MovieChat Forums > Code 46 (2004) Discussion > Runthrough

Runthrough

posted 10 years ago by htotheftotheo
17 replies | jump to latest

**Spoilers ahead**

1. Lead female is obnoxious and ugly, especially with short hair.
2. The entire relationship between Robbins and the lead female was awkward. Awkward enough where it made me cringe. Essentially Robbins plays a 45-year-old loser who falls in love with a 25-year-old loser that doubles as a criminal and he's blood relative. The fact that they're related makes the relationship all the more disgusting.
3. The entire plot of the movie is basically given to you in the opening credits.
4. Cheesy futuristic gimmicks. There is nothing novel about mixed languages and cultures in the future. If you're going to incorporate that into the plot of a movie, do it creatively. Having the characters throw in a "lo siento" every other sentence doesn't qualify as such.
5. Plenty of empty metaphors that are designed to make you think this movie has a deeper meaning.
6. We do get a full vagina shot at 1:14:22, and it is a nice one. That said, it comes up just one short of the ultimate cinema twist: full penetration.

Overall, if you watched 'Lost in Translation' and thought to yourself "Wouldn't this be better if Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson were related?," then this is the perfect movie for you.

[–] bjorkwrist 10 years ago

Next time you only need a single point saying you didn't get it.

[–] csue-palmer 10 years ago

We "get it". It's just that they failed miserably in every way to make it a good film. 1) Script: Passes 2) Editing: Sucked 3) Cinematography: Sucked 4) Acting: Decent for what script they had to work with.

No emotional buy-in. I guess they tried.

[–] bjorkwrist 10 years ago

You're going to have to do better than that.

1) Script: Passes

What do you mean? The script was great. It wasn't a forumlaic 3 act play designed to be consumed and discarded like fast food.

2) Editing: Sucked

What was wrong with the editing? Which part of the editing wasn't up to your standards? I thought the editing was both cohesive and immersive without being derrivative of other science fiction films I've seen.

3) Cinematography: Sucked

http://aneeshchaganty.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/best00code46.jpeg

The cinematography was superb. I can't think of many films shot better than this. What about it did you not like?

4) Acting:Decent for what script they had to work with

Name a film you know of with better performances than the ones in this film.

No emotional buy-in.

No emotional buy-in from you? Is that the film's fault or your own? I think you were scared of the film. You were intimidated by the content so you've decided to be critical of it. Maybe you only enjoy films where you get to pretend your'e the lead character and once he started behaving in a way you wouldn't behave then you decided you didn't want to let yourself experience the rest of the film. Was it a moral decision to cut yourself off from the experience? Or an immoral one? Where you disgusted by the content, or excited by it?

I guess they tried.

You guess they tried what? What do you think they have failed to do?

[–] I_Pinxit 10 years ago

The script was great. It wasn't a forumlaic 3 act play designed to be consumed and discarded like fast food.

It was thoroughly mediocre, formulaic and predictable.

For one thing, every element is a familiar trope, or even a cliche: clones who don't know that they are clones? Check. Enclosed cities for the prosperous, while paupers live in a barren landscape outside? Check. Green parts of the world turned into desert? Check. Characters involved in unwitting incest? Check. (That one's about 2500 years old.) Sci-fi detective uses telepathy? Check. Reproductive technology having bad social consequences? Check. World apparently run by corporations which do double duty as government? Check. And so on.

For another, you know the outline of the plot by the time the credits have finished rolling, and you can guess pretty much all the remaining details by the time the detective character meets the fraudster character. It's as predictable as any rom-com or summer blockbuster that you're likely to encounter.

Also, the premise, like the premise of the majority of sci-fi films, is dumb. Cloning an individual human being many times over many years is more complicated than just producing lots of new, unique individuals by combining gametes. Therefore, you need a positive reason to clone a person. Possible reasons include (a) for a scientific experiment, (b) as part of some enormous criminal scheme, (c) to reincarnate a lost loved one, or otherwise to cheat death, (d) as part of a eugenic plan to create lots of genius scientists or super athletes. In this movie, cloning is happening on a large scale all around the world, pretty much randomly, and for no apparent reason at all. Okay, as I said, most science fiction films have a dumb premise, but this film is hoping to be taken seriously. It mistakes serious mood for serious thought. In reality, the it is no more intelligent than a Michael Bay film.

