These raving reviews are cracking me up.
Scenes went on way too long. Rules weren't clearly defined of when we're in reality versus in the guy's head. I got the point of everything, I just wasn't moved by it. And the farts and boners just brought the movie way down.
Very talented directors though, I love their music videos. And what a wonderful score.
Then it just wasn't your type of movie.
I found it to be magical and hilarious.
Daniels taking creative liberty of "why not."
It could have been a dark glooming movie about ones psychological issues. But it wasn't. It was the humor to wich it entertained Hank and the audience.
Yeah, I got it. But humor could have come from smarter places than farts and boners. One time, okay... but for it to be a running joke though out the entire movie? It just didn't work for me.
share"It just didn't work for me." That's fine! Worked brilliantly for me.
shareMe as well. We're all so uptight. Sometimes we just need a movie about a farting corpse to loosen up a little bit.
shareoh come on mr bill was better then this piece of *beep*
Look like Tarzan talk like Jane! HAHA
Mr. Bill was badass. I enjoyed this movie enough, but the boners were way overdone, not because it offended me, because I can offend most people.. but just because it was not that funny. After the first time or two, it just got awkward and annoying. The farts weren't exactly funny either, but it was more entertaining than the boners.
shareThat's fine! One too many fart and boner jokes for me.
shareI thought for the most part it worked well. Some of the humor fell flat and some scenes went on too long, but overall it managed to be charming and very touching to me. Definitely unique, not one I'll forget.
shareHonestly, I thought that was an important part of the movie - not for the humor but because the ways that Manny was physically useful to Hank were nearly all in ways that would mark him as "weird" or would be socially unacceptable. Honestly, I think that was one of the interesting elements of the film, and that the whole interaction between them about how when they got back, Sarah could drink his spit and ride his farts wherever she wanted to being Manny's vision of a wonderful relationship, and Hank immediately shutting him down - telling Manny that all the things he had to offer were not acceptable in the "normal" world of home was both powerful and sad.
shareBut that's the point. Why do farts & boners, natural parts of our bodily functions, have to be considered crass?
share+1
Yep agreed, it was ok. The scenes where Hank was teaching Manny about life was done better in Room, Hank seemed like a whiny baby who gets saved by Manny for most of the movie. They should have called the movie Deus Ex Machina man instead IMO.
shareRoom was a serious drama. Swiss Army Man is not. Not a very apt comparison.
Television is a vice; film is an addiction.
My take on it, and please don't be offended: If you think this movie would have at all worked without the farts, the erections, the spit... then you don't really get it. This movie is about loving yourself despite your flatulence, erections, spit, and other weirdness. It wasn't crudeness for the sake of crudeness; it was a significant part of the point of the movie.
But I do agree with one thing: the score was the best part of the film. Absolute genius.
Using boners and farts for comedy is overrated.
http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com
Agreed. I use South Park for that. 😈
shareUsing boners and farts for comedy is overrated and overdone.
http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com
1) You don't need to make the same-ish comment twice.
2) You're still missing the point. Hank was ashamed of his own normal bodily functions like "boners and farts" and masturbation and other things that made him feel weird or unacceptable. That shame is what led him to not interact with other humans in a normal way and eventually turn into a creepy stalker . Manny's open and repeated crudeness was there to make the very point that these things are normal and acceptable and even wonderful. When learning to love Manny despite his "weirdness", Hank was really learning to love and accept himself. Yes, the "boners and farts" were used for comedy, and in fact the farting jet ski corpse was just a funny dumb idea that the Daniels started with, but they transformed the dumb joke into a substantive statement about humanity and society and accepting oneself. Without the "boners and farts", the statement wouldn't even exist in this movie and it really wouldn't be the incredible movie that it is.
Rules weren't clearly defined of when we're in reality versus in the guy's head. I got the point of everything, I just wasn't moved by it.
*** Spoilers abound below. ***
but that theory collapses when everybody else sees Manny's farts propelling him through the ocean.
I too was unhappy with the Hank as stalker ending and I agree, the magical corpse is all in his head, even at the end. But you managed to put a positive spin on it!
shareInteresting.
Your perspective means the film is flawed because the rules weren't clearly defined [regarding] when we're in reality versus in the guy's head. My perspective means it's a masterpiece.
Allegorical storytelling is too commonly misunderstood, whereas everybody always seems willing to jump on the 'it's all in their head' bandwagon. It sucks. It's really made me start to consider the fantasy vs. reality theme to be rather banal. It's so overused and wish-washy.
There are a few filmmakers who pulled it off:
Polanski's Rosemary's Baby
Hitchcock's Rear Window and Vertigo (although Hitchcock relied heavily on allegory in both films)
Coppola's The Conversation
There are probably a few others, but I don't remember them right now. But most of the time people trot it out to stitch muddled films back together.
