MovieChat Forums > Midnight Special (2016) Discussion > This movie was a mess.

This movie was a mess.

posted 8 years ago by chris-vialls
112 replies | jump to latest

This movie I feel was a real mess, it had an interesting concept and had you gripped with the mystery of what was going on, but it left huge elements of the story totally unexplained and open ended. It felt like we where watching a sequel to another movie where everything had been explained to some extent. As it is like we are being dragged through the story knowing what they where talking about. They also left huge elements just without any further story telling. They seemed to forget about the ranch and the fate of the ranch men who took Alton was not even touched upon. The story was unnecessarily dragged out and what we got at the end was just a mess.

Overall, I hated this movie and had little I liked about it. It was executed poorly and I would give it a 3/10 because of this.

Because of the ending, I think they set this up to have an actual sequel - But I somewhat doubt it will materialize after this movie.

[–] fuzzyviking 8 years ago

I thought that the movie was great.

There was a real sense of mystery right up to the end, without the usual spoon fed plot that plagues many Hollywood productions.

I honestly did not think Hollywood was capable of producing something like this, but I am pleased to be proven wrong.

It is not for everyone, you and your friends included apparently, which is fine.
Different tastes.

I just want to post this to let anyone who likes a movie that makes them think, this is well worth seeing.

[–] batesone 8 years ago

I can't help but feel that this tendency to have opened ended beginnings and endings represents lazy script writing. It allows script writers to not have to worry about developing any credible backstory or conclusion relying on the audience to 'fill in the blanks'.

If you are inclined to like these type of films you'll look for some way to rationalise it, if you don't then you'll see plot holes.

I've long suspected that some sci-fi TV writers hope that shows get cancelled before they ever have to actually 'wrap a plot up'.

[–] chris-vialls 8 years ago

Absolutely agree, some really open-ended movies are like that not because they are supposed to be, but because writers couldn't be bothered to finish it fully. It is just laziness, not being "creative"

[–] durham100 8 years ago

It was like a Spielberg movie but with none of the heart, charm or humour though at times it tried to be but failed. It needed its own identity but didn't manage to achieve that at all. Very disappointing all in all but not the worst film I have ever seen.

The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.

[–] mythuhf 8 years ago

3/10 HERE TOO

[–] jase-prasad 8 years ago

To those unfortunate minority who are in possession of limited intelligence and therefore have less understanding, knowledge and experience to comprehend the narrative arc; tough! Because the majority of us liked this film

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

i love those who are arrogant and ironically stupid enough to think "oh, if i liked it and you didn't, then clearly that's a matter of your stupidity".

Funny enough you find those people mostly on boards for shallow mainstream films that pretend to have a hidden deep meaning. rarely that behavior pops up on somewhat challeging films.

watch a sion sono film and we can talk.

[–] DD-931 8 years ago



You want arrogant? Look in a mirror. Your "litmus test" is as pretentious as they come.

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

you loved this film, didn't you? ;)

[–] rozroz 8 years ago

will you please stop with that "IQ" factor?

i agree many people can claim this is not a good movie and dismiss it because they don't see deep enough so it seems bad to them.

but there ARE some who are intelligent enough to see this movie, understand it,
but still admit it lacks something that could have made it better.
mostly the 3rd act.
it's just not a perfect movie IMO.
for such interesting and smart script, the ending should have been more interesting.
i would give it an 8 instead of a 7, only because it IS better than most crap these days.

[–] MrsBuckyBarnes 8 years ago

will you please stop with that "IQ" factor?

Completely agree. People who are assured in their own character do not need to resort to such nonsense.

This film is far from a mess but a little more exposition and some tighter editing would have improved the final product.

[–] qfal 8 years ago

The majority is of less than stellar intelligence.

[–] Nemesis42 8 years ago

All made sense to me. Just imagine the parts that your curiosity desires.

[–] ricky_says_hi 8 years ago

To the person that claims open-ended beginnings and endings are lazy script writing, it's actually the complete opposite. In script writing classes, the number one rule is 'show, don't tell'. Never explain something when you can show it instead. When a movie stops to deliver too much exposition - that's there purely for the audience to get clued in - THAT is lazy script writing. And the number two rule is not to give your audience what they want, but rather what they need. The Sixth Sense never explains how/why Cole can see ghosts, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button never confirms how Benjamin ages backwards - because we don't need to know.

The movie gives us the information we need. Through the interactions between the characters, we learn what we need to know. Roy is implied very much to be like Alton - Lucas mentions that his parents inexplicably took him away to live on the ranch when they were younger (possibly when he began showing signs of his powers) and his eyes glow at the end. The device Roy is wearing at the end implies that the government think he is like Alton, and that's presumably why they want Sarah too. My personal interpretation is that Roy knows that Alton will lose his powers if he isn't where he needs to be. And he'll stay on Earth to be either studied by the government or forced to breed with one of the ranch's women. Information is there, but it's left open for the audience to figure it out for themselves.

