# Cowboys and Aliens (2011)



## Pyan (Nov 19, 2010)

Looks interesting...






Sorry about that - YouTube have pulled it due to "multiple copyright infringement issues"


----------



## J Riff (Nov 20, 2010)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Might make a good doublefeature with _The Valley of Gwangi_


----------



## Dave (Nov 20, 2010)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Rednecks & Predators 2012 HD


----------



## No One (Dec 14, 2010)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



Dave said:


> Rednecks & Predators 2012 HD



_Hahaha!_

Hadn't heard about this one (Cowboys & Aliens that is, not Rednecks & Predators). Thanks Pyan.

Whatever the result, it kind of demands to be seen.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 15, 2010)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Here's Wiki's page on the film:
Arizona Jones and the Raiders of the B-Ark.​


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 15, 2010)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Sorry for the double post; entirely unintentional.


----------



## Dave (Dec 15, 2010)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

This actually looks good, a stupid title, but now I realise it is Steampunk I'm more interested.


----------



## reiver33 (Dec 15, 2010)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Yeah, I'd go and watch that...


----------



## TK-421 (Dec 15, 2010)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Saw the trailer for it at the cinema before Harry Potter. Not sure what to make of it. Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford is a good combo and Daniel looks downright nasty. Heard a few chuckles in the cinema after the trailer ran as well as some "cool!"

Could go either way.

Personnally, I'm stoked for True Grit.


----------



## Decker (Jun 20, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

I've read that there's something of a controversy over the source material for this one.


----------



## Daisy-Boo (Jun 21, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

What controversy would that be Decker? It sounds interesting. The source is a graphic novel - am I right?


----------



## Boneman (Jun 21, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Wow, that was quick -  can't watch the trailer anymore!!!

Did see the trailer at the cinema, and I will be going to see the film. (Orl right, I'll own up - I have a cineworld unlimited pass; for £14.99 amonth, I can go and watch four films a day, thirty days a month...) 

Not that keen on alien-kills-everyone genre, but the casting intrigues me.


----------



## Decker (Jun 21, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



Daisy-Boo said:


> What controversy would that be Decker? It sounds interesting. The source is a graphic novel - am I right?



Well... allegedly. Turns out there's a script by the same name that's been floating around since the late 80s that's very similiar to the GN, but you see the writers' names nowhere on any movie publicity. I found it on Facebook. There's also another prior GN called "Wayout West" that also was originally entitled C&A. That one I found on Amazon.


----------



## Pyan (Jun 21, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



Boneman said:


> (Orl right, I'll own up - I have a cineworld unlimited pass; for £14.99 amonth, I can go and watch four films a day, thirty days a month...)
> 
> Not that keen on alien-kills-everyone genre, but the casting intrigues me.



If you use that pass to the fullest, I don't see that you can _avoid _"alien-kills-everyone" films...


----------



## Daisy-Boo (Jun 22, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Thanks Decker. That is interesting info.


----------



## Boneman (Jun 22, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



pyan said:


> If you use that pass to the fullest, I don't see that you can _avoid _"alien-kills-everyone" films...


 
Yeah, I can - I just watch a good film twice, or three times... It's annoying having to get up and replenish popcorn, though. Ah the good old days, when the Usherette came round with the ice creams. There's a niche market that someone is missing there...


----------



## clovis-man (Jun 22, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Looks like fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az3z1Ih6VSI&annotation_id=annotation_849935&feature=iv


----------



## Decker (Jun 22, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



Daisy-Boo said:


> Thanks Decker. That is interesting info.



Here are links. The first is to the original screenplay, free to read:

http://kvisit.com/Sx7qhAQ

And to "Wayout West", which one must buy:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1460970764/?tag=brite-21


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 3, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

I was thinking the connection was pretty recent, i.e.,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_%26_Aliens_(comics)


----------



## Decker (Jul 4, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



clovis-man said:


> I was thinking the connection was pretty recent, i.e.,
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_%26_Aliens_(comics)



Yes, that's the official version of events. My point was that I felt the graphic novel mentioned there was derivative of those other two sources, especially the early script, to the point where I smell a rat.

