MovieChat Forums > La cité des enfants perdus (1995) Discussion > Is this some sort of joke that I am miss...

Is this some sort of joke that I am missing?

posted 19 years ago by Portlis
85 replies | jump to latest

First of all, I will mention there are a few spoilers contained within. If you haven't seen it, some things might be given away.... but trust me you don't want to see this movie anyway.

Is this movie some sort of inside joke that I just don't get? I just watched this movie based on the 7.8 rating and sci-fi category that I saw here on IMDB. Usually, IMDB voters have fairly decent taste as far as I am concerned, and I also really enjoy sci-fi/fantasy films.

I can honestly say that this is the stupidest, worst, most pointless movie that I have ever seen. I would not have cared if any of the main characters died right in the middle of the movie. There was absolutely no attachment at all to any of the characters. In fact, the only decent scene in the entire movie was when the stupid siamese witch things died so I didn't have to listen to their obnoxious voices/laughing anymore.

There were plot holes galore. The movie never even really gets into why this boring little girl likes the ugly red headed brute with no name. What was the point of the siamese (b/w)itches? What was the point of having all the other stupid little children running around? Why did Perlman's haircut have to be so damn ugly? Why was EVERYONE in this movie so damn ugly except for the girl? Why do we give a damn that there are 6 dumb little servent men, one being the "original". What did the "original" have to do with anything in the movie anyway? Why was the ugly midget chick even in the movie, just to annoy the audience? What was the point of finding a map on a bald dudes head to navigate through the mines if they were just going to go in a little dingy not capable of blowing up mines anyway? Why was that stupid poison injecting flea in so many scenes, and why was it so STUPID? What was the point of all the lame people with Borg (star trek reference) equipment on their faces when they weren't even involved in the end anyway? Why did they have the mouse go and get the key with the magnet instead of just sliding the magnet under the door tied to a string? And for the love of god, why was there a talking BRAIN IN A FRICKING FISH TANK WITH TUBAS FOR EARS and why did they save it at the end of the movie? Who would have honestly given a $hit if the lame brain just blew up with all the other stupid characters? What motivation would any of them have had to save the brain in the first place? I swear to christ, I could go on and on... but I think you get the point.

The only reason I knew this movie was about dreams when it finally ended is because atleast 3-4 times throughout the movie I FELL ASLEEP AND HAD DREAMS OF MY OWN it was so boring and pointless. If you are looking for an extremely corny, cartoony sci fi movie in a boring setting with lame characters, lame character interaction and no character development, look no further because this one is truly a GEM.

If you want a good movie about the relationship between a big stupid man and a cute young girl, watch the superb "Leon: The Professional" instead.

There is only one positive thing about seeing this movie. After several long years, I can finally say Kill Bill is second in line for the "worst movie I've ever seen" award.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nealric 19 years ago

One thing that I see over and over again on this site is the idea that the only components of a good movie are plot, characters, storytelling, etc...

Ever read some major works of european philosophy (such as those by the likes of spinoza, kant, hegel)? They are boring, often horribly written- but they all have something importaint to say.
I have no problem with someone not wanting to slog through such things, but it isnt very thoughtful to say such works have no value because they end user experience sucks.

Some people (myself included) throughly enjoyed all the superficial aspects of the film, but I can see why one wouldnt. However, even after only one recent viewing, it is plain that the film has a high degree of philosophic import.

Two of the more obvious themes I saw:
Ethics- intent vs. action. The brain before the mad scientist goes into his final dream tells him something like, "how could it go wrong, your intentions are good"- when the evil he has committed in his quest for a dream is plain.
This theme is also brought up by the creator/scietist with amnesia. He creates the people on the offshore rig with the idea of creating a perfect family, but ends up making a monster.

Epistemology- effects of sense data. The cyclopes have an interesting rhetoric calling on people to eliminate their sense of sight in order to create a new world. What effect does their skewed sight have on what they believe and how they behave?

Of course, there is quite a bit of debate on aethetics on imdb ;)

[–] kylopod 19 years ago

I fail to see how those themes you mention are of great philosophic import, or even particularly original.

I just thought the movie was fun. Sure, it may have themes worth discussing, but to compare it to great works of European philosophy is taking it a bit too far--and too seriously.

[–] brownebrad 19 years ago

Yes tend to agree.

