MovieChat Forums > The Big Short (2015) Discussion > 1/10. Here's why / Esta es la razón:

1/10. Here's why / Esta es la razón:

posted 7 years ago by IMDB_Vits
7 replies | jump to latest

When a satire is neither funny or smart, it's automatically bad. What happens when it's only one of the two? I think the humour is more important since satire is a sub-genre of comedy. Why am I telling you this? Because THE BIG SHORT is kind of smart, but the only funny part in it is Steve Carell's hair. The acting isn't bad, but nothing out of this world. There's an over-reliance in narration, headache-inducing camera work, awkward cuts to another scene in the middle of a sentence and redundant montages of real-life clips from the time period. I didn't care about any of the main characters. That's highlighted whenever a celebrity appears to explain (breaking the 4th wall) the terminology. You see, they describe things in a very straight-forward way (the fact that the audience recognizes them make us pay attention to them), while the main characters use metaphors. If it had been the other way around, it wouldn't have made a difference, because I wasn't interested in anything the main characters said.

You can read comments of other movies at http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.it/2016/12/comments-round-up-november-2016.html

Any thoughts?

Cuando una sátira no es chistosa ni inteligente, es automáticamente mala. ¿Qué sucede cuando es solo una de las dos? Creo que el humor es más importante ya que la sátira es un sub-género de la comedia. ¿Por qué les digo esto? Porque LA GRAN APUESTA es algo inteligente, pero la única parte chistosa en ella es el pelo de Steve Carell. La actuación no es mala, pero nada fuera de este mundo. Hay demasiada dependencia en la narración, el trabajo de cámara que causa jaqueca, cortes raros hacia otra escena en medio de una oración y montajes redundantes de videos de la vida real de la época. No me importó ninguno de los personajes principales. Eso se destaca cada vez que una celebridad aparece para explicar (rompiendo la 4ta pared) la terminología. Verán, ellos describen cosas de forma muy directa (el hecho de que el público los reconoce nos hace ponérles atención), mientras que los personajes principales usan metáforas. Si hubiera sido al revés, no hubiera sido diferente, porque no me interesaba nada que los personajes principales decía.

Pueden leer comentarios de otras películas en http://vits-eandoelcine.blogspot.it/2016/12/resumen-de-comentarios-noviembre-2016.html

¿Alguna opinión?

[–] Fluffis 7 years ago

My thought is that you're entitled to your opinion.

Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.

[–] IMDB_Vits 7 years ago

Thank you. You too.

[–] virgiltx 7 years ago

This movie needed an inordinate amount of exposition, even more than Inception. If they tried to put the exposition into dialog alone, it would have been awkward, contrived dialog, and painfully obvious exposition. Narration and fourth wall were less of a problem, in my opinion.

The jarring visuals seemed like another kind of intensive, symbolic exposition, about the craziness of what was going on all around them.
____________________
The story is king.

[–] frogca 7 years ago

>The jarring visuals seemed like another kind of intensive, symbolic exposition, about the craziness of what was going on all around them.

Also a big comment on the information environment that most people seem perfectly content to have in their world. Cutting from one exciting thing to another so fast you can't think. Big comment on the thinking versus the circus that captivates most of us.

[–] liquoriceforthemasses 7 years ago

Where in the world did you get the idea this was satire?
Satire is fiction that mocks reality. This is not and does not. It isn't fiction in that it is the film adaptation of a non-fiction book that faithfully tells how these guys foresaw the collapse and made money off it. It isn't a mockery in that the tone is one of incredulous indignation, not poking fun, at what happens.
This film's goal is not to ridicule and amuse but to expose and educate. And for that it gets 9/10.

[–] Spongeyone 7 years ago

I'd think it was a translation issue, except apparently the word for "satire" is the same in Spanish. Not sure how someone could watch this movie and miss what it was about so badly.

Death to shakeycam directors!

[–] rrb_1 7 years ago

Do you really not know that The Big Short is not satire? REALLY?