If you're interested here's an interview with Tom Arvis, who wrote Wayout West. The discussion about the matter is about a third of the way down the page:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...eet-a-local-cartoonist-a-chat-with-tom-arvis/


----------



## Decker (Jul 25, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

First review:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/cowboys-aliens-film-review-214687

another one that's less enthusiastic:

http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/reviews/2011-07-cowboys-aliens


----------



## alchemist (Jul 25, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



Dave said:


> This actually looks good, a stupid title....


 
Indeed. Given the positive review above, and the fact they've "played it straight", I can't help thinking the title will put people off going to see it.


----------



## Decker (Jul 30, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



alchemist said:


> Indeed. Given the positive review above, and the fact they've "played it straight", I can't help thinking the title will put people off going to see it.



Reviews are running 45% positive at rottentomatoes. This is up from 43% yesterday. Believe most if not all of those are US reviewers.

I still say, they ripped off that script something awful.


----------



## Decker (Aug 10, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

Sorry for the running-on posts, can't seem to figure out how to edit my last one.

Believe this hasn't opened internationally yet so I won't comment on any plot elements for my friends in the UK who haven't yet seen it. Suffice it to say it's dying here. I'll look forward to y'all's reactions!


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 10, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



Decker said:


> Sorry for the running-on posts, can't seem to figure out how to edit my last one.


You are only able to edit posts within one hour of first posting them.


----------



## Starbeast (Aug 10, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*

I saw this movie yesterday and I loved it. It was fast-paced, had great acting and marvelous direction. This is one of the best movies from this year for me!


----------



## Decker (Aug 10, 2011)

*re: "Cowboys and Aliens" 2011*



Ursa major said:


> You are only able to edit posts within one hour of first posting them.



Ah so. Thanks for that.

As for Starbeast's comment: glad you enjoyed it. Once it's opened abroad - I think it's the 18th in the UK - then we can discuss further!


----------



## Starbeast (Aug 10, 2011)

*Re: Trailer for "Cowboys and Aliens"...*



Decker said:


> As for Starbeast's comment: glad you enjoyed it. Once it's opened abroad - I think it's the 18th in the UK - then we can discuss further!


 
Certainly, I didn't want to give anything away for the people who haven't seen it.

Originally, the trailer for the film didn't interst me much, I thought it was going to be an average movie. But after I was convinced to see it in the theater, I was not disappointed.

My advice is, don't watch the trailers, just see it. Especially if you're a fan of wild western movies.


----------



## Decker (Aug 22, 2011)

So how's the movie faring in the UK, folks?


----------



## TheTomG (Aug 23, 2011)

I quite enjoyed this - wasn't what I was expecting from the title, thought it would be more cartoony or have more humor in it. It's not in my top 100 movies of all time, but was entertaining enough. How did it get received back home in the UK?


----------



## Connavar (Aug 31, 2011)

I saw it last night and enjoyed it very much.  It was fun film to see in the cinema.  It was a hardcore western which is a film type that died out long ago and a pretty good alien SF.  Nasty aliens that you could actually see.  Some nice humor and alot of good actors.  

My old fav more human action in Harrison Ford and my younger version of him in Daniel Craig they and the director didnt dissapoint.


----------



## CyBeR (Aug 31, 2011)

I was actually quite disappointed in the directing of the film. A lot o scenes had no flow and a lot of character introductions were just really really awkward. There would be people sitting around a fire and suddenly some Indians walk in from off screen, almost shuffling in. It was almost as amusing as some of the stuff in _Capek's_ *R.U.R.

*But otherwise I pretty much enjoyed the movie. I saw it yesterday as well and it was a good time there. I was expecting maybe a bit more than I got, especially with such a concept. But the aliens were fun, the third act was really fun, and Harrison Ford seemed to be enjoying himself which oftentimes adds a lot to a character. 

Too bad that they didn't have some more diverse aliens though.


----------



## Connavar (Aug 31, 2011)

They couldnt have diverse aliens in story reasons, the aliens in the film was the ones scouting out the humans.

