X-Files I Want to Believe - Bombs?

[Guest Laurent.]

I know what you mean 4th and it is a really good point! Although, my problem with the reviews the film is getting is not from a because of my own personal disagreement, but rather because I feel it is unjustified bashing. I wonder, if a positive review like roeper would have been the first released one... would some "follow-along" critics just have a different opinion of the movie?

The key word is in Muir's introduction to the article is that some reviews are mean-spirited. There is a big difference between a professional, objective movie critic who knows the craft and the art of movie-making and an everyday guy or girl, like me, who's just considered a professional critic because I've reviewed a lot of movies for my friends website. The internet has made it difficult to tell who's who.

A general opinion (or misconception) about movie critics is that they only like intellectual, slow, artful movie. But that's not true (see Muir's review of Indy IV where he discuss his approach of the film), it's just that they are mostly able to see through some movies who are not pure entertainment and look at what is beyond. The normal guy who watches the film (not talking about any film in particular, though it may apply to IWTB) to be entertained will be bored to death and won't even try to see what's behind the slow plot. The critic was able, because it is his damn job and he has enough experience and knowledge of the craft to make a quick but deep analysis of the film!

When I saw IWTB, I wasn't entertained, thrilled or scared. But when I started analyzing the different parts, symbolism and plot, I suddenly liked it a lot more, because I realized how much thought and insights were put in the movie. I did that only because I was a fan of the show, and I understand that the regular guy who watches the movie will be too bored to think about it right away and not fan enough to spend days pondering the different parts of the movie.

Basically, IWTB was one thing short of perfect (for me): and that's entertaining (or that special X-Files magic who turn a dark corner and a moving light into a thrilling experience). Sadly, it is the biggest mistake you can make in the blockbuster business. It's not that bad a mistake for regular smaller-budget films who are aimed for a public who knows what they're in for... so IWTB may have been wrongly advertised. But again, with The X-Files name attach to it, what can you do?

[4th Horseman]

Laran...good points...unjustified bashing from which point of view? If we accept that point of view, and i think some, and although you did not personally, for anyone to bag all the negative reviews into that same basket, would be both ridiculous and dangerous, then we also have to accept that a portion of the more positive reviews come from x-file fans who either glossed over the deficiencies, or just plain ignored them in order to give the movie a "thumbs up" so which is worse?....no i dont think that if Roeper had issued his positive review beforehand that many, inconsequential at best, reviewers would have changed their minds. Then they really could not call themselves movie reviewers could they? Roeper is certainly not the Moses who leads all reviewers out of the dusty dry regions of movie analysis. Most moviegoers are not going to analyze the different parts, symbolisms, and plots. Its just entertainment to them. It is however different with IWTB or anything associated with the X-Files..We are talking about a movie which follows a very successful television series that has spun off one, and hopefully some day, two successful movies. IWTB is unique in that there is a pre-existing mythology attached to any discussion of the x-files, and as such is certainly due for far more scrutiny than just a plain jane movie. And although, as i have tirelessly stated, this was supposed to be a stand alone movie, the comparisons cant be avoided. You would more than likely finder a higher degree of those interested in plots, subplots, pace, etc from a movie such as this with such a storied background than with say, Cloverfield or The Mist simply because there is nothing to compare them with.

I am still having an issue with your definition of unjustified bashing? In other words, because a review is negative, does that establish it as bashing? To what degree does a reviewers post go before one can accept it as just a difference of opinion and not take it personally??

4th Horseman

[Guest ZeusFaber]

as said in a previous post, I was a bit disappointed due to the lack of paranormal aspect. Otherwise, it was very good; loved the chemistry between mulder and scully.

Though we may be in danger of veering somewhat away from the topic, I would just like to say that I've heard that sort of sentiment a fair bit, and can't help but ask how a psychic priest and surgery that involves moving severed heads and re-attaching them along with several other body parts can be considered a lack of paranormal aspect?

Surely both these elements are more "out there" than you would see in anything "mainstream" and "non-paranormal".

[Guest Laurent.]

I am still having an issue with your definition of unjustified bashing? In other words, because a review is negative, does that establish it as bashing? To what degree does a reviewers post go before one can accept it as just a difference of opinion and not take it personally??

Here is the original review that called the movie "stupid, lackadaisical and schlocky". Unjustified bashing... I should have probably written un-argumented bashing. The reviewer uses harsh sensationalist words (hence bashing) without giving any argument to back them up. The review could have been written before he even saw the movie. If he found the plot stupid, I want to know why. This is not a YouTube comment, it's a professional review!

He wrote there is a "hack-gothic Bruno Mattei plot twist so loony and lurid that I burst out laughing"... which plot twist is that? Why is it so funny?

There are other examples in this review (he found mulder and scully boring, I still wonder why) and others, but I guess you understand my point.

I take unjustified bashing back and I replace it with unargumentative bashing. Because the negative reviews may be justifiable, but the reviewers mostly did not care to explain their point of view.

edit (sorry for fueling the off-topic discussion):

Though we may be in danger of veering somewhat away from the topic, I would just like to say that I've heard that sort of sentiment a fair bit, and can't help but ask how a psychic priest and surgery that involves moving severed heads and re-attaching them along with several other body parts can be considered a lack of paranormal aspect?

Surely both these elements are more "out there" than you would see in anything "mainstream" and "non-paranormal".

