MovieChat Forums > Session 9 (2001) Discussion > This movie is not more than 'ok'. Here's...

This movie is not more than 'ok'. Here's why.

posted 14 years ago by CogburnSwale
34 replies | jump to latest

This movie is okay. It's an okay watch, but nothing more. Why do I need to write this? I mean, I'm okay with people having their own taste - so why? Well, primarly because I feel sad that people fool themselves when it comes to this movie.

My arguments? I share them with well-known critics.

First of all: It's like a poem. And you can always overrate a poem. And, trust me, you can always interpret more than the "creator" intended. People tend to do that. Sure, you cannot prove that. But try it yourselves. Write a poem in twenty minutes and give it to ten learned friends. You'll see how many different things they'll say about it if you're just ambigous enough, even though you only spent 20 minutes with it. They'll most likely overrate it and interpret things you never intended. That's because they think that there's more to it. Sadly, in this case, there isn't anything to it. It's not more than just "okay".

1. Underwritten characters. Couldn't care less for any of them.

2. The ending is unconvincing and far-fetched.

3. Being too artful isn't always good. This movie tries too hard to become a cult classic, and when it becomes too obvious it just destroys the mood. Not okay.

4. Too long, often completely aimless, a so-so script with plenty of plotholes.

=====================

Now, this doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the movie. I mean, it's okay. But hey, please don't overrate. It's not fair.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CogburnSwale 14 years ago

Wow. That was the most pointless post I have ever read. I'm sorry. If you're post was meant as an analogy, it failed pretty heavily. Why? Well, because I find vegans strange and tasteless. They don't know what's good in life, obviously.

And, just so that you know: You have too much time on your hands.

[–] megatori 14 years ago

and that reply demonstrates perfectly just how good of an anology it was

[–] Guamley 14 years ago

Sorry pal, but you got owned and it was done in a constructive and friendly way.
Kudos to the vegan.

P.S. As a meat eater you've given me something to think about.

[–] han-skat 13 years ago

That vegan is full of crap. Trying to compare a lifestyle choice with a movie is idiotic at best. Movies are just harmless entertainment and most are over in some 2 hours or so. Being a vegan is a lifetime long choice. How smart that choice is however, is another discussion.

[–] Zando777 12 years ago

No vegan has ever owned anyone or anything.

And anyone who thinks meat doesn't taste better than veggies is completely self-deluded. There's a reason our ancestors began hunting/fishing, even though other vegetarian food forms were more easily available.

(You can enjoy lean meats without becoming constipated or lethargic. Vegans, however, are pretty much doomed to being weak and listless.)

The Vegan would've had a better argument if he had said "Your post reminds me of the argument I had with my friend about whether vanilla ice cream was overrated. It's purely subjective, so it's not worth discussing."

On the other hand, the symbolism and meanings in this film are pretty obvious, so it's hard to argue people are simply reading into it.

[–] josephinemuscat 14 years ago

Actually I thought (although lengthy) it was a pretty spot on analogy.
He's right ya know, I think it's a great movie and pretty much nothing you or anyone else could say would change my mind about it.

[–] CogburnSwale 14 years ago

That's because you have low standards.

[–] featheredsun 14 years ago

You have now killed all art criticism for ever and ever. Thanks bean eater!

[–] mclean_justin 14 years ago

Hey,

First, I totally agree with what you are saying.

Secondly, is your tag quote from 'Titus Andronicus'? Awesome!

"I like your style, Dude..."
[_]D
"I did it! With my spear!"

[–] englisher101 12 years ago

When you eat 1,000 Wendy's chicken nuggets (over time, of course), you construct a strong correlation between the idea of what "chicken" tastes like and the taste of Wendy's chicken nuggets - and 90% of what you taste when you eat a Wendy's chicken nugget is the breading.

Well, no wonder you think meat is tasteless. You've ruined your palate with overseasoned junk food blasted with flavor. Try fresh meat some time along with natural stock made from the bone. Try a chicken brine with none of the chemicals, preservatives, flavor enhancers you mention and you'll see that chicken does indeed still taste like chicken and that it tastes fantastic as is. Especially since you've been on a vegan diet for a while, your palate will be adjusted enough to discern more subtle flavors without all the flavor enhancers, seasonings, and sauces.

[–] TeaBunny 14 years ago

You sound like some film student who Knows It All.

>> My arguments? I share them with well-known critics. >>

LOL, what does that even mean?

------------------------
"Love means never having to say you're ugly." - the Abominable Dr. Phibes

[–] TheMonkofDestiny 14 years ago

My arguments? I share them with well-known critics.

