Explain why this movie is good


I had a lot of expectations but I have to agree with other nay sayers. Nice photography and music. But really the storyline? No more than what's been done so many times.... I was kind of dumb founded at the end. I am a big fan of R Mara and C Affleck and became a fan of Ben foster, plus the little girl was adorable but again... There is nothing interesting going on in this film. I love Malick movies and this movie will remind people of Malick movies but Malick movies work because they have ideas and simple ideas but explored further than they have been before. I love long takes, wordless scenes, scenic inserts, and most of these in this movie are nicely done by the actors and cinematographer but for what?? For just another outlaw, bonnie and clyde story plus the heroic antagonist. I almost feel short changed/scammed by the director as if he disguised this boring movie with visually aesthetic photography, good acting and music. If I missed something and anyone wants to shed a light on it is welcome to do so.

reply

[deleted]

There are many good writers/film critics here on IMDb boards that write some very good, thoughtful and insightful critiques. I unfortunately have not come across one about this movie yet. And I have Not read ALL the messages on the board and I don't have time to. Everything I've read so far say the same things: generic, they mostly mention the actors and that's about it. So I'm hoping someone with some real insights to this movie will take the time to explain to me and prove me wrong, which I would love to be. But so far I actually believe now it is a crime, to borrow the other poster's words, make movies or any work without originality, Especially commercial works for profits. To answer your question, this is my last time asking people to explain why this movie is good. And just for the record this is my first time asking it. I just reused my old posting on a different thread. But I understand your frustration, that you want every one to like the movie the way you do for your personal sentimental attachment to a part of the movie and you want to defend the sanctity of whatever affinity you have to the movie. I feel the same affinity toward many movies. But I'm still waiting for more specific and insightful understanding of this movie that I failed to grasp.

reply

People connect with different stories. I did not personally think this movie was that great. I loved everthing about it except for the story, which is the most important part of any movie. Amazing cinematography, acting, editing, music. I can't say it's a bad movie though. I just didn't really feel the story. If someone out there wants to praise this movie like crazy, I won't stand in their way.

reply

[deleted]

Upstream Color is a great example to use as a comparison (hate to do it but necessary) to point out the weak storyline. Better yet, I shouldn't say storyline. I think a storyline can be as simple as "someone kills another person and someone else wants to take revenge" but finding different angles and sides of it is the key in any storytelling in any medium. Upstream Color is 180 degrees from ain't them bodies in terms of originality. It is a love story but look how that simple story is told. I'm not going to go into any details but how a simple idea of a love story is intertwined with so many other elements, ideas, characters and at the end becomes so much more than a love story, a story with many layers that provokes thoughts from many different directions is what, to me, distinguishes it from a film like ain't them bodies. I agree with you. The movie tries to achieve something but never manages to do it. I waited till the last shot of the movie to see something but negative. I will see it again someday but certainly not by paying another $13.

reply

As someone who closely studies story, this movie briskly accomplishes a lot with a little. It may not be revolutionary but what it has done is flawlessly delivered a story. Excellent pacing and not a scene was wasteful. It's like a filmmaker's film, half of its quality lies in the appreciable factors.

But yes, that does mean it may not aesthetically succeed.

Here: http://thedissolve.com/reviews/127-aint-them-bodies-saints/ This was a nice review.

reply

Excellent pacing? Yeah, okay...

reply

Sometimes slow pacing just means that there isn't enough of a story to tell.

reply

[deleted]

It was not.Even Keith Carradine was in character for Wil Bill Hickock Deadwood Variety.....................Sorry, butt Malick Method Weak for me.

reply

It didn't make much of an impression on me. I fell asleep in the theater watching it. Now was this partly because I was sleep-deprived and because the theater seats were slightly reclined? Yes. But it was also because this torpid film wasted its considerable acting talent? Definitely.

reply

BS.

reply



Bbethany7 One of the dullest, most torpid films in memory. The cast were made to play like robotic zombies.
The lighting was atrocious, although meant to be "arty". The music was mostly intrusive, out of sync with
the action. Action? You must be joking. This movie was typical of new-age productions by film students who want to create a "nouvelle vague" cinema style to knock us out. It does knock us out, but not in the way they hoped.

reply

Off the subject, but are you a big fan of Heat? I figure your name is in reference to Neil McCauley and I just wanted to see if I am right.

reply

I found myself asking the same question. This movie captured a certain time period ambiance, and tone. You could watch it for those reasons. But in terms of story/plot... I thought it was extremely weak. It's sort of like "Cold Mountain" but not as good.

reply

Personally I loved the soft clapping sound track, the pervading sadness, and the beauty of the setting and the photography. I also thought every actor involved was incredible.

The story itself didn't stand out, but when you're making films like this it's not always about having a clever story.