I like the nasty looking aliens.   I agree some of the scenes didnt have a nice flow, specially early on but when the story got going after awhile the directing got going too.


----------



## CyBeR (Aug 31, 2011)

Actually I just remembered what the first acts reminded me of: *F troop. *I swear those scene transitions really are almost lifted from that classic series. 

As I said, the third act fixes most of the problems the first two had. There was some very good action in this film and I really can't say I didn't enjoy myself.

Plus...Olivia Wilde is hot-hot-hot.


----------



## Decker (Sep 3, 2011)

Wasn't anyone else bothered by the fact that this galaxy-trotting, warp-drive (or whatever) using, thought controlled weapon-inventing civilization (the members of which nonetheless act like slavering hyenas... and stupid hyenas at that) had come umpteen light years to a planet riddled with pesky "insects" to mine gold, the reason for which we're told is that "it's as valuable to them as it is to you", when they could have stopped off at pretty much any rocky planet, planetoid or asteroid belt and mined away to their dark hearts' content and with no interference from indigenous populations? Or that, given the ability to vaporize huge chunks of earth along with entire herds of cattle, vegetation and any of those afore-mentioned pesky insects, they wasted their time rounding the latter up from the sky (and, let's be fair, likely killing anyone so whisked in the process) to probe their "weaknesses"? Exactly what weaknesses would those be that they'd need to determine? These are just the "plot's" most glaring deficiences, imho.


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 3, 2011)

Decker said:


> when they could have stopped off at pretty much any rocky planet, planetoid or asteroid belt and mined away to their dark hearts' content and with no interference from indigenous populations?


 
But then we wouldn't have had a story and where's the fun in that??


----------



## TheTomG (Sep 3, 2011)

Wait, you expected it would have a _plot_ ?


----------



## CyBeR (Sep 3, 2011)

The moment a cowboy woke up with advanced technology on his wrist, my brain just said "Yeah, you have fun there, swing by the gift shop to pick me up when you're done, ok?".


----------



## Dave (Sep 3, 2011)

CyBeR said:


> The moment a cowboy woke up with advanced technology on his wrist...


I really wanted to see this, but you are beginning to put me off. Is it filled with such anachronisms then?



Decker said:


> ...they could have stopped off at pretty much any rocky planet, planetoid or asteroid belt and mined away to their dark hearts' content and with no interference from indigenous populations?


I was actually going to pull you up on that, to say that most asteroids are either rocky or Iron-Nickel and it is only within the Earth's Crust that you find high concentrations of heavy and transition metals, however when I Googled to check my facts I found that I was entirely and completely wrong! 

The most detailed analysis of the asteroid Eros by the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (Near) suggested that the next gold rush could be in outer space. Eros contains more gold than ever extracted on Earth! In fact, other recent studies go further and have suggested that huge asteroids may have actually brought the gold and other precious metals to the infant Earth. I studied some astro-geomorphology at university, but I guess I can now throw all those lecture notes away as they seem painfully out of date (just like this film!)


----------



## Connavar (Sep 4, 2011)

Dave its a SF/western there is nothing off putting about unless you want too realistic film.

Why watch a weird western and looking for realism ?

CyBeR said it was a fun film like i said.

Using the kind of logic that say why come to earth for gold there is no need for any film, story at all.  You could find reasons why most fiction story shouldnt happen at all even.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Sep 4, 2011)

Mrs Tein and I went to see it last week.

It is what it is. A bit of escapism.

On the whole, we both enjoyed it.

Why they cast Jimmy Band as the main character is a mystery though.


----------



## Decker (Sep 4, 2011)

Connavar said:


> Dave its a SF/western there is nothing off putting about unless you want too realistic film.
> 
> Why watch a weird western and looking for realism ?
> 
> ...



I'm glad you enjoyed it. However it's not a question of realism but coherent drama, in which Rule #1 is that your bad guy has to have a compelling reason to be bad or nothing works. Moreover, when you're spending $163 million to make a movie, and perhaps as much again to market it, you should be responsible for more than mere fun with gaping plot holes. 

