Why?


A total waste of time!!
The ending will make you very angry.
This movie should have never been made.
Maybe the most ridiculous movie of all time.

reply

You are not only incorrect, you are the target audience for the next "Transformers".

reply

Transformers test audiences said they liked movies to have endings? Those *beep*

reply

If you think the movie was about 'solving the mystery/case', then you would be angry because it looks like the movie has no ending.

But if you understand that the movie is about a relationship between a man and woman (complicated, wrong, and 'quirky' because they are brother and sister), you would understand and like it.

reply

It's quirky to sleep with your sibling?

If the two are together, then the protagonist must have REALLY been understating his surprise when his sister told him that she had been dating a guy for six months just before he moved back to Portland.

And he must also be hiding his anger exceptionally well when she went on a date with Swen. and it's weird that he just sleeps on her couch.

Anyway, if the move is about the relationship between a brother and sister, it's even more super weird that most of the movie is about trying to solve the case. Since you understood the movie and knew it was about an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister, you must have been really bored with all that time spent trying to solving the case and never showing the brother and sister make out.

reply

It's weird and wrong to sleep with your sibling. "Quirky" is the word that keeps popping up when people describe the movie.

And I didn't understand the movie until the end. And they talk about 'rewinding' to the beginning. I thought the movie was about solving the mystery/case, so I wasn't bored. The ending made me rethink ALL of what I had just seen.

His sister kept her six-month relationship from her brother...why? And why did her brother have to go interrupt her date? Right then, he couldn't wait a few hours? And why did he have to spend the day with her, whisk her away from work and walk along the waterfalls? Is that something you would do with your sibling? Would you sleep in the same bed as your sibling? Or sleep on the couch?

My guess is you will not bother to consider these questions or rethink your original impression of the movie. But, if you did, you might surprise yourself.

reply

he lobbied not to interrupt her date, it wasn't his idea in the first place, and if he was so anxious to do so, he would have been the one to suggest it.

i'm not discarding your theory. i did think about it, especially because i thought they were together at the beginning of the film and they didn't seem like brother and sister. but when you watch the entire film, it becomes clear that they are brother and sister, and they are not sleeping together. like i said, i'm not discarding your theory, i am merely disproving it.

it's fine to look for things under the surface in a film. but if you're going to put forth a theory it has to be supported by things in the film. no director wants the audience to guess what's happened off camera to understand (and more importantly, ENJOY) the film. yes, at the end, they rewind the tape. but what about all of the people in a movie theater? that means nothing to them. when somebody makes a film, they make it for the viewers and they aren't going to have a mystery in the film that only makes sense to somebody watching it at home.

for the sake of the internet, here's my interpretation: they are brother and sister and they have a pretty normal relationship. he comes back and she's never left. they walk around together and hang out, neither of them have any friends. they feel isolated and in between phases of their life.

through the course of the film, they are swept up from their repetitive lives and find some excitement doing something new and crazy. at the end, they have finally completed this strange task and in the moment of calm, suddenly remember that they will have to go back to their lives. when they play the tape, they hear a horrible metal song and think "did we really ever like this?" so he rewinds to go back to the beginning. and there they are, together, just like it used to be. and in starting the tape over, they are also, in that moment, preparing to start their lives over again, but with a slightly new perspective.

and from that point there could be anything. it's up to them. and as they are the main characters, why do we need to see the other plot resolved?

well, i'd say it's because that plot was more interesting and i actually cared about what happened. i didn't care about their lives because i wanted to know what was in the briefcase. i think a lot of people felt that way. it wasn't like pulp fiction where we had a resolution to the personal story of samuel l jackson. here, there was no resolution, it was just a beginning to their story. had i liked the characters more, or had they gone through more of a personal journey, i might have cared, but the character arc was pretty weak, their characters were bland, and i didn't relate to either one of them.

i have now spent more time talking about this movie than i should have.

by the way, if you're taking adderall, start taking less of it. i'm serious.

reply

samgslp UPDATED Mon Nov 12 2012 21:45:54
------------------------------------------------
no director wants the audience to guess what's happened off camera to understand (and more importantly, ENJOY) the film.


