The X-Files: I'm a believer
Never watched The X-Files. I usually make a point of avoiding TV shows taken too seriously by the Comicon crowd, from Star Trek to Lost. My skin crawls while thinking what kind of reactions that confession may bring, the devotion of such fanboyz (and girlz) is that intense and frankly, creepy.
Anyway, I figure that puts me in pretty good shape to assess The X-Files: I Want to Believe as a film experience and not merely a reunion among old friends predisposed to leniency about its shortcomings.
I'm happy to admit that I don't find many. The movie isn't so "inside" as to confuse newbies, or outlandish enough to turn off people like me who prefer more grounded entertainment. In fact, it's a crackerjack mystery involving disappearances, questions of religious faith and ethical responsibility, weirdly gruesome science, and even a 2-headed dog.
Cast and name the characters anything else besides Mulder, Scully, etc. and XFIWTB (don't you love these Web acronyms?) would still be a satisfyingly eerie crime drama.
I won't spoil anything since creator Chris Carter has gone through so much trouble to keep things hush-hush. But I'll praise David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson for making characters I thought I knew too well from previous hype into easy folks to follow through the maze. I'm also impressed with Billy Connolly, normally a comedian, offering a fine dramatic turn as an excommunicated priest who may have psychic powers to help the investigation.
I'll also note that Carter and co-writer Frank Spotznick do a nifty job of weaving their prejudices into the plot, including support of stem cell research and a lack thereof for President Bush (one scene using the X-Files theme song in that regard is hilarious).
Overall, a pleasing matinee for someone like me who never drank the Kool-Ade.
You'll find a full review online Thursday, and in print Friday on page 2B.
Steve Persall is the movie critic for the St. Petersburg Times. He was conceived behind a drive-in movie theater his father operated and raised in projection booths and concession stands. He doesn't care how you did it up north.
With elitist comments like that you fit right in with the Times. Shouldn't you be praising some Artsy movie that nobody will like but you?
Posted by: Will | July 24, 2008 at 08:36 AM
Oh, you mean like The Dark Knight (grade A and pegged as a major Oscar contender), Iron Man (A-) and Kung Fu Panda and Indy 4 (both B+) --- the top grossers of 2008, so far?
Yeah, you may be right.
Posted by: Steve Persall | July 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Steve I just wanna say you're great. You always have the best comebacks for these oddballs that seem to spend all their time reading the blogs of a newspaper that they hate and brand "elitist" :)
Posted by: Luby | July 24, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Hrrmmm....I'll have to wait and see on this one. With a plot that revolves around conspiracies it's going to be weird seeing this in a post-9/11 atmosphere.
Posted by: Patrick | July 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Aww, shucks. I've always been better at dishing out comebacks than accepting compliments.
In your case, Luby, I'll gladly make an exception. Thank you very much.
Posted by: Steve Persall | July 24, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Any movie that exposes the ugly mess caused by the worst President ever is worth seeing. Hanuary 09 The end of an error.
Posted by: rob | July 24, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Rob,
I too am looking forward to Hanuary.
Posted by: Patrick | July 24, 2008 at 02:45 PM
Steve,
Love reading your columns and blogs. I have always followed box office results through the years. I have a question: The results only show the weekend. I never see how Mondays receipts are factored in. For example on Yahoo box office it always displays just the weekend. Thanks
Posted by: Frank | July 24, 2008 at 04:05 PM
You have a good point, Frank. It's the get-it-now mentality that influences news coverage in speedy times (and therefore studio judgments regarding advertising, how many screens to add/subtract, etc.), plus more people go to theaters on weekends than any other time.
In days before that blockbuster mentality was spawned (late 70,s, early 80's), opening weekends didn't mean as much. Movies opened in a fraction of theaters compared to today (and there were fewer screens before megaplexes), and longevity was more important than first weekend bonanzas.
Check my summer preview from a few weeks ago, particularly regarding Ghostbusters and E.T. to see what I mean.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/1504772111.html?dids=1504772111:1504772111&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+3%2C+2008&author=STEVE+PERSALL&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=W.6&desc=FIRECRACKER+FLICKS+BOOM+ON+THE+FOURTH
Thing is, movies were made more often for quality than quick pay-offs then.
Posted by: Steve Persall | July 24, 2008 at 08:25 PM
So how can the economy be called "in recession" when movies are breaking the bank with blockbuster opening records? Isn't going to the movies considered disposable income and not a necessity?
Have you BEEN to the movies lately? Attendance for a family of three can run $80 after tickets, gas, and food. I think it reflects a need for escapism from the state of the union.
Posted by: Scott | July 25, 2008 at 08:53 AM
Interesting. I've never seen an episode of the series either so I really didn't think there would be anything there I could follow. Maybe now I'll go watch the movie. Tx!
Posted by: Janice | July 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM
You're probably right, Scott. There is historically a correlation between tough economic times and increased movie attendance. Happened in the Great Depression, the 70s and 90s recessions, too. Escapism works. Yes, it's expensive but compared to other forms of audience entertainment (ball games, Broadway-style shows, etc.) it's still a decent bargain.
Posted by: Steve Persall | July 25, 2008 at 12:41 PM