MovieChat Forums > Don't You Forget About Me (2010) Discussion > Could have been so much better. (**Spoil...

Could have been so much better. (Spoilers)

posted 14 years ago by FalkensMaze
8 replies | jump to latest

Hey filmmakers, when you didn't get the interview you wanted with Hughes, you should have rethought the structure of your film. The obvious choice would have been to open the film with the raid on Hughes' house and ensuing disappointment, then go back to the beginning and create a story from THAT. That would have given the film somewhere to go. As it stands, you have an hour of pointless dramatic build up that falls completely flat in the last 5 minutes. Then you just give up and roll credits. Too bad, because this could have been a really interesting, thoughtful documentary.

Also, the whole premise of the documentary, that Hughes' work was somehow an accurate reflection of any real teenager's life, is a complete misreading of the films. The reason everybody loves these movies is because they are romanticized wish fulfillment with a little bittersweet instant nostalgia built in.

You also fail to acknowledge other than peripherally that Hughes has writing credits on up to 2008. He didn't disappear, he just got tired of answering the "What was the inspiration for The Breakfast Club?" question for the 8,325th time.

After an hour and 13 minutes, I now know exactly nothing that I didn't already know about John Hughes and his films. What I got instead was a boring road trip and some throwaway dvd extra-style star interviews.

[–] SeanOBackHair 14 years ago

While the previous poster may be a bit harsh, they do have some valid criticism. Overall, I like the film, I think I'll give a 6 out of 10 on the old IMDB rating. It's a mild hit for me. But, I agree it's not quite fair to make it seem like he fell off the face of the Earth when his IMDB credits show him writing Flubber, Drillbit Taylor, etc. So, he must have been somewhat active the last decade of his life.

He may also have been a little bitter/disappointed that the last 10-15 years his work wasn't as good. Nobody is clamoring for a Flubber 2 (well, maybe Robin Williams is) but people still fondly recall his work from the 80s. So, maybe that's why he doesn't want to do interviews. He may think he has peaked as an artist and doesn't want to dwell on his recent work. Meh, just a theory...

Anyway, yes there were too many road trip scenes that weren't that interesting. It was worth watching though, but it feels just a bit off target.

[–] bkerber 14 years ago

I agree with the first poster. The movie was completely pointless. They had no point of view. They didn't even have a hypothesis they wanted to check out like 'I wonder why we haven't seen him?'. They were basically going there to tell him how great he is. Why is that interesting? And as the previous poster points out, they didn't even do any research on his career - there were no bits explaining anything about who he was and what he actually did. It was just a series of people talking about how great Ferris Bueller's Day Off and The Breakfast Club were. All of the interview pieces were very short and followed no theme at all. It was utterly pointless. And it took two and a half years to make it? And if they were working on this for two and half years don't you think they would have tried to contact him before they went down there?These guys should all give up the idea of becoming great film-makers because they obviously don't have it in them.

[–] Banana7 14 years ago

I completely agree. I've just watched it and i couldn't stop cringing. The guys were the ultimate fanboys, the girl was the only one thinking straight. When they showed up at his house i thought to myself, they are legit stalking the man.

Anyways, a documentary about John Hughes without Molly Ringwald is a complete waste of time imho.

[–] callaghan 14 years ago

I have to agree with the above. I've been waiting impatiently to see this for the last year and was really disappointed. If you get the opportunity to interview some of the key players in the Hughes canon don't just get them to tell us what we already know- how great the films were- you have a chance to get new, original insights into the man and his work. Secondly, don't wait until you are minutes away from his house to concoct your list of (very dull/obvious) questions in a coffee shop- you had 2 years to prepare!! Don't stand outside a notoriously private man's house with a camera crew staring like retards- and then deliver a scrawled note ripped from an exercise book as your first point of contact. Finally, and it's a 'minor' point, get camera operators/directors who have actually used camera equipment/directed before. Seriously, most of the road trip looked like it was shot by a blind four year old child. Most of the interviews were horrendously lit/soft (Howard Deutch, Ally Sheedy) or badly framed (Annie Potts). It's so simple to get right and so damaging when it's wrong.
I don't want to sound over critical especially having followed the filmmakers' blog and knowing how hard they have worked getting their movie distributed- in fact the blog has been way more entertaining than the film- but JH is one of my favourite directors of all time and his death was a real blow to so many whose childhoods were shaped by his films.
I feel he needed a grander footnote than this...

[–] Daniel_Plainview 14 years ago

Good points! I agree. After 2.5 years of build up, they certainly should have a better PLAN!! and VERY DEPRESSING. It leaves us with the feeling that The Amazing Mr. Hughes is a DICK!

[–] bluesology 14 years ago

I agree with a lot of the OP's arguments. The interviews were interesting but the rest involving the groups attempt to get an interview with Hughes himself just ends up falling flat with no payoff at the end.

Hughes movies were a huge part of my childhood but I don't really know that much about him. This film portrays him like a JD Salinger type of character which I don't understand at all. He didn't do interviews and didn't direct anything after 1991 - but he clearly has writing and producing credits that go on much beyond so he was working. It's not like he fell off the face of the planet.

I don't think that there is any big mystery to why he stopped directing. I think that it's a common misconception that artists have this infinite treasure trove of material that they can tap into whenever they want. My opinion is that he just didn't want to do it anymore. He was fortunate enough to tap into this perfect storm in the 80's of the right actors with the right material that managed to connect with people. The film-makers stick up a quote from Hughes at the end that I think speaks to the issue:

"I think I was able to get at something immutable, and I'm proud that it has lasted. I was desperately afraid of getting it wrong. It's really about characters and what they have to say. I've spent 15 years looking for that again."

“It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.”

[–] tylerburns 13 years ago

I disagree strongly, i thought the film captured the passion these young filmmakers had for John. You can knock the methods they used. But when you're an independant filmmaker you have to use every resource possible (like getting his address from a pizza joint)

They also have to be applauded for putting this this movie together. It's not a hollywood documentary with lots of money behind it, and yet they were still able to deliver something that kept me watching all the way through, and they were able to interview alot of the people he worked with. Of course they didn't get EVERYONE from the movies he made, should they have scraped the documentary when Ringwall declined an interview? No.

Most of all fo rme personally it introduced me to John Hughes for the first time. Breakfast Club, Ferris Buehlers Day Off, and Home Alone, 3 of my favorite films of all time, and i had no idea they were all written by the same guy. Now i cant wai tto watch the rest of the films mentioned in this documentary.

[–] AtlantaFilmFanatic 13 years ago

While I agree with most of what's being said, I think I should correct a little bit of misunderstanding of Mr. Hughes' later credits. A lot of people are referencing "Drillbit Taylor" as evidence that he was still writing, but the truth is that the originals script was written years ago! That's why two more writers are credited, because he was not involved after selling it and they needed someone to rewrite it for a more modern setting - since when does John Hughes ever allow himself to be rewritten??

He was hired by the studios to write a few movies in the mid 90s (Dennis the Menace, 101 Dalmatians, Flubber - notice these are NOT original scripts, people), but he probably just FedExed them in from behind his gated home.

While he has a few credits in the late 90s/00s, be fully assured that "Producer" is a pretty ubiquitous term and he may have done nothing but just sign his name on the dotted line to release rights to his movie. Yes, the filmmakers did exaggerate his "retirement" and seclusion, but be assured he wasn't involved with any film since his son's "New Port South", and even that may have been not much more than just lending his name to give it credibility.

Could have been so much better. (**Spoilers**)

Could have been so much better. (Spoilers)