Compare this train wreck with the likes of _Blade Runner, Alien, Star Wars_... any good/classic sci-fi you care to name, and it comes up ridiculously short. Drama needs logic. Without that it's just a bloated budget version of a throwaway slasher flick, kids trapped in the house and who cares.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 4, 2011)

You expected SF classic from an action film ? 

No wonder you didnt like it.  I went in looking for good action with Craig,Ford and got it.   Story wise it has some problems but it was fun,well acted as SF action and it was good western setting.   Fun film with quality actors but no where near a great film.

Hollywood hasnt made a great SF in 20 years atleast.   Still your criticism for why are they in earth for gold was funny to me, didnt make sense.  Its like saying why is there always aliens who like human flesh so much in Alien films....


----------



## Dave (Sep 4, 2011)

Connavar said:


> You expected SF classic from an action film ?
> 
> No wonder you didnt like it.  I went in looking for good action with Craig,Ford and got it.   Story wise it has some problems but it was fun,well acted as SF action and it was good western setting.   Fun film with quality actors but no where near a great film.
> 
> Hollywood hasnt made a great SF in 20 years atleast.   Still your criticism for why are they in earth for gold was funny to me, didnt make sense.  Its like saying why is there always aliens who like human flesh so much in Alien films....



I haven't seen it, I'll probably wait for the DVD now, but I have to disagree with you on many levels:

Aliens go for human flesh because no other flesh is available. What Decker was suggesting was that supplies of Gold are ubiquitous. It is more believable when they come for our oceans.

You certainly can have action/SF films that are good - Total Recall, Inception, The Running Man, Terminator series, any 'Arny' film.

There has not been an absence of good SF films since 1991 either - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, District 9, Donnie Darko, Dark City, Inception.

I do agree that this probably won't make my list, the idea itself isn't too bad though - there is an episode of 'The Time Tunnel' that had aliens in the wild west, and 'The Wild, Wild West' was steampunk - so it isn't even a new idea either.


----------



## mtzGr (Sep 4, 2011)

I think the one and only good part of this movie was the dialogue with Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford during the initial encounter. The rest of the movie I think was done badly. Dialogue, plot and pacing was sub-par, I couldn't bother to watch all of it.


----------



## TheTomG (Sep 4, 2011)

"There has not been an absence of good SF films since 1991 either - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, District 9, Donnie Darko, Dark City, Inception."

Ah, a great list of films, all of which I really enjoyed. I found Dark City on DVD for $3 so snapped that up, haven't watched it yet (again) though.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 5, 2011)

TheTomG said:


> "There has not been an absence of good SF films since 1991 either - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, District 9, Donnie Darko, Dark City, Inception."
> 
> Ah, a great list of films, all of which I really enjoyed. I found Dark City on DVD for $3 so snapped that up, haven't watched it yet (again) though.


 
Out of those i would call Dark City, Spotless Mind great films only. Spotless i thought more as romantic drama, i didnt think it had too much SF elements.

Inception is overrated action film that was not as smart as people say imo. Darko is typical overrated indy hype. District 9 is interesting but not great imo.

I only regret forgetting mentioning Dark City which is a truly original, weird SF. Spotless Mind i also rate highly.

Reason i dont rate SF in hollywood last 20 years is they are often action films like Inception, District 9. Blockbuster action is rarely great films.


----------



## Decker (Sep 5, 2011)

Dave said:


> I haven't seen it, I'll probably wait for the DVD now, but I have to disagree with you on many levels:
> 
> Aliens go for human flesh because no other flesh is available. What Decker was suggesting was that supplies of Gold are ubiquitous. It is more believable when they come for our oceans.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Dave. You said it perfectly, and in far fewer words than I!

And I agree with your list for the most part as well. C&A had a great setting, a great dog, some good actors and sets and a pleasant score... that's about all I can say in its favor. They would have done viewers a big favor if they'd simply worked with the original 1989 script instead of trying to rip it off and failing.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 5, 2011)

Dave said:


> I haven't seen it, I'll probably wait for the DVD now, but I have to disagree with you on many levels:
> 
> Aliens go for human flesh because no other flesh is available. What Decker was suggesting was that supplies of Gold are ubiquitous. It is more believable when they come for our oceans.
> 
> ...