Well damn, I guess you've one-upped everyone else for parroting the same high opinion of this film by parroting the opinions of others who hold it in a lesser regard.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] featheredsun 14 years ago

This is almost exactly how I feel about this movie. The actors did very well with a plot that is CONFUSING ON PURPOSE. Wow! You confused me, Mr Producer/Director/Writer! Bravo! Good job on not being predictable!

Too bad your story is not really scary or enjoyable.

And you know what art criticism (like a movie review) does? It lets other people find ideas they can use to order their thoughts and feelings. Pretty much a key element of being human in general. Helps us either assert our own understanding, further define it, or at least feel validated somewhat. Even this post, this thread, this whole damn site. A BILLION discussion and rating forums on the internet don't exist as a product of pure chance, ya know!

[–] PaintItRose 14 years ago

Seems like you quite agree with this other reviewer.

Taken directly from wikipedia article of Session 9:

"However, the San Francisco Chronicle film critic Edward Guthmann said "The story doesn't quite pay off, characters are underwritten and the surprise ending is contrived and unconvincing." Dave Kehr of The New York Times said the "film, too artfully conceived to deliver many overt shocks, often feels long and aimless." The film critic David Edelstein wrote in Slate that the ending was "a poor return on nearly two hours of ear-buckling, eye-stabbing incoherence."

Or you were probably paraphrasing it. Still, give some credit. The internet is not your backyard. People can tell when you are not being original or clever, and that you are just repeating what other already said cause you weren't smart enough to put if onto your own words.

Also, the movie is 1 hour and 35 minutes long. That's the standard lenght of a horror movie.

[–] SamaraShawn 14 years ago

Bravo, Rossana!! That was hilarious.

And the Vegan analogy just made my day.
I personally think this was a fantastic film. The build-up was awesome and the climax was even more amazing. The acting wasn't so great at times, but it was different. And I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be ambiguious.. Which I love. I think the last line in the movie when Simon is speaking is one of the greatest closing lines in a movie. I love it when I get so sucked into a movie that I can't stop thinking about it for days. To me, it means the movie did it's job, being memorable. But, hey, everyone has their OWN opinions. That's why you shouldn't try to change any one else's... There's honestly no point.

[–] nickoten 14 years ago

I can't believe someone just made a gigantic vegan analogy to imply that discussion and criticism of a piece of art is pointless.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zando777 12 years ago

The vegan analogy was retarded, as well as internally unsustainable as factually untrue.

That said, yeah, the movie itself was pretty good.

[–] alice009 13 years ago

LOL. awesome post by rossana liendo.

and yea 95 min is not nearly 2 hours.

[–] Zando777 12 years ago

What's awesome about breaking out your software to determine if someone borrowed a few phrases from critics they've already generally referenced?

Seems like a massive waste of time to me.

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

Yes, very annoying. The *beep* internet police: "You plagiarized *beep*

[–] Zando777 12 years ago

He did say he shared his views with others. Nothing more annoying than a citation nazi on the net. (Except maybe a grammar nazi.) This isn't a thesis he's submitting for his doctorate.

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

CogburnSwale:

I didn't like this movie at all, but your argument is one of the dumbest I've read in here.

[–] FearNtremblng 12 years ago

As an english lit. graduate, I have to disagree with this interpretation of the poem. Your explanation applies much more to the dilettante than a literary critic who treats his studies as something of a science. There's a very precise way to dissect a poem properly - background knowledge of the poet, manuscript evidence, archetypes and conventional symbolism, and of course one of the most important factors, understanding the poem in its canonical context, among other things. Sorry to nitpick, but I feel it sort of devalues your critique if you begin with a misunderstanding.

Other than that, I more or less agree with you though. I found the movie very mediocre. I'm not entirely sure about your third point, however. Personally it didn't have very much of an artful feel at all. When I think horror and art I think Dario Argento, not Brad Anderson - God no. And I didn't feel at all like this movie was trying to be a cult classic (after all, that would imply more of a B-movie feel and the cinematography certainly doesn't permit that).

Your second point is well taken though. The sheer amount of posts arguing about whether this movie is a psychological 'horror' or supernatural proves how confusing the association between Mary and Gordon is. I was also disappointed that the movie tried to pull off the whole psychological twist when it spent no time developing Gordon's "condition", and if it was supernatural it spent too much time developing the psychological aspect of the Mary Hobbs story. It seemed the movie itself didn't know what it wanted to do.

[–] vojkan087 12 years ago

''The sheer amount of posts arguing about whether this movie is a psychological 'horror' or supernatural proves how confusing the association between Mary and Gordon is.''

The sheer amount of US citizens arguing about wherther Europe is a country or a continent shows how confusing the Europe is???

It is not the directors' fault their audience is mostly ignorant and obnoxious, overindulged in cheap scare horror movies, idiot friendly plot lines and ghost stories?

