MovieChat Forums > Storm (2006) Discussion > I am sorry...but no...this is not workin...

I am sorry...but no...this is not working

posted 17 years ago by gedeblik
15 replies | jump to latest

I found this quote in another thread:

'The movie's official website (www.stormfilmen.com) cleary states that Lova and the Man in the suit have been around for all eternity, fighting for Light and Darkness respectivly.

They travel through time and dimensions, fighting for people's souls and have fought each other countless times before.'

Another poster states that it is explained in the extra material - and this is a huge problem for the film.

If you have to go to extra material or the website to find out these things - the film/story clearly did not convey this in a satisfying manner. This movie keeps you guessing during the film, but after it is over you are still guessing, and there could be a variety of answers.

This movie had some good ideas, but the story is all over the place and a lot of things are just tossed in and not explained - like for instance his friend (the one he borrowed the films from). Lova could be an angel, his conscience represented by a comic book heroine from a comic he took refuge in as a child - but it's a guess, as we know nothing about Lova except she can die from fire - apparently so can the girl that is given the box at the start - yet she is killed by a dart (plot hole fyi) - and so what if Lova and the bad guy was fighting for his soul - why his soul? why is he so important? again...nothing...no lore that explains it. And who was the bad guy, what was his motivation, except fighting Lova - He wants the box - sure - but why? Because Lova said that if he remembers, the bad guy will be stopped - yes....why?

Because he must remember Katta - oh you mean the sister that was thrown in as a complete crowbar plot move and not established storywise in any way?

As a scandinavian film maker, I want scandinavia to make more 'fantastic' films instead of all this 'realism' that we are seeing, and wanted so badly for this one to be good. And there were some really good ideas here, and I like the ambition present - but this is not good writing, it fails miserably in some of the basic principles of storytelling with plot holes the size of grand canyon - I don't think everything should be explained, however, a minimum of coherence is needed, or at least there has to be a point to it all, and the point of this story is weak because it does not establish its plot(s) or its characters in a satisfying manner.

[–] popclap 17 years ago

The film is all about three repressed memories from DD's childhood, memories that he pushed out of his mind before moving to Stockholm to start a stockholmian existance. The directors take on the matter is that DD is leading a 'bad' life, portrayed in the first act, and that he needs to change it. In order to change his life he needs to remember why he changed it the first time, he needs the memory of the bong-rape, locking his brother in the old cellar and finally, stepping on his sisters' glasses(she couldn't see without them and that's how she got killed=young boy thinks it's his fault)
Lova and the man in the suit-remember DD's insight on the beach in Cuba- represent the light and dark sides of humanity, the internal struggle for balance bla bla sort of Aeon Fluxish. The man in the suit wants the box/memory to keep it hidden from DD, so DD will go on with his destructive lifestyle, and Lova wants for DD to open it, and thereby become a 'good' person. Oh, and the man in the suit always calls main character by his stockholmian DD while Lova says Donny, the name of the boy who thought he killed his sister.
Then there are the two dream sequences(of young Donny running from the bullies) hinting repressed childhood stuff, so I don't agree with you when you say the Katta part was a bad twist. The first to memories, the rape and the shutting in his brother, are only part of the solution. The death of his sister, that's the one memory he's really done erased(hence the box that can't be opened until the other stages of rememberance are complete), and to turn his life around it's suggested he needs to rid himself of the guilt of killing his own sister.

Dunno that's what I thought anyway. It really is a debate-friendly movie innit

[–] gedeblik 17 years ago

It's not that I don't get what symbolizes what, or what the premise is for DD's situation and what his goal is - you'd have to be pretty dense not to get the themes of this film.

The fact that he has repressed memories does not establish the twist with Katta, or make up for the fact that it is very poorly done. A twist is something that is established - this isn't - it's just tossed in with a shovel.

I am not asking for explanations of any kind, or saying that there are parts I don't get - I am simply stating that this is pretty shoddy storytelling - and there is no reason for it to be so messy - they should just have conveyed the story in a satisfying manner. When I wrote 'who is he?' 'who is she?' I was making a point that the film DOES not get that across, you dig?

