MovieChat Forums > Uncle John (2015) Discussion > I gotta defend this...

I gotta defend this...

posted 8 years ago by Elleham
16 replies | jump to latest

I'm seeing people on this message board saying they found the two storylines confusing and one doesn't have any relation with the other.

You shouldn't post such bold statements if you didn't watch the whole movie, guys!

Just over an hour into the film, the two lovers, Ben and Kate visit Ben's uncle, John on his farm. Danny is onto John for killing Dutch, who killed John's sister (Ben's mother) years before. This is where the two storylines connect.

Also: the writers tried something new and daring by having two polarizing genres with each of the narratives: one being romance, the other being thriller, combining them close to the end. There have been romantic thrillers, but they did something quite risky by keeping the genres seprate, essentially having two different films in one.

It's not perfect. It has its flaws. I thought some of the love storyline felt like filler and felt it wasn't as intriguing as the thriller.

But...
I think at the very least the filmmakers should be commended for taking this risk and be recognized for some quality direction and acting.

[–] cspas-620-611135 8 years ago

Hey. I totally get the movie. Hence the title. Uncle John. But the I between was not captured in any essence. At all. Sorry. I wish it were but it was to ad hoc .. A wish and a prayer, film making like this new transition between the main characters and the young family just did not work. I respect what they were trying to do and my hat surely is off as it meets the brief. But. No feeling in this movie. If only.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Elleham 8 years ago

Again, y'all need to pay attention!

1:19
Danny (Dutch's brother) questions John about Buck.

Danny re-tells his brother's version of events which are:
Deedee jumped to her death while drinking with Dutch on a cliff.

It's pretty obvious that (while trying to hide that he killed Dutch) John doesn't agree.

Boo-yeah.
Mic-drop.

[–] cuechick 8 years ago

All you need to know is that whatever Dutch confessed to John was enough to drive him over the edge. Dede killing herself does not sound like enough imo. I think the choice to juxtapose the polar opposite worlds of the Uncle and nephew was a very original choice and added quite a bit to the irony of who Uncle John was and who everyone else thought he was. Excellent and unique premise that clearly is a bit beyond some but oh well, not surprising in our fast food culture.

[–] IlllIl 8 years ago

This is so wrong.. did you even watch the movie?

The movie clearly starts with John trying to cover up murdering Dutch, the movie is basically a puzzle as to what John's motives were.

The entire movie people go on about how Dutch is confessing his previous misbehaviour. Even lighting a man's barn on fire. John makes it pretty clear he had no intention of ever speaking to Dutch himself. So it's safe to assume Dutch confessed something to John, which led him to murder him. Especially considering he had been going around confessing other crimes and burdens to people.

It's clear Dutch and his brother are meant to be portrayed as bad guys and besides murdering people, John is about the nicest guy there is.

From a technical standpoint you are correct in saying there is no physical evidence to suggest Dutch actually killed Dede. However it's strongly suggested Dutch confessed this to John which lead him to murder Dutch.

It's leaving a lot of stuff to the imagination. You could assume John is just some crazy murderer, but that would be a very odd assumption to me.

10/10 movie, in my opinion.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IlllIl 8 years ago

It's strongly suggested, and if you didn't notice that you haven't paid much attention.

[–] Zando777 8 years ago

I don't understand why you couldn't see the clear implications of everything that happened. Clearly, John killed Dutch because Dutch killed Dede, and confessed that to him. Did you really need John to verbalize that fact?

1. John killed Dutch.

2. Dutch was with Dede when she died. (Not married, just dating.)

3. Dutch was going around confessing his past sins when John killed him.

2+2+2 = 6. Not that complicated.

Also, 6.4 is a pretty good rating on IMDB.

Also, John killed Dutch's brother (not his nephew) because the brother was about to kill his (John's) nephew. Very clear motive there as well.

I'm not saying this is a great movie -- I personally found it somewhat weak. From the relationship/flirtation to the overall plot. But John's motivations were very clear.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scalleypj 8 years ago

Bluesdoctor,

Everyone else makes sense. YOU are the one that this filling in the movie with whatever you want. Just because there wasn't a scene off DeDe death or Dutch screaming "I KILLED DEDE" from the mountaintops,you think you can come up with whatever you want and act like a d i c k to other people because their FACTS about the movie (the overwhelmingly strong implication Dutch killed Dede) don't match your OPINION (that you made up) of what happened. Plus it had a 6.4 which is a pretty strong imdb rating.

tl;dr: piss off

[–] sswentek 8 years ago

A movie is not a defense lawyer. There is no onus on the film to express exactly what happened. It's refreshing to see a film that does not play to the lowest common denominator and have to spell out every plot detail just so the masses can understand. If you didn't see the connection, nor the beauty in the film's storytelling, I'm quite certain the makers are OK with that. This was never meant to please all.

[–] emokillss 8 years ago

you sir a kinda slow bluesdoctor,you want everything to be explained for you to get the idea. and this is a movie not a court of law.

[–] CloverCandy 8 years ago

I think what blues doctor is forgetting is that we are watching a movie, not real life. We get the implication of what dutch confessed because its a movie. If we were seeing these same events we might not know, but the hints were put there because ITS A MOVIE.

[–] bdickus 8 years ago

I thought the same. Two films in one that didn't make sense in the beginning. But thanks for defending it. It does come together in the middle to the third act. I've never understand people who walk out of a film and criticize it later.

Good idea but could have been better. Perhaps the Director's first attempt. Lots of the usual drawn out scenes and unnecessary ones that could have hit the cutting room floor. Lots of awkward acting (on purpose?) and bad acting. The work colleague with the beard could have been struck off the cast list.

And where were they located? Chicago was brought up, but no establishing shots to give a clue... 2 1/2 hour's out in the Country was where John was located and Ben brought up...

And lots of Beer in this one. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big beer drinker and just had a good run of Scottish films where there was plenty of Pints/cans a flowing. But this one, every other scene had beer, drinking at work... The 'Kate' character even says in the 'bar' scene something to the affect (referring to the Uncle) "is he an alcoholic or a liar?" When he never demonstrated doing either. Is there some symbolism with alcohol?

Lots I didn't get in this one but the ending was good.

[–] skbrush 8 years ago

The movie was set in a rural Wisconsin town (it was filmed in Lodi, WI), but it was never named.

I don't think the beer had any special significance. As a Wisconsin native who has spent a lot of time in those rural towns, that's just the way things are around here. If someone comes to your house and will be there a while, you offer them a beer. *shrugs* Wisconsin has quite the drinking culture, and what was shown in the movie felt completely authentic to me.

[–] k_tomb 8 years ago

Great movie, very tense, and a good character study in a way.
I think some simply need every detail spelled out for them to understand or believe something happened. A great movie will give just enough details for a viewer that is reading the acting and what they say, to be able to connect the dots, or get what is inferred.
Although not perfect for sure, it was still quite intense.
The drunk brother could have easily veered into over acting, but he kept right on the line of tense and menacing, upset and angry, but still reasonably believable.