Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

'X-Files' movie a great, big mess

It was Friday, September 10, 1993.
I was at the Claremore, OK Arby's on my lunch break from my collection route,
(Pool tables, juke boxes, video games etc) and I was reading TV Previews by Matt Roush, 
then with USA Today, now with TV Guide and he said, 

"You'll love this new "X-Files" show. The production values are feature film quality 
and the writing and acting are top-notch all the way.  It's about time somebody besides
Star Trek Next Generation gave science fiction the respect it deserves," and I called 
Mrs Bart and told he we had good TV tonight because we'll give a show a look if Matt Roush
says it's good and it's got space monkeys or Vegas in it. 

So we were big-time fans all those years, so I really wanted to like this movie - but no.

Here's a review by gabeedman

Unglamorous, unprovocative, and outright ineffectual, this one disappoints. As a loyal fan, 
I'm biased towards the unrelenting sci-fi thrills. However, I left the theater dreaming of bygone 
days of small-screen glory while regretting my $8.00 contribution to big-screen vacuity. 
From character incompatibility to storyline vagueness, this is an unfortunate yet predictable 
low point in the series that captivated worldwide audiences for a decade.

He said it better than I could. 
This movie was such a mess - they seemed to never explain anything.
I get that it's about "the ambiguity" and "not knowing for sure," but there 
were scenes in the film that made me ask - what was the point of that?

Plus, seems like Scully was in a really foul mood for the full two hours.
Who wants to spend 2 hours with a snarling old friend who can't stop whining?

There was a splash of humor now and then.
Early in the movie, they arrive at the FBI Building and while waiting for the elevator,
Mulder's looking around and spots a picture of our Giggling Murderer.
The whole crowd just burst out loud with spontaneous laughter.
If that doesn't spell doom for McCain, I don't know what will. 

But the real problems I had with the movie contain spoliers
so STOP READING NOW if you want the movie to be a surprise.


I have no f-ing idea went on in that movie.
Was it about doing head transplants?

Why did the old dude want a young woman's body?

Was this about a sex-change operation?

Why kill so many agents, especially Amanda Peet?
So we'd hate the lady-dismembering-kidnapper even more?

And what was the deal with the lady-dismembering-kidnapper under water?
Did the girls not realize they were swimming inches away from a super-creep
who's hiding underwater in a brightly-lit indoor pool?

Why did the creep kidnap women from that particular swimming pool?
Ever heard of a swimming pool that had mostly A-B Positive swimmers dropping by?

...and the poor Catholics!

The psychic priest admitted molesting 37 altar boys.
How/why was that connected to the plot?
All it did was make Scully harder to be around - assuming that's possible.

And why was Scully's boss, the not-caught-yet priest, such a prick?
Do Catholic priests just not have any patience with dying kids?

Who knew that Mulder & Scully had a kid together?
Apparently that happened on TV the year Annabelle Gish and T-2 were agents,
but our couple has a child named "William" who was given up for adoption to, 
...I assume, ...prevent "their enemies" from striking at them - thru William?

Plus I have no idea where Scully & Mulder are romantically.

Not that I care, but as the movie opens, they seemed to suggest that it had been
quite a while since they'd seen or talked to each other, yet 15 minutes later Scully 
asks Mulder what time he'd be "home."   A few minutes later, they're in bed, 
naked and cuddling, but there was no hint of any heat, despite Duchovney
telling TV Guide that he & Scully both showed skin in the movie.

The Skinner suddenly shows up just before the credits ran.
I guess Mitch Peleggi was busy with other, more important films?
Was Skinner there to get his head transplanted onto a hot chick's body?

Senseless sidebar:
The bad guys were protected by three mean rottweillers, but "lucky" for us,
Mulder had a hammer with him - did we really need that scene in the movie?

That movie reviewer I quoted had it right:

I left the theater dreaming of bygone days of small-screen glory 
while regretting my $8.00 contribution to big-screen vacuity. 

We watched the X-Files Marathon on TNT when we got home.

If you're a fan I guess you'll need to see it, and if you do,
could you answer some of those questions I had?

Why did the old, dying guy want a hot chick's body?
Was he a lesbian trapped in a man's body?

And like most movies - I'll guess this one cast $60M or more, why didn't they 
call Ol' Bart and offer me $10,000 to point out all the nutty plot holes?
If you're going to spend $60M, why not spend $60,010,000 and get it right?

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .