RogerEbert.com — The Space Between Us

The Space Between Us Movie Review“The Space Between Us,” about the romance between a boy from Mars and a girl from Earth, plays like a “Muppet Babies” version of “Starman.” It’s nutty. Not nutty enough that you should run out and see it, but still. It features an exploding barn. My 1 1/2-star review, at RogerEbert.com.

Read the review here

3 Comments on “RogerEbert.com — The Space Between Us

  1.  by  Brian O' Hanlon

    This is where one really sees the intervention of a movie director, a Ridley Scott type of talent who’s able to set the bar, for quality in science fiction. Not just in one decade, but in successive decades. It makes it hard for lesser movies out there, to escape from looking, not up to the same bar. Science fiction as a genre has that quality about it. Heck, even various George Lucas works, find it tough to live up.

    On the De Niro latest work.

    “Sometimes passion projects, should stay in the drawer”.

    Isn’t that a statement to live by.

    Nicely said by Alonso.

    All best.

  2.  by  Brian O' Hanlon

    Re: King Ecbert of Wessex

    Speaking of ‘nutty’.

    Christy, don’t know if you follow the television side of it, that much.

    One notable mention, because it’s so unusual. A great television performance, a representation of a character on a screen of any size, for sheer acting capability. One of the most impressive things that I’ve seen, Linus Roache, a British actor who began in soaps a long time ago, has child acting credits from back in the 1970’s even – and played King Ecbert in the Vikings series. I don’t know what season that was on at moment, it’s the one where the Vikings win some large battles in England, and King Ecbert of Wessex ends up becoming collateral damage. One of the stand out, stand out pieces of work by any actor, in television, movies, anything that I’ve seen.

    It won’t win him an Oscar, or even a mention. However, the odd time one does stumble across something in the world of television, and one wonders, why wasn’t that ‘in a movie’? It was done so flawlessly. Over and out.

  3.  by  Brian O' Hanlon

    Re: Television and Cinema

    There is one other comment that I’d make. Maybe it’s relevant in the context of the work the panel are doing at the present, reviewing for a series such as ‘Homeland’, where you’ve a lot of talent that are capable of working on larger or smaller screens, and indeed have careers in both formats. In the example of Linus Roache, it was a day-time television, or early evening television soap actor, who was able to move into the long-format television series of something like ‘Vikings’, and show the capabilities of that actor on a bigger stage.

    I would worry however, because back when actors such as Robert Carlyle, was foisted into our imagination for his part in movies like Trainspotting in the 1990’s, I’m not entirely sure there were movie directors around, who could make as good use of his abilities ever again. He was an actor Robert Carlyle who started in polite, safe, early evening time television in the British market too. However, he was capable like Linus Roache, of going the complete distance. It’s a different direction, to actors in north America who tend to move from movies, down into television. One sees it too with actors like Spacey, Wright etc on the new streaming services. Heck, even John Malkovich is doing television commercials now.

    This whole thing, of ‘the golden age’ of television. It’s time maybe to redefine what that is. What it means, is that one can grab actors out of the world of soap television, put them into larger and more ambitious television long-format productions – and who are entirely capable of going all the distance, right into feature length motion picture format – however, there just is not the talent in directing and producing in cinema, to be able to make proper use out of that resource. So the ‘golden age’ of television, isn’t really television at all. It’s a half-way house place, between television and movies, where production quality is just good enough so that one can glimpse the real talents of someone like a Carlyle or a Roache talent, without having to stick them directly into the role of a ‘villain’ in the latest bad ‘James Bond’ movie, or whatever. All the best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *