This film is a beautifully rendered, well-lit piece of crap. I had to lick sandpaper to get the taste of this mess out of my mouth.
There is one thing about this monumental waste that I found original. Some of you may not realize this but this movie is actually a sequel to another wonderfully shot stink hole named Pitch Black (apparently there were so many unanswered questions we needed more.) Pitch Black is what I call a Pick Off movie. A Pick Off is simply a film that introduces an ensemble of one-dimensional characters (The Tough Guy, The Determined Heroine With Thin Hips, The Greedy Guy, The Weak But Smart Guy, etc.) and then introduces a mindless killing machine (an alien or some form of undead hoard.) The story then progresses by violently picking off the cast of characters one at a time. Examples of this type of film are legion (Aliens, Predator, The Night of The Living Dead, Halloween.) As if to avenge the dead from Pitch Black, The Chronicles of Riddick turns the Pick Off movie tables on us the viewers. As this film progresses it actually picks off your brain cells one by one until you’re left a slack-jawed drooler slowly blinking at the ending credits. About half way through this movie my eyes began to hurt. The reason for that was because my brain was trying to escape.
I could explore the plot and pass judgement on the acting, but why? The filmmakers obviously didn’t bother, why should I?
Article comments
1 - Victor Plenty
Don't hold back! Tell us how you really feel.
2 - Masochist
Hi,
I watched the original Riddick Crapicles and didn't really like it.
Then I watched the Directors Cut and it was slightly better. Made more sense but it was still less than good
3 - Triniman
I enjoyed Pitch Black a lot, but Chronicles was so awful. It should never have been made.
4 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
great review scott. "guilty pleasure without the guilt or the pleasure" should go on the posters, is my advice. fantastic. and that's a nice bit of the old film thoerey there, the "pick off".
although i rather enjoyed Pitch Black.
5 - Pete
Sci-fi movies require at least an average IQ to understand them...I find it curious so many movie critics don't understand Sci-fi movies!
6 - Nehring
You obviously put some thought into this. What is it you believe the critics have missed? What do believe I have missed?
7 - Pete
Let’s just deal with yours and what you’re missing:
This isn’t a critique of the movie, it’s simply a collection of insults - a couple of them looking so suspiciously similar to what other critics have used in the past that I think I can safely call “PLAGIARIZED!” (“Licking sandpaper…”, indeed!)
Do you think the movie is “beautifully rendered”, or “a piece of crap”? Does that mean you’re undecided? Being oxymoronic under these circumstances indicates to me that your opinion is somewhat confused.
More than half (!) of your critique is in reference to ANOTHER movie: Pitch Black.
Stay focused!
…and, you have grouped Pitch Black with other SciFi movies that, while critics have also turned thumbs down to in the past (Aliens, Predator…what are you looking for, more Passion-of-Christ-type movies!?), have made hundreds of millions of dollars. So, who’s missing the point â€" the critics or the viewers?
The story is unique, and has a sensible future that isn’t predictable, like so many movies seem to be these days.
The plot is classic â€" good Vs evil. WOO-HOO, Riddick!
The acting is appropriate (they/you (critics) still say Arnold can’t act, but bring out another Terminator, and what do you think will happen?) It’s a Sci-Fi Action movie, dude! Lighten up!
In my opinion, Chronicles of Riddick is so improved over Pitch Black that I don’t see how you can even connect them.
The special effects are excellent, yet the movie is not dependant on them.
Your comment, “I could explore the plot and pass judgement on the acting, but why? The filmmakers obviously didn’t bother, why should I?” says it all â€" your critique was empty and meaningless.
You don’t make a specific reference to anything in the movie, and you don’t make a point. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You seem to have trouble expressing yours.
8 - Pete
No offence meant to fans of "Passion of Christ". Please substitute a movie like "Legally Blonde" or "Are we there yet?", or any lame movie...
9 - Nehring
Thanks for the input Pete. I do honestly appreciate it - I'm not smarting-off, I post to get discussions going. Thanks for responding.
There's not much to review in this movie. It looks wonderful - it has absolutely no content. That is why my review is so sparse.
All of the work went into the physical design of the film and none went into plot or character development.
I think you mischaracterize the notion of a classic plot. This is certainly not a good vs. evil story. It is an evil vs. bigger evil story. Riddick is an anti-hero - he is not a good guy. His placement in the protagonist role doesn't make him "good".
Personally, I did find the plot to be predictable and tedious. There's not much new here - except the design, which I have mentioned, I favor. Like Pitch Black, this film looks great, but is hollow.
I spend so much time on Pitch Black because these two movies are related. Chronicles of Riddick is a derivative of Pitch Black. There is no ignoring that.
I talk about Pitch Black so much because I discuss the idea of a "pick-off" film. I then utilize that concept to kick at Riddick. It is my intent to insult this drivel. A film this poorly constructed (again, speaking of content - not the design work) deserves to be put down.
My final statement in the original review speaks for itself - you're right. I dismiss this film because it is apparent to me the filmmakers dismissed their responsibility to offer something worthwhile.
You said "It’s a Sci-Fi Action movie, dude! Lighten up!" Fair enough. Then why such a huge reaction from you? In your original post you claimed that critics didn't have the IQ to handle a film such a Riddick (or other Sci-Fi films.) Is Chronicles of Riddick frivolous or is it so complicated and deep that someone with a below average IQ, as you have characterized me, can’t handle it? It may be that I'm a simpleton, as you have suggested, but I'm not certain how this works.
In regards to charge of plagiarism. That is a serious charge that you feel free to make without backing yourself up. I assure you that my thoughts are my own and my wording is my own. If other critics have had the same opinion about this film, it may mean nothing more than we agree. Plagiarism is a dangerous word to throw out so casually, like the words libel or slander.
10 - Victor Plenty
Both "unique" and "classic"? Can it be both? How? Your defense of this film leaves much to be desired, Pete.
"Good vs. evil" is not a plot. It is a subset of dramatic conflict. Often it is a sign of oversimplified storytelling. It can be done well, or done poorly. Why exactly do you think it was done well in this film? You need to support a statement like this, not just assert it.
What exactly made you think the story told in this film is "unique"?
For example, let's examine the part where a ruler hears a prophecy about someone born in a particular time and place, and so he orders the murder of every child born at that time and place. This one story element is at least 2000 years old, featuring prominently in the New Testament, and probably even older than that.
The science fiction story elements may not be quite so old, but all of them were familiar rehashes of well worn cliches. There's nothing original about having an "ice planet" and an even more absurd "fire planet" alongside Pitch Black's "planet where it is daylight all the time until a certain number of years pass" which was first used to far better effect in the classic short story "Nightfall" by Isaac Asimov, something like fifty or sixty years ago.