We know that Roy has taken Alton out of the ranch because he is in some kind of danger there - because he has to resort to contacting an old childhood friend rather than getting help from someone inside the ranch. The fact that Sarah lives outside it now suggests that things in the ranch aren't exactly peaceful - as does the fact that they send thugs to bring Alton back.

As to who these beings are, where they came from or how Roy's bloodline got mixed with theirs, we don't know. We're not supposed to know. If we knew, there would be no reason for Alton to have to join them. If we had the answers, then why would the government want them? The movie has all the information but it doesn't put all its cards on the table. It gives us just enough to allow us to work out what's going on.

[–] Perrybee 8 years ago

I agree it had holes in the story and was weak overall and lacked direction, the acting was solid and the music was good. I am sure many will disagree but I truly think when it comes to films Hollywood and the whole film industry is just flogging the same old horse these days, there is rarely a film that makes me go *beep* yeah'' but it all depends on your age and IQ I guess, simple minds will do with simple entertainment! And the current WIFI gen still think Harry Potter was the best film ever.

Overall I gave it a 5 out of 10

[–] EndeAbgrunds 8 years ago

I agree that the movie is a pointless mess and throughout I kept thinking that Jeff Nichols had a movie marathon consisting of: The Abyss, E.T. and Close Encounters Of The Third Kind. Then he stood up and said: "I'm gonna merge all these films together for this generation, brilliant!"

I disagree that films need to explain every single last detail to the audience. I am sick to death of exposition. It's the exact reason why films like Interstellar, The Martian, The entirety of the MCU and DCU fail.

But... Midnight Special is not a good example of ambiguous film. It's actually a very straight forward, one-dimensional film, that pretends to be ambiguous and edgy. It's no 2001: A Space Odyssey or Brazil or Persona or The Mirror. It's a very messy film with a paper thin plot, that borrows heavily from the aforementioned films, and doesn't deliver anything of worth. I actually enjoyed Nichols's previous film Mud, but not this one.

[–] heavywinged01 8 years ago

I tend to agree with the OP of this thread; it is indeed a mess. I never feel the need to "have my hand held" during a film, or spoon-fed the plot, as one of the immediate responses were.

The premise was all there. Kid, Some-sort-of-powers, chase film...a level of government conspiracy and creepy religious cult ties-ins. The problem, is, you end up with just a straight line chase film.

I guess we're all just supposed to buy into the vagueness, which I can if I am made to want to. What is the link between the radiation and the "world above our world", what is the sun tie-in and the healing properties, what is their purpose? What is this film's purpose?

It's when minimalism takes a step backwards.

I didn't care about one character in the film. I wanted to know more but lost interest by the second act. It never developed, like a blighted tomato. Big step backward from the Nichols/Shannon masterpiece "Take Shelter".

Mike Cahill/Brit Starling have this one beat by a country mile with the surreal indie classic 'Another Earth', which took the time to make you want to know more and didn't hand anything to you. Also Marling co-wrote and starred in another film that shared themes here, but also did it very well, with, Sound of My Voice.

I would imagine those are well enough known, at this point, but seek them out if you're not familiar with them.

[–] burgershmurger 8 years ago

The ending ruined the entire buildup. I was like: "Meh! This is it?" E.T. with a human character, or STARMAN. Quite insipid.

[–] arfblat 8 years ago

What is this film's purpose?

Short Answer: To create your own purpose.

You're not the first to ask this. But why must a film have a purpose other than to make you think about the film? Or to ponder some idea? It's been months since I've seen this and I'm still trying to decide what happened, why, and whether I even liked it. That's rare. To be honest, I found it frustrating at first, but it's grown on me. I usually know whether or not I liked a movie within at least a few hours of watching it and after that I've made my conclusions and more often than not the movie fades from memory. Take, for example, Another Earth. I liked it a lot, but honestly I've kind of forgotten it - what happened and why I liked it. I remember a few scenes and that I loved Brit Marling, but I couldn't tell you why other than telling you to go watch it. Which I probably need to do again.

This movie I doubt I'll forget in part because I'm so baffled by what to make of it. There's just so much to think about that my mind keeps coming back to it and churning it over and over since I've seen it. When I think of watching it again - it's not with the kind of enthusiasm and craving of some of my favorite movies where I just can't wait for them to come out. Or the absolute dread and quiet rage of the thought of watching a movie I hated. It's more that I want to see it again solely for the sake of trying to figure it out and interpret it, trying to come up with as many alternate explanations of it as possible. And thanks to the comments on this forum, it's clear there are many that I hadn't previously thought of.

Who knows, maybe there isn't really one specific point to the film. Or maybe the director actually did intend a very specific purpose and maybe some of us understood it and some didn't. Who cares? Come up with your own darned purpose. Seems like that's what's dividing people about this movie - people who want to be given a purpose and those who want to and are willing to make their own.