|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 3, 2017 23:47:55 GMT
Something that I was kicking around in my mind, and thought of discussing. I'm not even talking about subplots here. I'm not one to let my disbelief cloud my enjoyment of something too badly (you're talking to someone who'll give Jurassic World's militarization subplot a slide), but every so often, something fundamental to the movie's identity and/or logical center comes around that taints what would otherwise be a decent movie.
Anyway, Chronicle -outside of its found footage setting- I think is actually a pretty decent movie. It's thoughtful, fun, and pretty emotional to boot, outside of its limp opening and closing.
But - as I've stated several times in the past - the movie's found footage roots completely undermine it. So much of this movie, when I'm not having my "put the camera down" fits, I'm left baffled by the inconsistent logic of the handheld shooting (Apparently Dehaan gets it to catch his father abusing him to turn in, but he just carries it everywhere like it's a thing that people do? And he records himself sneaking into restricted places, pulling awful pranks, having wild parties with underage drinking, and a bunch of other things?). And that's not even factoring in the leading woman (whoever she was) not putting the camera down as the city is getting wrecked, and she is in a dangling taxi cab. But the movie really shoots itself with the climactic final fight, where it throws any pretense of documentation and realism out the window, by basically going into full on cinematic editing (at least, with whatever "footage" the "documentarians" could find that was salvageable), with so many preposterous angles it's hilarious. Would it have really been too much to buy a few more cameras, and shoot the movie like a *movie*?
Now I release the floor to all of you.
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Sept 4, 2017 0:06:49 GMT
District 9 incorporates docu style horribly... so are they filming the aliens plotting against the humans, the gang deals, sacrificing the aliens, the protagonist suffering, and so on... if so, then what? If not, then stop acting like it.
many time travel films... ugh... don't get me started
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Sept 4, 2017 0:10:02 GMT
Most recently Kong: Skull Island and Alien Covenant both made me want to scream at the screen.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 4, 2017 0:14:42 GMT
Well it doesn't hurt my enjoyment of it because I love everything else about it, it's a personal fave, but there is no way Travolta letting Nancy Allen leave by herself makes sense in Blow Out A friend always comments to me as this being an example of a film I let off the hook for its logic flaws because I love it so much..........and she's right. As for one that does ruin my enjoyment, I will never like The Shawshank Redemption for all of its wtf moments (just one example: no one checks behind the poster of Rita Hayworth for how long? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight)
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 4, 2017 0:29:28 GMT
Well it doesn't hurt my enjoyment of it because I love everything else about it, it's a personal fave, but there is no way Travolta letting Nancy Allen leave by herself makes sense in Blow Out A friend always comments to me as this being an example of a film I let off the hook for its logic flaws because I love it so much..........and she's right. As for one that does ruin my enjoyment, I will never like The Shawshank Redemption for all of its wtf moments (just one example: no one checks behind the poster of Rita Hayworth for how long? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight) What about the greater issue that Andy hides his rockhammer in the Bible, but Warden Norton doesn't look inside, or find anything odd about how it weighs? Although, I honestly find most of those incidental and excusable, personally.
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
Post by AKenjiB on Sept 7, 2017 4:42:22 GMT
District 9 incorporates docu style horribly... so are they filming the aliens plotting against the humans, the gang deals, sacrificing the aliens, the protagonist suffering, and so on... if so, then what? If not, then stop acting like it. many time travel films... ugh... don't get me started I rewatched District 9 a month ago and I'm pretty positive that most of the movie isn't in a documentary style. There are obviously several portions that are documentary-based but the scenes you mentioned were not. All of the scenes that did the docu-style have an MNU label in the bottom right corner. The scenes that are just normal filmmaking don't have this label. This clip exemplifies the mixture of documentary style and traditional filmmaking pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 8, 2017 0:01:04 GMT
Trance and Edge of Tomorrow just off the top of my head. Basically any movie that relies too heavily on convenience and coincidence is going to rub me the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Sept 8, 2017 15:21:27 GMT
Looper
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Sept 8, 2017 18:12:43 GMT
Mmm, I really enjoyed The Sixth Sense, but I think that M. Night Shyamalan became very guilty of this trying to recapture the glory after The Sixth Sense. Well I still haven't seen all of Lady in the Water or The Happening, so maybe he's not as guilty as I think he is.
