MovieChat Forums > Sneakers (1992) Discussion > Dreadful

Dreadful

posted 12 years ago by nornoc19
21 replies | jump to latest

I had always meant to see this movie, and I heard it was about to expire on Netflix so I started it as soon as I got home the other day, and....WOW. It was incredibly bad. It was Ocean's 11 for morons.
Problems:
-Idiotic. Everything was stupid. Characters were "quirky" but severely underbaked with no payoff. It was bizarrely underwritten and paced, tone all over the place. Like the script only ever got a first draft. Odd pauses when characters open doors and have nothing to say. "Clever" dialog that's laughable and pathetic. "We're not getting back together", the Redford/Kingsley "point, counterpoint, conclusion" or whatever back and forth. The letter scrambling scene pay off was "Too many secrets"?? Really?

-Plot nonsense. Was Kingsley's character a cold blooded murderer or not? Was he his own boss or a mob guy? The movie doesn't even know. When did Kingsley go from some 60's hippy dweeb to some transEuropean mobster who apparently never leaves that building? What happened to the manhunt for ambadassor-killing Redford? What happened to the guards? There were 400, than two, than zero. The parking lot would be swarmed with guards getting into their cars to go home. The stupid blind driving scene was eye-rolling because all the guards disappeared. How freaking long did Kingsley wait to check the box and see he had been conned? Redford would still be on the ladder!! And he knows everywhere they could be headed if somehow the van was already moving, and he had murderers working for him. So so so stupid.

- The end. I couldn't take it when the characters were bargaining with James Earl Jones. All he knows is that his NSA funded, world-threatening tec was stolen from a guy that was murdered, and Redford has it. Now he's giving them things so scout's honor they won't tell???? What if they made copies of it?!?!? He doesn't know. Retarded.

-The main actress had nothing to work with. Bad dialog, underdeveloped character. No chemistry with Redford, not her fault (see below). Her interaction with Tobolowsky was confounding. His character changed constantly. Totally socially inept to sex fiend to apologetic cook to devious plot diviner? Quite a range. Why would guy who doesn't know to introduce himself be aware enough to apologize for his mushy carrots? What did he see in her wallet?

-Ackroyd looked like the StayPuft marshmallow. His quirks were the best developed, but overshown and his give and take with Poitier was repeated twice!

-Pandering. Poitier has to drop an F bomb on a racist. Why is that in there? Oh, because Poitier was a famous race pioneer. Well, his character isn't. Also, "You know I got kicked out of the CIA? My temper." Worst reveal ever.

-What was the deal with River Phoenix? Was he weird, autistic or nothing? Varied scene to scene.

-Too long. Pace went from tense to jokey too much. Every time jokey tone kicked in, the plot derailed.

-Stupid computer nonsense. "A computer matched those two?!" Hilarious the confidence there once was in computers being able to play matchmaker. Kingsley's character should know that a computer can't do anything it wasn't programmed to do. If humans could write a perfect matchmaking program, they could already be perfect matchmakers in person.

- Redford. Robert Redford is a bad actor, I am sad to conclude. Rewatch this and The Sting. Has the subtlety and charm of a brick. It's visibly obvious he does not have much going on upstairs, either. Watch how blank-faced he is when his character is supposed to be thinking. The scene where his betrayed/dead friend is revealed to still be alive 30 years later, Redford acts like he's been told it's his turn to order at Starbucks. Meaningful moment.

-Dumb crusty hippy politics. Redford's personal dimwit college freshman level grasp of politics was forced all over this thing, and a lot of what he's done since.

Good points
1) The blind guy. Well acted, clever points with the sound recognition, the car sound idea.

All in all, very crummy movie. Deserves to never be mentioned again.

[–] uvl 11 years ago

Yup, I'm with you on all points . . . except Redford. I find that he's a pretty good actor most of the time. But this lame story and distressingly bad screenplay did not allow anyone to excel at his/her profession.

[–] jack-upland 11 years ago

A lot of these points are valid, but most of them are very minor.

I thought the humour worked well in the movie.

Yes, there were holes in the plot, but not as much as so many other movies.

