MovieChat Forums > Love Is All You Need? (2016) Discussion > The concept doesn't work in this movie.....

The concept doesn't work in this movie...

posted 7 years ago by BigRich
2 replies | jump to latest

I had no idea what this movie was about beyond reading the synopsis. This was a movie I downloaded as it description seemed interesting: Romeo & Juliet meets Crash. I wasn't prepared to find out that this was an alternate reality similar in role reversal story telling like White Man's Burden (1995).

IMHO, you can't pick and choose this and that to fit the narrative. For example, this movie pretty much makes it seem that that the females are the more dominant people, to the point where the priest is a women (which isn't a shock in 2016; there are women priest) yet the "Lord's prayer" still has God as a man. Our FATHER, who art in heaven...The writer should have made Mary, the Mother of God, the focal point of the prayer, right? To me, you can't tell this story from one perspective, but not change the other so that it would match this perspective, if that makes any real sense.

Again, similar to what I mentioned above; the female is the dominant person. You have the main character playing football, but she's still doing girly stuff like wearing make up? All girl team, but all men coaches?! LOL. The frat boys were still frat boys like in this reality, yet the grown men were very submissive (the arts teacher, for example).

Consistency is what's missing from this movie. When Jude and Ryan were in the pool, or even from the merry go round scene, Jude should have been more of the aggressor role, but the male/female relationship that was developing between the two was no different than what we have in our reality. She was being very submissive to him, yet when Jude was with Kelly, she was the aggressor. You know, as I write that, perhaps that's exactly what they were trying to show; As Jude was turning "Ro" she was allowing herself to be the submissive "female" role. /shrug

I don't know what it's like to be gay, but IMHO, trying to use "heterosexual" as gay just doesn't work in this movie no matter how hard the director tried. Having a man and women together is “gay”, but in order to reproduce, a man and women have to mate or whatever that ritual was called. It doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t work the same as two dudes being together, or two women being together in order to make a baby in our reality. And speaking of which, I noticed the director had no qualms showing two girls kissing and being lovey dovey, but for the guys, the best they would show was a shoulder rub and one guy calling the other babe? LOL.

Anyway...
_
Every person that served can be called a veteran, but not every veteran can be called a Marine.

[–] veictor 7 years ago

I think you have to understand that this is not a perfect alternate reality, so it's not just because women are kind of playing the part of men, that every male figure has to be a female figure in the movie. The way you're saying is like the story in your mind not the story of this particular movie, think about that.

[–] BigRich 7 years ago

I totally understand that, just as much as I understand that the world I live in isn't perfect. In this movie, 1+1 can equal 3, think about that. For example, in another alternate reality (let's call it Alien Nation (1989)) in order for the "newcomers" to have a child, they need a 3rd person during their mating ritual. Totally understandable because: 1) They're not from this planet. 2) Alternate reality. So again, in this particular movie you want me to "think about", I say yeah, I thought about it, and in this movie 1+1 can equal 3 and from your point of view it would be explained away as "not a perfect alternate reality". I get it.

_
Every person that served can be called a veteran, but not every veteran can be called a Marine.