MovieChat Forums > Snow Angels (2008) Discussion > Hated this movie -- poor director

Hated this movie -- poor director

posted 15 years ago by chazzmatt
27 replies | jump to latest

I'm on vacation this week and I'm running out of movies I haven't seen. :)

So I went to Blockbuster and looked through the new releases for some diamonds in the rough. I picked up "Snow Angels" -- and the back of the box made it seem like a teen romance drama but also focusing on adult relationships too. So, I was thinking, "OK, something like 'Dreamscape' years ago with Matthew Modine."

I took a chance and ARGHHH -- that is 2 hours I will never get back. Several times we almost just turned it off but I thought, "No, it got two good reviews on the box. Maybe it gets better." It didn't get better. I hate directors who don't know when to trim a scene or even cut a scene.

There were so many slow, boring, depressing scenes. OK, we get it he's a drunk. I don't need to see 10 minutes of the ex-husband stumbling around in a bar, after 5 minutes of him drinking several whiskeys, to get the point. 1 minute of each is enough. Show him drinking, show him stumbling around. Done. Seriously, we actually fast-forwarded through some scenes towards the end that did not advance the narrative at all. You can tell it was a first time director.

Please let it end.

And the end was just what we thought it was going to be, because we heard the gun shots back at the beginning of the movie. That's not a spoiler -- you hear gun shots in the first scene -- the rest of the movie is a flashback.

I recently saw "Personal Effects" with Ashton Kutcher and Michelle Pfieffer and that is another movie where the director didn't know how to trim scenes. That movie could easily be 20 minutes shorter, still tell the story, and BE A BETTER MOVIE. But "Personal Effects" did have some redeeming quality. "Snow Angels" didn't.

[–] Josh_the_Destroyer 15 years ago

"You can tell it was a first time director."

He isn't a first time director.

"I don't need to see 10 minutes of the ex-husband stumbling around in a bar, after 5 minutes of him drinking several whiskeys, to get the point. 1 minute of each is enough. Show him drinking, show him stumbling around. Done."

Not that much time was actually spent showing him drinking, Green actually only shows you little snippets so that you can get the idea. Maybe you thought there were pacing issues, but this was not the source of them at all.

"Seriously, we actually fast-forwarded through some scenes towards the end that did not advance the narrative at all."

When you watch a David Gordon Green movie you should come expecting that. The images can be appreciated just as they are in a lot of cases, not necessarily just for the advancement of the story.

[–] chazzmatt 15 years ago

"You can tell it was a first time director."

He isn't a first time director.

======

OK, my mistake. The movie is so bad I assumed he had to be a first time director. I read where the original director left and the writer was approached to make the movie.

==========

"I don't need to see 10 minutes of the ex-husband stumbling around in a bar, after 5 minutes of him drinking several whiskeys, to get the point. 1 minute of each is enough. Show him drinking, show him stumbling around. Done."

Not that much time was actually spent showing him drinking, Green actually only shows you little snippets so that you can get the idea. Maybe you thought there were pacing issues, but this was not the source of them at all.

==========

The last drinking scene was especially long. Whatever time it lasted could have been cut by two-thirds. He visited the bars 2 or 3 times. I'm not going to watch it again to count. :)

Yes, there were pacing issues. That is an understatement.

Running time is supposedly 1 hour 46 minutes -- but it felt like over 2 hours. An example, the two boys are smoking weed and then discover something important. Feels like 10 minutes of aimless weed smoking. Maybe it was only 5 minutes. But the scene could have been trimmed some. Most of the scenes could have been trimmed for time and it would actually make the movie have more meaning. Find the essence of the scene and show that. Sometimes "less" is more.

Sometimes directors think they will be nominated for awards if they make the LONGEST, MOST DEPRESSING movie of the year.

I know he was intent on showing the dark palette of colors -- the snow, the dreary state of cars and houses. But you don't need repeated, long, slow scenes to make your point.

A few years ago, in the DVD deleted scenes section of a very popular relationship movie, the now famous director said in film school you are taught you may have to cut your favorite scene to make the movie work better. There were some scenes he cut out entirely, but there was one scene he TRIMMED, where the whole point of the movie is made actually -- where the husband says goodbye to his wife. And the director gave the reason he trimmed that scene: the point had already been made earlier in the scene. You didn't need to see it again. I respect that. He then showed the FULL scene and he was right. Sometimes LESS is more.

PLUS I am mostly mad because the box write-up didn't give an accurate description of the movie. It focused on the teen romance -- almost made it sound like a "coming of age" movie with other adult relationships on the periphery. If I had known about the novel, then I probably would have been forewarned. But instead my wife and I sat down blind.

[–] Anonymous65 15 years ago

The movie may have been long, but there's no way it was as long as your long ass post.

Seriously, for someone who hates aimless movies, you sure love rambling on and on about nothing.