As much as I enjoyed Signs and especially The Village, I couldn't think about the "logic" going on in them. With Signs, unless one believes the theory that it was all a dream, I try not to think about why aliens whose weakness is water would come to Earth. With The Village, I guessed the twist even before I saw the film, but I still try not to think about how the elders could have pulled off something like that without someone eventually catching on because I didn't buy the explanation that in the film that just because airplanes didn't go near the area and because they had some costumes that was enough to fool the young people.
Also, I'm not sure if my enjoyment was ruined by thinking about the "logic" of it too much, but it was a film I first enjoyed that later I began to dislike when I thought about it too much and that's Juno. I think the acting is great, and when I first saw it I was charmed by it. Somewhere along the way though, I began to sour on it. I don't know if it was because all of the Juno-speak was irritating me so much or that I thought it was overhyped, but later I just began to pick it apart.
One of the major things for me later was that Paulie doesn't seem to care about being the father at all. Maybe because we never see his point of view, but it just seems really convenient that he doesn't care either way. I'm not expecting him to want to keep the baby, but he doesn't seem to care at all that he got Juno pregnant or what kind of repercussions could happen because of that. Even her parents don't really get mad at him except for one line by her dad that's meant to be comedic. I'm not expecting a shotgun wedding or something like that, but it doesn't seem realistic, imo, that if parents know who got their underage teenage daughter pregnant, that they wouldn't reach out to that guy and talk to his parents about the situation if he's underage too. It's even more frustrating to me that I could see another unwanted pregnancy happening at the end of the film because deciding to go the adoption route never seems like a huge deal as far as Juno's feelings towards her baby and because her and Paulie get back together again as if she didn't just have his baby that she gave up for adoption.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Sept 8, 2017 18:51:43 GMT
As much as I enjoyed Signs and especially The Village, I couldn't think about the "logic" going on in them. With Signs, unless one believes the theory that it was all a dream, I try not to think about why aliens whose weakness is water would come to Earth. There's also the theory that they are actually demons and are susceptible to holy water, which is what is subscribe to.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Sept 8, 2017 18:53:09 GMT
This is the most perfect example for me. If I'm picking away at everything at a movie's established rules before we've even got to the second act, then something's fucked up.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 9, 2017 1:53:43 GMT
I really don't like the film, but I genuinely can't understand how anyone can watch The Shining with the logic that Ullman the manager would replace the caretaker who butchered his family with a guy who looks like he just broke out of an insane asylum, one that a thorough background check (as one would expect someone to do after their last guy went crackers and killed his family) would show has a history of alcohol abuse and breaking his kid's arm.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 11, 2017 16:48:01 GMT
I really don't like the film, but I genuinely can't understand how anyone can watch The Shining with the logic that Ullman the manager would replace the caretaker who butchered his family with a guy who looks like he just broke out of an insane asylum, one that a thorough background check (as one would expect someone to do after their last guy went crackers and killed his family) would show has a history of alcohol abuse and breaking his kid's arm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that a flaw of the novel, too? I can't say for sure, but fans of it have told me they both have that issue (though I guess book Jack is more sympathetic). Granted, you're not wrong. I feel like character took a back seat to atmosphere that entire movie. It's a powerful and unforgettable atmosphere, but still geared more to style. Id just like to see someone take another stab at the story. But not written by King himself. That miniseries was horrid.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 11, 2017 16:53:50 GMT
I really don't like the film, but I genuinely can't understand how anyone can watch The Shining with the logic that Ullman the manager would replace the caretaker who butchered his family with a guy who looks like he just broke out of an insane asylum, one that a thorough background check (as one would expect someone to do after their last guy went crackers and killed his family) would show has a history of alcohol abuse and breaking his kid's arm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that a flaw of the novel, too? I can't say for sure, but fans of it have told me they both have that issue (though I guess book Jack is more sympathetic). Granted, you're not wrong. I feel like character took a back seat to atmosphere that entire movie. It's a powerful and unforgettable atmosphere, but still geared more to style. Id just like to see someone take another stab at the story. But not written by King himself. That miniseries was horrid. Yeah, but Jack looked like an average joe and his hiring was in large part due to an AA acquaintance of his who was on the board of governors for the Overlook. And yeah, the novel's Jack is far more sympathetic and far less villainous than the film's version. Again, I don't mind liberties taken with the source material, but they have to make sense and work, and Kubrick's changes did not work.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 12, 2017 2:59:20 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that a flaw of the novel, too? I can't say for sure, but fans of it have told me they both have that issue (though I guess book Jack is more sympathetic). Granted, you're not wrong. I feel like character took a back seat to atmosphere that entire movie. It's a powerful and unforgettable atmosphere, but still geared more to style. Id just like to see someone take another stab at the story. But not written by King himself. That miniseries was horrid. Yeah, but Jack looked like an average joe and his hiring was in large part due to an AA acquaintance of his who was on the board of governors for the Overlook. And yeah, the novel's Jack is far more sympathetic and far less villainous than the film's version. Again, I don't mind liberties taken with the source material, but they have to make sense and work, and Kubrick's changes did not work. Another reason why I'd love to see a new rendition combining the best of King's emotion and depth, but with Kubrick's mood and visual quality. Not that I think either has translated to screen that well, but I can't deny that while Kubrick's characterization is an afterthought, the absolutely bone-chilling atmosphere alone at least merited a recommendation. Ironically, the miniseries feels so concerned with hammering in the backstory and is so preoccupied with talking heads (and what I assume was King micromanaging the hell out of every significant detail, even if the actual content was unwatchable), it completely peripheralizes the haunting atmosphere. I kind of hope that It's success will kick off another go at the story, because there's a lot of potential to be milked from it. Who'd you like to see bring it to life if they gave it another chance?
