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.

[–] nrangerseven 10 years ago

ugh why is it so difficult for people to realize what was in her wallet??? Why weren't you paying attention? We clearly saw her ID in her purse when it fell to the floor. It's not too difficult to know her name is Liz (mentioned repeatedly) and on the fake date her name is Doris. That name was repeated as well. We KNOW it's a fake date. We KNOW it's a fake name. Did you not hear the tone of voice when he called her Doris after he found the ID? It was scary. Either you weren't paying attention or you need everything spelled out for you like a child. Your fault - not a problem with the movie.

Did you completely miss the point about the computer dating? How the hell was that so difficult? It's not about the "confidence" of a computer playing matchmaker. This is a man who knows everything about hacking computers who is hell bent on destroying his former friend who knows everything about hacking computers. His right hand man has his key card stolen, they know something is fishy and yet this hot chick is matched to a complete dork by computer dating? NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. Cosmo's DID KNOW that a computer can't do anything it wasn't programmed to do. DUH! He instantly knew that his old friend was behind the match and not a computer. Seems like this criticism unveils a desperate attempt for the ugly, critical dorks in the world to believe they will find the perfect match online with a woman way out of their league. (Yes! It can happen! A hot chick will fall in love with me one day! The perfectly written computer program says so! PFFT)

Those are my main points...the rest of yours are too ridiculous to continue to waste time on...

The people you idolize wouldn't like you.

[–] bonsai-superstar 10 years ago

I like the movie - just re-watched it, actually - but I agree with the majority of your points. The script looks like it needed a few more re-writes. It's too bad, as it's a good movie and could have been great.

Do you write? A lot of the points you bring up seem to be from a writer's perspective. Also, a couple of your lines made me laugh out loud (thanks!).

[–] King_Kestrel 10 years ago

I agree with almost all points made here, but nonetheless love this movie. It had soul, charm, and chemistry between all characters (good and bad). Despite its flaws it was quite a thoughtful film, if you cast aside its child-level understanding of liberal vs conservative cowboys vs indians politics. And yes, the soundtrack helps a great deal. Nice to see a movie from the era before James Horner got lazy and derivative.

Most importantly, I just really enjoyed the OP's review. Good writing style. Funny and thoughtful. Nice job.

----
All your board are belong to Kestrel

[–] filmklassik 10 years ago

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.

You're kidding, right? His frequent director and collaborator, the great Sydney Pollack, once called Redford the "best listener" of any actor in the business. And Redford is a master of subtlety.