Last night I watched the movie Memento, expecting to see something so great. People have talked about it here on the SDMB and offline, so I figured it was going to be some great far out independent movie.
I was rather disapointed, however. (Spoilers to follow, so if you clicked anyway, you have the chance to turn back.)
It was riddled with plot holes and completely implausible events.
Point the first, if we’re to believe that Leonard can’t remember anything within the last five minutes, but has a good memory when it comes to things prior to the accident, then why doesn’t he remember that his wife was a diabetic?
Supposedly because of his selective memory, which I felt was a bit of a cop-out. There’s a problem? His “condition” explains it away.
Point the second. If we’re told that Leonard has the condition of not remembering anything in the short term, why would he remember the injection/insulin incident? He does remember it, only he transfers it to Sammy Jenkis. Which is completely unbelievable- we’re told that no matter how traumatic, he will remember nothing. He has no memory of beating up Natalie, so I can’t believe he would suddenly remember something else.
Point the third. Not a plot hole, but just so wrong. We have to believe that there’s a cop who wants to see his career die an early death so badly that he’ll drive around supervising a Charles Bronson-wannabe in his quest for vengeance? That I really don’t buy.
My other complaints would basically be length- many of those scenes were sort of fun, but could easily have been compressed, or in some cases (the prostitute thing, for example) cut out all together, to make it run more smoothly.
In short, I didn’t buy it. I didn’t completely hate it. It had a good premise, it’s just that I don’t think the director could make it work for two hours. I see a movie full of potential, that with a little reworking could be better. Maybe a bit too ambitious. The movie relies too much on the one premise of the no-short term memory, which makes it way too gimmicky. Plus it tries too hard to be cool with all the gun toting and profanity and beating each other up- that I could have lived without, too.
So why was it hailed as such a great movie? No, not a rhetorical question, I’d really like to know.
Yes, slightly improbable. But not completely unbelievable.
It was/is a great movie because it makes you think, and makes you try to figure out what really happened even after the credits roll. You’re a perfect example - you’ve come out of the movie with a very suspect picture of what exactly happened to Leonard Shelby - did he kill his wife, did someone else kill his wife? Did she have diabetes? What was with those flashbacks? Was that Leonard in the hospital in that one frame? If it was, why? Was Sammy Jenkis real? If he wasn’t, how did Leonard form that memory?
All of the above have legitimate answers, which aren’t cop outs. A second viewing may clarify a few of them.
Memento is one of my favorite movies (as is Christopher Nolan’s first film, Following) so I’ll give it a shot.
Maybe his wife was diagnosed after the accident? Otherwise, if he really did kill her, maybe he blocked out the memory that she was ever sick.
Who said he did remember the incident? We also see a flash of him pinching his wife on the leg instead. Maybe he remembered that, but Teddy convinced him that something else happened, at which point it flashes through Leonard’s mind as the injection.
Did Teddy strike you as a good cop? He was using Leonard to knock off drug dealers he had a problem with.
Simple answer: it WASN’T all that popular. It was a cult film with a small audience. It just so happens that most of the people who DID like it liked it a LOT. Hence, you see a lot more SDMB threads and Internet chat rooms and web sites devoted to “Memento” than to a host of films that were, commercially at least, much more successful and much more popular.
I saw “Memento,” and thought it was okay. Just okay. And, to repeat myself, I’m STILL a little miffed that hardly any critics noticed the basic plot was stolen from a bad Dana Carvey comedy called “Blank Slate.”
Zoggie, let me begin by saying that I’ve always hated “You just didn’t get it!” as a response to criticism of a movie. But I honestly think that you “just didn’t get” Memento.
To answer your questions with more questions:
Are you sure Leonard’s wife was a diabetic?
Are you sure that the insulin injection incident didn’t happen with Sammy Jankis and his wife, just the way Leonard said?
Are you sure that Teddy is really a cop?
I’m not. The thing about Memento that makes it different from most twist-ending movies is that the twist doesn’t actually explain things. The truth about the events preceeding the movie’s ending/chronological beginning is never revealed. Like Leonard, the audience can never be sure what the truth really is. You can believe Teddy’s story if you like, but like all the other significant characters in the movie he is unreliable. There is no way to tell if he even believes the story he tells Leonard, much less if it is actually true.
…what was I supposed to do in this thread…oh yeah…
I found it to be a fairly entertaining movie. I have to admit, I am starting to get a little tired of the “SURPRISE, your rality is a big lie!” genre:
Vanilla Sky
Fight Club
The Sixth Sense
13th Floor
etc
etc
I like it because of the whole “SURPRISE, your rality is a big lie!” thing. Except for Vanilla Sky <gag> I really enjoyed all the films on msmith537’s list. But he forgot Dark City and the movie that single handedly sparked a rebirth in that genre: The Matrix.
There is nothing I dislike more than an unoriginal and/or predictable movie and Memento was definitely not that. Up until the infamous Natalie scene I was completely buying into Leonard’s BS, I thought he was totally on top of things and able to overcome his ‘condition.’ I was not at all expecting to learn that he’s really just a disciplined sap, on a self-fulfilling rampage.
