Where are all the other people who didn't like this film?

I didn't like it either. I really wanted to enjoy it. I even bought the book of it when I bought the movie. The description of it reminded me of the novel "The Wasp Factory" which I really enjoyed. This movie did seem to have everything that I would like in a movie such as nominally dark humour, disturbing content, and some disturbing hallucinations. But still, it didn't do anything for me. I felt... disconnected or something. The movie was too much like the lead actor; it was too loud, incoherent, and obnoxious for me to feel a thing for.

I did fall asleep once, but when I got up I turned it off and then picked up from where I last remembered seeing it a couple days after. So I did see it from beginning to end, and found it to be a struggle.

I did get a few laughs out of it, though not many, and many of the attempts at humour were painful.

I also had to use subtitles to understand what they were saying.

I have the novel, I'd read a chapter of it, and don't know if I'll be able to get into it. Seeing how the author adapted it into the screenplay there's a good chance that the film's events are faithful to the novel. I also don't care for the style that it was written. It's written in run on sentences and the dialog isn't signified by quotations.

Below is a grotesque of how it is written:

The story's written in this very bizarre way you see, and when I read it I said out loud this is quite annoying and my cousin heard me say this and he said what are you getting your panties in a knot about and I told him this damn book is right getting on my nerves and he said he'd like to pour gasoline on it and burn it and extinguish it with piss.

I liked the film overall, but I think you're right on several points. I agree that the main character was obnoxious and too strident, but that's probably as much the director's fault as the actor's. The actor needed to be pulled back a little, and the director should have instructed him in the art of subtlety. I felt like the kid's madness was mainly conveyed through camera tricks and cinematic novelties rather than through acting. My main objection to the film, though, was the constant voice-over narration. I thought that was very irritating, but the film probably couldn't have been made without it because of McCabe's style of writing.

I didn't care for the tone and delivery, the whole manner of it. I found it incredibly grating, cloying and annoying. I had to stop 30 minutes in, didn't make it to the really weird stuff. Maybe I'll try finishing it tomorrow...



My Movie List>
http://tinyurl.com/22as9c

'I could NOT get into this film at all. I fell asleep twice and then couldn't even finish it.

I know people will give me crap for that because I've read other posts on IMDB where people complain about a movie, say it was so bad they couldn't finish it, and then some other people slam them and say, "WHOA you can't judge a movie if you don't even have the respect to finish it! BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH!!!" '

Well, unless you were unusually tired, I think being unable to stay awake during the film is a legitimate basis for criticism. What I do not understand, however, is why you found it so dull.

'I personally was not impressed by the main actor's performance and don't understand what all the hubbub is about. His character was also sooo obnoxious and just plainly disturbed'

So, your argument is that films with obnoxious and/or disturbed protagonists aren't interesting? I'll bet if you try real hard, you can think of any number of movies you like where the protagonists are mentally unbalanced (or at least behave as if they are) and/or obnoxious. I don't really know your tastes in film, but I'd guess that probably applies to something like 20% of all movies, in pretty much every genre.

"and the storyline jumped so much, that I had a really hard time following what was going on.'"

This is not a valid criticism. The story is such that any ordinarily attentive adult of average intelligence should be able to follow it with little difficulty. Hell, its basically linear, and its narrated. I can't understand any basis what-so-ever for the claim its difficult to follow. If you were criticizing "Memento" or "Primer" on that basis, then I would not particularly agree with you, but I would accept your statement as a valid criticism, since some people are going to have more of a problem with certain formats than others. But there's nothing about this movie that makes it difficult to follow (except, perhaps, the accents). And you said used subtitles, so that rules that problem out.

'I thought the bond between him and (Jim?) his main best friend was not developed enough. The Apache thing was cute but I didn't understand why they had a "bond"'

Because they were little kids who grew up together. Didn't you ever have a best friend? Their bond was formed off camera, before the movie started.

'Francie was obviously so morbid, and where it came from.'

Francie's problem(s) stem from the simple fact he is a victim of the malady known as "paranoid schizophrenia." I rather thought this was extremely obvious. He inherited the malady from his mother, and his mental stability was probably not aided much by his father's genes either. Or by his regrettable upbringing.


Gamera is really neat! He is made from turtle meat! We've been eating Gamera!

Add me to the list of viewers who don't like this movie either. I am with the consensus of posters here that it was truly hard to get into and honestly, I didn't even manage to finish it either. I too wanted to like it but the characters weren't likeable for me and I found the dialogue and accents difficult to understand. I kept trying to get into the movie when I saw I had already been watching 45 minutes and hadn't found a thing I was enjoying, I turned it off. Maybe another day I will give it another go but there are far too many other movies that I am sure I will like so for now, I am going to pass on this.

"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places." H.P. Lovecraft

Sure, Francie´s an obnoxious little fella, but there´s also so much more to him and unlike Cillian Murphy´s character in Jordan´s later Breakfast On Pluto who all but fades into phoney cross dressing oblivion, he´s never vapid or unengaging. One´s actually made to feel for his desperation and the film strikes a rather fine balance between comedy and tragedy. It´s also narratively straight-forward so I have no idea what the remark about the storyline "jumping so much" is supposed to be referring to.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

I didn't care for it either. I read the positive reviews on here so I was looking forward to watching it. With Neil Jordan behind it, it gave me more hope that I was in for something special.

But it was a total let down. Couldn't stand Eammon Owens. He seemed like a cartoon character.

The only saving grace is the fantasy-like feel to it thanks to Jordan's screenplay and directing.

4/10

Not I. Love the film. It had me spellbound the first time I watched it about a dozen years ago. I've seen it a couple more times since, and only appreciate it more.


You saw Dingleberries?