Not for stereotypical American audience
...it wasn't flawless, not at all, but when you read these complaints, it's really something. One guy even wanted more "punch lines". For god's sake, go watch some Marvel/DC annual *beep* or whatever.
share...it wasn't flawless, not at all, but when you read these complaints, it's really something. One guy even wanted more "punch lines". For god's sake, go watch some Marvel/DC annual *beep* or whatever.
shareI'm not American and I still think the film was mediocre at best. It was a simple chase movie with a predictable and vague ending. I think after about 10minutes everybody was well aware that this was going to have a Contact(1997) like ending. And it did. Chasing...chasing...chasing...some unexplained dialogue in between...chasing...chasing...vague alien encounter...THE END.
I don't really see a point to this film. It wasn't clever or particularly well made (though decent). If it wasn't for the great actors this could've just as easily been a TV production.
Wow. I so totally disagree. I adored this film and thought the filmmaking and storytelling was exceptional. To dismiss it as just a chase film is kinda offensive. Yeah, it involved a family trying to outrace the govt and the cult, but it was so much more than that in that it involved people devoted to their little boy and committed to protecting him. I thought the dialogue said just enough--reminded me of the sparseness of Mamet's dialogue--the visual, the action completes the meaning.
I wonder if this film simply appeals more to women than to men? Perhaps men wanted an action movie. I recall a lot of "guys" were dismissive of the film Knowing because they didn't like the extraterrestrials. They want Star Wars.
I did not want an action film. But what's the point of an adventure/mystery film with such a predictable outcome?
There is way better Sci-Fi out there dealing with actual philosophical questions or futuristic possibilities and there are way better films to explore family relations and the ties between a parent and a child (for example "The Road" if you want action, "About A Boy" if you want comedy or "Scent of a woman" if you want drama).
I think this film was failing at both fronts. Not colossally, sure, it was still decent but I wouldn't rate this higher than 6 (So slighty above average AT BEST).
You gave "Batman vs. Superman" an 8 and this a 6? No wonder you're a Hitchens fan (i.e. living in opposite land).
"This year I'm voting Republican. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky
he's actually being generous. considering what was tried to be achieved and what was actually delivered, the gap is much higher between both films.nevertheless 8 for bvs is a bit too generous.
shareI have no problem whatsoever admitting that I'm a sucker for everything Batman related but and in this case this was more of a balancing vote. BvS surely isn't an 8 but with the second Thor movie having an imdb rating of 7.1 (seriously what the actual *beep* and BvS at 6.9 I just had to go a bit higher than the movie actually deserved.
I don't get the whole Marvel can't do anything wrong and BvS is the worst movie ever attitude.
I gave UC BvS a 10/10. MS got an 8/10.
shareYou gave "Batman vs. Superman" an 8 and this a 6? No wonder you're a Hitchens fan (i.e. living in opposite land).
As a woman who just viewed this film, I have to agree with the OP, there just wasn't enough meat to this movie. The ending was predictable and there didn't seem to be any relevant point, lesson, or feeling, and I usually become pretty emotionally invested in films like this (and I tend to get fairly emotionally invested in movies like this). I don't expect every movie I watch to have a point or a lesson, but those are generally action or sci-fi with amazing graphics and a script that requires you to suspend belief regarding how it measures up to reality. Overall though, I did enjoy it, but it's definitely not a 10.
As an American, I prefer foreign movies in general, the actors/actresses are much more relatable (usually because they almost always look like regular people that represent the general population, they don't look over the top and glamorous in every scene) and the stories the movies tell seem more true to life. Of course that's not the case with every foreign movie though and occasionally Hollywood churns some of those types out there too.
Sums up my feelings perfectly^^
shareI agree with your assessment of the actors in foreign films. The same goes for television. Being accustomed to American tv shows that are almost entirely populated by models, I was surprised when I began watching British tv shows and found them to be inhabited by much more real-looking people.
shareYou're trying to come off as a holier-than-thou cinephile, but you just sound like a smug jerk. And a hypocrite. "Guys" dismissed Knowing because they wanted Star Wars? Some shallow logic you got there, pal.
share[deleted]
Yeah, no need to be condescending. I disliked this film for very many reasons, but none of them were "not enough action." The plot and dialogue were sparse and didn't hold your hand, which I admire. But I think there is a line between not holding the audiences hand and just being SO vague to the point of absurdity. I needed some character development, some emotion, some through line. The plot, of people protecting boy with vague powers of eye beams and comforting visions and earthquakes and telekenesis who belongs in a different world, just didnt do much for me. The pacing was plodding and aimless. And looking back on the film, I can't think of any scenes which I found particularly creative or moving - no performance, piece of dialogue, or scene that left much of an impression on me.
I am thrilled that you and others love the film, but no need to discredit everyone who disliked it and assume lack of intelligence. I am perfectly capable of enjoying films without machine guns and explosions, and simply did not enjoy this movie.
My feelings about this film exactly.
Spotlight Academy Award® Winner for Best Picture of 2015
[deleted]
As an American man I would like to tell you that not all Americans or men or American men want "Star Wars" or chases and and fights (although "Midnight Special" offered plenty of those). I like thoughtful movies and romantic movies, and haven't seen any "Star Wars" since 1980. "Midnight Special" was an interesting film that I enjoyed very much.
shareExactly. Too predictable. Done million times in Sci-Fi. And done a million times better.
share(To Hitchslapped)
Oh man, I remember paying to see Contact when it came out in theatres. What a horrible mistake!! It was already terrible that I paid to see that crap but to make things even worse, I dragged a poor friend along with me! :(
You're not as smart as you think you are. The fact that you liked a movie doesn't make you an intellectual giant that towers over everybody. Get over yourself. You're just a douche.
shareI thought the movie was great and understood what they did with the ending. I think this movie is probably beyond the comprehension of the LCD
shareDo you consider this an art house film, then?
