The recent George Clooney flick “Syriana” required close attention to the complex interweave of subplots and characters. I haven’t seen “The Good Shepherd,” but friends tell me I can’t let my mind wander. Thinking back, another film that required close attention (IIRC) was “Brazil.” Some say “The Sixth Sense” falls in this category, but I didn’t find it hard to follow at all.
What movies would you add to the list of the demanding, complicated and hard-to-follow?
I can’t tell if it is poorly written or written very well. I’ll get around to renting again sooner or later.
Syriana is part of a genre of films that all have one thing in common - a complex web of seemingly disconnected storylines that ultimately converge.
While I haven’t seen all of them, similar films include:
Traffic (same director as Syriana)
Babel
21 Grams
Crash
Lost Highway, or for that matter anything by David Lynch.
I’m embarrassed to admit it but I still don’t know what in the hell the second and third Matrix movies were about. Not that I didn’t like them, but I just don’t get it.
I’d always heard about The Usual Suspects, and determined to watch it one day and it was going to be really good. Then a couple of weeks ago, I finally popped it in. I could not follow that sucker to save my life. I kept asking my boyfriend, “Is that that one guy?” and “What’s going on, now?” I was pretty distracted throughout the whole thing, but I’ll never know if the movie is really that hard to follow or if it was just me, because I don’t want to try it again.
The Dune movie. Even if you knew the book, the movie was just too loosely edited.
Which movie? There were 2 (one made-for-TV).
You’re not in a minority, Caridwen. I “got” the movies and so absolutely loved them when the rest of the movie-going population seemed to be disappointed by them compared to the first one. A recurring theme when I discuss them with people is that those who like them immediately say it’s because they “got them”, whereas people who don’t tend to say things like it was boring, wasn’t as good as the first, didn’t make sense etc.
For me this is the Wachowski’s biggest mistake, and quite surprising for a couple of guys that are clearly so intelligent. The most important scene of the trilogy is the part where Neo goes back to the source and meets the Architect. So what do they do? Write the dialogue for the scene in a way that is remeniscent of an HP Lovecraft novel and fail to actually highlight the most important parts. Not that I’m an advocate of dumbing things down, but the dialogue is unnecessarily ambiguous and impenetrable even if it is very intelligently written (use of latin in everyday speech isn’t a good thing). For those that went to see the film for the kickass explosions and more of Neo opening a can of whoopass on the computer dudes, there was no hope that the significance of this scene (and of the whole principle behind the film) was going to sink in.
There are some good sites that explain all of this in a way that’s interesting, may I suggest this particular one if you’d like to have it clarified: http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/051803matrix.htm and http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/031109matrix.htm in that order.
It was also shit.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but I remember having trouble following the first Mission: Impossible. Seeing it again, I knew what was going on, but when I saw it in the theatre I had to ask my friend what was going on with all the double crosses, disguises, and other stuff going on.
I had no problem following along, but based on the reviews, a bunch of professional movie watchers could not seem to grasp the subtle plot twists of The Last Action Hero.
No one’s mentioned “The Big Sleep” yet?
Apparently even the actors, nor the author understand everything that was going on in that film.
The Godfather Part 2(and also the imaginary sequel) was also difficult to follow at times.
The plot of “Vertigo” is not exactly easy to follow and after you figure it out, you think to yourself, “This is the dumbest way ever for someone to murder their wife.”
Fortunately, the movie is looks so good, you don’t care.
I’m not sure if this counts, but *Brick*. The plot was a bit off-kilter, but what made it harder to follow was the obscure language used. I spent a fair amount of time just trying to figure out what they were talking about. But I spent so much energy just trying to figure out what they were saying that I’m not sure if I liked it or not. I need to see it again, to see if it improves on second viewing now that I know what’s going on. (And I still think The Brain was behind the whole thing. Or could have been. Or should have been.)
I’ll nominate Donnie Darko
I’m going to say it’s a problem with the writing. I watched it multiple times and even drew a couple of diagrams (no, I don’t have a life), but I still couldn’t make heads or tails of the events depicted in the second half of the movie. Then I read the “solution” online, and while it does make sense in a convoluted way, the screenplay really doesn’t provide enough clues to reach this conclusion. IMHO, if a film presents a puzzle, an astute viewer should be able to solve it after the second viewing.
It’s still worth watching though, just for the fascinating premise.
Was it just me, or was the soundtrack really muffled in that movie, making the pseudo-noir jargon even more difficult to comprehend?
12 Monkeys, and anything that hops around in time, is not the easiest to follow.