MovieChat Forums > The Dead Zone (1983) Discussion > 7.3?! Are you guys nuts?

7.3?! Are you guys nuts?

posted 16 years ago by danielbaird-1
121 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS AHEAD!

I know there's already a thread for "I didn't like it" but it was created about 4 years ago so you'll excuse me for starting another one.

I just watched this on TV tonight and thought it was terrible. It had a nice concept: guy wakes from coma to find he can tell the future etc. The whole concept was pulled off without any drama or drive though.

Basically all that happened in the movie was the main character ended up going from situation to situation using his powers until he was forced to save the future and kill a senator. This wasn't really a story. A story is when characters change, situations change, there is friction. Where was the friction in this story? There was none. They tried to add a little drama with the ex-girlfriend subplot but that never worked as you never truly care for their relationship or for the main character.

Christopher Walken's character is just so unsympathetic. You don't care for him. When his doctor says his powers will eventually kill him, you don't care. When you know he can't be with the woman he loves, you don't care. When he dies at the end, you don't care.

The events in the film were held together with coincidences and sometimes didn't even matter. At the start he helps the police track down a killer (who, coincidentally is one of the policemen) but what purpose does this have? None. It's just there for the sake of it, like the rest of the film. What purpose does the part of the movie have where he's helping the child to learn? None.

The point is, events happen in the story, but the characters never change, so there is no story, just a series of events. Usually in a proper story the events create change. Not here though.

Oh and there were a few plotholes / major coincidences / face palm moment going on:
- His ex-girlfriend ends up being one of the Senators aides and just so happens to end up at his door. Yeah right.
- They hold a parade for the senator RIGHT OUTSIDE HIS HOUSE, just so he can shake the senators hand and move the film forward.
- He gets shot by an old woman early on, the old woman then gets killed. He shook the old womans hand earlier though, surely he'd have seen her getting killed and thus would have known he was going to get shot?
- He tells his doctor that he can see into the future and thus can change the future. He then asks the doctor if he could go back in time and kill Hitler, would he do it? The doctor doesn't put two and two together and think "maybe he's thinking of killing someone."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] andreadavalos 15 years ago

"Basically all that happened in the movie was the main character ended up going from situation to situation using his powers until he was forced to save the future and kill a senator. This wasn't really a story. A story is when characters change, situations change, there is friction. Where was the friction in this story? There was none. They tried to add a little drama with the ex-girlfriend subplot but that never worked as you never truly care for their relationship or for the main character."

That's the whole point of the story... He goes through a bunch of situations "cursed" with the power of foresight, and he himself doesn't know why nor does he want it... and then when he meets Stilson towards the end it becomes all too clear what he must do. It all comes together. Very powerful stuff...

Also I disagree with what you say about Walken's performance... it drew me in totally... I gave this film 9/10 and certainly does not deserve less than 8/10.

[–] Bixbyfan 15 years ago

You're right. 7.3 is just wrong, so I gave it a 9. Maybe that'll help.

(To the poster above, Cronenberg did fire a gun -yes, with blanks- to startle Walken. It was Walken's idea. He suggested it because he has a serious fear of handguns.)

[–] oneloveall 15 years ago

There are a few moments that still hold up stunningly clear, but more that have dated within laughable ranges.

[–] ccjohnson0906 15 years ago

you're an idiot

[–] Reef-Shark 15 years ago

The only flaw I saw in The Dead Zone was the lack of transition between him assisting the police and attempting to kill a politician. Aside from that jump the rest of the film played out very well with good performances from the leads.

You just cannot write off Christopher Walken's performance- I mean this was still back in the day where he was a dramatic actor and not "That dude who pops up in everything to create some awkward laughs." His performance was top notch.

As other posters have stated: "THE ICE...IS GONNA BREAK!"

"There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking."

[–] I_can_get_you_a_toe 15 years ago

To be honest - I was surprised this movie had such a high rating. I liked it well enough and will more than likely watch it again, but like the OP said, you couldn't really give a damn about the characters and things just kept 'happening' with no real flow.

"Wash, Rinse and Repeat - Always Repeat"

[–] rayraysworld 14 years ago

I have just read the op's starting post on this thread and i have not read any of the replies as i don't need to. the op is clearly an idiot.
i never ever say things like that on here, but surely it's just a wind up and yet there have been so many replies.

as for saying the characters never change......well....walken starts out as a young and normal school teacher with a girlfriend and his life right in front of him. When he awakes, he has no girlfriend, no future, has magical powers and is told he is going to die and becomes stressed, uptight and very intense. Not much change, eh?
And whether you care for the characters or not, that is not even an issue. To say that things are deliberately put into the story is what you could say about any story ever written. You, my imdb compatriot, are an ass make no mistake about it.