What do you call a stereotypical American audience and how would you compare that to a stereotypical Canadaian, French, English, German, or Chinese audience?
Do you think the French don't make dumb action-thrillers? Do you think Chinese moviegoers lined up to see The Tree of Life? Have you never seen awful J-Horror?
Anyone who resorts to the tired cliché of the unsophisticated American audience only reveals their own naiveté and obsessive Americentrism. Travel outside of your own country and watch more foreign films before you disparage 320 million people.
[deleted]
I'm American. And in my opinion, it was a good movie. You are correct that it's not for the stereotypical American.
share[deleted]
Yes lets insult people who disagree with your opinion on a film lol
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2604794/
It wasn't a good movie and it has nothing to do with audience origin.
It wasn't great because it was about nothing. It wasn't an allegory for anything that I can see and so it was just a meaningless concept movie. It made no sense why this kid existed, why the alternate dimension existed, why the kid wanted to go there even though his family would be thrown in prison, and so on. There was no reason or implied reason why any of it was happening.
Also, I would assume the resulting aftermath of people witnessing the existence of an alternate Earth, on Earth, would drive millions to insanity over time.
There was no reason or implied reason why any of it was happening.
Also, I would assume the resulting aftermath of people witnessing the existence of an alternate Earth, on Earth, would drive millions to insanity over time.
Most people on IMDB are young. They don't understand that vagueness is a part of this films storytelling. Their short attention span makes this film unwatchable. They have no idea that this film lets you connect the dots.
It's not that they are young, they just haven't exercised their upper level cognitive functions very much. They have always had the internet, and their entertainment is chopped and freeform - two dimensional.
Part of the problem is the introduction of the computer into the educational system. Schools took it for granted that the kids would retainer high level thinking as they introduced the computer into the classroom. A percentage did, but the majority were really robbed. Schools just didn't understand the platform.
Take cursive writing for example. Most of us only had a few years experience reading and writing at an elementary level before they introduced cursive; and most disliked it until we learned it well enough to do it subconsciously. At that point we could not just write ideas on paper, but mould those ideas realtime and change the physical structure of our letters. This is high level. In today's world its about scanning multiple pieces of information quickly to understand; you don't study a book to understand, you spend 10 minutes looking at the key points from 4 videos and 3 articles. While this can be a huge benefit in some cases the richness of understanding can be lost - to the point where it's very difficult for many people to enjoy a movie that takes higher cognitive function to fill in the gaps.
It's a different way of thinking and they make movies with 3 second cuts and one sentence dialog to fill the niche - the screenwriters have to use hammer blows in the storyline and character development or the majority won't understand.
This post is five, poorly written, paragraphs long. Most people under 30 will feel like it's 10 pages and reading this will frustrate them. It's over 140 characters long.
I was looking for the "LIKE" button but that is on Facebook
shareFicoce- I think that I almost blew a gasket when I was told not to sign my cards to my grandchildren in cursive as they couldn't read it. BTW...I won that war and they can all read cursive now. I refuse to dumb down things to make it easier for others (I don't mean that I wouldn't take time to explain, because I would if they wanted to learn). Kids have become lazy at learning if it doesn't go by like the time it takes to change screens on their computers, iPads, video games etc..
Be well and be kind.
It's not that they are young, they just haven't exercised their upper level cognitive functions very much. They have always had the internet, and their entertainment is chopped and freeform - two dimensional.
I think you did a great job. IMDB posts are not supposed to be classic writing.
I also bemoan the jump cut approach to editing. It is cheap and dirty.
Also the two-shot, extreme close ups and crappy dialog.
But this is the smartphone generation's soup du jour. Watch the trailer on your phone while you're "talking to a friend. Voila! You've watched the movie and have an opinion to express!
The pumps don't work 'cause the Vandals stole the handles
Bob Dylan
[deleted]
I'm not young.
Thinking "vagueness" in a concept movie like this is intelligence is naive. It's just cheap.
Science fiction is called "speculative fiction" because it imagines how humans will adapt to changing conditions caused by technology. This contains nothing like that and is just a bunch of nothing.
I never said it was an intelligent film. I said "It lets the viewer connect the dots"
share[deleted]
"Science fiction is called "speculative fiction" because it imagines how humans will adapt to changing conditions caused by technology. This contains nothing like that and is just a bunch of nothing."
Plot lines surrounding human adaptation to technological circumstance is *not* the definition of Science Fiction.
Webster's dictionary defines it as: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component
Key words being "fiction", "impact of actual or imagined science" "having a scientific factor". Technology != Science.
Nat,
You just repeated exactly what I said!
That was stupid.
There's no impact on anything in this film; it's about nothing.
Adlerian,
For argument's sake, I'll go along with your definition of science fiction, although it does seem like it might be a bit narrow.
Science fiction is called "speculative fiction" because it imagines how humans will adapt to changing conditions caused by technology.
Also, I would assume the resulting aftermath of people witnessing the existence of an alternate Earth, on Earth, would drive millions to insanity over time.
I admire that this film doesn't hold the viewers hand, and allows watchers to "connect the dots" and fill in backstory themselves.
That being said, the lack of hand holding doesn't automatically make this film good or clever. I applaud it for being "different," but nothing in the film left much of an impression on me. I remained unmoved throughout, and never truly felt immersed. Never felt connected to any of the characters... Never felt any purpose or momentum, and I was truly disappointed when the child finally watched the sunrise and then knew that he belonged in a different dimension with his extraterrestrial kin...
I did admire the film, but I did not enjoy it.