Gold, coming out for our oceans, or for our flesh still dont make a difference in judging a SF films quality.  Classic SF like Alien could have made stupid gold thing work too.  The aliens monster thing is accepted because you expect to see them for no reason in Alien films.   

Total Recall is 80s film, older than 20 years and Terminator 2 is great and from 1991 also 20 years old. 

I said what i think of the rest to The TomG.   Still i dont need this film to alltime fav like Alien, Terminator 2 to enjoy it.  Still silly thing he had problem with Deckar imo.

Diss the actual film and not some small thing that you have to accept for no reason like every SF film.


----------



## TheTomG (Sep 6, 2011)

I like any movie that plays with concepts of reality, so Inception was onto a winner there for me  I liked the concept of being able to get into and manipulate people's dreams, that was novel enough to make it a winner for me, plus then the confusion of what is reality and what is not was icing on the cake. Reminded me somewhat of The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch in theme.

District 9 I liked because it was novel again, it wasn't really what I'd been expecting from the trailer. I liked the way the aliens were very different from what we usually see, the concepts of ghetto-isation, how we might treat and react to an alien species (all a metaphor of how we treat and react to other human beings anyway.)

Donnie Darko, again the whole twist on what is real and what is not, what is in the mind and what is reality, and the whole very bizarre and surreal nature of the rabbit character had great appeal to me, and I really liked it.

Now, as for those appearing in my top ten movies of all time, probably not. Not sure Dark City would either. Eternal Sunshine I believe would get into the top 10, it was a great mix of my beloved reality-bending theme with great directing and plot. Oh and I HATE Jim Carrey, but he was awesome in this movie.

So I do have a different reaction to those movies, and would still say they were great movies (e.g. compare to Cowboys and Aliens, for example, which is a fine piece of entertainment, but in no way had any topic to discuss, thoughts to provoke, or anything of that nature.)

When it comes to art of course, greatness is always subjective  And me, I'm a sucker for "oh this is real, oh no it's not, oh yes it is, oh no look it isn't, ok this is really real this time - haha, no it isn't..."


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Sep 6, 2011)

One thing I would say about C&A.

The sad lack of finality.

Expect a sequel soon. Too soon probably


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 6, 2011)

I have to say that I'm surprised this thread is still going. A summertime movie to amuse all the kids on summer vacation (PG-13) and it stirs all this angst?? You've got ugly aliens who lasso their victims, have a mother ship that looks like something from the industrial revolution and turn out to be just glorified interstellar claim jumpers. And we're worried about how Daniel Craig got his wrist rocket?

Sometimes I think it's best to just go with the flow. This isn't the best SF movie that was ever produced, but it certainly is far from the worst. And we should be able to tell when the film-makers are putting us on.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 6, 2011)

clovis-man said:


> I have to say that I'm surprised this thread is still going. A summertime movie to amuse all the kids on summer vacation (PG-13) and it stirs all this angst?? You've got ugly aliens who lasso their victims, have a mother ship that looks like something from the industrial revolution and turn out to be just glorified interstellar claim jumpers._* And we're worried about how Daniel Craig got his wrist rocket?
> *_
> Sometimes I think it's best to just go with the flow. This isn't the best SF movie that was ever produced, but it certainly is far from the worst. And we should be able to tell when the film-makers are putting us on.



Exactly people taking a summer blockbuster SF too seriously.  Alien wrist rock, gold hunting aliens hehe.

It was just fun film for me.   I get my quality, more serious films not from summmertime cinema but from DVD love film account.


----------



## Decker (Sep 6, 2011)

clovis-man said:


> Sometimes I think it's best to just go with the flow. This isn't the best SF movie that was ever produced, but it certainly is far from the worst. And we should be able to tell when the film-makers are putting us on.