I have a BA in philosophy and after that 3 years of studying storytelling and making movies completing an MA - I think I can grasp the concept of light and dark and the general pseudo psychology here and I kinda doubt - not to toot my own horn though - that Storm is hiding anything from me ;)

I'm not debating taste or preferences here - just saying that based on principles for telling stories, that have been around since early myths - this particular story is poorly told - some movies can get away with being vague - hell some even excel because they are just that - this isn't one of them

[–] leforcat 17 years ago

Being a Scandinavian, I'm happy to notice not everyone else here adores the von Trier-kind of crap (it is no coincidence that The Emperor's New Clothes is a Danish story!) or most pathetic film making that the Swedes currently do.

But as far as plot holes, remember that several great films, like The Big Sleep, to mention one of the most notorious, have a plot that don't hold water - and yet they still make a great film experience.

Gentlemen, you can't FIGHT here, this is a War Room!

[–] gedeblik 17 years ago

I agree :) but I did kinda wrote that at the end of my last post - you can forgive plotholes, or that some directors/writers don't care if they are coherrent - because they bring something else to the table.

Art doesnt have to make sense either - however this is not art...it's not even an art house film - I fail to see what it has to do with Von Trier :) Von Trier is hit and miss for me - I loved 'De fem benspænd' and 'Riget' but I feel that 'Dogville', 'Maderlay' and 'Dancer in the Dark' are horribly over rated - but hey...he's experimenting, and good for him - on that note - do not go see 'Direktøren for det hele' as it is downright awful :p

'Storm' could have been great considering the mood and the cinematography - but the script should have been worked on for at least 3 more months...by someone else than the original writer...

[–] leforcat 17 years ago

No, Storm has nothing to do with Von Trier, thank God. (I liked 'Riget' and 'Europa', but from then on, it's been a sorry mess that only actors and critics can find attractive. I hope nobody will force me to see 'Direktören för det hele' :-), I may probably catch it on TV in the future.

But film doesn't have to be Art, nor does it have to be Entertainment. One of my favorite filmmakers, Werner Herzog, stubbornly rejects being called an artist. So did other directors I like, such as Fred Zinnemann or Robert Siodmak, though for different reasons. Yet they all created great films. Film can be whatever one choses it to be. Most of all, film is about telling a story, any story, and about finding the truth. To me, Von Trier has been making non-films for some time now.

I agree, though, that the script may have been worked on some more. I simply like the film, particularly as a glimpse of hope in the Politically Correct Kingdom of Sweden!

Gentlemen, you can't FIGHT here, this is a War Room!

[–] gedeblik 17 years ago

Well I never put much stock in what film makers want to be called if anything - at the end of the day it's rhetoric and semantics anyway - and as you said, what matters is the story.

I like what Storm wants to be and I like its and ambition - I just think it fails in too many departments. The cinematography should be congratulated for doing its part in trying to establish a somewhat dystopic universe in the film, and the mood is a times ace due to audio being used competently.

Tecnically this movie is pretty awesome - unfortunately that doesn't cut it in my opinion. If you read my other posts, my main problem is that it pains me when I think about what this film could have been given the potential that it obviously has.

I myself enjoy Herzog - but how he views himself matters little to me - and it looks to me as if he is turning rather mainstream (that doesnt have to be a bad thing) - but Grizzly Man is hands down one of the 3 best films I have seen the last 5 years

Nice to meet a kindred spirit that is capable of a civil discussion...it's a rarity on these boards - drop me a pm anytime :)

[–] leforcat 17 years ago

Thanks!
Likewise!
To be honest I agree with you on most accounts, regarding "Storm". The commentary on the DVD reveals that the filmmakers are very young and very enthusiastic (and also that budget matters prevented them from doing a few things they wanted) - lets hope they will stay in the business and improve the next time ;-)

Labels are unimportant, I agree too, but in case of Herzog it's interesting to know why he feels the way he feels and who he considers to be true artists - circus performers or perhaps also ski-jumpers, not filmmakers :)

Gentlemen, you can't FIGHT here, this is a War Room!

[–] VargenSWE 16 years ago

I didnt understand anything about this movie at all, I only sat there waiting for it to end hehe.

