When it comes to The X-Files movie reviews, as usual, reviewers miss the point
Minor spoilers ahead:
The movie is getting pretty widely panned as mediocre and uninspired, with B- to C ratings. I certainly agree that a few added very short scenes or lines of dialogue could have cleared up a bit of this, and added a few more "What Mulder and Scully have been doing for 6 years" insights for the fans.
But alot of the complaint is off-base to me. I thought the movie was very accessible to people not familiar with The X-Files. In the process of developing the characters it developed for us what they've been doing for the past 6 years.
But there were a couple review complaints that there was not enough focus on the villains of the story, and they came across as a bit cartoonish or one-dimensional. It was specifically stated that if the movie spent more time with the bad guys and cut out some scenes of dialogue between Mulder and Scully they'd have had time to expand the villains.
The X-Files IS Mulder and Scully. Everything else has been secondary for that during the run of the show. As if, what is in essence an extended episode, and the first one in 6 years, is going to take away from the heart and soul of The X-Files to chew up screen time exploring the villains.
I mean, it's one thing to make a movie completely accessible to new viewers, a clean slate if you will. But it's another to totally veer away from the nature of The X-Files entirely. If anything was thrown in there for us, the fans, it was the Mulder and Scully moments so that we could learn what it is they've been doing, and how they've been living for the past 6 years. And how they related to each other.
There was also complaints that a character they had to work with was a pedophile. The complaint was that surely there were better ways to show that the guy was reprehensible than making him a pedophile. The fact that he was a fallen Catholic priest as well, and the fact that Scully (who is now a doctor) had some friction with the head of the Catholic hospital she works at (also a Catholic priest) shows an "anti-Catholic" bias. What's wrong with making the character a convicted pedophile? He wasn't doing it on-screen. It was backstory. That's creative choice.
Two of the male villains turned out be married to each other in the state of Massachusetts. There was a complaint that gay marriage was just gratuitously thrown in there. If it's not a big deal why should it not come up in the FBI research as casually as a heterosexual marriage does? And there was a complaint that this may send a message that people in gay marriages are criminals. Umm....gay people can be criminals just as much as anyone else. Again just a creative choice. I know Chris Carter supports gay marriage so it's likely he wanted to put a nod to gay marriage right on the screen. So what if we didn't happen to meet Mulder and Scully's gay neighbors.
That's just a case of disagreeing with creative choice or letting it offend your tender sensibilities.
There was a complaint that the main characters were gloomy. Mulder and Scully were typically gloomy. Consider that not alot good happened to them during the show. Between the two of them: 3 dead parents, 1 dead sister, 1 missing sister confirmed dead, a couple times of thinking that said dead sister was found but not actually found, 1 instance of learning that your actual father (through your mother's affair) was actually your worst enemy, several instances of being on the brink of death or actually coming back from the other side, 1 case of actually being in a coffin in the ground for 3 months (watch the show for that one if you haven't...it makes sense in the X-Files way), periods of broken hearted estrangement/abduction from one another, both losing their jobs, one of them a fugitive from justice.
I'd be gloomy too.
Chris Carter tends to be obsessed with gloom and darkness. Yes I'd personally like to ask him why he favors that above any balance at all. I'd ask him why he didn't maybe have a very quick scene that demonstrates Scully's satisfaction with her job in the good that she can do, rather than in the good that she's not able to do as a doctor. He could have given her a hint of happiness, just to show she's not a totally morose human being.
To an extent, this case took some of her frustrations with Mulder, and her frustrations with both her current job and her former job, and stretched that to the max. So in that I can see how that could be a negative for reviewers who don't know the show.
Chris Carter did write an extended episode. But in an episode you can come back next week to show some character balance or maybe explain a couple things. This is a one-shot. At best you get to explain something in a year or two. But maybe never. It's not assumed. So I think you have to structure your plot maybe just a bit differently, even if it goes against your fundamental nature. If I was writing that movie I'd have done a few things differently, both for the fans sake and for everyone else's (aka the bottom line box office gross since "everyone else" is who will carry it from being a "cult hit" to "box office success paving the way for another movie".
But still, the movie says "The X-Files", and the movie was "The X-Files" at its darkest, gloomiest, creepiest, and most conflicted best. Pretty much every review included, "I did watch a bit of the show but...".
SciFi.com's reviewer admitted to being a big fan. She gave it a B-. I myself would have given it a B. So it seems like anyone who had any understanding of what you were seeing rated it higher.
And again, it's just not possible to take established characters and totally change them so they're suddenly crystal clear or more palatable to new viewers. You've got to go into it with an open, positive mind. And most viewers just look to tear something down. Ripping something up creates buzz and talk. Being positive doesn't get any attention.
When Star Trek hit the big screen, Kirk was still Kirk. Spock was still Spock. You can't change the nature of the beast or there's no point making the movie at all.
I also say all this as someone who does reviews...for science fiction and fantasy books. I enjoy reading, and I enjoy books. I WANT to find enjoyment and the good in what I'm reading. Only when I can't do I give a generally unfavorable review. To many reviewers are generally gleefully looking to highlight any negatives I think, whether that's books, movies, or whatever.