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Sept 19, 2017 4:39:15 GMT
District 9 incorporates docu style horribly... so are they filming the aliens plotting against the humans, the gang deals, sacrificing the aliens, the protagonist suffering, and so on... if so, then what? If not, then stop acting like it. many time travel films... ugh... don't get me started I rewatched District 9 a month ago and I'm pretty positive that most of the movie isn't in a documentary style. There are obviously several portions that are documentary-based but the scenes you mentioned were not. All of the scenes that did the docu-style have an MNU label in the bottom right corner. The scenes that are just normal filmmaking don't have this label. This clip exemplifies the mixture of documentary style and traditional filmmaking pretty well. I do not recall any distinct difference in how the scenes were shot
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 17, 2018 11:37:54 GMT
I'm bumping this thread - which was a great topic from Ryan_MYeah - because I've heard a lot of talk about this floating around in the last 2 Oscar seasons - and this thread was before 3 Billboards, Sex With Fish, Hereditary, Roma etc. Just curious what are some recent ones for you - I read in the Roma thread that the narrative is forced her boyfriend just happens to be in Los Halcones (I guess, not sure if that's mentioned by name) and how that plays out - didn't bother me at all, I'm willing to go along with it because you know, drama is like that, you have to go along with it to actually have a conflict...............but of course that's up until the point you can't go along with it. Blackkklansman started to lose me when Ron didn't cover his address or shows up at the stakeout for the lie detector scene (why, is he the only cop on the force?) - other people are like, because that's how it was, get over it. So that, coupled with my argument that I've made a lot on here in 2018 - that we are at a screenwriting low point, what are some other recent ones that rubbed you the wrong way that you are surprised people let slide.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 17, 2018 11:55:51 GMT
It's usually when a movie sort of breaks its logic that gets me bothered...Just like what pacinoyes mentioned about "Roma" - for a really long time the movie is so insistent on just calmly exploring the mundane and the tranquil, and it's so excellent at it, that it feels like a strange shift of its internal film logic when it suddenly decides to go full throttle on the plot only to slide back to its quieter nature later. I dunno if it fits your question but that's something that's been on my mind for a couple of days now.
I'm usually quite willing to buy things such as weird characters decisions and stuff like that because that can simply bring more colors to the films and make them more believable (since people often do act in unpolished ways).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 14:35:20 GMT
It's usually when a movie sort of breaks its logic that gets me bothered...Just like what pacinoyes mentioned about "Roma" - for a really long time the movie is so insistent on just calmly exploring the mundane and the tranquil, and it's so excellent at it, that it feels like a strange shift of its internal film logic when it suddenly decides to go full throttle on the plot only to slide back to its quieter nature later. I dunno if it fits your question but that's something that's been on my mind for a couple of days now. I'm usually quite willing to buy things such as weird characters decisions and stuff like that because that can simply bring more colors to the films and make them more believable (since people often do act in unpolished ways). I do have to say that I rolled my eyes pretty fucking hard when Fermin randomly showed up and pointed a gun at Cleo in that store . Of all the places, of all the people, the level of contrivance there was a bit much.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 17, 2018 14:50:46 GMT
Here's a classic one or two and hey might as well do it for two of the best films ever made - which like Roma might make you roll your eyes or would be defended by supporters as "oh shut up and stop analyzing it to death - it's just a movie!" :
Godfather II where Danny Aiello working for the Rosato's says "Michael Corleone says hello" - so is Aiello/the killers in on "the frame" or is it not a frame and Aiello is merely taunting Pentangeli (ie is the cop interruption is it was intended or is the cop interruption not intended and something that Hyman Roth came up with later that ties into what Aiello said?)? Which is it and do you think it's a "hole"?