Just...wow. This is why 'Transformers', a story told in a linear fashion with all plot and exposition on the screen, is a much better choice for viewers like you.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1497874/board/thread/198864778?d=198998788 &p=1#198998788

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1497874/board/thread/183515716?d=191574162 &p=1#191574162

reply

dude, really? this movie is told in a linear fashion. so are most movies. unless you're going to spend the rest of your life watching pulp fiction and memento, linear films are going to take up the majority of time in your film-watching life. even though the portion you've quoted was something i restated in my last message, i will slow it down and spell it out for you one more time.

if rosebud is the sled, you're going to see the sled. that's the whole point of the movie, of course they're going to show that the sled is called rosebud.

if norman bate's mom is dead, we're going to see her dead. it will not be an issue that remains unresolved in the movie.

why would a filmmaker withhold crucial information from the viewer... and then never reveal it? Why would The Usual Suspects end without the last five minutes?

You're trying to tell me that out of all of the people who watched this movie (cold weather) you are the first to understand it.

that's ridiculous. some of your evidence (he goes to bed with her) isn't even in the movie. there is no tension in that scene AND the brother doesn't sleep in the same bed as she does.

there's no tension between the two at any point. he doesn't want to interrupt the date. he isn't invasive. he doesn't go into the bathroom while she's taking a shower. there's nothing in this movie that supports your theory. that's what i'm saying. you can have a theory, but you can't support your theory by offering up things that DON'T EVEN HAPPEN in the movie. do you get it? it's not about "transformers" vs. independent cinema. you should go ask the director of cold weather about your theory. that will resolve this discussion because facts and supporting evidence do not seem to sway you.

reply

I had this conversation six months ago. btw, they don't sleep together...that would be weird and wrong. Click on the links provided in my last post, answer the questions (this is known as 'The Socratic Method') for which the answers should be clear unless you are too wedded to your position to reach the obvious, and get back to me.

And you are making this about me (this is known as 'ad hominem'), when the subject is the movie and plot and ending, which is abrupt and should make the viewer rethink everything they have seen over the previous 90 minutes. You have clearly taken everything at face value, which is why you are bored and disappointed in dialogue that goes nowhere and action that seems pointless. The movie isn't understood, until after it is over and you have to rethink what you saw and heard. Like I said, address the questions in the links. Otherwise, please have the last word. Cheers.

reply

I hate transformers, but I hate these a lot more.
At least in transformers they achieve what they tried to do, in this, they didn't achieve anything. The acting, the script, the weird camera movements, everything here is weak and so it is saying "you are the target audience for the next "Transformers"."

reply

lol, still mad bro? that Transformers burn must have really scarred your little micro-aggression-sensitive heart!

Five years later, you're still hanging onto that (true) comment. You know who does that? Somebody who has been romantically rejected...by someone involved in 'Cold Weather.' THAT is the definition of 'weak'!! Hahahahaaa!

reply

5 years, what? I just watched the movie yesterday...

reply

I agree with you regarding the ending. The entire movie up until then was fine and suspenseful, however the finale here made me yearn for the ending of No Country For Old Men (and I thought THAT was a cut-it-short jip-the-viewer finish!) THIS film just yanks a full 2-stars out of its review factor due to the director's desire to take the usual tried and true (yawn) "unconventional quirky indie route" when, by now (actually for several years now) that same indie "formula" is worn out and is itself actually quite conventional. So gee what should we do now? Well, if the story even had the sister or brother at least open the briefcase in the car at the end even to find evidence that somehow their suspicions were all wrong and their assumptions of foul play toward the brother's ex girlfriend were laughably WAY wrong and she is actually fine, well then even THAT would have been many levels more satisfying a conclusion than this was. Otherwise, I enjoyed the unique pacing and directorial effort up UNTIL the disappointing closure (I use that last term as loosely as the brother's relationship was with his sister)....which is the only other flaw I saw in this film: what brother whisks his sister away from work to have a romantic picnic by the beach?! I mean come on, you can suggest a solid healthy bro-sis bond in many ways but why resort to hints of a borderline incestuous tendency by these two siblings? Who does that?! Well, anyway, it was solid except for the ending and the far-fetched "close" relationship between those two family members. Next time follow through on what you had going good, and in this case it would have been the whole Sherlock Holmes aspect. So next time, show us the protagonists SOLVING THE CASE!! Until then, it's an unfinished hack job!! 2 stars. Finish it for possibly 4!!!

reply

SPOILER ALERT!

