I just finished this movie.

I just finished this movie. In my opinion, the best space horror since the first Alien film and quite possibly more so due to the realistic nature of the environment (even though the ISS is far larger in this movie than in real life).

#Life
https://youtu.be/cuA-xqBw4jE

Comments

Olaf Fichtner said…
I found it terrible. Idiotic behaviour and decisions, it was as if an alien life form intending to take over Earth wrote the script. There was no "oops, didn't see that coming", instead I wanted to scream the whole time "Don't do that! It will lead to..."

Really, from "catching an interplanetary probe with a robot arm attached to a space station" instead of letting that probe go into an Earth orbit until the screaming end, I think the film is a disaster...
Jason ON said…
Maybe it lost something in translation. ;)

Protip: all movies are filled with idiotic behavior and decisions. It's what moves the plot along within a two-hour time frame.

Catching the returning probe may have been far-fetched, but the loss of scientific data might have been worth the risk and it added an element of action to start the show and grab your attention.

In fact, the only decisions the crews that didn't make sense were opening the door to the lab when the alien escaped it's containment.
Olaf Fichtner said…
Nah, the films I usually watch depict much smarter behaviour. I also do not demand that everything has to be realistic, as long as a film or book observes the rules of its own universe that's fine with me. But here...

Sorry, but while I'm not a physicist I still had physics classes. ISS does not stand still in space, it races around Earth. So it was easier to hit a tiny moving object (ISS IS small) than simply hitting a much larger area around our planet from which the probe would have gone into orbit, which would have allowed a rendezvous with a ship (ISS as a station is rather stationary, meaning inflexible in terms of course change).

Besides: baseball with a robot arm. If the probe was slow enough to be caught by that arm, it would have gone into orbit if it hadn't been caught. But then it would also have taken a century for the probe to return to Earth, it would have been slower than a car in the city.

So, nah, this was a bad one...
Jason ON said…
I would have gone into orbit or, more likely, would have entered the atmosphere and burned up - leaving the lifeform alive, as we learned. Then we would have had any of a dozen other sci-horror films such as The Blob, Slither, Evolution (okay, that one's scifi comedy) or Spider-Man 3. And the list goes on.

But, for your sense of realism, you must have really hated The Martian, Gravity, Interstellar, Armageddon, Arrival and more. And you must have really hated all of the Alien movies for all the bad decisions they constantly make. You must have absolutely positively hated Firefly and the follow-up movie, Serenity, as well as most of the Star Treks and Star Wars.

In fact, by your standards, the only good sci-fi movies must have been 2001: A Space Odyssey and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

My point being, I think you're holding this movie, Life to an impossible standard.
Olaf Fichtner said…
You missed an important statement: as long as a film or book observes the rules of its own universe I'm fine. That's why I watch Star Trek, but find it hilarious when they do a 2D battle in space. That's also why I like Firefly, they are consistent in their universe.

I don't understand why you list Martian and Gravity in the same sentence as Armageddon. They are all supposed to play in our real world, but while the first two care about physics, Armageddon is just... Let's call it "Bruce Willis in space". Interstellar is also pretty good with physics, but they suffer from logic loopholes.

Alien too was largely consistent in their universe, but Life really comes in far after Armageddon. Not every film that plays in space is equal, not every one is done well...
Jason ON said…
Because the idea behind Armageddon is that it takes place in "modern" times with modern capabilities. No tractor beams, no worm holes or "magic" solutions, just good ol'fashioned nukes. :D

The point being all sci-fi has it's inconceivable moments.That's what makes them fantasy and not reality.
Olaf Fichtner said…
The nuke is one of the smaller problems with Armageddon. Ignoring gravity is a bigger issue, or that space has no air. Btw, although playing in the future, there are neither tractor beams nor worm holes in the Martian...
Jason ON said…
But there are poop-potatoes and real science says that is fake.
Olaf Fichtner said…
Do they? I didn't notice. How else would someone grow potatoes, lacking industrial fertilizer? When I was a child I lived in a small town, and on some smaller fields they did indeed spray poo from time to time. I really don't know what should be wrong with that...
Jason ON said…
Okay, apparently it was possible. I must be remembering an article wrong. I could have sworn I read one a while ago that said it was impossible. But, with the right specialties (multiple) you can do it: modernfarmer.com - Fact-Checking "The Martian": Can You Really Grow Plants on Mars? - Modern Farmer

It will also kill you: https://www.livescience.com/52438-the-martian-potatoes-health-effects.html
Olaf Fichtner said…
Well, it's not as if he had a choice, doing nothing would definitely have killed him... Btw, I'm trying to grow potatoes now, just in case I may need that skill one day...

Popular posts from this blog

So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to...

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.