Ask the people who put up the millions for the budget and P&A if they're putting us on. Or the vast majority of filmgoers who've voted with their feet, i.e. stayed away. 

There are very good reasons why it flopped. And sure, you can say about any movie shy of The Godfather and a few others that it's not the best, and we know there are legions of truly awful ones. I just expected a great deal more from the likes of Spielberg, Ford and the rest of the team.


----------



## Sea Lion Books (Sep 6, 2011)

I heard Cowboys and Aliens wasn't that great.  Someone even mentioned it was as bad as the new Conan movie.  Is that true?


----------



## jonathanx (Sep 26, 2011)

I actually walked out on this movie.


----------



## Decker (Sep 28, 2011)

jonathanx said:


> I actually walked out on this movie.



I admire your courage. I was too chicken. But then I was at a screening and it would have been impolite.


----------



## Decker (Dec 3, 2011)

Somebody in Texas is suing the producers for copyright infringement:

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/cow...who-published-story-with-same-title/#comments

I note that his comic by the same name came out 5 years AFTER the original 1989 screenplay that's posted variously online and on Facebook.


----------



## rune (Jan 11, 2012)

I got to see this last week. I enjoyed it, which was a surprise as Im not really a cowboy movie lover. But the aliens did make it different enough for me to enjoy
I liked the look of the aliens too.  One thing I did think - didnt the so called folks of that american era take on board aliens really easily!


----------



## Warren_Paul (Feb 2, 2012)

I remember seeing the trailer for this movie and was watching it thinking, this looks interesting, great special effects, and then the name of the movie came up on the screen. The whole theater started laughing.

When I eventually got the chance to sit down and watch it, I was expecting something B-grade and cheesy. I'm happy to say I was pleasantly surprised, I thought it was really good.


----------



## Huttman (Feb 12, 2012)

Hear hear! What an entertaining film. I like Sam Rockwell, Clancy Brown, Daniel Craig and of course Harrison Ford. I thought they all did a great job. I think this movie will grow on me even more, and while it was not the deepest of plots, it had enough characterization and fun scenes to make this one a purchase for me.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 1, 2012)

My take on it:

Yes, I know, the title should have warned me off, but I couldn't resist watching it!

Daniel Craig (the current James Bond, for the benefit of any readers from other planets) plays a gunman in the Wild West who wakes up with no memory but with a hi-tech bracelet firmly clipped around his wrist. At the same time, people are being attacked and captured by small flying machines. One of these crashes, and the tracks leaving it indicate that something decidedly non-human was on board.

A motley posse sets off on the hunt for the alien, and then in search of the source of these flying machines with the hope of rescuing the captured people. Apart from Craig, this includes Harrison Ford as a rich farmer, Olivia Wilde as eye candy (though she does turn out to have a role to play) and various assorted lawmen, cowboys, criminals and even Indians. 

This is a lightweight and forgettable film but makes for a couple of hours of trivial entertainment, preferably watched in well-oiled social company in the mood for a laugh. 

I do have one gripe (at the risk of a mild spoiler): why are "bad" aliens in such films always shown to be hideously ugly monsters with such deliberately evil intent? Do the film makers not realise that evil wearing an innocent face is far more chilling? Or that the activities of aliens on this planet might incidentally have a disastrous effect on humanity even without any evil intent? Or is such subtlety beyond their comprehension (or at least, more subversive than they think their target viewing public will accept)? Oh well, I suppose I'm expecting too much of a lowest-common-denominator popcorn movie based on (and closely resembling) a comic strip. To be fair, though, the good guys do not all get to live happily ever after.

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## SFF Chronicles News (Oct 20, 2013)

*4th February 2010 04:03 AM*

David Allen

Olivia Wilde best known for being in House and her part in the new version of Tron Legacy will be exchanging the future for a more quieter life in the American wild west during the late 1800’s.
There, she will be joining Daniel Craig, who could have been the fastest gun in the west until an alien space craft lands and its occupants attempt to take over the world.
This is an unlikely story that would normally have no chance of being made, but science fiction films are big news these days and the prospect of aliens turning up at a point in time where technology is in its early stages has an appeal.
However the story needs to finish on the right note, this is an invasion by a superior species at a time where weapons are limited.


