| The
Chronicles of Riddick (hereafter referred to as
TCOR) is
shockingly good. This is a first rate science fiction
film, visually and thematically. I
recently heard a critic on television say "Why
would Judy Dench appear in such a thing?" To
which the other critic on the show says "I
guess she has to pay the rent." To which
I say "Maybe because
the 'Elemental' is a marvelous role, which she acted
beautifully, and her character adds an important
dimension (and
layer of possibilities) to the continuation of the
franchise - which I hope it becomes."
My expectations going
in were very low, given that rottentomatoes.com shows
70%
negative reviews by mainstream
critics. Some of the comments seemed to paraphrase
what other "important" critics had to say.
Why is this, I wonder? Is there a "get on the
bandwagon" mentality
here that has nothing to do with the movie, and more
to do with inventing pseudo-clever negative comments?
What are critics looking for in a science fiction movie
that this film fails to deliver? Do the critics (who
panned this movie) read science fiction? Do
they have a frame of reference for characters and plots
beyond Star Wars? Should they ask the Wizard for a
brain? OK, I'm off the soap box now, except to say
that a very similar thing happened to "Underworld" which
was thoroughly Underrated.
TCOR
is the sequel to Pitch Black, another fine film,
but Pitch Black is almost pale compared to this
spectacular effort. I won't go into the details of
the TCOR plot. Suffice it to say the script is well
written and expertly executed. I saw this movie
with a person
who had seen Pitch Black and another person who had
not seen it. Neither person had any problem
following the
plot of TCOR, and
we were thoroughly entertained from beginning to
end. Vin Diesel has made the Riddick character into
someone
you can
care
about, and we look forward to the next installment
of TCOR. |