What was wrong with the editing? Which part of the editing wasn't up to your standards? I thought the editing was both cohesive and immersive without being derrivative of other science fiction films I've seen.

...

The cinematography was superb. I can't think of many films shot better than this. What about it did you not like?

The shooting and editing are not bad as in inept. They conform to standards that are accepted, and even fashionable, in indie films. The editing, though, is not great. The director tries to create a plausible portrait of a future Shanghai, but doesn't really succeed. The patchwork doesn't hang together.

Name a film you know of with better performances than the ones in this film.

Are you serious? There's nothing actually wrong with the acting in this film; the performances are perfectly adequate, but they are not especially memorable. It's not because the actors are doing a poor job, but because they don't have much material to work with. The film hasn't won any acting awards even in minor festivals. The number of films with better performances probably exceeds the number of hot dinners either of us has had in our respective lifetimes.

No emotional buy-in from you? Is that the film's fault or your own?

No emotional buy-in from almost anyone. The film has made very little impact anywhere.

[–] bjorkwrist 10 years ago

It was thoroughly mediocre, formulaic and predictable.

For one thing, every element is a familiar trope, or even a cliche: clones who don't know that they are clones? Check. Enclosed cities for the prosperous, while paupers live in a barren landscape outside? Check. Green parts of the world turned into desert? Check. Characters involved in unwitting incest? Check. (That one's about 2500 years old.) Sci-fi detective uses telepathy? Check. Reproductive technology having bad social consequences? Check. World apparently run by corporations which do double duty as government? Check. And so on.

For another, you know the outline of the plot by the time the credits have finished rolling, and you can guess pretty much all the remaining details by the time the detective character meets the fraudster character. It's as predictable as any rom-com or summer blockbuster that you're likely to encounter.

Also, the premise, like the premise of the majority of sci-fi films, is dumb. Cloning an individual human being many times over many years is more complicated than just producing lots of new, unique individuals by combining gametes. Therefore, you need a positive reason to clone a person. Possible reasons include (a) for a scientific experiment, (b) as part of some enormous criminal scheme, (c) to reincarnate a lost loved one, or otherwise to cheat death, (d) as part of a eugenic plan to create lots of genius scientists or super athletes. In this movie, cloning is happening on a large scale all around the world, pretty much randomly, and for no apparent reason at all. Okay, as I said, most science fiction films have a dumb premise, but this film is hoping to be taken seriously. It mistakes serious mood for serious thought. In reality, the it is no more intelligent than a Michael Bay film.

You're just lying now. You didn't predict the plot of the film. Name one other film with the same plot. Naming random elements of a film and pretending they are the plot is a sneaky trick, but not a clever one. Your response contained spoilers, which is a weak thing to do. One clone, not multiple clones, who didn't know she was a clone. Just because the film doesn't explain how or why she was created you've assumed the reason is dumb. The film isn't about why she was created. The film is about subconscious and instinctual knowledge or emotional response to genetic markers in other humans. Rich people living in nice areas and poor people living in poor areas is the same as all films ever. It's something that occurs in real life, it's not a science fiction cliche. Over farming and soil errosion, again not science fiction cliche, but actually part of real life. The sex was not incest, and it was not even unwitting the second time. Tell me, was that second time they slept together something you predicted? Was it a cliche? Was it something you've seen in a previous film? You're a liar. The film made you uncomfortable so you're attacking it.

The shooting and editing are not bad as in inept. They conform to standards that are accepted, and even fashionable, in indie films. The editing, though, is not great. The director tries to create a plausible portrait of a future Shanghai, but doesn't really succeed. The patchwork doesn't hang together.

Your paragraph doesn't hang together. What standards do the shooting and editing conform to from indie films? What do you mean by Indie films? This was a BBC production, how is that independent? BBC are one of the pre-eminent producers of video-art in human history. You say the editing doesn't succeed. What about it doesn't succeed? What makes it fail? You're stating conclusions without stating an argument.

Are you serious? There's nothing actually wrong with the acting in this film; the performances are perfectly adequate, but they are not especially memorable. It's not because the actors are doing a poor job, but because they don't have much material to work with. The film hasn't won any acting awards even in minor festivals. The number of films with better performances probably exceeds the number of hot dinners either of us has had in our respective lifetimes.