The movie is getting pretty widely panned as mediocre and uninspired, with B- to C ratings. I certainly agree that a few added very short scenes or lines of dialogue could have cleared up a bit of this, and added a few more "What Mulder and Scully have been doing for 6 years" insights for the fans.
But alot of the complaint is off-base to me. I thought the movie was very accessible to people not familiar with The X-Files. In the process of developing the characters it developed for us what they've been doing for the past 6 years.
But there were a couple review complaints that there was not enough focus on the villains of the story, and they came across as a bit cartoonish or one-dimensional. It was specifically stated that if the movie spent more time with the bad guys and cut out some scenes of dialogue between Mulder and Scully they'd have had time to expand the villains.
The X-Files IS Mulder and Scully. Everything else has been secondary for that during the run of the show. As if, what is in essence an extended episode, and the first one in 6 years, is going to take away from the heart and soul of The X-Files to chew up screen time exploring the villains.
I mean, it's one thing to make a movie completely accessible to new viewers, a clean slate if you will. But it's another to totally veer away from the nature of The X-Files entirely. If anything was thrown in there for us, the fans, it was the Mulder and Scully moments so that we could learn what it is they've been doing, and how they've been living for the past 6 years. And how they related to each other.
There was also complaints that a character they had to work with was a pedophile. The complaint was that surely there were better ways to show that the guy was reprehensible than making him a pedophile. The fact that he was a fallen Catholic priest as well, and the fact that Scully (who is now a doctor) had some friction with the head of the Catholic hospital she works at (also a Catholic priest) shows an "anti-Catholic" bias. What's wrong with making the character a convicted pedophile? He wasn't doing it on-screen. It was backstory. That's creative choice.
Two of the male villains turned out be married to each other in the state of Massachusetts. There was a complaint that gay marriage was just gratuitously thrown in there. If it's not a big deal why should it not come up in the FBI research as casually as a heterosexual marriage does? And there was a complaint that this may send a message that people in gay marriages are criminals. Umm....gay people can be criminals just as much as anyone else. Again just a creative choice. I know Chris Carter supports gay marriage so it's likely he wanted to put a nod to gay marriage right on the screen. So what if we didn't happen to meet Mulder and Scully's gay neighbors.
That's just a case of disagreeing with creative choice or letting it offend your tender sensibilities.
There was a complaint that the main characters were gloomy. Mulder and Scully were typically gloomy. Consider that not alot good happened to them during the show. Between the two of them: 3 dead parents, 1 dead sister, 1 missing sister confirmed dead, a couple times of thinking that said dead sister was found but not actually found, 1 instance of learning that your actual father (through your mother's affair) was actually your worst enemy, several instances of being on the brink of death or actually coming back from the other side, 1 case of actually being in a coffin in the ground for 3 months (watch the show for that one if you haven't...it makes sense in the X-Files way), periods of broken hearted estrangement/abduction from one another, both losing their jobs, one of them a fugitive from justice.
I'd be gloomy too.
Chris Carter tends to be obsessed with gloom and darkness. Yes I'd personally like to ask him why he favors that above any balance at all. I'd ask him why he didn't maybe have a very quick scene that demonstrates Scully's satisfaction with her job in the good that she can do, rather than in the good that she's not able to do as a doctor. He could have given her a hint of happiness, just to show she's not a totally morose human being.
To an extent, this case took some of her frustrations with Mulder, and her frustrations with both her current job and her former job, and stretched that to the max. So in that I can see how that could be a negative for reviewers who don't know the show.
Chris Carter did write an extended episode. But in an episode you can come back next week to show some character balance or maybe explain a couple things. This is a one-shot. At best you get to explain something in a year or two. But maybe never. It's not assumed. So I think you have to structure your plot maybe just a bit differently, even if it goes against your fundamental nature. If I was writing that movie I'd have done a few things differently, both for the fans sake and for everyone else's (aka the bottom line box office gross since "everyone else" is who will carry it from being a "cult hit" to "box office success paving the way for another movie".
But still, the movie says "The X-Files", and the movie was "The X-Files" at its darkest, gloomiest, creepiest, and most conflicted best. Pretty much every review included, "I did watch a bit of the show but...".
SciFi.com's reviewer admitted to being a big fan. She gave it a B-. I myself would have given it a B. So it seems like anyone who had any understanding of what you were seeing rated it higher.
And again, it's just not possible to take established characters and totally change them so they're suddenly crystal clear or more palatable to new viewers. You've got to go into it with an open, positive mind. And most viewers just look to tear something down. Ripping something up creates buzz and talk. Being positive doesn't get any attention.
When Star Trek hit the big screen, Kirk was still Kirk. Spock was still Spock. You can't change the nature of the beast or there's no point making the movie at all.
I also say all this as someone who does reviews...for science fiction and fantasy books. I enjoy reading, and I enjoy books. I WANT to find enjoyment and the good in what I'm reading. Only when I can't do I give a generally unfavorable review. To many reviewers are generally gleefully looking to highlight any negatives I think, whether that's books, movies, or whatever.