I found that Memento needed a couple of watches.
Pulp Fiction isn’t all that difficult to follow, but sorting out the timeline completely needed a second viewing.
I’ve seen a couple of hard-boiled detective things that I can’t remember the name of that I just gave up trying to follow the plot. I’m thinking Burt Lancaster maybe, gaaah tip of the tongue…
Did we ever find out why that guy was thrown out of the window, as we’re assured it wasn’t for giving Uma Thurman a foot massage? And also, what did those three young guys do to deserve being killed by Samuel and John? Samuel says “No one fucks Mr Marsallis other than Mrs Marsallis” but quite how did they fuck him? I was forced to watch this film by my cousin who worshiped daily at its altar and consequently I didn’t enjoy it as much as I could have done (I also had to try and watch it with him giving a running commentary and wetting himself at anything vaguely funny, which didn’t help).
I’m with you and your spoilered remark, Campion! (Of course, you knew I would be.)
Both were just general drug and gangster shit as far as I can tell. Not McGuffins exactly, but pretty close. Certainly not core plot points.
I must admit it’s the only film I’ve ever came out of and bought a ticket for the next showing. However, I don’t rate it as highly now, and in fact the last time I watched it I fast forwarded big chunks. Jackie Brown is Tarantinos best film in my opinion, and by quite some distance.
So far Kill Bill (1 and 2 - I consider them one movie) is my favourite Tarrantino, but I haven’t seen Jackie Brown so I’ll add it to my rental list. Thanks for the explanation on the seemingly (and it appears actually) random violence in PF.
I loathed Kill Bill part 1. Didn’t bother seeing 2.
The guy tossed out the window isn’t completely random, it worries Vincent mightily when he has to go on the date.
Oh you should, it’s very good. Quite different for Tarantino in a lot of ways. It’s less gimmicky and more adult in theme I think, but still has his trademarks: great dialogue, great soundtrack, great performances from somewhat faded stars (Greer and Forster are both brilliant), in fact the whole ensemble are pretty great. It strikes me as a film where he genuinely likes a couple of his characters, and it shows.
You know, it may have been. I do remember struggling to make out the words, and I think you’re right.
But, of course, it makes me wonder: was it a brilliant film, suggesting even to the end an alternate plot? Or was it sloppy filmmaking, that they didn’t realize that they could have been telling an entirely different story?
Like the contents of the McGuffin-briefcase, that backstory was deliberately left untold.
It took me a few viewings to fully understand the first Mission Impossible. From what I’ve heard, the subsequent two were not nearly as hard to follow – which is a bit disapointing to hear. After all, the missions were deemed impossible.
Ocean’s Eleven took a second viewing to completely dissect the time line.
And, of course, I think the better part of the free world still does not understand how Billy Rae Valentine and Winthorp bankrupted the Duke brothers while simultaneously making themselves a fortune in Trading Places.
I’ll add LA Confidential. There are what seems like a dozen sub-plots going on in that movie that you think can’t all be resolved. Yet, by the final reel, they end up meeting together.
Chinatown is also another neo-noir that almost needs a road map to follow.
I lost my way with Syriana as soon as I saw how the foreign workers were living. It looked little better than concentration camp conditions. That kind of thing makes my attention wander and I lose the main thread of the plot.
I didn’t think the Sting was that bad to follow.
Lately, all movies that I watch at home have been really complicated to follow, since I’m usually doing two or three other things whenever a DVD is playing.
Syriana was so difficult to watch that I had to stop the movie halfway in and read the comments on IMDB.
Heh, yup, and I find myself sometimes just sticking on the subs and watching it x2 speed . Multitasking like a muthafuck.
House of Games, directed by David Mamet. Whenever you think you know what’s going on, the plot takes a hard left turn.
Memento and Vanilla Sky deserve their mentions, too.
Oh, I see Struan got Memento in post #21.
I like the OP, and the mentions of Syriana, The Good Shepherd and Brazil. Of other recent films in this category, add The Good German to the list. I didn’t have a hard time following them, because I sit so close (1st to 4th row, depending on the theater) I’m always intensely focused on the film, but 2nd viewings are always even more interesting.
Almost anything Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Terry Gilliam would fit (though all have had off days/films).
These are my favorite types of movies.
No, Stephen Gaghan directed Syriana, while Steven Soderbergh directed Traffic. Soderbergh was an executive producer on Syriana though.
There’s no shame in not getting what was going on the first time, especially since you were distracted (a definite no-no for these types of movies) but it is a shame that you don’t want to try again, because it IS a really good movie. I’ve seen it several times and it’s a delight watching the actors and listening to the dialogue, even though I know the “twist.” It’s one of those movies where knowing what happens and not being surprised by every scene makes way for being able to appreciate the acting, writing, directing and the whole setup. It’s really not THAT complicated, and, like most of the movies mentioned, it’s worth the effort.
I don’t know that that one would fit in with these, but I love that movie. Thanks for mentioning it. Regarding people, especially critics, who didn’t get it, that movie fits in a category more along the lines of Dumbasses Who Wouldn’t Know A Brilliant Satire If It Bit Them On The Nose.
Ooooh, that’s evil (assuming you’re doing it to great movies like Syriana).
I almost feel like David Lynch films should be a separate category. As I see it, these are art films with many abstract and stylistic elements, and the plots are in some cases open to many different interpretations.
Movies like Syriana and The Good Shepherd are like winding roads with many twists, turns, and exits. But a movie like *Mulholland Dr. * is like a huge forest with no roads at all. In the former movies, it’s possible to get to the destination (of figuring out the movie) as long as you follow the road correctly, confusing as it may be. But in the latter example, it is not really possible to objectively “figure out” the movie. Even Lynch himself has not explicitly stated the meaning of Mulholland Dr.
There are many good reasons to watch that movie - the dialog, the acting, the set design, the humor, the stylistic elements of each scene - but the plot is a puzzle with pieces missing, and deliberately so.
Minority Report. Plot quite complicated.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Plot relatively simple, but the time-jumping makes it hard to follow.
I agree–as do millions of other viewers (and fans).