The movie isn't about solving a mystery/case. Doesn't matter what's in the briefcase. In a mystery story, the 'mystery/case' would be a 'red herring'. You have been misdirected, and apparently never came back to see the trick at the end when the real story is revealed.

btw, did you know 'No Country For Old Men' is based on a novel? By a famous author, and the book was critically acclaimed? The movie won 4 Academy Awards? Do you understand the ending? I truly doubt it, describing it a a 'jip'

Yikes, you and a few other posters on this board remind me of a story David Chase tells on himself, as a young film student at USC (and he describes himself as 'not nearly as smart as he thought he was'). He walks out of the movie theater with his girlfriend, after seeing the original 'Planet of the Apes'. Turns and says to her, "wow, so the apes had a Statue of Liberty too!"

reply

Dang, my message got deleted. WTF?

reply

Funny you mention the briefcase, because it was so prominent (the movie was of the briefcase, not the contents, hmmmm.)

My thought is that Pulp Fiction also had a briefcase in which we never saw the contents. The 'MacGuffin'. A hint for us? Another movie told in a non-linear way, that keeps us thinking about it long after it is over? And in the case of 'Cold Weather', the MacGuffin is also a Red Herring. Nice~!

I appreciate your analogy, it is perfect for you because you hated the movie and feel cheated with the story and film, and are frustrated because I liked it and am explaining why I liked it (I'm not defending it, it is fine if you don't like it). It is all on the screen, for the viewer open to the possibility that they didn't understand it. I didn't understand it until the final shot.

btw, I'm not Aaron Katz or anyone involved in movies other than I love to watch them, love a good story, and have seen so many bad ones that it is a real pleasure to watch a movie that has a surprise.

reply

Funny you mention the briefcase, because it was so prominent (the movie was of the briefcase, not the contents, hmmmm.)

My thought is that Pulp Fiction also had a briefcase in which we never saw the contents. The 'MacGuffin'. A hint for us? Another movie told in a non-linear way, that keeps us thinking about it long after it is over? And in the case of 'Cold Weather', the MacGuffin is also a Red Herring. Nice~!

I appreciate your analogy, it is perfect for you because you hated the movie and feel cheated with the story and film, and are frustrated because I liked it and am explaining why I liked it (I'm not defending it, it is fine if you don't like it). It is all on the screen, for the viewer open to the possibility that they didn't understand it. I didn't understand it until the final shot.

btw, I'm not Aaron Katz or anyone involved in movies other than I love to watch them, love a good story, and have seen so many bad ones that it is a real pleasure to watch a movie that has a surprise.

I've never seen Pulp Fiction. When I say this, a lot of people are shocked. It's as if they'd be less shocked if I said I've lived in Alaska all my life and never encountered snow. Something about Taratino rubs me the wrong way and I dislike the idea of patronizing him by watching his movies (same with Woody Allen). The more people urge me to watch Pulp Fiction, the less I want to see it.

So I can't talk about this "MacGuffin" in relation to Pulp Fiction. JayCeezy, this may seem rude, but, for the life of me, I cannot shake the feeling you're either someone involved with making this movie; friends/family of someone involved; or paid to write fake reviews. If you're not Aaron Katz then you're probably Cris Lankenau. Serious question, Cris, are you really so surprised that the vast majority of people who saw this movie hated it? When you saw the finished film, did you think, "Wow. When people watch this, they are really going to feel intrigued by 2 min shots of me sleeping. When the shaky-cam gets bad as the director is running behind me during two scenes, the audience is going to think this is brilliant filmmaking. When people hear the boring, easy-to-write dialogue, they are going to think, 'Wow. Brilliant. I see why it took 3 people to write the script for this movie'."?

I know you starred in this movie and you're proud of yourself. But is it really so shocking that people didn't like it. Like many others, I desperately wanted to like this movie. But it is almost as if the director did everything possible to make this movie unlikable.

My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread?

reply

LOL! Somehow, this has become about me, and not the movie. I have nothing to do with the movie. It is fine for you to not like the movie, and I hope it is alright with you if I did like it. For real now, please have the last word if you wish.:-) Cheers!

reply

LOL! Somehow, this has become about me, and not the movie. I have nothing to do with the movie. It is fine for you to not like the movie, and I hope it is alright with you if I did like it. For real now, please have the last word if you wish.:-) Cheers!

To anyone else who has been following this thread: I've been talking to this JayCeezy character for around a day now. In my post that got deleted, I accused him of being Aaron Katz. But he denied this and kept posting. When I accused him of being Cris Lankenau, he got scared and left abruptly. I think I've proven that this JayCeezy guy is Cris Lankenau under and assumed name. If it wasn't, he wouldn't have gotten scared and left so quickly.

