Dreadful
Contrived and unwatchable. We didn't make it past the half-hour mark, I'm afraid. I wanted to like it.
shareI disagree. I really liked it. I've seen it twice.
share
MovieChat Forums > At Sachem Farm (2001) Discussion > Dreadful
[deleted]
Actually, I found it to be a wonderful film. You kind of have to be in a philosophical mood to watch it, but when you are it's magnificent. It's touching.
shareGiven that the definition of contrive is "To form or create in an artistic or ingenious manner" I'd agree that this film most definitely is ABOUT contrivance. The old man really does contrive throughout the movie, and he does it well.
I found this film amazingly beautiful and the characters interesting and compelling.
Can you name a few films in the same family story genre this one is in that you feel are less contrived? That might give some perspective on where you're coming from.
To me this film feels no more contrived than A River Runs Through It or On Golden Pond.
When i first saw this movie I caught it somewhere in the middle. I was forever changed by it. You didn't make it to the middle. You might want to watch the entire movie before you label something dreadful. You remind me of the Rufus Seawell character in the movie. Can't stop long enough to smell the roses.
shareDefinitely not a film that can be called dreadful after watching only the first part of the complex story.
sharei thought it was dreadful, too, and i watched the whole thing. the sound track was distracting at best, and there were scenes (like when rufus's character climbs the ladder to be atop the column with nigel's character and they both awkwardly sit there for a few seconds as the barenaked ladies song ends in a seemingly badly edited moment) where the music felt forced. background and development on almost everyone in the film was rushed/incomplete and while i agree with the op's general sentiment i'd have to replace the word "contrived" with "pretentious".
shareActually, one of the important lessons in the movie was when Minnie Driver explains the sunk-cost fallacy, which says "just because you've spent 30 minutes watching a dreadful movie doesn't mean you should follow that up with another hour". Rather, I am the Rufus Sewell of movie watchers for sticking with it to the end because I'd already wasted a bunch of time on it, even though I had a fair idea it wasn't getting any better. So, I commend the poster for correct application of this wisdom by cutting their losses at the half hour.
Also, I think I'd rather watch Minnie Driver lecture on economics than watch this movie again. Or the first time.