Along those lines without getting too philosophical we grow up in a society that loves to thrash the dreaming out of us sometimes (ask anyone that has been to art school). We grow up and need to focus and get serious in this world so as to get by comfortably and realise our dream therefore the parameters that society builds around us inhibit the exploration of dreams both metophorically (living the dream) hampered by rules costs time and administration and physically with traditional working class escapism social routes also hampering our abilities to dream. A result of a tired and overworked brain.

Society and more importantly the system that we live under tries its best to advocate lateral thinking and living the dream however the reality of this is that the parameters have been set leave no room for the majority of people to benefit from the joys of following the heart.

Poor little children are being robbed of one of the most primordial senses that of dreaming.

Krank is a grotesque misguided figure who has control of the little ones. Who controls Krank. The man with seemingly little tangible functions. We cant blame a bodiless brain now can we..would that hold up in a court of law??

The situation is ignorant enough not to realise the pain and heartache that is inflicted on others however it is eternally able to justify itself and what it is trying to achieve by surrounding the main characters with people who confirm and support their existence (a system that is accepted and works for those guys anyway)? Set away from society and protected by water and mines. Is there something to hide? See any similarities in our society today?? (A free beer in a pub in paddington in sydney if you can guess)

Greed and selfishness lead to destruction in the end and sometimes innocent people do tend to get caught up in it. Sometimes they get away however do they become more happy or do they end up in another loop?

Great movie the visual goulishness compliments the unsettling underlying themes and a great cast makes this a movie not to be missed. Do not watch this movie and take it on face value otherwise yes you will be dissapointed (go and watch snow white). Play around with the themes and watch it again and again and it will come to life just where it was intended in your imagination.

The loose plot and character profiles lend to being able to attack the movie from your imagination. No guidelines are needed which makes this the best kind of movie.

Zuzca

[–] Osmiumos 9 years ago

The OP claims to have fallen asleep "at least 3-4 times throughout the movie" but is criticising the film for having plot holes...
You are responding to.a disingenuous topic.

[–] adrianajesperson 19 years ago

LADIES AND GENTLMEN THis is the perfect example of a troll. While i have been called a troll many times for ridiculing others and being sarcastic in my post's, i was always being honest and up front about my opinion. Portlis must be chuckling at anyone who comes back to argue against his original(and i am sure the added bonus of cross-argumentation is like a fringe benefit t him/her/it.)

obviously anyone with a brain will realize that Portlis understood(and very possibly enjoyed this movie) anyone who would misunderstand this movie would not be able to create an coherent argument as complicated as they did.

well portlis i am sorry if my post ruined yur fun, but pm me and ask me to remove it and i will, but a little advice, try to be less transparent when you flame a movie for the hell of it.

ich wil Ficken, bis ich blute.

[–] Portlis 19 years ago

I am being completely "honest and up front" about my opinions too.

I understood this movie. It just sucked. I am not trolling one bit. I created a "coherent" argument because I am an intelligent person, not because I secretly liked the movie.

Being 100% honest, this movie was one of it not the worst movie I have ever seen. It was filled with plot holes, had no emotional attachment, and the characters were hollow with very little to no character development and interaction.

I am not a troll, these are just the facts about this horrible movie.

[–] adrianajesperson 19 years ago

did you watch the subtitled version of this movie or the dubbed version?

I like your attitude. Fiesty, yet spineless.

[–] adrianajesperson 19 years ago

portlis your so full of *beep* there is no way you didnt understand this movie unless you watched the french version without subtitles(and dont speak french.)

I like your attitude. Fiesty, yet spineless.

[–] kylopod 19 years ago

Adriana:

I have no idea if Portlis is a troll or not, and I actually don't think it's that important. I never did. I just saw his initial post as a starting point for discussion.

If he's a troll who seeks to laugh at how people respond to him, so be it. In truth, though, my response is not of the sort that would really please a troll; I didn't attack him for not liking the film, I just stated my opinion calmly and rationally. Trolls attempt to create discord, and my reply did nothing to further that purpose. Neither did the second reply by Nealric. We were just calmly discussing the film, not reacting emotionally to the fact that one guy didn't like it.

Unfortunately, your replies are far more of the variety that a troll would be hoping to elicit: the way you deny that anyone who understood the film could hate it. You're just showing your own weakness, demonstrating that you're bothered by the troll's opinion, exactly the type of reaction a troll would be looking for. If you accuse the troll of having seen the dubbed rather than the subtitled version, what do you expect him to say? Of course he's going to deny it. Then it's just your word against his, and you haven't accomplished anything.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with a person not liking this film. I know many people who probably wouldn't like it. It's clearly an acquired taste, and I don't even fully understand why I like it so much.