IWTB is actually more paranormal than the classic Home! Strangely, those who say IWTB was not "out there" enough wanted a movie closer to Home or Ice (both of which are not very paranormal.. Ice is science-fiction but very down to earth also). Other paranormal storyline like the Leonard Betts episode, wouldn't transpose very well to the big screen. I think the story was perfect as it is. It's just they it was handled that wasn't scary or engaging enough. Like Spotnitz said, if the movie had been produce in 2002 or 2003, it would have been scarier and more centered on the plot. 6 years later, they wanted something more personal and about the characters. I respect the bold choice. They did what they wanted to do, and didn't give in to the popular "horror movie format" the series excelled in, so they did a movie different from what we normally see on the big screen.

[4th Horseman]

Laran...WOW, thanks for the link...the use of the word truth is completely overused and this one sentence absolutely defines your position on this hack...

But the truth is, the plot of this film is stupider.

What kind of grammatical crap is this??? stupider?? What happened to proof-reading?? OK, i will give you the nod that there are some reviewers who should be taken with a grain of salt, or dismissed all together. This one individual obviously found very little, if anything, positive. On top of that the review became quite annoying with the continual use of "The Truth is" at the beginning of every paragraph..

However, for every one like this, there are numerous reviews, negative as well, that are far more articulate and definable. I am sure you are aware Laran that this one reviewer does not define the many who have expressed their unfavorable positions...

I look at it this way...in the world, there are many doctors who should not be practicing medicine, they are classified as "quacks"...however, that does not prevent me from going to one if i am sick...

the same can be said about this one reviewer...one bad seed does not spoil the basket..

4th Horseman

[Guest Laurent.]

This review was published in the Houston Chronicle. I don't know how many readers this newspaper has, but I'm sure the article may have convinced numerous movie goers to go watch the dark knight again instead of X-Files. It's sad because the plot of the film isn't stupid! That's not the right word at all. The main story might be called too thin, or halfhearted, but it was brilliantly designed and structured into a movie that's all about the characters and their struggle of faith. It's not stupid in any way.

I just feel like there has been a wave of bashing against the movie, like if many reviewers were already waiting for the movie with stakes to kill the franchise. I don't know why. Maybe because it's a big screen adaptation of an old series, maybe because they already felt the series ruined itself and already preconceived the movie would suck. I liked it, and this movie surely deserved more than 1 or 2 out of 5, the music and performances (connelly and anderson) were great even if you didn't like the story and direction (I think it was beautiful).

All I know is that this wave of negative reviews surely killed any buzz that the slim promotion might have caused. The "word on the street" was generally very bad for X-Files.

It did well under the circumstances, getting the production costs back during its theater run. The dvds might bring a good stash of money into FOX pockets if they can manage to release it before Christmas.

[Guest ZeusFaber]

IWTB is actually more paranormal than the classic Home! Strangely, those who say IWTB was not "out there" enough wanted a movie closer to Home or Ice (both of which are not very paranormal.. Ice is science-fiction but very down to earth also).

I certainly agree that the plot is far more paranormal than "Home", and in my opinion it's also far more coherent and makes much more sense. I still find "Home" hugely overrated amongst fandom, perhaps largely because it was banned from being rerun for a while, thus making its reputation more from rarity than quality. For me, IWTB has far fewer plot holes and much more of a paranormal flavour with the psychic Father Joe and Frankenstein's monster surgery. I would have a rousing debate with any fan who would rather see something as muddled and pointless as "Home" on the big screen than IWTB!

Like Spotnitz said, if the movie had been produce in 2002 or 2003, it would have been scarier and more centered on the plot.

Interesting, I think I must have missed that comment. Any chance you could point me in the direction of the quote/interview?

And to make a roundabout return to the topic, today's worldwide gross stands at $51,139,439, with still a few countries yet to open in.

[Guest Laurent.]

Interesting, I think I must have missed that comment. Any chance you could point me in the direction of the quote/interview?

Haha I didn't give any link because I did not want to search through all the recent interview with frank! But I found it anyway:

Original article on IGN

The comment (okay he didn't say scarier but that's implied... sort of... I guess):

SPOTNITZ: Well I think the first thing we wanted to do was be true to the characters -- it was kind of a surprise that after all this time we were so interested in this relationship, which really became the centre of the movie. If we had made it five or six years ago it maybe would have been more about the X-File, but after being away for so long we felt that was what was most powerful. So I don't know if the movie is quite what anybody was expecting, but it was the right thing to do.

Spotnitz also recently commented (on its blog) about the much discussed release date:

The studios determined the release date. In fairness, whether or not it was a good idea to release the movie in the summer, I don't think anyone anticipated the historic box-office "The Dark Knight" is enjoying.

[Guest ZeusFaber]

Thanks for that. Sorry to make you go a-searching, didn't mean to!

I noticed that one from the blog entry though about the release date. I also heard on the Apple Store podcast that Carter and Spotnitz were told by the studio that there would be an announcement about the greenlight for the movie in the trade papers, and the next morning they read them and saw the July 25th release date for the first time!

[Guest Laurent.]

Here's a post from Spotnitz's blog (he's so cool with his fans):

Firstly, thank you for such a wonderful, intelligently horrific film! I only wish "The X Files: I Want to Believe" had fared better at the U.S. box office, as it certainly deserved to do so. I was wondering whether the film could be re-released in U.S. cinemas on Halloween, which is a Friday this year. The film might perhaps have pulled in larger audiences if it had been released around the time that other thrillers and horror films are typically released -- and IWTB is far superior than anything else in that genre! A few films do get released a second time, so would that be possible for IWTB?

Best regards,

Irene

Bloomington, MN

(but originally, London, England!)

We will pass your suggestion onto the studio, Irene.

Frank Spotnitz

Any thoughts?