MovieChat Forums > The Words (2012) Discussion > I loved this movie-why am I the only one...

I loved this movie-why am I the only one?


why is it getting such a bad wrap?

reply

I guess they couldn't afford Saran.

reply

Okay, yes, saran is wrap, this movie got a bad rap.

Anyway, I think this sort of movie doesn't appeal to everyone. And the open-ended ending probably left some people unnerved.

reply

I didn't like the movie because it was very, very predictable. As soon as the words "The old man stood in the rain," were read, I knew that the old man was the actual writer of the text. You could see most events coming from a mile away. Not to mention the fact that the script just wasn't written very well. The dialogue was below average (wasn't witty, engaging, or even that 'truthful'), and the novel that Clay was reading was so terribly written I had trouble believing he was a critically acclaimed novelist. The old man was the only character I liked or thought was developed at all. The back story was a bit interesting. Rory was whiny, stupid, and cliched. His wife really didn't have enough screen time to develop as a character. Clay and Grad Student Girl was a total cliche - that (or a scenario very similar to it) happens in nearly EVERY writer movie I've ever seen - Ruby Sparks, Wonder Boys, etc. That part of the movie was difficult to watch because it was so cliched, dry, and boring.

As the agent says at one point to Rory, "You're not the only writer to do something like this." Just as this movie isn't the only one to utilize this plot. It's just an over-used plot and I don't think this one added anything to it.

reply

Agreed on all accounts, @crazyj89.

Well, I still liked it, but it really never goes deep enough. The Old Man, who deserved a bloody name seeing as he was the most interesting character and calling him Old Man is so cliched, so amateurish, should have had more screen time.

I liked when he, The Old Man said something like, "What even is a Window's Tear, anyway?" Because that's kind of how I feel about this whole movie.

reply

I liked the movie too. But it is very deep and it does feel longer than it really is. Also not everyone likes a open ending. Although I think Dennis Quaid's character is telling his own story with the book and reconciling with the idea that he committed plagiarism.

reply

I'm on your side. Good movie.

reply

I saw the movie today and I enjoyed it as well. I am at a point in my life where these types of movies appeal to me and I am glad I saw it. It help put some things into perspective that I have been struggling with.

reply

Agreed completely with MinimalistLiving. I also really enjoyed this movie and related to it quite a bit.

reply

No, you're not. my mother & I saw it and loved it,too..still figuring out (well...TRYING to,anyhow!) if Quaid's reviewing, or writing under his "Clay" character name, that is, "The Words", and if the former, if Brad's chaarcter Rory did or didn't exist, or if it's just a pen name, or if bhis ghostwrote that for "Rory" whiuch would be a credit issue itself..

reply

[deleted]

I loved it. I don't understand why it received such poor reviews. It's a shame because it is wonderful.

reply

I really enjoyed it I mean it was rather boring but still rather good and I like movies that are open ended it makes you think rather than being spelled out for u.

Lose the Game!!!!!!!

reply

I enjoyed it despite what the critics and IMDB ratings said, too. I guess it just resonated with me because I am the cliched, aspiring writer as well who had similar experiences with Bradley Cooper's character. I wish the second act was more fleshed out with the old man's story, though. It was obviously a nod to Hemmingway, but I found it to be the best part. It could have been a three-hour epic. I would not mind.

And Dennis Quaid's Clay character was in fact Rory. Refer to the baseball they talk about, plus the picture Olivia Wilde discovers inside his book.

I think they could have devised a more clever way Bradley stumbles upon the manuscript inside the attache. It was so obvious that it was merely a plot device.

reply