[–] Reblef 14 years ago

Agreed. (Well, except for that "ass" part....)

Besides... not to defend this movie or anything (as far as I am concerned, it doesn't NEED defending), but sometimes the main character in a movie is not even SUPPOSED to be somebody we care about! (I do think Walken's character IS very, very sympathetic, but I guess I can imagine that other viewers out there might not agree with that assessment.) Is Robert DeNiro's title character in "Taxi Driver" somebody we should idolize? I imagine (hope!) that most folks would say "no." Just look at IMDb's Top 250, and see how many of THOSE movies feature utterly unsympathetic characters, including very often the lead role!

Anyway, thanks for putting that IMDB "compatriot" in their place. Well done.

[–] brefane 14 years ago

Another flaw is the predictability: give me a hand, I'll give you a vision. The film seems to be marking time between handshakes. Also, the film lacks momentum. It's episodic with abrupt transitions between what feels like intsallments of a weekly TV series. The expository dialog is a drag, and Stilson as played by Martin Sheen is so obviously scum that the scene of him blackmailing a political rival is unnecesary, as is the scene of Walken and Adams consumating their relationship. Unbelievable is that the father of the child who Walken is tutoring would not heed Walken's prediction. The man acknowledges he knows the person he hired is psychic. WTF!

[–] Reblef 12 years ago

I think there is another, better way to interpret that scene. All the father did there was admit that he knows about John Smith's supposed 'psychic' background. The father never said that he believes that Smith is a psychic, just that he knows Smith claimed to BE one... but that he hired him to be a tutor anyway.

[–] Mrpinkeye 14 years ago

agree with OP. exactly what i thought when i read the score! i gave it 5/10

[–] mecahill 14 years ago

I easily would rate this movie a 9/10. "The Dead Zone" makes it into my top 20 best films of all time. This movie is very atmospheric, tragic and emotional. Christopher Walken is excellent in the lead role and Brooke Adams is quite believable as his lost love. I don't think this movie has aged poorly either. It's as good now as it was in the 80's. The film moves along at a good pace while developing the characters too. The love story is very genuine (rather than so many contrived romances in films) and that is the best part of the movie. Also, Martin Sheen plays his character in an over the top style but I wouldn't have it any other way. His character is one of the most despicable lunatics ever! Again, this film conveys a heartfelt love story, great peformances and an interesting adaptation with a palpable dilemma.

[–] trinity-destler 14 years ago

You don't care for him. When his doctor says his powers will eventually kill him, you don't care. When you know he can't be with the woman he loves, you don't care. When he dies at the end, you don't care.

I cared. Johnny was a very sympathetic character for me. There's more than one way to set up a story. Most often the hero grows and changes, learning from the experience of the plot, but sometimes you have an unchanging hero-saviour figure who enters the story to alter the lives of others. Johnny is more the latter, though he does change over the course of the plot. He's an everyman, he receives an extraordinary gift at great personal cost, he resents it and hides from it, he comes to terms with it and uses it to effect good in the world. That's a progression. Andy Dufresne from The Shawshank Redemption is another example of this character type.

The serial killer plot is there to build from and set up the climax. It's important for Johnny's character because without it, he would not have acted on the other two visions. The child is there to show Johnny he can't hide from his gift or from his own compassion; he's a good person and he can't check out from the world because it was unfair to him.

I take your point about the doctor. He should have had an idea of what Johnny was planning. The rest of your "plotholes" don't hold water, as others have pointed out.

"It's that kind of idiocy that I empathize with." ~David Bowie

[–] daughterofolaf 14 years ago

Just because you didn't care about the characters doesn't mean no one else does, so you should change all of your comments to "I didn't care when..."

And the doctor DID put two and two together about him considering killing someone but he chose not to stop him. Obviously his "episodes" were legitimate so he wouldn't be talking out of his a$$ about it. But if their theory was that he was dying anyway and whomever he was talking about was going to commit atrocities comparable to Hitler then what good would it do to stop him? They both clearly felt he had no choice.

It's fine if you don't like the movie but I think some if it you just didn't understand.

"Why couldn't the monkey arrange this from INSIDE the garbage can?"

[–] Precognito 14 years ago

I gave this movie a 10 and Walken's character was absolutely sympathetic to me. Its one of my favorite movies because it is so emotional and sad. To say the movie didn't follow the typical script formula and that it jumps around only reflects Johnny's life and how nothing in it has order or makes sense anymore. This movie leads you down more of an emotional path then a "logical", or structured one. This man lost everything but you find that unsympathetic? What do you find sympathetic then?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]