Ok I get why you didn't get the movie; it's because it didn't lay everything out in a nice little A>B>C format with predictable outcomes and that's why the Film is a success.
This is more like a Shakespearean Film / Tragedy, more than a "Dark Comedy" and especially with how the Box Office is cluttered with dumb-downed Movies appealing to the general "Idiocracy" of Movie goers.
Now this wasn't a Film many people will appreciate because it's a Film that is so unlike things currently popular or have been popular for the past 20 years or so.
Or maybe I just thought the movie wasn't that good? As much as arthouse people like to gush over something that doesn't fit a traditional narrative, the lack of one can hurt your movie just as much as it can help. Not every movie can be Memento or Mulholland Dr.
I wasn't born yesterday, I watch and study movies all the time, and although I can see how this movie might appeal to a particular crowd, as a whole, it doesn't meet my standards. It feels very much like a mashup of different things, and sometimes that can work, but it didn't for me.
You can throw around Shakespeare's name if you want, but Onur Tukel isn't Shakespeare. He has an interest voice but his work is unfocused and it meanders. I gave Summer of Blood kind of a pass because it at least had some pretty funny parts but Applesauce's characters are just too stupid for me and the entire plot hinges on their stupidity.
On a grade scale I would give it a C- for at least having a decent first 30 minutes or so.
Revenge is the most important meal of the day.
reply
share
scaredsblood
8 years ago
I'm saying that the plot was Shakespearean in how it was executed; I'm not saying he IS Shakespeare. The Theme of "Dark Comedy" is inspired by Shakespeare but there have been a lot of changes between Shakespeare's Comedies up until now. This is more true to that traditional style.
For example you look at a Wes Anderson style of Dark Comedy and compare it to this, and you see pretty dramatic differences between them but some similarities in the story with how it's presented. The difference is that Anderson finishes most of his movies with some "happy ending" that at least leaves move-goers with a good feeling as they leave. So while I use Shakespeare as the most notable and recognizable style that this movie resembles, it doesn't mean I am praising this movie as a work of Shakespeare, inspired by Shakespeare? Yes, but that doesn't make him Shakespeare.
Like I said before, you don't like it because you couldn't understand it which is fine because a lot of solid movies come out every year that people don't "Get" or Understand but in many cases (like this) you don't / aren't suppose to "Get" it right away, you watch it again and again to figure out everything and appreciate all the nuances, and then when you finally get it, you appreciate the time you invested.
This isn't a Film for the average movie goer because frankly they aren't willing to put enough brain power into "Entertainment". People go to Movie's and watch Movie's so they can turn their Brain Off; this isn't that type of Movie so it's going to alienate a lot of people.
reply
share
C.S.Wood
8 years ago
Like I said before, you don't like it because you couldn't understand it
Yes, of course. That's it. I also didn't like Transformers because I didn't understand its Shakespearean Wes Andersonness.
Give me a break dude. I get that you like it and you're entitled to your opinion, I simply gave my counter opinion on why I thought it sucked because it failed to entertain me to the point I was willing to forgive it for its weird plot points and unlikable characters and unsatisfying ending.
This isn't a Film for the average movie goer because frankly they aren't willing to put enough brain power into "Entertainment". People go to Movie's and watch Movie's so they can turn their Brain Off; this isn't that type of Movie so it's going to alienate a lot of people.
Or, and bear with me here, maybe it's not a good movie? It's supposed to be a comedy and it stops being funny after the first 20 minutes or so. And I love how you put a film where a guy nearly eats a severed penis on such a high pedestal.
Revenge is the most important meal of the day.
reply
share
scaredsblood
8 years ago
If you watched it and you thought that "The Funny Parts" were what defined that Film, then yes, you didn't understand anything at all.
It's a Film that used Humor to keep attention so that people would keep their short attention spans focused in all the deep context and subplot that was going on.
Now obviously you missed that; as will many many people but this is EXACTLY what I am talking about in my replies to you.
You are looking at it like it was suppose to be some Shallow Ryan Reynolds Comedy or something, and obviously you missed the compare / contrast I did between Anderson, Shakespeare, and Tukel.
I don't really know what to say other than you are the exact demographic move goer that this Film will fall short on.
And the fact that you put spoilers in your first reply, well, it's a dick move and I maybe reaching here but the type of person who goes and spoils parts of the Film for other people on the boards, well they are *beep* so I highly doubt you actually appreciate any type of Film that has a multi-layered plot
reply
share
C.S.Wood
8 years ago
I realized this debate was going nowhere and neglected to respond, but I will point this out:
You are looking at it like it was suppose to be some Shallow Ryan Reynolds Comedy or something, and obviously you missed the compare / contrast I did between Anderson, Shakespeare, and Tukel.
I had to laugh because I am not a fan of Ryan Reynolds by any stretch of the imagination and routinely either skip or dislike Jason Bateman/Jason Sudeikis type "comedies" and I laughed because I can only presume you think because I didn't like this movie I must be some kind of dull fratboy who has no appreciation for good filmmaking and would much rather watch the lasted National Lampoons straight to dvd flick. Well if that's the case then that's hilarious.
My standards are a little higher than most and what it usually boils down to for me is did I have a good time. In this case I did not. In my opinion it doesn't really matter what the message was or what the film was trying to do or say if I don't care about the characters or found the story entertaining.
I went back and re-read my earlier posts and I stand by them 100%. The characters are unlikable and they do stupid things and the plot is extremely derivative, and I can't like a film with an underdeveloped plot and badly written/unrealistic characters that do stupid things unless it's entertaining enough to overcome those negatives. I've simply seen this kind of film done way better in the past.
But I have to admit, seeing you defend it reminds me of my niece defending Twilight until she got old enough to realize just how much that movie sucked.
Revenge is the most important meal of the day.
reply
share
scaredsblood
8 years ago
you think that the characters are unrealistic, that's funny, you think the plot is underdeveloped, thats funny. like literally you just proved me right with that reply, you were looking for "Entertainment" of the generic type and got something completely different and rather than try and understand the complexities you just said "Bah, it sucks!".
literally everything you just described in your lil reply are bullet points i hit on earlier and I gotta say that you should just be quiet now because all you are doing is proving me right every time you reply
reply
share