[–] Portlis 19 years ago

I watched the French version with English subtitles.

I generally can't stand dubbed movies, and I always watch movies in their original form with subtitles. (I'm not a moron, and I'm capable of doing a little reading while watching a movie)

[–] rooprect 19 years ago

Portlis, even tho I disagree 100%, I get where you're coming from. If you find no emotional attachment to the characters, then the movie will run over you like a Mack truck. I get the same feeling when watching David Lynch films.

If you (or anyone else who hated it) decide to give it another shot, here 2 pointers:

1. French actors are ugly. Get used to it. If you want prettyboys, stick to Hollywood.

2. The plot is very pedantic (as with any fairy tale), so don't micro-analyze it. Instead, treat the movie as you would treat a dream. Look for themes and symbolism, not logic.

My favorite theme is that small things snowball into great (or catastrophic) feats. Jeunet said (in the commentary) that this is an homage to 20th century cartoonist/inventor Rube Goldberg. Examples:
A flea can kill a man.
A crab can unleash the memories of an amnesiac.
Miette's teardrop can crash a 50,000-ton barge into the city.
A mouse & a magnet can pull off the crime of the century.

There are at least a half dozen other themes woven into the story, but I'm too tired to list them all right now. You'll find them if you put an effort into it.

[–] kylopod 19 years ago

French actors are ugly.

The ugliest actor in the film, Ron Perlman, is American.

[–] heffeque 16 years ago

Haha... actually you're right, LOL. I think what he means is that french actors get to be famous not for their looks but for their great acting: Jean Reno, Dominique Pinon, Gérard Depardieu, etc. Can't say the same about french actresses. There are some very fine looking gals there and actually acting pretty awesomely.

[–] bonzobbc-1 18 years ago

"Being 100% honest, this movie was one of it not the worst movie I have ever seen. It was filled with plot holes, had no emotional attachment, and the characters were hollow with very little to no character development and interaction."

Does anyone watch the cartoon 'Home Movies'? doesnt this kid remind you of Fenton?

[–] boxy_darko_dragon 16 years ago

ha ha ha - Walter and Perry, "Fenton, Fenton, we hate Fenton!"

I don't agree with you or disagree - I think some of his comments are a bit too much, what with all the "stupid"'s here and there.

Generally speaking even if you don't like the story, actors, or characters, you (general public) have to admit they created quite a unique world and that gives it much more than some other movies out there.

If you think this was bad watch "HP Lovecraft's The Tomb" - I love bad movies and that one I couldn't stand at all. Poor Lovecraft. :( His name shouldn't be attached to that movie.

[–] jgravely 18 years ago

"...no emotional attachment..."

I don't understand why so many people don't a movie that they don't form and emotional attachment with the characters. To each his own I guess.

If you hate them does that count as an emotional attachement?

It's a dirty job, but I pay clean money for it.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stalkingwolf83 15 years ago

Yeah, everyone with a different taste than you is a troll.

ROFL you're ridiculous adrianajesperson.

Signatures are dumb...

[–] FairlyAnonymous 11 years ago

No, he made valid arguments. You just can't counter them. Basically you couldn't defend the movie so you labeled him a troll as an excuse so that you could just walk away without defending the movie.

Answer his questions. Why did the movie have so many problems?

[–] monkeybusiness2000-1 19 years ago

I agree, this movie is by far one of the worst films ive ever seen. Terrible story and it was just weird and silly just for the sake of it.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Krustallos 18 years ago

Do you really want answers to these questions Portlis, or are you just having a good rant? At the risk of missing the point:-

Is this movie some sort of inside joke that I just don't get?

Yes

I can honestly say that this is the stupidest, worst, most pointless movie that I have ever seen.

You should get out more.

There were plot holes galore.

Also a big problem in "Tom and Jerry" and "Bugs Bunny", no?

The movie never even really gets into why this boring little girl likes the ugly red headed brute with no name.

Why does anyone like anyone? Because he had a good heart and he was looking for his little brother and she felt sorry for him and decided to help him. She was on the road to cynicism and he diverted her off it.

What was the point of the siamese (b/w)itches?