[–] CahillSellers 16 years ago

I followed this movie pretty well. I mean, I don't think I have any deep understanding of cinema or anything, but even after "getting it," for lack of a better term, it was still a terrible film. Don't bother spending too much time on it, it's not very good and it's nowhere as deep as it thinks its being. "The Box" is his soul, it contains the important, redeemable memory that he has suppressed because of his shame over doing the wrong thing. He has to dig through his other repressed memories so that Lova can save his soul
from the man in the suit. Why him? Well, I guess that he's just one story out of many and they will end up doing this for everyone at some point or another if they start becoming to numb to the good things around them, which is why it happens during a storm (whose cold with numb you) and he doesn't have any feelings in his skin (he's become numb to touch) and the brother is the shame that he's tried to save (which is why he's associated with light) and the goth girl is the memory he's tried to repress (which is why she's dressed in black) and the sister is the deepest shame but also his most loving memory and blah blah blah...
After all of this, the movie is still completely terrible. You can examine it and interpret it and look at it from every which way, but it's really just not worth the time. It's just a horrible movie that thinks that if they Matrix-it up and put some "deep" meaning behind it, it'll pass as a groundbreaking masterpiece. This will probably become the next Donnie Darko over time, where the fanatics will accuse anyone who dares to think the movie is just a poorly made disaster of not being smart enough to "get it."
Well, there are people who "get it" and are also aware about it being a total waste of time. There are also people who don't "get it" and shouldn't bother trying to because it's just not worth the energy. And there are those who genuinely like and appreciate it without thinking anyone who is a critic of it is stupid or ignorant, which is fine (that's a difference between a fan and a fanatic). But it feels like this is going to be one of those movies that some unfortunately simple minded people will use as a gauge of intellect.
The mentality of the fanatic works likes this:
A. I am brilliant. + B. Everything I like is brilliant. + C. If you don't like what I like, you don't recognize brilliance = D. You are an idiot.
The Donnie Darko Fanatics used to be the kings of this behavior, then Southland Tales came out. Now, Storm might be the next one. I sincerely hope not. Feel free to like or dislike anything you like when it comes to movies, music, art in general, but don't think that an opinion is fact and anyone who disagrees is a moron. Because that view is as moronic as it gets.
p.s. I'm not talking about anyone on this thread! Please don't think I am, you all have been having a nice, civilized discussion on this. But the people who I've spoken to about this movie (I saw it at the Philadelphia Film Fest 2008) started to echo this sentiment and I hope that it isn't the beginning of another wave of obnoxious fanatics. First they obsessed over Kubrick, then it was Donnie Darko, hopefully it'll end with that. I pray this attitude isn't strictly an American one. We have enough troubles right now.

"But, hey, that's me, I could be wrong."

[–] gedeblik 16 years ago

Well I was the one that started this thread - and while you agree with me and echo my sentiments - I'm pretty floored by the fact that you lob this mess of storytelling in with a film like Donnie Darko - and why you have a go at Kubrick is beyond me.

I happen to like DD - but I understand if its not a lot of people's cup of tea. But I do think DD is pretty straightforward movie when you get down to it - we're not talking Naked Lunch here (which I also like). DD is coherrent and does not suffer from the same gaping plot holes as this heap of dung.

Kubrick to me understood what cinema was about, namely bringing all the art forms together - the movie is the only art form that can do that - and he was brilliant at creating moods and using music. To me Full Metal Jacket is still one of the best films ever made :)

I understand that you lash out at people that are fanatical about what they perceive as masterpieces - personally I have no time for people that defend their choice of movie with 'you just don't get it' - however I also believe there is such a thing as quality, and I do not believe in value relatitvism.

I guess what I'm trying to say is; aren't you being a counter-fanatic? Just because some people have a less than a healthy relationship with these films/directors does that by this definition alone make them crap - or?

