MovieChat Forums > The Broken (2008) Discussion > Why Now?

Why Now?

posted 12 years ago by haunt_freak
9 replies | jump to latest

I didn't get why the doppelgangers were all of a sudden coming out of mirrors? Obviously it wasn't only happening to their family because the Asian guy was like, "My wife...."

I usually don't need everything spoonfed to me. Hell, ambiguity can be good for a film, but this was just too ambiguous. Can someone help me out? Did I miss something?

=============
Fear What's Inside...
http://www.facebook.com/interiorfilm

[–] auntie_vals_vaginal_douche 12 years ago

No, you didn't miss anything, it just wasn't explained, along with pretty much everything else...

natural police...

[–] davannacarter 12 years ago

What? It wasn't explained? It was entirely explained in the movie. Weren't you paying attention?

[–] auntie_vals_vaginal_douche 12 years ago

Huh? I was paying attention, yes. So, what was the explanation?

natural police...

[–] davannacarter 12 years ago

LMAO! I was just kidding. I agree with you 100% that virtually nothing in this movie was explained. I rated it a 1/10. I was just BS-ing you in the hopes that you'd come back and ask for the explanation. *rolls on the floor laughing*

Ah, it's such a bright and sunny day today and I am such a good mood. I think I'll go for a walk.

[–] auntie_vals_vaginal_douche 12 years ago

I did wonder if you were serious, but I was quite keen to hear a fabricated or mislead explanation.

natural police...

[–] davannacarter 12 years ago

I did wonder if you were serious, but I was quite keen to hear a fabricated or mislead explanation.

Lately, it seems that most of the movies I've watched are movies that virtually explain nothing, just like Broken.

For instance, Larry Fessenden's Wendigo is one of those movies. That movie is actually way worse than the Broken and you might end up liking the Broken if you see Wendigo. That movie starred Patricia Clarkson, Jake Weber, and the kid who played Stewie in Malcolm in the Middle. The Wendigo has got to be one of the dumbest horror movie monsters of the 21st century! I watched that movie over a year ago and to this day I still cannot understand how the producers got semi-major Hollywood actors to star in a movie with such a stupid-looking monster!

Just like with the Broken I came on imdb after watching Wendigo and was shocked that there are people who liked it. And not only that, they were trying to fabricate explanations for all the stupidity. Wendigo was as boring and nonsensical as the Broken. But what makes Wendigo even worse was the idiotic looking monster. When the Wendigo shows up I didn't know whether to laugh at how dumb it looked or cry at over the fact that I had wasted so much time watching a movie where the monster runs like he's got a corn cob stuck up his butt.

Wendigo was a movie that made the Broken look Oscar-worthy by comparison. The only thing that made up for watching that movie were all the negative reviews I read afterward on imdb. They were justifiably harsh and hilarious.

P.S. Just in case I wasn't clear enough: do not watch the movie Wendigo! If you have a choice between watching the Broken in slow motion or Wendigo during regular speed, choose the Broken!

[–] Warrior_Poet 11 years ago

Following you here from "Signs", just FYI. I actually enjoyed aspects of "Broken", but it was nebulous with very little explained. I don't necessarily mind that since there's more of an emotional logic going on here than actual logic, if that makes sense (kind of like the movie "Triangle"). In the end, though, although "Triangle" really engaged me, "Broken" did a pretty lackluster job of this, and is ultimately quite tepid. There's good stuff here, but its not fully realized in my opinion so falls short. I like not having things fully explained (like "Triangle" or "Take Shelter", which is also quite slow in pace), films that allow the viewer to fill in the blanks, but "Broken" is only moderately successful at this in my view.

Completely agree with you on "Wendigo". Wanted to like it going in, despite (or maybe because of) it's ultra-low budget, despite the quick flashes of that nutty monster costume, but watching it is like trying to walk through a vat of molasses that you want desperately to step out of but for some reason can't. I will say it has one of the most unexpectedly realistic sex scenes I've seen, though, and some solid acting. I liked the premise, the mind-play, and even the ending. But that thing is boring as hell (and "Unbreakable" is one of my all-time favorite films, if that provides a gauge as to my slow-mo-rometer requirements). It just takes much too long to get where it's going. It should have been a 20-minute short.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.

[–] davannacarter 11 years ago

You liked "Take Shelter"? You mean that dreadfully dull flick about that Ohio farmer who never once changes facial expressions (even Daniel Craig's Bond has more facial expressions), who might be crazy because his parents were crazy, and thinks there is some sort of "tornado Apocalypse" approaching so he builds a shelter? You mean you actually liked that awful dreck? And you "Unbreakable" was a favorite movie of your's? Wow. You seem to have a knack for adoring movies I hate with a passion.

I have my fair share of movies I adore that are labeled boring: The Leopard, Garden of Finzi-Continis, Long Day's Journey into Night, the Subject Was Roses, Hollywoodland, Good Luck and Good Night, Murder By Contract, etc. So I'm not knocking Take Shelter, Unbreakable, and Signs for being boring. I am knocking them for other reasons. Signs, Unbreakable, and Take Shelter have one noticeable thing in common regarding main characters: working class men over forty with children/loving families; these men hardly ever show any facial expression throughout movie; these men are experiencing things out of the ordinary; and they cannot connect emotionally with their loved ones. The movies themselves lack characters with any chemistry with one another; the movies also lack any real kind of acting because the characters instead express themselves with less emotional range than from a story with good acting (the adults always look dreary and depressed throughout); ambiguous endings for the sake of being ambiguous; and an aggravatingly sluggish tone that is about as engaging as watching a homeless man eat applesauce. How anyone can find those movies interesting is beyond me.

[–] Warrior_Poet 11 years ago

You liked "Take Shelter"?

Well, yes, but I didn't say I adore it. I was just using "Take Shelter" as an example of a movie where things aren't explained. But it's quite slow, too slow in fact. I do like it better than "Broken", however. Again, like "Signs", I can see why some may not like "Take Shelter". It moves at a glacial pace. Interestingly, regardless of facial expressions, I still identified with the character and was emotionally engaged. It was too slow, though. Some fat needed to be trimmed that wasn't, and that's sometimes the issue when a filmmaker has total control of their project without any external guidance (must like Shyamalan's later films).

Interestingly, I prefer more realistic, subdued, facial expressions. I'd agree with the lack of chemistry in "Take Shelter" and "Unbreakable". However, that's kind of the point of those movies. The characters are disconnected and drifting apart, later finding the beginnings of a connection again. I'm not sure that applies to "Signs", except that Graham is lost and is himself disconnected from his faith, his family, etc. But it seems we definitely have a different reaction to that particular type of subtle performance. I think for me its in part because it doesn't spell it out for me. It instead invites me to feel it with them, which draws me in. There's a line for that, however. Movies like "Wendigo" have that line. To an extent, "Take Shelter" also was too much, although just barely.

I'm not fond of obvious performances and dialogue because they aren't realistic (although I can certainly enjoy even a heavy CGI popcorn film with unrealistic dialogue if there's a witty aspect to it, or perhaps self-deprecating or making fun of itself). People don't act and speak that way. In reality people are clunky. They don't make sense half the time. They're self-contradictory. They're frail and capricious. For whatever reason I can identify with that type of quality in cinema, while others don't. People are just different. But that doesn't make it a bad film. It just makes it a film you didn't like. Ultimately, I think it comes down to personal preference, which is based on an individual's unique blend of life experiences. It's very subjective.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.