I have seen people literally almost physically fight over that one and of course, Taxi Driver too - so much so there that people concoct a "dream" scenario theory for the ending - which I don't buy btw - but that many cops are pointing guns at him after that bloodbath and he walks out of that apartment at the end?.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 14:55:06 GMT
Godfather II where Danny Aiello working for the Rosato's says "Michael Corleone says hello" - so is Aiello/the killers in on "the frame" or is it not a frame and Aiello is merely taunting Pentangeli (ie is the cop interruption is it was intended or is the cop interruption not intended and something that Hyman Roth came up with later that ties into what Aiello said?)? Which is it and do you think it's a "hole"? Aiello ad-libbed the line on the day and Coppola liked how it sounded, but he didn't think about the fact that the lie only makes sense if it was planned for the assassination attempt to be thwarted by that cop. It wasn't, and the rationalization of it after the fact always feels like trying to excuse Coppola of having a lapse. It's a good line, but one that makes zero sense unless they intended for Frankie Five-Angels to survive the attack, and I don't think that was the intent of either the assailants or Coppola/Puzo in general. It's a mistake, but not a film-ruiner.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 14:56:58 GMT
Godfather II where Danny Aiello working for the Rosato's says "Michael Corleone says hello" - so is Aiello/the killers in on "the frame" or is it not a frame and Aiello is merely taunting Pentangeli (ie is the cop interruption is it was intended or is the cop interruption not intended and something that Hyman Roth came up with later that ties into what Aiello said?)? Which is it and do you think it's a "hole"? Aiello ad-libbed the line on the day and Coppola liked how it sounded, but he didn't think about the fact that the lie only makes sense if it was planned for the assassination attempt to be thwarted by that cop. It wasn't, and the rationalization of it after the fact always feels like trying to excuse Coppola of having a lapse. It's a good line, but one that makes zero sense unless they intended for Frankie Five-Angels to survive the attack, and I don't think that was the intent of either the assailants or Coppola/Puzo in general. It's a mistake, but not a film-ruiner. Well, we see that happen today with (white) mass shooters who walk into a public place, kill dozens of people, then are talked down and taken in quietly. The Aurora shooter, Dylann Roof, etc.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 17, 2018 23:23:45 GMT
I wouldn't say it really hurts my enjoyment of the movie since I love it so much, but every time I watch Doctor Zhivago something stupid always bugs me (watched it last night so I'm thinking of it) Zhivago deserts the army to go find Lara and we get that whole sequence of him trudging through the snow looking miserable. Then he gets to the cottage where she left a note for him and passes out in the bed from exhaustion or whatever. Then she's standing over him when he wakes up, and there's a time jump where's she's presumably nursed him back to health and we see him standing up and feeling better. Instead of his army uniform he's wearing the nice black turtleneck he has at the beginning of the movie in Moscow. I mean, really, did he travel all the way back across Russia just to get a sweater from his old house? Even if he cared about it that much for some reason he wouldn't have been able to since a war was going on and he was wanted by the Reds as a deserter. Lara was a spoiled rich girl so I doubt she could sew, so she couldn't have made it for him either and a sweater that nice couldn't have been handmade anyway. It's not like in the middle of the Russian Civil War in the middle of nowhere he could have just run out to the mall and bought a new sweater Before anyone says anything, no, I don't mind all the chance character meetings because that's part of the form of the Russian Epic. The protagonist magically getting brand new sweaters isn't.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 2,117
|
Post by cherry68 on Dec 17, 2018 23:39:23 GMT
countjohn They probably kept spare sweaters in the cottage. I have spare clothes in my mountains house for instance, even if it's mostly old stuff.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 17, 2018 23:47:17 GMT
countjohn They probably kept spare sweaters in the cottage. I have spare clothes in my mountains house for instance, even if it's mostly old stuff. Maybe, but it's the same one from earlier in the movie. I guess he could have had duplicates of stuff he owned in their other house.
|
|