I guess I don't understand why you and OP think there need to be clearly defined rules for when we're in reality vs. his head. The concept of the unreliable narrator is nothing new in literature, and it's certainly not unheard of in film (albeit much rarer). Which means I think it's a masterpiece as is. (Does anyone ever criticize "The Tell-tale Heart" for not having clearly defined rules?)
You're free to your opinion, obviously. I wonder where the Daniels stand, as they made clear in an interview that the movie occurs "in this world". Though that doesn't disqualify the possibility of allegory, it does make mental illness more likely than an actual magical corpse. I think that the manifestation of his mental illness is very much the allegory here.
I guess I don't understand why you and OP think there need to be clearly defined rules for when we're in reality vs. his head. The concept of the unreliable narrator is nothing new in literature, and it's certainly not unheard of in film (albeit much rarer). Which means I think it's a masterpiece as is. (Does anyone ever criticize "The Tell-tale Heart" for not having clearly defined rules?)
Well, sure, that's why it's rarer in film than in literature. But, as I said, it's not that unusual in film. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Taxi Driver, Fight Club, American Psycho, Secret Window, Life of Pi... And while real vs. imagined is often clear in such films by the end, it's definitely not ever clear in many of the films I just listed, and at least the last relies on the lack of "clearly defined rules".
So, no, a film can't really be told in first person, but it's not a necessity. I think the closest equivalent is 3rd person limited, which is pretty much what we have in this film. As much as possible, the whole film is shown from Hank's perspective, which is about as close to 1st person as we're going to get in that media.
(Oh, and the most famous case of unreliable narrator in both film and text, An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, was in fact written in third person limited, not first person.)
When do Eternal Sunshine's fantasies not reveal themselves as fantasies? And you'll have to explain the fantasy element in Taxi Driver. Maybe Bickle becomes delusional, but everything we see is reality. American Pyscho is a telling case: novel written in 1st person that is turned into muddled movie where the audience is left guessing as what is reality and what isn't.
I see a movie that doesn't delineate the line between fantasy and reality as the filmmaker using deux ex machina to explain away the corner they've written (for lack of a better word) themselves into.
I've never seen Secret Window, Life of Pi or An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.
Hey, fascinating conversation. I've got to go though, so if you reply I won't get back to you till tomorrow.
I didn't say that Eternal Sunshine doesn't reveal fantasies at the end (I honestly don't recall the film clearly enough). Nonetheless, that's very much an example of an unreliable narrator because real vs. imagined isn't immediately obvious (that much I do remember).
Regarding Taxi Driver, an unreliable narrator doesn't require fantastical elements. It could simply be something shown through a more paranoid lens, which I think occurs (though it's been a long time since I watched). I think Lolita is similar in that what we're shown is skewed just enough that we know it's skewed, but we don't know how much.
And American Psycho is a muddled movie? Well, I think that statement reveals the severe disconnect between our stances. You see a "muddled mess" and I see a fantastic classic.
So I guess the bottom line is this: You basically don't think that an unreliable narrator should be used in film unless the truth is revealed clearly to the audience and the two "realities" clearly delineated. I disagree and can point to a number of directors, viewers, and reviewers who disagree.
(But damn, you're missing a couple of great films. Google An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, though. You can read it and watch the video (featured in a Twilight Zone episode). They're both incredible, so it doesn't really matter which you experience first.)
Have a good evening. I think our differing opinions of American Psycho reveals that we're arguing about taste more than hard and fast rules of film, and you know what they say about arguments about taste. :)
You basically don't think that an unreliable narrator should be used in film unless the truth is revealed clearly to the audience and the two "realities" clearly delineated. I disagree and can point to a number of directors, viewers, and reviewers who disagree.
Yeah, like I said: I totally get the point of everything. The allegory... the abstract concepts... What the Daniels were going for... I'm just saying it didn't work for me. I just couldn't relate. The fart jokes & boners on the surface brought the film down so far that the stuff underneath had no emotional impact on me (or the group of friends I was with).
Glad it worked for you though!
Cheers!
You are simply wrong. This is the best movie I have EVER SEEN in my ENTIRE LIFE. This is the best thing ever created.. EVER. God's design of this beautiful planet is not even as good as this FANTASTIC FARTIN' FILM!!!!!!!!!!!
shareRules weren't clearly defined of when we're in reality versus in the guy's head.
Totally. I felt it was made for 10 year old boys. After 30 minutes of fart jokes and watching a silly model of a fart jet ski I walked out and watched a movie next door only to come back later to more and worse fart and necrophilia jokes.
shareRules weren't clearly defined of when we're in reality versus in the guy's head.