MovieChat Forums > The Hunger (1983) Discussion > Too vague

Too vague

posted 10 years ago by curious_chaos
14 replies | jump to latest

I wanted to see this really badly, and when I finally watched it, I was sad to be a bit disappointed. It wasn't really that it was bad, it was just so vague! I had no idea what on earth was going on!

Too much style, not enough substance I'm afraid. I'm almost always able to get movie plot lines, but not this one. I had to do a lot of research on this after I finished the movie. Everything makes sense now, but if I hadn't have looked up what on earth was going on, I honestly would still be pretty confused about that actually happened. I'm trying to find a copy if the book somewhere. The story (once I finally knew what happened hahah) is really interesting to me :$

It looked great, though. Catherine Deneuve was such a beauty too.

What did you guys think? Am I crazy or was this a bit on the messy side?

[–] GroovyDoom 10 years ago

It's one of those films you have to see a few times to fully grasp, especially if you haven't read the book. And even if you read the book, the ending of the film veers off in a totally different direction and still leaves you wondering what you just saw.

[–] caja70 9 years ago

Sad but true: where style is everything plot becomes nothing. And I wanted to love this movie. La Deneuve as a bi sexuell Vampire Queen - wow exciting idea! But even that was somehow too stylish to get really hot. Disappointing when I think of it afterwards.

[–] mwlindsey2000 9 years ago

I did not have trouble following it but I had read the book previously.

[–] prbronx5 9 years ago

What was so difficult to follow?

Ancient vampire and lover hunt humans for blood.
Lover begins to age, part of his death cycle.
Lover desperately wants to remain alive. Seeks help from doctor.
Ancient vampire wants a replacement to take lover's place. She becomes enchanted with doctor.
Ancient vampire seduces doctor and infects her.

I'm sure you can follow after that.

[–] curious_chaos 9 years ago

The general story, yes. I was aware of those major points you made. I'm talking more about from scene to scene, I had trouble depicting exactly what was going on. Particularly at the end when Sarah kills Miriam and herself, the editing and no dialogue and visual transitions were pretty hard to decipher. I didn't really get what was happening until well after it happened.

I think I just need to rewatch it. That almost always helps clear things up. Now that I know exactly what's going on and lots of time has passed, I'm pretty sure I'll understand it better this time.

[–] MisterWhiplash 9 years ago

My problem watching the movie in general was.... Ok, John is aging and is dying. But, he's a vampire, he's supposed to be immortal - at least that's what Deneuve says - but... the movie never gives an adequate enough answer to WHY that is. I think it's an interesting premise to start with - a vampire is faced with the possibility after 200 years of life that he will die. But why is that happening? It seemed like the Susan Sarandon character, Sara, was going to have a way to look into it or answer it. But then it just becomes about Sara becoming a vampire and then.... the movie kind of ends without anything really coming to a conclusion except for Deneuve being attacked by like her previous victims (?)

Yeah, when people say style over substance, what they mean to say is that a lot very fancy, fast, quixotic camera moves and editing tricks obfuscate the lack of any clear logic in the script. I don't care if it's based on a book - this is a movie, the movie should work on its own.

iTunes podcast: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-wages-of-cinema/id977881387?mt=2/

[–] Revolutionow 9 years ago

Style is substance.

[–] Lycian 8 years ago

It isn't vague. But you were slow.

This movie is a masterpiece. Not for the fans of super-hero-junk though.

*******************
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=15227539

[–] curious_chaos 8 years ago

I feel fairly confident in saying I am not the only one who felt confused by the movie and it's mostly visual storytelling.

I have since purchased The Hunger on DVD and I've watched it probably a dozen times now. I'm OBSESSED.

However (and this is a big however) I still say that for somebody who has not read the book, or is unaware of the small details that really drive the story forward (Miriam's Egyptian flashbacks were not very revealing) would have a bit of difficulty in understanding the depth of the story. Now that I've read the book and watched the movie, I see the brilliance in its slow and visual style, but this is not a movie that I would recommend to just anyone, I think knowledge of what Miriam is and where she came from is imperative to really enjoying the movie. The ending is really messy, too. It contradicts the entire story.

Vampirism is not mentioned, and the method of vampirism is quite different than most, so it's only fair to need a bit of explanation. Not a lot, but just enough to help the audience understand. Knowledge of the book is ideal.

I do not recommend this movie if you don't know anything about it.

[–] fiatlux-1 8 years ago

OP, you are correct in it being more style than substance.

That was a major complaint about the film when it was first released.
Not only was the director seemingly going more for a gothic-style video than an even tale, but he veered very sharply away from Whitley Strieber's absolutely superb novel. Add to that a studio that inexplicably demanded a different ending be added, despite the fact that it LITERALLY MADE NO SENSE given what led up to it!

If the director & studio had made a film based on the book, the film could have been a masterpiece.

I agree 100% with others here: Read the novel! It explains so much more, plus is light-years better.

That said, I did appreciate this film for its excellent use of cinematography (those filmy curtains are unforgettably beautiful), lighting, clothing, and soundtrack.

And of course, Bowie! In fact, the entire cast is gorgeous.

I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

[–] El_Guapo_Caballo 8 years ago

Flatlux, please explain the differences in the book.

[–] iluvnyc 8 years ago

Just rewatched on TCM tonight and yes the entire film is a visually luxe guilty pleasure. 😍 Bowie was the allure that brought most freaks to see it. Having Sarandon in it as well added to the freak fetish... anyone loving her from RHPS already, seeing her coupled with the ultra sexy Deneuve. It was a triple threat sex bomb. When I first saw it in theatres in 1983, the general criticism was that it was "a 90 minute Channel #5 advert." Deneuve was then the face of Channel print & TV ads. And yes, it was uber-style over sustance. The film left everything unexplained and unanswered. A shame, truly. It could have been so much better. But, for what it is, it's still gorgeous to watch, eye and ear candy, for certain. And what's wrong with a little added whipped cream on your icing every now and then? 😁

[–] tbonesays 8 years ago

I wondering if the action scenes were too dreamy or my attention span was too short. I couldn't tell who stabbed whom in the climax and was surprised to see who was left standing.