I've encountered this on imdb.com before: people involved in a film will come on imdb and desperately try to defend their movie against the onslaught of criticism from angry viewers. Why else would this "JayCeezy" guy try to give us these bogus theories about the movie being about bro/sis incest if he wasn't involved?

My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread?

reply

AAAARRRGGHHHH red herring and macguffin are synonyms. The red herring is always the macguffin if there is a red herring and a macguffin is always a red herring if there is a macguffin. Besides being technically correct due to the fact that your observation was a truism, you are fantastically and all-encompassingly, wildly off the mark with every other part of this and your other comments.

This movie IS linear. Do you know what linear means? It means that each scene is arranged according to the order of events. In Pulp Fiction, the chronological end of the movie ("Zed's dead, baby, Zed's dead") happens before the last scene of the film. In Cold Weather, the last scene IS the last scene, chronologically and otherwise.

I don't think the poster you were addressing felt frustrated that you enjoyed the film, I think he felt frustrated because you are persistently telling people that they are morons for not "getting" the movie that you "get" despite your comments being wild assertions and irrational conclusions.

In Pulp Fiction, the briefcase was the macguffin, because it drove the events of the story but it could have been anything. If a million dollars was in the briefcase or if a petrified dinosaur turd was in the briefcase, the story would have been the same. In Cold Weather, if the briefcase was completely empty, that would have completely different implications for the characters than if it had a huge quantity of money or drugs. If the briefcase was empty, that would indicate that the protagonist's ex-girlfriend was either screwed because she didn't have what she needed to deliver or it could have indicated that the whole thing was deception. The ex-girlfriend could have deceived the protagonist for who knows what reason. Or maybe the briefcase had a note in it that said "good job Mr. Holmes!" And then everybody from the film would show up with a bottle of champagne and said "we set this whole mystery up to get you to go back to finish your degree in forensic science!"

Or the briefcase could have had a ton of drugs or money, and then the ex-girlfriend could have delivered it and been saved. Or a climax could have occurred with the guy who stole the briefcase from her hotel room showing up at the drop off where they had to make one last stand against him.

There are several distinct things that would have completely changed the complexion of the movie. This is what makes the briefcase in Cold Weather so, so different than the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.

Maybe you are whatever guy that is connected with this movie trying to throw out wild theories to encourage people like myself to get frustrated and respond to you. Or maybe you have a really hot sister and you are simply trying to justify your own urges by twisting the content of this movie. I think, most likely, YOU are much less intelligent than you think you are.

reply


I don't think the poster you were addressing felt frustrated that you enjoyed the film, I think he felt frustrated because you are persistently telling people that they are morons for not "getting" the movie that you "get" despite your comments being wild assertions and irrational conclusions.


This quote above sums up my sentiments to the letter. Thank you, samgslp.

Sometimes I will watch a movie that has no redeeming value whatsoever: it is not emotionally engaging, intellectually stimulating, nor is it escapist entertainment. After watching the movie, I will be angry over the fact that it wasted my time. Usually, these type of movies are horror films such as Calvaire, Inside, High Tension, half the films distributed by After Dark Films, most of the films distributed by Echo Home Bridge Entertainment's horror collection, Eden Long, and anything by M. Night Shymamalamadingdong.

I am always shocked when I see these films actually have their admirers. But eventually I am willing to believe that these people who give these movies good reviews genuinely like this films and aren't somehow involved with the makers of the movie.

However, like you've stated, sam, JayCeezy's comments are wild assertions and irrational conclusions. Not only that, he ignores good arguments put forth by the film's detractors. I do not believe that this is supposed to be a brother/sister movie. Like other people on this board have stated, I think that the whole brother/sister argument was put forth only after the movie was concluded to be an abysmal failure. The trailer doesn't say anything about this being a brother/sister relationship film. The synopsis on the DVD doesn't say anything about this being a brother/sister relationship film. I've read both positive and negative reviews for this movie from established film critics. Roger Ebert, who gave a positive review, didn't mention anything about this being a bro/sis relationship movie. Owen Gleiberman, who gave a negative review, didn't mention anything about this being a bro/sis relationship movie. Only a few random people mention that this is a bro/sis relationship movie. But that's only long after this film has bombed.

That's why was positive JayCeezy (Cris Lankenau) was someone involved with this movie. Only a person who is involved with this flick could try so desperately to save face for this waste of celuloid.

My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread?

reply