----------



## Dave (Sep 3, 2016)

I'm not sure why I took so long, but I finally got around to watching this on Netflix. I think you all put me off it, but it was entertaining (and that's what I wanted) and it made sense. Daniel Craig's wrist-worn technology was fully explained in the film. It was a major part of the story, so anyone who had a problem with it wasn't watching.


Huttman said:


> Hear hear! What an entertaining film. I like Sam Rockwell, Clancy Brown, Daniel Craig and of course Harrison Ford. I thought they all did a great job. I think this movie will grow on me even more, and while it was not the deepest of plots, it had enough characterization and fun scenes to make this one a purchase for me.


I second that! Stand out performances from Ford and Craig too. Also had writing credits from Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. 


Anthony G Williams said:


> ...why are "bad" aliens in such films always shown to be hideously ugly monsters with such deliberately evil intent? Do the film makers not realise that evil wearing an innocent face is far more chilling?


You make a good point. I think they did have to look "demonic" rather than friendly for this particular story to work, but did they really need to experiment on humans to mine for Gold? If they had quietly got on with their mining operation rather than flying around shooting up towns then no one would have ever noticed them.


Anthony G Williams said:


> To be fair, though, the good guys do not all get to live happily ever after.


No, the ending was bitter-sweet. Only some humans were returned. Ford lost the son he never had, and had only just realised that he should have respected him more. You can hope that both Craig and Ford's real son have now become reformed characters. You can hope that the people with memory loss will not dream about the hideous experiments performed on them. Or you can just write it off as a "lowest common-denominator popcorn movie" as you all have done. I liked it.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 4, 2016)

I saw it when came on tv and found it quite good and would jhhve like to have seen a sequel but , since it  didn't do great at the box office, there won't be one.


----------



## Rodders (Sep 4, 2016)

It was entertaining enough, but I can see why it failed.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 4, 2016)

Rodders said:


> It was entertaining enough, but I can see why it failed.



 Westerns are not really popular in the theaters, haven't been for some years. That might be the main reason.


----------



## Overread (Sep 4, 2016)

I'll ad a post to this restored thread - I enjoy this film. Sure its an action film and its light hearted and not a heavy sci-fi; but to me it marries scifi and westerns together well. Cast are well chosen for their roles and the story is well paced and presented. All in all enjoyable from start to finish. I have to say of his latter films its one of the best I've seen Harrison Ford in in a while (then again its not attempting to remake old-glory day films).

I honestly feel its a shame it didn't spawn any further productions, but then again considering the ending perhaps it was better. The only way I could see it working would be a retelling in series form (near impossible to get with the original cast in complete). 

Overall an enjoyable action film with western and sci-fi elements that paces and tells its story well.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 4, 2016)

Overread said:


> I'll ad a post to this restored thread - I enjoy this film. Sure its an action film and its light hearted and not a heavy sci-fi; but to me it marries scifi and westerns together well. Cast are well chosen for their roles and the story is well paced and presented. All in all enjoyable from start to finish. I have to say of his latter films its one of the best I've seen Harrison Ford in in a while (then again its not attempting to remake old-glory day films).
> 
> I honestly feel its a shame it didn't spawn any further productions, but then again considering the ending perhaps it was better. The only way I could see it working would be a retelling in series form (near impossible to get with the original cast in complete).
> 
> Overall an enjoyable action film with western and sci-fi elements that paces and tells its story well.



If it had been a hit, they'd probably be talking sequels . The Aliens could still com back.


----------



## Dave (Sep 4, 2016)

Based upon this review of a reprint of the graphic novel then I'd say:

The film diverges from the graphic novel considerably - the aliens were not horrific-looking monsters - the Apaches were about to attack the town before the ship landed.
There might be room for a sequel within the story that the film left out.
Yes, the aliens could come back - revenge would be the strong motive.
As for "Westerns not being popular in the theatres" - there certainly aren't so many, but those that there are usually do okay. Django Unchained (2013) for example.


----------