Acting awards mean nothing. What does an acting award do? What does it mean? The acting by the leads in this film is great, and as I've said, Tim Robbins performance is as good as any performance you'll see from any actor in film history. If you can't watch the film and appreciate the acting because it hasn't won any awards then that's a problem with you, not with the film. If there's such a great list of films with better performances, name ten of them, and explain why and how they're better. Name the film, and the actor.

No emotional buy-in from almost anyone. The film has made very little impact anywhere.

Everyone I know who has seen this film has bought into it emotionally. Film distribution has nothing to do with emotional buy-in. I posit that you also had emotional buy-in with this film, couldn't handle the subject matter, and hate it for that very reason. It worried you, so you attack it.

[–] girlradiohead 9 years ago

Just watched this again & while it's not the greatest movie ever, I enjoy it.
But I always want to know more about the world they're living in. Why do they speak a pigeon-language? What was he giving people when he bribed them? Why would there be so many cloned versions of the same person? And so on....

I feel there is so much more that could have been done with & expanded on about this future society!

On a side note...why would a person call someone a liar about that someone's personal view of a movie?
How can anyone know better than only themselves the reasons that they like or dislike something?
("You're a liar. The film made you uncomfortable so you're attacking it.")

I'm sorry but how do you know how a movie made someone else feel?


[–] bjorkwrist 9 years ago

On a side note...why would a person call someone a liar about that someone's personal view of a movie?
How can anyone know better than only themselves the reasons that they like or dislike something?
("You're a liar. The film made you uncomfortable so you're attacking it.")

I'm sorry but how do you know how a movie made someone else feel?

The personal view listed was that they knew the entire plot of the film from watching the opening credits of the film.

You're not sorry; I said the poster was lying because they were making an unreasonable claim without any evidence. They were welcome to provide evidence, but didn't. If someone claims to be able to fly, but provides no evidence can we say they're lying? What if someone then comes and says, "I'm sorry but how do you know if someone really feels they can fly?"

And regarding why I would know it made them uncomfortable, do you think people aggressively lie about and attack art that makes them feel comfortable?

[–] girlradiohead 9 years ago

Oh gawd...I'm sorry, I didn't realize you have some sort of cognitive disability.

[–] bjorkwrist 9 years ago

Interesting. You don't have an answer so you pull out your regular "I'm sorry..." intro and then start insulting me.

That is correct, right? It's not that you've got an answer to my questions but you're keeping it a secret; you actually don't have an answer.

[–] girlradiohead 9 years ago

It's not an insult. It's just understanding through your responses that you don't process information the way most people do.
It's not a judgement.

But further conversation with you will be impossible because you fail to understand simple nuances such as the phrase, "I'm sorry" is just that...a phrasing.
You clearly feel you know better about what people are feeling rather than the person themselves and that is just faulty logic.
So, there's no way to speak to someone like you because you aren't following the conversation in the same way that I am.

Any response from you will just be a dissection of my statements in an attempt to prove you know more about what I'm saying than I do. There's no point for me to continue a disjointed conversation that way.
But I'm sure you'll feel the need to reply by dissecting everything here to "prove" you know better.

Enjoy....as I've tried to explain, you just don't process information the way I do and that means I'm unable to have an actual conversation that isn't filled with your attempts to tell me what I mean when I'm talking about my own feelings.

Goodbye.

[–] bjorkwrist 9 years ago

Yes, it was a personal insult. I'm a person, and you said I had a cognitive disability.

Just to confirm, you don't have an answer, this reply from you was just a cheap departing shot to distract from the fact that you don't have an actual reply, but are too cowardly to retract your statement or apologise for your rudeness.

[–] csue-palmer 10 years ago

Oh and Kristin Scott Thomas must have thought it so bad b/c she was Tim Robbin's wife but didn't want her name on the credits.

[–] htotheftotheo 9 years ago

Your profile picture is all I need to know about you.

[–] I_Pinxit 10 years ago

I didn't hate the movie as much as you, but I partly agree with your comments.

1. Lead female is obnoxious and ugly, especially with short hair.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "ugly", but she's not in the Scarlett Johansson league, lookswise. British directors often pride in casting "ordinary" looking actors, instead of actors who could make a good living as fashion models. They appear to believe they have a duty to counteract the "beauty myth" (which is not really a myth, but is thought to be so in politically correct circles) by means of such casting.

