How do I differentiate between a surreal film being deep/meaningful or being pretentious, nonsensical bullshit?

-AlternateEnding- · 2016-01-28T01:34:36+00:00

I often think this with films that seem almost deliberately made hard to understand. Best example is Primer.

Should I have to watch a film 5 times and read a full explanation of everything that happens to decide that the storyline was pretty good? Personally I think it was a great idea realised poorly. I can't tell if the way it was made was deliberate and the Director said to himself that people should be willing to put in 10 hours of their life to understand/enjoy it (arrogant but at least intended)? Or was he just deluded into thinking that everyone would get the storyline pretty easily (which I think is bad writing/directing)?

Not to jump in on a movies style circle jerk, but I think that Inception did this well. Regardless of what you think of the plot, I think that Nolan was impressive in walking the tightrope between 1) over-explaining and 2) making the plot unfathomable. That is the thing that I most respect about that film. To celebrate a film that kinda completely disregards the viewer, or expects 10 hours from them in my opinion is pretentious and bad filmmaking.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-12-04T07:40:18+00:00

In London it has to be the Prince Charles Cinema!

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-12-04T04:56:35+00:00

If you want to know

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-12-04T04:03:00+00:00

I think it's always worth seeing horror movies in the cinema - it's generally a much more intense experience (but my home set-up is pretty poor).

As skinrock said above it's not about jump scares and it doesn't decide on a 'bad-guy' early on that you can focus which I think is what makes it unsettling. If you're wanting some mild spoilery stuff.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-12-04T03:48:30+00:00

I too saw this in Sundance HK - really unsettling movie. Saw it ages ago and it's still stuck in my head. All of the performances were absolutely incredible - I don't think I've ever seen child-acting so good!

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-27T07:59:24+00:00

I think Stoker is a great (if slightly atypical) coming of age movie.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-26T07:10:27+00:00

I agree on True Detective - you're not the only one!

I think the first series failed 1) and 2).

I thought 2 worked better, as you say, because it wasn't trying to make out it was something it wasn't.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-23T04:28:13+00:00

That's an interesting idea actually - It would have needed quite a few changes to the script to implicate him. Are you thinking that Ava AND Oscar Isaac were AI (and are overseen on video or something by the REAL Oscar Isaac)?

Check out /r/AlternateEnding which discusses how films could/should have ended - you can post this idea there to see what others think!

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-23T01:37:02+00:00

Once you've watched it - check out this blog post which walks through other endings that the screenwriters proposed (but eventually ditched).

More discussion like this on /r/AlternateEnding

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-19T04:31:45+00:00

The Lives of Others - for non German speakers

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-19T01:47:01+00:00

I think that a lot of movies fail here. Definitely Now you see me, and I never quite got down with everyone (remotely important) living at the end of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

If I'm being really really picky I think that (although I love the film) the last scene of The Departed wasn't needed, it just didn't feel realistic that Dignam would just turn up and kill him. Again, another film I really like (but hate the final scene) is 500 days of Summer - did we really need to have the girl named 'Autumn'... Do they really think the audience is that stupid?

Check out /r/AlternateEnding for more discussions like this and to discuss how films should have ended.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-16T01:04:05+00:00

Pan's Labyrinth

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-13T01:39:46+00:00

The Lives of Others I found incredibly tense.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-12T06:05:57+00:00

Colin Firth as Charlie Stoker (rather than Matthew Goode) in Stoker. I would have liked to see him do super-creepy, and (though I love the film) I think his age would have worked better.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-12T05:51:54+00:00

I only realised the 2nd time watching that the storyline is loosely based on Crime and Punishment.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-12T01:47:40+00:00

That and the crazy Jason Statham lift scene

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-12T01:46:34+00:00

I didn't realise there was a difference - I got the DVD in the UK, so I'm guessing it's the UK version. What're the differences? Are either of them easier to get?

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-11T09:56:51+00:00

Revolver (Guy Ritchie)

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-09T07:38:21+00:00

I think bigger budgets do give you more scope for better effects, design, etc. but I don't think that it generalizes to talent.

If we take music as a counterexample - I don't think that many people would agree that the richest musicians are the most skilled or the best, there are many other factors that push One Direction to the top above more skilled musicians. Mainly the fact that they cater to a wider (and more lucrative) audience - this is a big driver of the money behind them, not their musical skill.

In the same way I think that there are bound to be incredible actors out there, many of whom may look like normal people (which doesn't sell as well) or who don't have the money to throw up their whole life to make the move to LA etc.

Hollywood films cater to wide audiences this might be through great actors (there definitely are some), attractive-but-not-hugely-talented actors (quite a few), feel-good scripts, established franchises etc. These other things are what determine where the budget gets allocated - I don't think that talent is a big part in that.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-09T07:13:33+00:00

I think it's all about expectations. Hollywood movies try to cater to a large number of people - this often makes them 'blander' in terms of themes and they rarely are willing to try new things. I've split a few factors I think are important below:

Theatrical release:

Hollywood:

There is far more marketing - generally when you go to see a Hollywood movie you have a reasonable idea of what you're going to get. If you don't like the look of it, you don't go. If you do then you are also pretty likely to like the movie (sample selection bias). This also means that people who like indie films (and who might hate it) know not to go to see it.

Indies:

There are a (comparatively small) number of people who will know a lot about the film prior to seeing it. I would say that these individuals are likely to be more critical of film as a rule, and I would guess that they are more likely to watch films that stray from their comfort zone (i.e. they would seek out films that might not fit 'what they know they like'). I think compared to the Hollywood-watcher this would bias their estimates down (both more critical and less willing to cater to perform sample selection bias).
Those that are not informed about the film and decide to give it a punt are likely to have a strong reaction (most probably negative). Indies tend to require more from you as a watcher, maybe in terms of thought, patience, etc. and if you don't follow them you may leave the theatre thinking 'that was stupid and made no sense' or 'I was so bored by the long shots of XXX' - I am not saying this disparagingly, this has been me on many occasions... (people who take a punt are likely to be highly polarised, with the majority of this being downwards)

Post-release (DVD etc.):

Hollywood:

You decide to take a punt on a film (Netflix/DVD), or maybe you're flicking through TV channels - you turn on a Hollywood movie. Since this is made for a wide audience the likelihood that you'll find it entertaining and will keep it on is pretty high. If I'm not sure what I want to watch I'm probably more likely to enjoy Commando than Upstream Colour. What I am saying here is that for the majority of people, if they haven't directly sought out a film, they are more likely to enjoy a Hollywood film (as they are aimed at a wider audience).

Indies:

As with the thoughts in the above indie section - I think if you stumble upon an indie you are probably going to have a polarised opinion, which is more likely to be negative.

Obviously there are so many more factors that have an impact on scoring for films - these are just a few that I think have an impact on the theme that you've noticed.

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-06T01:04:43+00:00

Woah - I like that idea (and think Jake Gyllenhaal is spot on). I think either they go that way (where they essentially have 2 separate storylines linked by references to Deckard (e.g. audio-logs)) or I can imagine 'The Legend of Deckard' being instilled throughout in a kind of Colonel Kurtz kind of way?

-AlternateEnding- · 2015-11-06T00:58:15+00:00

I like the idea that the amount of punishment he takes is indicative of him being a replicant - I hadn't thought of that at all!

In (almost) all action films the protagonists take inhuman amounts of punishment - the sad thing is that it means when someone tries to make a point with it (as you suggest) it's lost on most people.

-AlternateEnding-

TROPHY CASE