A pathetic attempt at doing another, albeit commercial, "2001".

Rating: Null/10 (3 January 2007)

"A Robert Zemeckis Film", it says - and it shows. This is one of those movies about which I have so much to write that I don't even know where to begin - and most of it isn't positive.
Every time I get bombarded with dozens of idiocies I am forced to do a in-no-particular-order list, and so it is this time, too: 1) A scientist at NASA is the pimpy-looking reggae Rastafarian guy from "Showgirls"! I was wondering what was next up Zemeckis's sleeve: a blonde bimbo with a squeaky voice as head of the launching, perhaps? Jesus, this Bob Marley cut-out makes Kilmer from "Red Planet" almost look like an astronaut; 2) Zemeckis, having graduated from Spielberg's School of Phony Sentimentality, offers us a good, idiotic example of what he has learned: in the very beginning of the picture, Foster asks her Daddy "can we reach mother?", and - of course - millions of viewer weep instantaneously; this pathetic sentence certainly sets the stage for some other, similar soppy garbage to come; 3) Zemeckis, having also finished Ron Howard's School Of Bad Miscasting, presents us with McConaughey, who quite fittingly portrays a writer; we all know that writers look and talk like semi-literate surfer-dudes from the West Coast, so there is nothing really one can say about this wise casting choice; the fact that he looks as though he just spent half-a-year living in the African jungle and feeding off berries is only the more reason to accept him as a writer - and a reverend! 4) my favourite phrase from the movie is "for the history of history"; Foster says it in one of her countless impassioned I'm-so-inspired-and-motivated-I-could-explode-and-cry speeches; Foster is on the verge of tears (of frustration, but also awe) so often that she needed to be injected with a sedative, but those scenes were wisely cut out; I have a late suggestion as to how the phrase could've been improved: how about "for the history of history of history"? Now, that's what I call a phrase worthy of a successor to "2001: A Space Odyssey"! 5) McConaughey not only fits his role perfectly, but his exasperatingly pathetic cookie-fortune philosophizing is a marvel of bad modern script-writing; what's worse, he salivates his drivel on "Larry King Live" which has the opposite of the intended effect: Zemeckis, in his infinite cluelessness, actually believes that McConaughey's words will be given extra weight by being said on King's empty-headed CNN show; however, all that Zemeckis achieves is to cheapen those speeches even more; I mean, come on: every other 80s and 90s movie has King doing a short pseudo-reality-feel bit - it's just so stale and unoriginal; 6) how about that hilarious, almost pythonesque scene where armed U.S. soldiers storm into Foster's observatory! 7) and when Woods storms alongside them, Foster shows just how oh-so rebellious she is - such baloney; as if she can afford to aggravate very high gov't people... a classic "yeah, right" moment; 8) Zemeckis, having also finished Gus Van Sant's School Of Impeccable Lack Of Realism, serves us with actual Clinton footage, thinking very naively that his "presence" in the movie will make it all that much more realistic; but - yet again - the opposite effect is achieved: it just looks phony and quite hokey, too; Zemi-baby, next time get an actor to play a President - that's what auditions for movies are for; 9) the gov't is so predictably paranoid and unreasonable... yawn... won't Zemi ever stop with the original plot-devices? 10) And the movie's Best Analogy goes to... McConaughey!... This Southern-drawl writer-reverend asks Foster to prove that she loves her father; Foster tells him - previously - that he can't prove God's existence, so McConaughey counters with a wildly ingenious argument that Foster can't prove the love for her father - hence, her argument is squashed; however, the only thing that is squashed is Sagan's brain (or whoever was responsible for this uniquely insipid dialog); the problem with this idiotic argument is simple: you can't confuse the proving of an actual being, person, object, or even entity, with the proving of a concept or opinion - that is just too stupid for words, but I'm sure the fanatically religious out there loved that analogy in all its moronic "glory"; 11) how about that pathetic and soppy scene where the kids of an astronaut beg their daddy - on live TV - not to go on the mission! (That scene belongs in "Armageddon". Then again - no. It belongs right here.) 12) How about Skerritt getting chosen to fly?!!! Even a dumb Hollywood writer ought to know that an old geezer like that would never be chosen to go, what with all the healthy, young, strong, capable astronauts lying around doing nothing; 13) what's with that character that Hurt plays? A cross between some kind of space-swami and James Bond super-rich bad guy; 14) Fichtner is plain awful and strikingly miscast as the blind guy; but Fichtner isn't really at fault: that character is dumb; the character's only purpose is to increase the Spielberg Factor Of Mushy Sentimentality to unbearable levels.
But I've saved the best for last: 15) easily the most idiotic scene, plot-twist, line of dialogue, or character in the movie is when that hilarious-looking blond actor from "Back to the Future" sabotages the first mission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How I laughed, and how I very much laughed and laughed... First of all, how the hell did he get there??? NASA isn't some theme-park where people just sneak in anywhere they please - especially at times of crucial launchings! Secondly, what's with that mugging? Does he have to act like he is playing Elmer Fudd? Hasn't Zemi-baby forgot to inform him that they were not shooting "Back to the Future 4"? Sorry, but I've hit the 1000-word review limit. To read the rest, get in touch with me.