I do think there could have been a little "more" there, but I enjoyed it.

reply

Agreed, remembervhs

reply

Ben Foster incredible? He is in the film industry for one reason.
The character written is a morally depraved,wife stealing low life pushing himself in and how about taking the little girl away from her Daddy when he is dying?
Mara is weak as well and her character is a slut.....Hollywood's subtle now blatant way of sending messages to destroy White Christianity in America and beyond........it worked!
They destroyed our family unit.We let them by accepting filth such as this into our homes.

reply

I desperately want to see this again, because if I'm being honest, I'm not quite sure why I loved it so much. From a technical standpoint--cinematography, score--I think it's flawless. And the performances are amazing. Rooney Mara continues to impress me, and I've long been a fan of Casey Affleck, Ben Foster, and Keith Carradine. It definitely could have been better story-wise. The ending wasn't satisfying and I'm still not sure what the point of it all was. One thing I definitely appreciated was how evocative the film was of that old school Southern Gothic, somehow reminiscent of Flannery O'Connor and Carson McCullers; I loved that. But overall, I just found it very affecting. I'm thinking it just has a lot to do with characters realizing all the ways love makes you open your eyes. You're never really sure what you're willing to do for love until that do or die moment comes. Bob sacrifices himself for Ruth, while Ruth, her eyes opened by the love for her daughter, essentially chooses her daughter over Bob, while Skerritt is willing to kill to protect Ruth and her daughter. I definitely need a lot more time to think about this film and a few re-watches would certainly help. But I definitely liked it.

"A half-finished book is, after all, a half-finished love affair."

reply

For me, story and plot are at the bottom of the list for what makes a movie great. I would argue that only literature relies heavily on story.

Acting, music, photography, etc. is what makes film unique in my opinion, and nailing that is much more than simply writing 'original' fiction. I personally thought it was exceptional. I can appreciate your criticisms but cannot agree.

reply

The ending wasn't satisfying and I'm still not sure what the point of it all was.


IIRC, the end speech "there's no telling", was left out at the beginning of the film. Instead, the scene where Ruth says to talk to the baby leads into her looking up at Freddy (I think thats his name, Bob's partner) walking across the tracks.

So I think the intent was when Ruth looks up at the end, after Bob's speech, it's when she sees the start of the downfall of their relationship, since she sees Freddy, the robbery goes bad, and they're chased to the farm where the shootout occurs.

That's how I took it. Could be wrong.

reply

Well said, tdefrank2. You have to be a certain person to appreciate that however. The majority of people want things spoon-fed to them, need to have constant action, zero ambiguity, and the story has to unfold the same exact way as countless stories before it. Otherwise, their short attention-spans just can't handle it.

This film had its fair share of flaws, but I really enjoyed it for what it was.

reply

People can explain why they found a film good or bad but all that matters is how you felt and nothing anyone explains will change that.

However, if it helps, trying to be succinct, I found this film beautiful due to the mood and tone and the emotion it expressed and made me feel. For me, the whole film just ached with yearning.

You do specifically mention the end though. Obviously, I found the love story beautiful, emotional and impactful in itself and this has it's ultimate, heartbreaking resolution at the end.

On top of this though, the words Bob says in the flashback at the end and the way this links in in the final scenes added something else too for me.

The flashback comes in fleeting glimpses as though it is Ruth's memory - her remembering the last moments of joy she, Bob and the then unborn Sylvie shared together. That this seems like a memory and that Ruth recalls it now, as she holds the dying Bob is powerful in itself and attests to it's meaning to her. Not only that, but in this memory, Bob envisions a far off future when he and Ruth are old and they see their child returning home after being away. I think it aches all the more because although we have seen who Bob and Ruth are and this never could be, yet we want it: we want the alternate fairytale where this could be. And then juxtaposed as it is with the opposing reality.

To take it further, in the film Bob and Ruth were torn apart just at the moment when they were on the cusp of where Bob would either have had to have become an adult and somehow made this vision a reality for the family or it would all have fallen apart. This never got to happen due to events and Bob remains the child, in a position incapable of ever making this haven now, while Ruth has to grow up (as she already was beginning to see at the start of the film) yet we can't help but also yearn for this alternate world for the pair...

The final lines:

“Ruth: Tell me more about that house.

Bob: I’m not talking to you…

… It’s big. Maybe a farm. And it’s old. It’s older than us. And at the same time though I feel like maybe I built it. There’s no telling. There’s just no telling.”


It's like as well as being Bob creating the idea of his future, he is describing the way he is - he builds myths about himself and Ruth and lifts up their love to some transcendent level all the way through the film. He creates a story for himself which could indeed be as old as time, and at the same time he built it. It spoke to me: something about the power of stories and imagination and fantasy.

The power in the film, for me, is definitely not in the plot, but in the way it conveys mood and emotion and in the fact that it does somehow lift it's characters to a saint-like level, not in a literal way, but in a mythological sense. They're intangible and their story is a poetic fairytale in a sense.

Wow, I did not explain it well. But the thing it it is a hard thing to try to put into words. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be so impactful in my view!?!

Anyway, as I say, a film can't be explained. But if you ever watch it again, if it is the ending in particular, I don't know - did you watch it with the idea of the flashback as being Ruth's memory in mind? I wonder whether that might affect your perception? Not that I suggest you re-watch if you didn't like it. It's OK that we all love different things after all.

Why the film is good is a very general question and hard to answer. If there's a specific thing you feel didn't work it might be easier to discuss? Aaaanyyywaaaaayyy, this post is quite a while ago now but I did a reply!

reply