I agree it is confusing. I had read good things about this film and I am trying to stay with it although it seems needlessly convoluted. Too many characters I don't give a damn about makes it tough going after a while.
I find that movies with lots of characters and storylines work best if those characters are worth the emotional investment and the stories pay off, contributing to an overarching narrative. I have to care about them (or at least find them interesting) to to make it worth my time to keep track of everything. In this case, everyone in the film is a worthless scumbag so it is getting tedious.
I guess I am not a big fan of these Brit thrillers. These guys should watch a Tarantino or Scorsese flick or 2 to see how to make a crime drama with lots of characters work.
dude, dude, no no no.....
okay sorry but (rolling up my sleeves, time to work) you just earned a word of admonition from the ole LTUMer
(no offense, please. as the world's official
Number One Worldwide Fan it's my job to usher errant viewers into the fold gently and bearing good cheer.)
---first, you should read some of the other threads where i post about the genius of this film and its writing. the 'literary movie' posts...
---second, this is an extremely intricate plot. it really bears rewatching multiple times to get it, and i PROMISE it gets way better with subsequent viewings. in fact i say you like it more and more as the number of viewings rise past the double digits. sounds crazy i know, but it really works that way. trust me.
---third, i appreciate the comment about tarantino et al but no sir, no, no way; this film is every bit as much genius as pulp fiction or reservoir dogs or jackie brown (my fave) ...and bear in mind that many people think tarantino is too tedious with overly long dialogue sets etc etc, so in a way this film is more akin to his style than you realised at first (my apology if i come off pedantic here, not trying to p1ss you off)
---fourth, it's a huge help to have read the book before watching, but since you didn't, read on to number five:
---fifth, as i intimated above this is a literary type film, a phrase i believe i coined myself a few years ago though i can never prove that. in the 70s (yes i was there then lol) we called em art films, or art house films. but that is not what i am calling layer cake here. i am saying 'literary film' with a specific intent. what i mean there is, it's an attempt to make a cinematic version of a novel, which is very hard to do and demands aquiescence and consent from the viewers to allow for predictable gaps in what is possible when turning a book into a film. novels are largely interior works with long passages of mood building and introspection offering deep inroads into the characters' POV and motivation. you see, (again, not pedantic here lol) cinema is only visual and auditory, no introspection allowed. so it's very hard to make a book into a film. having said that, vaughn and craig did a great job. but the real gem of the movie layer cake is in those annoying characters you mentioned. that, and the underground london crime world, and the huge spider web plot that masterfully builds back upon itself. but you see, those characters can't move beyond annoying unless you appreciate them. and you can't appreciate them unless you A- read the book or B-rewatch it enough times to see what those fellas are really up to. if you do that you will have a new take on it all, i guarantee.
ah well that is quite enough for now. i hope i did not offend. i take it you are from the USA. yeah bro give the brit gangster genre a try. check out snatch and sexy beast for starters.
-----------------------
What's this day of rest sh!t? What's this bulllSH!T? I don't f@ckin care. It don't matter to Jesus!
reply
share
Kroyall1962
11 years ago
.."in fact i say you like it more and more as the number of viewings rise past the double digits."
That is where you went off the rails. Any movie that has to be viewed 10 times or more for me to "get it" is a failure in my eyes. The films I enjoy most are based on great stories, compelling characters and strong dialog.
I am old enough to remember when a film was viewed once at a theater and that is the last you would see of it until it ended up as a late night rerun on TV years later. I think that was good because it forced screentwriters, actors and directors to make their artistic statement and not hide behind layers of crap to keep things interesting.
Why you would believe I would find it "fun" to watch a movie 10 times more I didn't like in the first place is beyond me. I also value my time more than that. I would rather spend it watching several other better movies. If you enjoyed it, good for you. For my money none of these characters were worth investing in. Daniel Craig is an OK Bond, but his dour manner and lack of depth isn't suited to much else.
If had to sum up this film in one word, that word would be "tedious".
reply
share
LTUM
11 years ago
you kinda missed the point, and you threw the baby out----
ah well i guess it really doesn't matter.
----------------------
What's this day of rest sh!t? What's this bulllSH!T? I don't f@ckin care. It don't matter to Jesus!
reply
share
LTUM
11 years ago
the more i think about it you REALLY missed my whole point. wow....
-------------------------
What's this day of rest sh!t? What's this bulllSH!T? I don't f@ckin care. It don't matter to Jesus!
reply
share