MovieChat Forums > A Moment with You (2006) Discussion > Not tainted by hollywood?

Not tainted by hollywood?

posted 17 years ago by illestmc510
8 replies | jump to latest

the repeated slapstick and generic dialogue and romance movie cliches made this movie a simply cheaper version of a hollywood date movie. Cinematography was great, and the origami and paper airplane scenes were clever, but the movie lacked believable, well drawn characters. These guys oughta direct, or write short films, but this movie totally dragged. Plus, Dustin and Arthur need more screen time together. More close-ups would've greatly displayed a wider range of emotions, but for a $2000 dollar film, this movie really isn't that bad.

[–] eathsokho 17 years ago

so yeah.. you basically answered your question. Cant expect an amazing film from 3 guys who spent 2000 dollars on it. But think of what they can do with the necessary resources at hand?

It does look amazingly shot though...and I would love to see it.

[–] illestmc510 17 years ago

I mean, in terms of writing, they should had smarter dialogue. i think their target audience is young teenage girls who like movies as long as they're full of romance. Guys, open ur ears to conversations people have and try to incorporate some of that into ur next film.

[–] jeffsviplist 17 years ago

I'm going to have to totally disagree with illestmc510's review - the characters were so endearing and delightful to watch, that the lack of A level snappy "Hollywood" dialogue wasn't really a sore point. While the dialogue could have been taken up a notch, it was by no means bad, and it's realism to a certain degree made the characters more believable. In films like "When Harry Met Sally", while the dialogue is incredibly witty, interesting, entertaining, and emotionally engaging on all levels, the fact is that it's simply too perfect, and people don't really talk like that. The realistic quality of this film's dialogue actually allowed them to create believable characters that you truly related to on a personal level. My only complaint with the writing was that the relationship between Alice and Arthur needed to be based a little bit more on something other than "hello, here's your mail." A girl as hot and wonderful as Alice needed some type of motivation to give a "loser" such as Arthur a chance, whether it be being impressed by his talent or work, or some other small thing to spark the initial curiousity about him. A relatively small fix that could be done with only a few lines, but a huge leap in the believability of the relationship. Other than that, the film takes you on a wonderful ride - the audience belly laughed out loud more times than you can count, and the dramatic moments were heartfelt and poignant. Not only do these guys have a better innate understanding of character arcs than half of the guys making 6 to 7 figures in Hollywood, they did more with their $2,000 budget than most studio films do with $30 million. Incredible insight for three guys not even out of college yet. I think we'll be seeing some amazing work coming from the guys at Wong Fu.

[–] illestmc510 17 years ago

what are you talking about?! The dialogue was bad in terms of it being fake and cliche'd! Sticking in non-sequitors forcidly(and having poor acting) doesn't make it "natural". I bet you're one of those blind fans of wong fu who defend them because you think "phillip is cute"

"natural" dialogue still can't be that natural! The point of movies is telling a story well in a limited amount of time, keeping the viewer interested. It should offer escapism by having characters you can RELATE to go into at least somewhat far-fetched events. If you want the dialogue to sound like just humans talking, why not shoot a documentary and not waste time making a script?

Plus they said it sometimes took hours to think up of one or two lines--does that seem "natural" to you? Resevoir Dogs was written in 3 weeks! Clerks may have had a much higher budget than this, but it had similarities to A Moment with you in that there were only a few sets and a story+characters are established. Look at the dialogue there, "natural" yet interesting and funny. The Jokes in AMWY were totally forced.

MOvies need dialogue that is interesting, and anything interesting has got to be out of the ordinary. Sure, a few non-sequitors(like in the graduate or THelma and Louise) spice up the characters, but you cannot rely on that to keep eyes gripped to the screen. If I had wanted to hear people blabbing on and not advancing the story or getting to a point or getting into the true psychological aspects of a character, I'd go to a seminar full of old ladies.

yellow fever was great, maybe you should've adapted that into a full length movie. You guys without a doubt impress as DPs, but you've gotta work on your writing in terms of lengthy scripts or at least direct someone else's stuff.

Believe me, if I could, i would also say this to Robert Rodriguez.

[–] swiftymcveigh187 17 years ago

What strikes me is the comparison to movie writers as a whole. That isn't the case here. Face it: these are kids fresh out of college or in college when they wrote this. You are comparing them to experts and professionals in the field. Don't tell me Reservoir Dogs was written in college. Or Clerks. To be blunt: give me, and them, a break.

