When does the plot start?
When does the plot start?
Yes, it's one of THOSE movies.
You know them - you start watching, the first scene sets you up to expect something interesting. Oh, it's a 'flashback'. Well, maybe after the short flashback to set up everything the plot needs, then an interesting story will unfold!
And you watch, expecting the flashback to end soon, and the actual plot to start. So the plot is maybe something like: "There was difficulties in rehearsals in the beginning and we are shown a bit of that, and then something interesting happens".
But nothing interesting ever happens. The 'rehearsals', where everything goes wrong (groan), just tediously go on and on. Everything is constantly interrupted by something noninteresting, and then we have to see the scene again, or something. What's the point of this? Can't we get on with the story?
When does the actual plot start, why are we watching this throwaway stuff? Who wants to watch bad rehearsals? Who decided that'd be funny?
This movie really doesn't know how to entertain its audience, and the whole premise - once it's slowly revealed as the movie plods along, pointlessly and tediously - pulls the rug from under the viewer.
We are cheated out of an interesting story by having this weird (but all-too-common) "plot-within-a-plot" gimmick, so that no one would have to write an actual, interesting story. Who thought it's interesting to watch a group of actors and a director trying to put on a performance of a play, whose lines are shown multiple times in the movie (so there's no need to come up with much dialogue for the movie, how clever - no, how BORING)?
So the 'flashback' just keeps going and going, to the point of complete pointlessness (no pun intended). And soon, the viewer just has to ask himself; "When does the plot start, or is this movie completely wasting my time?"
After some more of not-going-anywhere-type "plot" (and I use this word generously).
How can anyone ever recommend this crap after seeing the much better (but still annoying and faulty) Deathtrap? Just because it has two of the same actors?
I have had a similar experience with some other movies, like Kung-Fu Hustle, where I waited for the 'funny bit' to begin, as well as the 'actual plot'.
It's an almost surreal experience - you are disappointed and feel cheated at the same time, but you can't help but wonder - how did this all come about?
Why do some moviemakers want to torture the viewer by first promising something in the beginning, and then making the viewer wait for it.. wait for it.. wait for it.. and .. never delivering?
How did Caine end up in so many bad movies? At least Reeve got some better movies made before his accident.
And how many movies does hollywood need to pump out about "making movies"?
(Or broadway about plays, same thing)
Why would anyone think it's interesting to watch a movie/play about making a movie/play, and then everything going wrong, but then that somehow turning to be a success anyway? What the heck? Why is this so common?
It's not good moviemaking or storytelling to put the viewer in a waiting-loop, for the whole duration of the movie. A little bit of waiting can be acceptable, if the payoff is good (The Matrix, for example - though it opened quite energetically).
But this gives you a promising beginning, that is filmed in a 'real location' instead of a stage - and then .. the rest of the movie, you are just watching actors on a stage. What the heck?
This movie is a good example of why plays should not be converted to movies - it doesn't work. If you are really going to do it, choose a more interesting play, and do it properly - don't just convert it, but respect the movie format, and offer some actual reality that only a movie can offer (while play can't). Don't just show actors on a stage (which means, don't choose a play that is about making a play in the first place!). It's not what the movie format is all about.
Or, make it into a full-fledged play, with a still camera, or just a few 'opera camera' style cams, and let it unfold as an actual play! Just film it as a play, then! (That can work sometimes, like in "Gekidan Gekiharo 01: Edo Kara Chakushin - Timeslip to Kengai!?")
Don't make it half-ársed pseudo-combination of the two elements. That NEVER works.
As with any bad movie, there seems to be a large group of people adoring this one. I can't of course understand that at all, but I can't deny them their opinions. I'd like to think, though, that those reasons are more nostalgic, emotional, and so on, than rational.
I bet if you show this to an adult, that has never seen it before, he would not come to IMDb and praise it to heavens.
Maybe I just don't understand slapstick (frankly, it was never explained to me what is supposed to be funny about someone getting hit in the face by a pie, falling from a ladder, or a hag slapping a man in the face (and of course the man never slapping her back - now, THAT would be funny!), or especially, a man being kicked/punched/accidentally hit in the groin - why not refresh the tired cliché and make it a woman, who is getting kicked/punched/accidentally hit in the groin? I am sure female anatomy is also pretty sensitive at that point), like, why would it be funny that some hag tries to hit someone with an AXE (??) and then someone stopping her in the nick of time, only to try it himself, or whatnot. Yawn.
GET ON WITH IT! <- This is what I wanted to shout to the actors during most of the movie, although it had already dawned on me that they never will .. they will just run in circles, carrying hurriedly an object to one place or another, or doing some other similar thing, trying to prevent someone else from doing it, while trying to perform in a play at the same time.
I wish the flashback had remained short, and then we'd have shown Caine's travels and something more interesting could have happened. But perhaps with a different mindset, and pre-knowledge about this ...
...
.... no.
It still wouldn't have worked. The beginning was so promising, it could have gone to any great and interesting direction from there, and the 'cabin' set was interesting to look at, and even inspiring ("Ah, to be able to go to a cabin like that"), but the rest.. not really worth it.
Not even the passable búttocks of an ugly and titless hag, featured in a flimsy silk underwear could help this movie. And why was all that included? Of course to manipulate men to like the movie by shamelessly provoking their sexuality - an almost criminal act (sexual harassment, anyone?) that women are so good at - the better-looking, normal-bodied younger ones, anyway.
(And normal body does not mean XXXXXL size, it means size S or M max, without any excessive fat whatsoever)
And I don't think it's okay to keep men horny and constantly provoke them with sexual signals (keeps them in a lusty mindset and promises sex without delivering anything, leaving them hungry, so a product can be placed there, and women's sexual power over men stays strong).
There is an agenda behind it, and it's wrong to bring sexuality to everyday things. Sexuality has its time and place (in private), and a 'movie for all ages' is not it.
It cheapens the movie, because it is a clear sign that the makers of the movie have NO FAITH in the plot and the strength of the script, but they MUST fill it with this kind of manipulative tricks and gimmicks to get men to see it - and hire Christopher Reeves so women will also see it.. (Though Christopher Reeve would be laughed at by women, if he hadn't become famous and rich - in other words, a high-status man. Same face, same body, and he'd be rejected by women if he had been penniless, anonymous and shy. The same women, who claim to love his body and drool and pant for him here in IMDb the way that would never be allowed if a man drooled and panted the same way about some actress, would not even give him the time of day)
But in the end, what's the difference.. this movie was made 22 years ago, the hag in the movie is now old and wrinkly, Reeve has already flown off this planet, and I bet most people don't even remember this movie (and for a good reason).