a bit more sizzle, and surprisingly so as Universal was behind this; I can see it being one of those home-grown Sci Fi "original films" though, you're right...you know, the ones about the giant bugs or something with a whole bunch of "Smallville" type acting rosters in them? :coocoo:



> It's worth a rental but I don't think I'd watch it again.


I think that's what my review summarized, and what we're all kind of concluding (except for Moon, who really enjoyed it). :T


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Osage_Winter said:


> I think that's what my review summarized, and what we're all kind of concluding (except for Moon, who really enjoyed it). :T


I wouldnt say I really enjoyed it, I just think its a perfectly adiquate film in the genre. Its more like a tv series feature episode with better effects, but I'm good with that. Sure its only a one time watch, but its good enough to kill an evening IMO, and I just dont think its as bad as many are making out.

There is one other point though. I must concede that if this film was a different genre but more or less made the same way, I probably would trash it like many others. One for sci fi nuts perhaps.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Moonfly said:


> *I wouldnt say I really enjoyed it*, I just think its a perfectly adiquate film in the genre. Its more like a tv series feature episode with better effects, but I'm good with that. Sure its only a one time watch, but its good enough to kill an evening IMO, and I just dont think its as bad as many are making out.
> 
> There is one other point though. I must concede that if this film was a different genre but more or less made the same way, I probably would trash it like many others. One for sci fi nuts perhaps.


I'm only going by this statement you made to the initial reaction to the review of this thread:



> I swear I am the only guy that liked this film.


I took "liked" and "enjoyed" to mean the same thing...:scratch:


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Yeah I enjoyed it as a normal sci-fi flick. I wouldnt apply any emphasis on that and say I really liked it. I just felt the need to defend it a little as I didnt think it deserved the trashing it got, especially given some of the comparable movies of the genre.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Okay; just explaining why I said "you liked it" to Mark...:T


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Osage_Winter said:


> Okay; just explaining why I said "you liked it" to Mark...:T


No need to explain it me  Everyone's viewing tastes are different. 

I watched my BD copy of CLOVERFIELD the other night and it nearly made me sick from the hand held camera motion. Still a cool film though. I might go and watch ALIEN RESURRECTION on BD tonight because whilst this film gets a bashing, I actually like its dark humor. I don't agree with the choice they made for the "new born" (creature design is poor IMO) and think that single point lets the film down.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Mark Techer said:


> No need to explain it me  Everyone's viewing tastes are different.


It's not that there's "no need" to "explain something to you"...I needed to explain _myself_ to Moon, based on what I was saying to _you_ because something was getting lost in translation in the statement I made about "everyone feeling the same way" about our (you and I) assesment of Skyline -- I had stated after that comment that Moon apparently liked it, and thus not _everyone_ felt the same way about the film, and then he responded with an explanation to the effect of that he wouldn't say "he didn't like it" and then went on to describe his position regarding the aspects of the film. Then, it was my responsibility simply to explain to him that all I was saying to you was that not everyone felt the same way about the film based on his defense of appreciating the approach. 



> I watched my BD copy of CLOVERFIELD the other night and it nearly made me sick from the hand held camera motion. Still a cool film though. I might go and watch ALIEN RESURRECTION on BD tonight because whilst this film gets a bashing, I actually like its dark humor. I don't agree with the choice they made for the "new born" (creature design is poor IMO) and think that single point lets the film down.


I actually didn't see Alien Resurrection (if memory serves) but Cloverfield definitely was "cool;" that's simply the best way to describe it. I saw it in theaters and to me, it warranted a purchase on DVD when released. There was just something about it that was just...different. Sure, the hand held camera perspective gets uber-annoying after awhile, but the sentiments of "a Godzilla for the iPOD generation" were pretty accurate...


----------