I agree with the "obnoxious" bit. The character is totally lacking in any kind of charm, and is quite unattractive on that score.

2. The entire relationship between Robbins and the lead female was awkward. Awkward enough where it made me cringe.

Obviously, that's deliberate. The Auteur wants you to squirm and cringe, but hopes you'll still sympathize with the characters as victims of tragic circumstance.

Essentially Robbins plays a 45-year-old loser who falls in love with a 25-year-old loser that doubles as a criminal

The interesting thing here is, we wouldn't know the Robbins character was a loser if he didn't suddenly fall in love with the fraudster woman. He seems to be a middle-ranking corporate guy with a respectable job, a clean history, and happy family life. The film explains his behavior as a side-effect of the "empathy virus", which is sort of plausible.

and he's blood relative. The fact that they're related makes the relationship all the more disgusting.

Well, yes, though neither of them knows this at first. The provoking of disgust here is intentional, of course. The plot copies the central element of Oedipus the King more or less directly, though in simplified form, which is a very respectable thing for an "art" movie to do, though not exactly original. It's been used many times in films, plays, books, and even comics, though the unwitting incest thing has seldom, if ever, comprised the entire plot of a film before.

3. The entire plot of the movie is basically given to you in the opening credits.

True. Not exactly first-class story-telling, that.

4. Cheesy futuristic gimmicks. There is nothing novel about mixed languages and cultures in the future. If you're going to incorporate that into the plot of a movie, do it creatively. Having the characters throw in a "lo siento" every other sentence doesn't qualify as such.

Totally agree. This was very badly done. On a scale of one-to-ten, where the "Nadsat" in A Clockwork Orange scores ten, the language gimmick in this film scores one.

5. Plenty of empty metaphors that are designed to make you think this movie has a deeper meaning.

I think I probably missed those. There was a lot of desert. I suppose that could count as a metaphor. It had me confused for a moment, because the landscape around Shanghai is quite green. I thought, "Huh? Did they say we are in Shanghai, or Dubai?" Then I realized they were trying to suggest severe climate change. This was jarring, because it implies the film is set in the fairly distant future, but the cars, street scenes, etc., imply a very near future. I suppose that could be classed under "cheesy futuristic gimmicks".

6. We do get a full vagina shot at 1:14:22, and it is a nice one. That said, it comes up just one short of the ultimate cinema twist: full penetration.

The director is famous for this sort of thing. 9 Songs, by the same director, gives you full penetration and much more.

Overall, if you watched 'Lost in Translation' and thought to yourself "Wouldn't this be better if Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson were related?," then this is the perfect movie for you.

LOL! Spot on. I hated Lost in Translation more than this film. This film is just dull, whereas Lost in Translation is positively ghastly, since the whole film expresses a meanness of spirit.

[–] Ringworm7 8 years ago

The plot copies the central element of Oedipus the King more or less directly, though in simplified form, which is a very respectable thing for an "art" movie to do, though not exactly original. It's been used many times in films, plays, books, and even comics, though the unwitting incest thing has seldom, if ever, comprised the entire plot of a film before.

Oldboy, original and remake, took on the subject even more dramatically.

SPOILER ALERT
Because I've watched Oldboy, when the film explains Code 46 at the beginning, I felt it was going to be father/daughter, or at least siblings. But the nature of the 50% genetic match could be parent, child or sibling. I'll watch it again gladly - this is a really great film! - knowing the ending, and look for more clues. I think Marie is genetically his parent? Or half-sister?

[–] GalacticLad 10 years ago

I am watching it right now, not even halfway through and I'm traumatized by how horrible this film is... For first it's too meta-referential. I felt like listening to inside jokes of people I never met... and the language mix-up made the whole film harder to understand.

I am still going to finish it, because I never give up even on a bad film.

But yes, bad film is bad.

(Dear IMDB angry posters, I've been here long enough not to be scared by your semi-scary bullying rants)

[–] etruw-1 10 years ago

I was mesmerized by this movie.
Loved the pace, vibe and cinematography.
Morton usually doesn't do it for me but in this movie she had a very available sexiness about her.
I would put this movie on all the time, sometimes just to have it on in the background.