[–] FearNtremblng 12 years ago

But doesn't the director, first and foremost, have an obligation to understand his audience before he begins, and upon understanding their limitations and strengths, create a film that they can then comprehend? If he fails to do this, then who is he directing for? What was his purpose? He nullifies himself if he fails to understand the audience - the audience is the reason he has a job after all.

Btw, your comparison falls rather short, I've not heard too many people debating this European quandary you speak of. Not to mention, my observation does have some legitimacy to it when applied to film - if many viewers cannot figure out what on earth the CENTRAL theme of the movie is then that is a huge problem. And it's a problem that results from a filmmaker not having adequate control over his medium.

[–] rc_lrd 12 years ago

"But doesn't the director, first and foremost, have an obligation to understand his audience before he begins, and upon understanding their limitations and strengths, create a film that they can then comprehend?"

No, I don't think so.

"Catering to the masses" is not "the job" of a director, any more than it is "the job" of an painter or a musician. First and foremost, a director's obligation is to be committed to his own personal vision of what he wants the movie to be. If he succeeds in that, the movie will find it's own audience. "The audience" for a movie simply consists of those people who appreciate it.

The fact that many people have been enthusiastic about "Session 9" (and that even many who were baffled by it, or disappointed because they came to it with prior expectations, have been intrigued enough to come to IMDB to talk about it) is sufficient evidence that the director succeeded. Some movies are ambiguous because they are meant to be ambiguous.

[–] FearNtremblng 12 years ago

"First and foremost, a director's obligation is to be committed to his own personal vision of what he wants the movie to be. If he succeeds in that, the movie will find it's own audience."

This is a very nice, ideal way of approaching the subject, but I still disagree. Of course you're right in saying his first obligation is to his own personal vision, but with this obligation comes the equal necessity of having to communicate this vision. Artistic communication is saturated heavily in convention because certain modes of expression are stronger, more intense and effective than others. One of the first things any artist acknowledges, whether consciously or not (and if it is acknowledged unconsciously it would be more due to the fact he is seasoned and understands this instinctually), is who is audience is or will be. To create something "purely", that is, without any care towards who will be receiving it, is preposterous: how would you begin? Certain modes of expression can only be used for certain audiences and without a clear idea of who this audience will be the artist will end up using expressions that appeal to multiple audiences but do not mesh together, and hence he will constantly be isolating portions of his audience throughout the work because he hasn't taken the time to construct a cohesive unity of artistic expression. This is not how art is made, and it's a well established fact that artists begin by deciding who they are going to be addressing in order that the address succeeds. Would we advise the head of our nation to write a report without telling him who the audience is, but only what the subject is? What if he writes it for a fifth grade audience but had to present it to other national leaders? It's an absurd way to compose anything.

And the fact that many people have come to IMDB to discuss Session 9 does not prove its success, how silly. First of all, this word 'many' is a lovely but unsubstantial determiner: it has no clearly outlined context. If this word 'many' is going to mean anything it would only be something if we first knew how many people exactly watched Session 9, and then we might be able to use this convenient word with some accuracy. But we don't know that, all we know is that a number of people have come to these boards and we are not sure if that number represents 20% or 80% of the total audience. And we must also look at how these people are reacting to the movie. Even if 80% of the audience decided to come here to discuss the film, if the majority of them were frustrated by it or disliked it then that is not proof the director succeeded: his first obligation, we must remember, was to successfully communicate his unique artistic vision. If many people are frustrated with his attempt the communication was unsuccessful.

"Some movies are ambiguous because they are meant to be ambiguous."
True, but this is dangerous territory because some movies are ambiguous because they were handled poorly and their vision not properly manifest. Let's not forget this aspect, which fans of a particular movie are always so quick to deny. There must be some measure of artistic justification for ambiguity, otherwise any artist manqué might hide under this convenient disguise.

[–] rc_lrd 12 years ago

Hi 'FearNtrembling' ~
I agree with everything you've said, and you've expressed it beautifully. I am with you when you say "some movies are ambiguous because they were handled poorly and their vision not properly manifest." But I don't accept your opinion that Mulholland Drive is in that category. I think David Lynch knew exacly what he was doing. I believe he did have a particular audience in mind - the kind of movie enthusiasts who like to be presented with a puzzle, who like to look for clues and piece them together to arrive at an interpretation.
I posted my interpretation here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/board/thread/215632058?d=215632058 &p=1#215632058

[–] FearNtremblng 12 years ago

I don't remember grouping Mulholland Drive into that category, I think you're thinking of someone else.

[–] rc_lrd 12 years ago

OOps. Very Sorry! Been watching too many movies lately - got muddled .

Anyway, what I meant to say was "I don't put Session 9 in that category..."