I love a lot of the movies mentioned in this thread (especially all the Coen brothers’ movies), so I’m going to feel bad calling out a movie that quite a few people probably thought was genius, but I hated Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
It was such rambling, incoherent garbage that I couldn’t even finish it. Maybe it all got sorted out in the end, but in that case the rest of the movie was a terrible waste of time.
I did like the half-naked girls jumping on the bet though. For half a minute that movie rocked. Then it was back to confusing-in-a-really-bad-way-while-I-fall-asleep mode.
I remember the photography of that movie making me queasy and giving me a headache. Right after, we saw Dawn of the Dead, which calmed me right down. True story.
I don’t think this will help, because it’s not that in-depth, but since I had no clue what was going on in the movie, which I only watched once, I felt it was useful: WarnerBros.com | Syriana | Movies
From reading some of these threads, it seems like what many of us look at as complexity, texture, and depth… many others take for “clever convolution”. Is the adventure of thought and undrawn conclusions within a film so scary and alien that we must label them as negative attributes?
That’s what I was wondering, because this thread reads like a list of some of my favorite movies. In fact, I own most of them. I’ve always enjoyed movies that aren’t clear,m that leave situations unresolved and that make you think…
Complicated is not the same as convoluted. There is a point where a film gets too full of different things and twists etc and it’s not so much that such films are scary as hard to follow. I’m happy to expend mental energy taking in what I’m seeing (in fact I don’t generally like mindless films) but there comes a point where the film starts to become inaccessible.
Primer is a perfect example of this - I could follow the concept easily enough and got the general gist of what was happening, but what let it down (for me, anyway) was how the makers presented a lot of information without actually verifying what was going on. As the film went on you got more and more lost until by the point where I switched off I genuinely didn’t have any clue what was going on. I don’t consider myself stupid, yet I was completely bamboozled. I looked up one of the geeky websites that breaks down the timeline but it still doesn’t explain why a lot of things were going on and the film clearly didn’t want to make it too easy to work out.
I’m not proposing that all films should be spoon fed to us, merely pointing out that there is a line between complicated and convoluted and I think those that are on the latter side are less enjoyable than they could be and turn people off from understanding/enjoying them. If the makers don’t care about them being widely understood/accepted (as I believe is the case with Primer too) then fine. Me - if I write a story I don’t want people to get to the end and go “WTF was that?”.
2001,mostly watchable but the ending wasn’t so much clever as a lot of padding as was most of the film if you ever read the short story on which the film was based.
Donny Darko one of the worst pieces of tripe I have ever wasted part of my life on watching.
What I call being weird for weirds sake,very self consciously so.
If you think the torrent of “twist” movies from the last ~10 years which feature a main character that is either dead or has multiple personalities* is complexity, texture, and depth, as opposed to, say, the French new wave, which hasn’t been mentioned here . . . well, let’s just say you’re a target demographic.
*Fight Club
Secret Garden
Identity
The Sixth Sense
Haute Tension
The Others
Hide and Seek
For those who are knocking Eternal Sunshine, here is a heatfelt recommendation… stay far far away from The Science of Sleep. It’s a million times worse.
I was all set to love that movie. As far as directors go, I think Michel Gondry is a bloody genius and has an incredible way of visualising a story. I also happen to think Gael Garcia Bernal is the cat’s meow (and also very easy on the eyes). Hell, I actually LIKED Eternal Sunshine, for crying out loud.
So why the hell did this movie suck so badly and turn into such a loopy convoluted mess?
(for that matter, Gondry failed to win me back with Be Kind, Rewind, so at this stage he’s going to have to show up at my door with a bouquet and some really nice chocolates before I bother watching any more of his movies)
OK, I love 2001. I love Star Trek. But the first Star Trek movie was too 2001-ey for me!
I’ve seen & love all the David Lynch films from Eraserhead to Wild at Heart/Twin Peaks FWWM. From what I’ve heard of the later ones, I haven’t got the nerve up to watch them. EVEN THOUGH I HAVE M DR & LOST HWY!
I have watched Industrial Symphony & want to see The Straight Story. Just haven’t seen TSS anywhere to buy yet.
And I will say this about TP-FWWM’s convolutions. The first time I saw it in the theatre (yeah, I went twice), a couple of reels were out of order. But I wasn’t sure at first that wasn’t deliberate until I saw it the second time in the right order.
This just goes to show how subjective all this is. I liked The Science of Sleep. Yes it was a an unnecessarily complicated mess, but it had heart and a whimsical charm that Eternal Sunshine lacked.
I’m Not There. Seven stories about Bob Dylan, but not really about Bob Dylan. What the hell? What are they trying to do here and how is it related to Dylan?
It should be noted, though, that the heart and whimsical charm turn out to be a bit of misdirection, or anyway, they are undermined as the movie progresses.
But yeah, I think it’s a good movie. I don’t think it’s a story that was worth telling, but I do think it was told very well. So the movie’s at least decent.