[–] CahillSellers 16 years ago

Well, I never bashed Kubrick. I enjoy his films very much. It's just for a while, the Kubrick fanatics were getting WAY out of control. And while I did hate Donnie Darko, its not the movie's fault that some people are just obnoxious.
And as I wrote, everyone can like whatever they want. I wasn't bashing Kubrick or Donnie Darko, and maybe this is just limited to my area/experiences, but those were the two major sources of fanatic obsession. Why? I'm not exactly sure. And it's not really the fault of Kubrick or Donnie Darko because of that attitude. Just like it's not Storm's fault, but I fear this is going to be the next film to suffer from the fanatic effect.
So, no if a person brings up Kubrick, Donnie Darko or Storm, I'm not going to roll my eyes and take a condescending attitude. But unfortunately, there are people out there who will think they are smarter than you because they know how many gallons of fake blood were used in the Shining, because they "truly understand" the time wormholes and that they knew who the man in the suit was from the first scene.
It's sad, really. But as you brought up, it is important to not let the views of a few people effect the movies they take this attitude with. It'd be like bashing Taxi Driver because of the John Hinckley incident.
Sorry if there was a misunderstanding on that. It wasn't my intention.

"But, hey, that's me, I could be wrong."

[–] gedeblik 16 years ago

Point taken - and I agree :)

There are other movies that spark this kinda thing Requiem for a Dream being one. I don't think it's going to happen with Storm since it is deeply flawed in respect to the basics of storytelling - it doesn't even understand that you must establish what you use - be it events or persons - this might not be script it can also be the result of a really bad editing job.

Some might like it for some reason - but some people like Eragon and flies flock to *beep* - I can't explain it other than tight story and overall quality isn't always the defining factor for what people like.

But actually I *will* roll my eyes and debate people if they claim this is a good film - I sincerely want to hear their arguments :p

[–] CahillSellers 16 years ago

Good call, Requiem was another one of those that got infected with the fanatics' curse. And it looks like Takashi Miike is going to fill in Kubrick's role as the fanatics' director of choice. And I like his movies, so I don't know if that's better or worse. If you like it, you don't want to be lumped in with the fanatics. If you hate it, you don't even get where the fanatics are coming from or why.
And Storm's so bad that it had to germinate in script form. It's like how the Anti-Christ will be born bad right out of the womb.

"But, hey, that's me, I could be wrong."

[–] laurapliskin 16 years ago

When I was in undergrad, I took a class on vampires. We learned the history of Vlad the Impaler, we read lots of stories, and watched lots of movies. We dissected every aspect of vampire lore. I now know so much about vampires that I can't enjoy most stories about them because I pick out all the things that are incorrect about them (of course one could argue that you can't pick out what is incorrect about something that doesn't really exist, but that is another debate altogether). My point is, I wonder if you folks have studied film too much to be able to enjoy most movies anymore.

I loved Storm. Go ahead, roll your eyes, call me an idiot or a fanatic, or what have you. But for two hours, I was completely enthralled by the life of DD, first being indifferent towards him, then hating him, then trying to understand him. I was able to take this movie at face value and enjoy it for the sheer escapism it provided. Is it so wrong to like a movie even if it isn't created by von Tiers or Kubrick? And then should I be ashamed of myself for liking a movie by von Tiers of Kubrick because they're popular? I can honestly say that I almost pity you folks because it seems you keep yourselves from enjoying films because you have such unreasonably high standards.

Before you all rip me a new a-hole, I just want to say that I have also studied film and story-telling, so I know the basics of telling a story. You can say that Storm failed, or you can say that Storm did what it wanted to do and tried something different. Whatever, I liked Storm, and you're not going to make me ashamed of that.

[–] CahillSellers 16 years ago

About a nine on the tension scale there, Laura.
No one was trying to make you ashamed of anything. Last time I checked, that attitude was what the thread was arguing against. You can like Storm, go crazy! But you might want to bring a little bit more to the table than "I like it." And I don't think expecting Storm, or any movie for that matter, to be good, or even watchable, is an "unreasonably high standard" anymore than liking Storm proves that you have an unbelievably low standard. That argument could work both ways, so I wouldn't toss that around unless you don't mind it being thrown back at you.
Personally, I don't approach any film with expectations, standards or aesthetic outside of quality. Each film should stand on its own, and sometimes even if a film fails in one field it can succeed in another. There have been plenty of bad horror films that work better as comedies than as scarefests. Of course, then there's Storm, which doesn't work on any level whatsoever.
I read a lot of comic books as a kid, and even though I was a fan of the comics, I'm still able to tell the difference between decent movies like X-Men and Iron Man to total wastes of time and money like Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider.
And I'll leave the a-hole tearing to DD and his trusty bong.

"But, hey, that's me, I could be wrong."