Part of the whole innocence/cynicism theme...? What's the point of the evil queen in "Snow White"? Why ask such silly questions?

What was the point of having all the other stupid little children running around?

See above.

Why did Perlman's haircut have to be so damn ugly? Why was EVERYONE in this movie so damn ugly except for the girl?

for "ugly" read "interesting-looking". See also fairy tale allusion above.

Why do we give a damn that there are 6 dumb little servent men, one being the "original". What did the "original" have to do with anything in the movie anyway? Why was the ugly midget chick even in the movie, just to annoy the audience?

This was the backstory of the film. The guy in the diving suit was an inventor. The midget woman, Krank, brain in the tank and clone "children" were his creations. The wife and Krank had an affair and murdered the inventor (or tried to). He lost his memory and went to live in the cave under the harbour, away from humanity. The tank-brain told one clone he was the original to flatter and influence him into helping with his plan to get a message to the outside world in the form of a dream in a bottle....

What was the point of finding a map on a bald dudes head to navigate through the mines if they were just going to go in a little dingy not capable of blowing up mines anyway?

If I may quote Roger Rabbit, "because it was funny".

Why was that stupid poison injecting flea in so many scenes, and why was it so STUPID?

See above. Also there is a theme of the small affecting the large throughout the movie.

What was the point of all the lame people with Borg (star trek reference) equipment on their faces when they weren't even involved in the end anyway?

Ummm, same point as Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre in "Casablanca", moreorless. Thay moved the plot along and they were interesting in themselves. There may also be a metaphorical significance but I'd have to think about that for a while...

Why did they have the mouse go and get the key with the magnet instead of just sliding the magnet under the door tied to a string?

Because that was very funny.

And for the love of god, why was there a talking BRAIN IN A FRICKING FISH TANK WITH TUBAS FOR EARS and why did they save it at the end of the movie? Who would have honestly given a $hit if the lame brain just blew up with all the other stupid characters? What motivation would any of them have had to save the brain in the first place?

I think you just have to go with the flow at some point. Or not, as the case may be. But clearly the Brain sent the message out to Miette, among others, because it wanted to escape and put an end to what was going on on the oil rig; and the clones saved the brain because it was their brother, more or less, and basically a 'good guy'. Brains in tanks are kind of a staple of sci-fi of a certain vintage, are they not? (see "Donovan's Brain", "The Man with Two Brains" among others).

But this film isn't primarily about the plot, it's as much about the set design, mood, sight gags, and sheer visual flair and inventiveness. I can see why those weaned on Hollywood might have a problem with that sort of thing, but it's kind of a shame. A single tear starts off a chain of events which leads to a ship crashing into a harbour, saving the person who cried? How can anyone not love that?

The fact that you prefer "Leon", another crappy, sentimental, corny Besson movie in a long line of crappy, sentimental, corny Besson movies, speaks volumes I think.

"I don’t like the term torture. I prefer to call it nastiness."

Donald Rumsfeld

[–] Cha-Cha 18 years ago

A single tear starts off a chain of events which leads to a ship crashing into a harbour, saving the person who cried? How can anyone not love that?

Hear! Hear! That was an amazing sequence.

"Leon", another crappy, sentimental, corny Besson movie

I loved "Leon".

[–] julenka 18 years ago

Brilliant comment! Hahaha. :D

..

Except, of course, I loved Leon. Tsk, tsk.

[–] mix-13 18 years ago

Let me guess.. You are sixteen ;)

[–] skearns510 18 years ago

this is a good thread, it shows that even if you do put your thoughts out there in an inteligent manor; and somebody answers them in a respectfull manor; it will still equal monkeys throwing fieces.

throw those fieces, monkeys, throw em good.

[–] julenka 18 years ago

Aww. You can't spell faeces.

[–] gasuelbe 16 years ago

[–] Portlis 18 years ago

23, thanks.

[–] Xaositect_Crayon 16 years ago

Portlis... I know you don't check this out much.... but if it's true you think this is one of the worse movies ever, than you are obviously not familiar with the legendary Godfrey Ho.

[–] MonkeyPundit 15 years ago

The film is, visually, stunning. That's the appeal.

As for the plot holes; it's a fairy tale. Fairy Tales have plot holes; Snow White, Cinderalla, Sleeping Beauty, for example? Get over it.

[–] purple_gromit 18 years ago

To the original poster.....
*cough* tosser *cough*

Just enjoy the pretty visuals if nothing else.