I will say this too: the acting was indeed subpar from a few, namely the character of Dustin. The dialog felt natural and awkward, what it may have been meant to be. Losers (like Arthur) don't have snappy, comical (a la Clerks) or dramatic (a la Reservoir Dogs) conversations. Come on now. Lets be realistic. Treating the acting on a whole is quite unfair as well. Alice, in my opinion, was great. Arthur too, with a few exceptions. The ex-girlfriend character (Lauren, I think) seemed a little too gushy and cutesy. And a few scenes really did seem forced, as you say, like the scene where Dustin comes out of the clothing store could have been a lot better ("Natalie wait!" [pause, dont move, pause, dont move] "Good bye dustin").

Comparing this trio to Quentin Tarentino or Kevin Smith is laughable, and to critique them against those two is both unfair and stupid. Dialog doesn't have to be out of the ordinary to be interesting. It has to appeal. And A Moment With You appealed to me. Not because I could put myself in the characters shoes, but because I felt like I could put people I know in there. I felt like I was looking in on something real. Give me a movie with witty dialog, sarcastic remarks, and out-of-the-ordinary lines and 7/10 times it will meet with remarks like "they tried too hard" and grimaces. I can only speak for myself, but some movies that I can think of (some that I really really like) are Ghost World, Crash, Science of Sleep, Eternal Sunshine, The Graduate (already mentioned here) and Better Luck Tomorrow. None of these movies had out of the ordinary dialog. They had dialog which was appealing and appropriate, and that is most likely what lead to their fanbase.

Do these guys need to work on their writing? Yeah. So does Miranda July, who also had a teriffic first showing with You Me And Everyone We Know. Did that movie have cliches? OF course. So does this one. Were they both appealing? Damn right they were.

Before you start to compare these guys to writers who have made a living on their writing give them a warm up period. In 5-10 years, if we're still seeing the same dialog and situations, then I will concede.

Final note: "I bet you're one of those blind fans of wong fu who defend them because you think 'phillip is cute'"--Classy.

[–] illestmc510 17 years ago

What about spike lee? he was in his early 20s when he made she's gotta have it. Maybe the actors pulled it off wrong. Cliches can be well- hidden with good(not sarcastic, but good) dialogue, as we are so into viewing the characters that we let them take us on a ride.

Kevin Smith is not always sarcastic, he writes like he talks. Sure, these guys need experience, but I know that they can do better than this at this point in their lives. Yellow fever had well-acted and funny lines, and I think they need to learn how to develop characters while balancing it with storytelling.

Maybe they should've edited the script a few times, read it over. Sure, things like this have happened in real life, but maybe the addition of better mood music or more close-ups with good facial expressions would aid in displaying characters' emotions. Good acting can be achieved with good direction, too.

I guess it wasn't that bad, and at least outranks some of those generic comedies featuring stars like "Employee Of the Month" or "Little Man". This kept me more interested than "Ghost Rider" and "Date Movie" and if not funnier had less plot holes than "Daddy's Little Girls". So keep doing your thing.

And I bet you or one or two of the previous posters are FROM Wong Fu. If you are, you guys must get laid a lot. Its good to see Asian filmmakers, as I am a 16 year-old Chinese guy who wants to do film in the future.

P.S. you guys should check out "The Motel", another great Asian low-budget feature.

[–] swiftymcveigh187 17 years ago

Hahaha! Little Man! Hahaha! If only these guys had all the money that the Wayans brothers wasted on that cat turd. Hahaha! Hell, if only I had the money...

I must say I am not from wong fu (but I wish I were for the laying factor, with which I concur there must be a lot chicks all over the Wong Fu guys). My ex-girlfriend actually turned me onto them, and I think theyve got good stuff. In quality, their music videos are the best, better than the movie. I dont know if you follow wong fu, but if you look at the early music videos theyre pretty amateurish, but the last one (Ne-Yo) looked professional, and I was quite impressed. I mean hell, who cares if *I* am impressed. Haha. But long point shortened: they got a lot of practice with the music videos and look where they ended up. I can only think they will do the same with movies.

A short line to the subject of the thread: Not tainted by Hollywood? I honestly dont know. Theres a lot of movies that aren't. Its hard to say with AMY. They might have not had anything in mind Hollywood wise, but I'll but theres a similarly made Hollywood movie out there. Tainted? I would have to say not. Influenced, though, which would be impossible to overcome.

And one final note: nice to have someone not gushing about how great this movie is. While we disagree it leads to discussion about things other than "that azn chick is sooooo hot!" and the like. If you can even call this discussion. Heh. Better than the gushing though.

[–] illestmc510 17 years ago

maybe I should start with music videos...its not a bad idea.

I get mad when anyone blindly follows a movie and doesn't bother to look at the bad side or listen to the arguments of others. I can honestly say that Jackie Brown dragged a little, as did Pulp Fiction with the Bruce Willis/Fabienne scene. though they are two of my favorite movies.

All copies of Little Man deserve to be burnt. Too bad it actually has a fanbase.