[–] jessieron 15 years ago

[–] Pittsnogle_Goggins 15 years ago

"An example, the two boys are smoking weed and then discover something important. Feels like 10 minutes of aimless weed smoking. Maybe it was only 5 minutes. But the scene could have been trimmed some"

Hey loser there was 1-2 minutes of them smoking weed in that scene. Based one your comments I assume that you had spent a lot of time smoking weed before viewing the movie.

[–] Josh_the_Destroyer 15 years ago

"The last drinking scene was especially long. Whatever time it lasted could have been cut by two-thirds. He visited the bars 2 or 3 times. I'm not going to watch it again to count. :) "

Um.... A character visiting a bar once is a lot different that a character visiting a bar several times. Showing the character visit the bar only once would paint a much different picture, the same way showing a character having a beer is a lot different than showing a character having twelve beers.

[–] ronnivic 11 years ago

The teen romance label is embarrassing This film was dark and haunting.
Sorry you were misled

[–] enkid2 11 years ago

Trim this. Trim that. Trim your face. How can I respect your difference of opinion when your complaints are a) you assumed you were getting a different genre of film, which is your mistake by the way, not the director's and b) some scenes didn't end precisely when you wanted them to. Fine, I guess now I hate American Beauty. Those DAMN flowers kept falling from the ceiling for like... 10 minutes. Guess what? That Halley Berry/Bob Thornton sex scene in Monsters Ball: way too long. I didn't check or anything but I'm sure there was at least 18 trimmable minutes in there. And *beep* Shawshank Redemption in the mouth... That dude crawled thru *beep* for the last HOUR of the movie... we GET it... 1 second in the courtroom > CUT > 1 second in jail > CUT > 1 second in *beep* > Bam, DONE. Less is more, of course. Unless you skip to page 76 of your 'Book of Proverbs for Dummies' and find "Tis better to have more than not enough". Then you can come back and bore us to death once more.

[–] guidodi34 9 years ago

" An example, the two boys are smoking weed and then discover something important. Feels like 10 minutes of aimless weed smoking. Maybe it was only 5 minutes. But the scene could have been trimmed some."

Just finished the movie so I checked, the HOLE scene is 2,20 min long and there is only 40 second of them smoking weed. You think that should be TRIMMED? To what? 7 seconds of smoking and a hole scene of 40 seconds?

[–] sensored 15 years ago

This is a great film and Sam Rockwell was brilliant. You have head of block

[–] TheEmulator23 15 years ago

It is slow & subtly done in places for a reason. It's not a film to watch over and over again, but the acting is absolutely superb & yes maybe some of the scenes could have been cut a little bit, but I didn't think it was necessary to do so. It's drama & slow pacing sometimes adds more to the final scenes and makes you think about what the character is possibly thinking during that time.

[–] coop032 15 years ago

I actually kind of feel sorry for how chazzmat (OP) doesn't see how this is a great film and how so many of the things he said are completely wrong or are exactly the types of things that make the movie great. There must be several other great movies he also doesn't like for those reasons.

Wow! They've got the Internet on computers now? - Homer Simpson

[–] dorisblake 15 years ago

i was never bored throughout the movie at all. in fact i was mad i didn't pause it when i went to the bathroom when he was washing her feet. i was totally into every moment.

[–] jla0644 15 years ago

All the things you said you didn't like are editing issues, not directing issues.

But whatever, this just wasn't your type of movie. That doesn't mean it sucked. Something tells me you don't care for Malick films either.

[–] spicymcboner 15 years ago

I just bought this dvd today after seeing it in the theaters when it first came out. It's incredible on all levels. The acting is perfect, the pacing sets every mood perfectly, the story is engaging, it's easy to relate to.
That being said, I'm easy to accept anyone's differences on a film but if you're seriously going by the critics write ups on the back of the box....c'mon now! They use the best sounding part of any snippet to make the movie sound better....read the back of any awful dvd....I'm sure the back of Van Helsing, I'm sure at least one critic is quoted as saying "...not awful..."
If you're going by the the "quotes" on the back, stop bitching.

[–] thelivster 14 years ago

First of all i don't think this is your kind of film, i don't mean that as an insult but there's some films that rely heavily on plot and others that focus on characters this is the latter. The film works because it's slow and meditative, the gun shots at the start tells us of what will happen and we see the collapse of this couple while also seeing the birth of a new one. The scenes needed to be long so we could see the slow breakdown of Sam Rockwell's character and that's what makes it believable most films skip what we see here but David Gordon Green focus right in so Rockwell's actions at the end make sense.

I think you need to try and understand more just what the director is trying to achieve with each scene he decides to cut because there's a reason to cut and as soon as you hit that fast forward button you're abandoning what the director's attempting to achieve and should just switch off the film because you won't be able t fully appreciate it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thelivster 14 years ago

Why even bother posting that? You need to elaborate or your wasting everyones time.

[–] clist0001 14 years ago

I signed up just to say that the thread starter needs to see a doctor about being diagnosed with ADD.

[–] pbl1 14 years ago

ignore the nit pickers finding fault with every word of your post. not important how many minutes kids were smoking weed, or how many films DGG directed prior to this one. bottom line -- this film sucked.

What the $%*& is a Chinese Downhill?!?