I think you've got to accept that this is part of the crime caper genre. Things that would be earth-shattering in real life (murder, betrayal, shock revelations, close shaves with death) are run of the mill. Characters simply do not react as they would in reality. If they did, it would be a very different film, a non-story because the characters would be too shocked or cautious to continue to take part (or they'd be in jail).

[–] artao 11 years ago

You must've been in a bad mood when you watched it, because you're completely wrong.

[–] Cherubim1 11 years ago

The OP's stupid rant is more about himself and his own insecurity than the actual film itself.

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

If one were to ignore the entire light-hearted mood of the film itself, then these points would contain some validity. I consider this an homage to "the Hot Rock" and in that, it carried the absurdity and light-heartedness quite well.

"Oh that's nice, sweetie" = Grandma's version of "cool story, bro"
#3

[–] Testpattern 11 years ago

You're absolutely correct gabby-bm. There's that, AND the fact that you have to watch the film with "1990's eyes"

"Take a bite out of that peach, let the juice dribble down your chin."

[–] intuitsteve 11 years ago

Very spot on about Redford.

[–] paullogick 11 years ago

"Was Kingsley's character a cold blooded murderer or not?" Not. "Was he his own boss or a mob guy?" He worked for the mob. Doesn't mean he doesn't think for himself. "The movie doesn't even know." Yeah, it does. "When did Kingsley go from some 60's hippy dweeb to some transEuropean mobster who apparently never leaves that building?" When he was in prison. "What happened to the manhunt for ambadassor-killing Redford?" Hadn't had time to catch up with him. "What happened to the guards? There were 400, than two, than zero." Mostly inside. Probably filling in a call-in and night premiums on their timesheets. "The parking lot would be swarmed with guards getting into their cars to go home." Maybe. "The stupid blind driving scene was eye-rolling because all the guards disappeared." They did have people outside. "How freaking long did Kingsley wait to check the box and see he had been conned?" Not very, but we'd already established, per your first question, that he's not a cold-blooded murderer. 'You'll have to pull the trigger, Cos. You." Mahdee wins, game over. "Redford would still be on the ladder!!" Quite.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SamMalone07 11 years ago

If you don't like this flick you just don't like having good times at the movies. I can see some of your points but this is a highly entertaining movie with some of the beat actors to ever grace the screen in the same flick together,just having a lot of fun. Serious political themes in easy to digest fun. I think this is what going to the movies should be like. The technology is dated but its 20 years old. You are incorrect friend, oceans 11 is Sneakers for morons. And apparently you've never seen the original Oceans 11

[–] stazza 11 years ago

ya... was he critiquing a "Script" comparing to standardized Hollywood pacing, or watching a movie? I felt it was well written, well acted, well done from start to finish. The dating scene was not a personal favorite but it fit and pushed the plot along like it was supposed to.

[–] TheRealMartian 11 years ago

If the OP was looking for truth maybe he should just take a philosophy course and leave the film critiques to others. Just sayin'...

[–] Koolaid082 11 years ago

You are incorrect friend, oceans 11 is Sneakers for morons.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[–] Koolaid082 11 years ago

You are wrong on just about every point you made on the film, it was just the opposite of what you said. Tell what your top five favorite movies are? This I would like to hear....

[–] eolloe 11 years ago

OP is correct on a number of the points (although I don't agree with everything there - like the point about Poitier; and Redford wasn't that bad an actor in, say, All the President's Men or Three Nights of the Condor).

Not sure what OP meant by 'Redford's personal dimwit college freshman level grasp of politics', since Redford isn't listed as a writer for the film. And this isn't really a political film per se.

This is one of those films that sounds like it could be really entertaining based on who's in the cast, but turns out to be pretty disappointing.

[–] Testpattern 10 years ago

OP is correct on a number of the points (although I don't agree with everything there - like the point about Poitier; and Redford wasn't that bad an actor in, say, All the President's Men or Three Nights of the Condor).

That would be Three DAYS of the Condor.

3 Nights of the Condor is probably an adult film title.

"If people like you don't learn from what happened to people like me..." -Professor Rohl

[–] eolloe 10 years ago