[deleted]
the film had a TON of plot holes
Well, played sir you are correct.
First there would have to *be* a plot, not just a series of random encounters, that any other film might have presented in 1/4 the screen time to tell a *story*.
This films infinite forget-ability is a testament to its lack of a compelling plot, which might otherwise be picked apart.
Sometimes less is more. You say that the events of the movie could've been covered in 1/4 of the screen time. Maybe so but what does that matter? A movie doesn't have to be moving from one thing to the next at a rapid pace to be entertaining or enjoyable. The same thing could be said about No Country For Old Men. Not a whole lot really happens but it's incredibly thrilling to watch the events play out at the pace they do because the movie has established a very particular tone and atmosphere where the viewer can feel like they're really watching these events play out in real time and are right there with the characters and there's no cutting from one thing to the next and quickly establishing what's happening before moving onto the next thing as soon as possible.
It seemed obvious very early on roughly how things would play out and the events that would unfold throughout the movie. The kids took his car and he wanted it back was the plot of the movie. Yes it's "paper thin" like you say but I don't see how that in and of itself is a bad thing. Sometimes people like simplicity in a movie. Not everything needs to be complex and multi-layered to have any sort of value. We're not reading a book. We're watching a movie and the setting and atmosphere that's set can be equally as if not more so of importance than the story and plot. I could think of plenty of examples of other movies where this is the case.
You personally didn't like it. It's not an objectionably bad movie because it lacks a complex plot. Obviously the majority of imdb and rotten tomatoes disagrees with your sentiment.
The rating on here will drop, and is markedly lower then RT, which was my original observation. And the majority of imbd has not even seen this film.
The bulk of if not the entirety of your post (slow films can be good, yes they can, this film is like no country for old men, no it isn't, etc etc) has already be been raised and responded to by me in earlier posts, but if saying the same thing gives you a last word win then have it.
Saying 'if saying the same thing gives you a last word win then so have it' is a very infantile and passive aggressive way of getting the last word. And I love it, so well done, sir.
I ahve to say, I thought the film was a 6/10 at best but still an enjoyable watch. It felt a little bit like a sort of TV one-off special rather than a film, but I think it did what it set out to do and never had any grand designs on being anything more than an intriguing little indie movie.
Same here -- I felt the Coen Brothers in this....
share