A key scene happens near the end. It shows Sammy sitting in a chair in some sort of mental institution (I haven’t seen the movie in a while) and someone walks in front of him. For the brief moment between when the person no longer blocks him and the scene ends, it is Leonard sitting in the chair. I would assume that this means that Teddy is telling the truth at the beginning/end and Leonard made Sammy up.
Leonard also says that he is able to form new memories by constant repetition. This may be a cop out in the story, but give the screenwriter/author some leeway.
In light of those two events I think that 1) He blocked out all memories that would suggest he actually killed his wife through constantly lying to himself about it, 2) same reasoning, he transfered the memory of his actual events onto someone else, 3) Teddy is a corrupt cop, the money that Leonard is spending all movie was supposed to be his, who wouldn’t want an effective hitman who doesn’t know he is being used. His role isn’t hard to believe at all.
Those are my thoughts on this difficult yet interesting movie.
My theory is that what Leonard is suffering from is a split personality, and not the textbook version of “anterior retrograde amnesia” (or whatever they call his “condition”). This theory is bolstered by the Memento website (which is included on the DVD) which contains newspaper articles and notes from psychiatrists, along with other materials. The sequence goes like this:
He sufferred a bad head injury (I think we can agree that he was robbed, and hit in the head), resulting in a temporary amnesia state similar to the one the con man “Sammy Jankis” was faking for the insurance company. While in that state, he killed his diabetic wife.
After killing his wife, he was put in a mental institution (the notes on the website make this pretty clear). While in the mental institution he begins to recover from the amnesia condition.
While recovering from the amnesia, he begins to realize what he has done to his wife. This memory triggers a psychic break, with a new personality emerging. (Again, see the notes in the website – this too is pretty clear.)
The new personality halts the recovery of the old personality, and encourages the old personality to escape from the mental hospital.
With that in mind . . .
The new personality can remember, and does remember. But it forces the old personality to forget, because if he he let his memory come back, he’d have to remember that he was the one that killed her his wife.
He can remember, and a part of him does remember. The condition is a con he’s pullling on himself.
Teddy is a cop that uses Lenny to kill people that he doen’t want to bother killing himself.
I don’t know that is was universally hailed as “great”. However, the editing was cool – telling the story backward is not yet an overused story mechanism, and seemed fresh and different. The technique had the added benefit of fitting well with a story about the inadequacy of memory, putting you in the character’s mindset, having no memory of what has already happened. For me it moved along quickly – the slow parts helped you catch up with what had happened (or what was going to happen). I liked it a lot.
It’s one thing for you to say you don’t care for a movie, but in this thread you’re essentially saying that you’re surprised anyone would like it. That puts people who did like it in a defensive position, and really hurts the discussion. I personally don’t like having to defend my stance on a movie.
But to address your question…
Plausibility just doesn’t matter to a lot of people. This is amplified in Memento, a movie that is complicated enough that you’re doing pretty well if you can just follow the plot. Think about it: If you like the concept, the acting, and the dialogue, why would a plot hole change your entire position into disliking the film?
Something else to consider is that movies are released into a context of other films. People praise Memento in part because it was the best movie that was out in the theaters at the time it came out. When you see it at home, you’re essentially divorcing it from that limited context and comparing it to all movies ever released. Add in the presence of your heightened expectations, and is it any surprise that the movie suffers in your mind?
I think Memento is a great film. Here’s my lingering question. Why did Lenny take Jimmy’s clothes? If his only motive was revenge on John G., why would he care about taking the suit?
I’ve checked the other Memento threads and I don’t think I saw this addressed.
True. I suppose you can explain some of them. I just found it hard to believe. And I probably was expecting it to be so great that when I actually saw it I was pretty disapointed. Usually it does help to have few preconceived notions before watching a film.
It did seem like a lot of trouble to go through for a dishonest cop, though. Wouldn’t others catch on? And if he’s so dishonest, why does he care about getting these criminals killed? If he is dishonest, it seems he’d be able to work the system to his advantage without having to manipluate a guy like Leonard.
Anyway, it’s not that I’m surprised people would like it- Sorry! :o It’s simply that this movie appears to have gotten so a lot of attention, and I had a hard time seeing why. And I see your points. Personally I didn’t buy into the world that we are being presented with in the movie.
Well, I wouldn’t say for sure that he’s not a cop, but I don’t think the movie gives us enough info to be sure that he really is one either. I’m inclined to believe that he’s an ex-cop (perhaps one who had to leave the Force because of his questionable ethics?), but I think a range of interpretations from “well-intentioned but misguided cop” to “drug dealer with a clever plan to eliminate local competition” is possible.
Well, it was nominated for two Academy Awards (editing and adapted screenplay); and it managed to outgross some major studio star vehicles, like Sweet November, 15 Minutes and Angel Eyes, making more than $25 million on a budget of $5 million. It was also one of the best-reviewed movies of the year, scoring a 94 percent (119 out of 126) at Rotten Tomatoes. I don’t think the audience for the movie was as small as you think.