MovieChat Forums > avortac4
avortac4 (3535)
Posts
Age-old story with a sloppy ending
Incongruencies make no sense
That image makes no sense in SO many ways..
I don't like this movie
"I had a pooch like this" makes no sense
Is this the ONLY movie that does this? (Makes no sense)
The Diversity we will NEVER see
The kids getting to a phone faster than Ace makes no sense
Is Spock Vulcan.. was David wrong?
Transporter (etc) makes no sense
View all posts >
Replies
As I mentioned in my other post.. yes, Fight Club clearly has a very similar theme, it's all rooted in the same basic age-old story trope or staple.
Let's list a few where this kind of story can easily be seen:
- Star Trek TOS (I am sure TNG also, but can't name an episodes besides DataLore right now)
- Twilight Zone / Outer Limits (not sure which it was, but Bruce Willis was in the episode)
- Fight Club
- Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
- The Nutty Professor (and its remake)
- Some Hitchcock adaptation of the story
- The original novel or whatever it was (Case of Mr. Pelham, I think?)
In my opinion, as interesting as this movie is, the ending is too ambiguous and the whole movie suffers from it, becoming quite sloppy.
In all honesty, Star Trek did it better, because it made it clear Kirk needed both halves to function as a captain - or you could say, both Kirks needed each other, as neither was full without the other half.
So if you want to see this story done in a way that actually makes sense, doesn't drag as much, is more clear and has more satisfying an ending, watch the Star Trek-version.
I love the 1970s style, Roger Moore's performance and many other things about this movie, but let's face it, Star Trek did it best.
Fight Club isn't QUITE the same thing, as it is questionable how much of it happens in his mind, and how much in reality, and the events ABSOLUTELY can't happen the way we are shown them happening, because the movie lies and cheats so much - at least if we are to believe what the movie eventually tells us... (the 'alternate' versions of events are also pretty much BS, they could not have happened that way, either - also, there are NUMEROUS scenes, where Tyler and Narrator HAD to be in two completely separate locations or very far from each other doing things SIMULTANEOUSLY, or things could not have happened at all the way shown, and so on)..
In this movie, the dobbelganger is an actual PHYSICAL replica, not only in his mind.
So although this movie itself, if you look at just what the movie actually is, is nothing to type home about, nothing to praise too much, doesn't give or deliver the viewer much of anything new or anything they have not seen before, it has SOME kind of charm (apparently), and Kevin is a 'cute character' with 'funnily childish worldview' that may make people nostalgic for their own childhood or something.
The 'wet bandits' are not more believable than the similar crooks in '101 Dalmatians', the stuff that doesn't make sense is just too much, the story really goes nowhere besides one tiny location (I want to explore galaxies, dangit!), so for an adult human being, there's nothing much here.
It gained popularity partially also because masses are incredibly stupid, and they will gobble anything that's more intelligent than them, which means even this movie seems brilliant to them. People also have a very formulaic, very predictable, very pattern-based way of living, so they HAVE to watch 'christmas movies' at christmas, so of course if there's a 'popular christmas movie', 'our family must also watch that', which just makes the popularity of a movie skyrocket exponentially.
(It's a bit like 'preselection' - if one woman loves a man, then the man must be worth something, so other women will love him, too - if other women love a man, then I must love him, too, etc..)
It's a slightly below mediocre movie that has basically been lifted to huge success by external hubris that makes it look better than it actually is.
This movie is a crossroad middle point of many paths to success - christmas theme, cute (and competent) child actor, goofy stuff for the kids, family cozyness and tearjerking soap for the women, and so on. The movie itself doesn't have to be brilliant when all these themes combine to do the heavy lifting for it.
THAT is why it's popular.
This is one of those movies, where circumstances conspired to make it popular without it having to be anything remarkable.
The other thing is, it isn't a particularly bad movie, it's well made, professionally slick, visually interesting sometimes, but maybe the icing on the cake that really sealed the deal is how good Macalay Culkin is as a child actor - he actually delivers. His performance is actually really star level, that's very rare for child actors as far as I know.
So him being 'adorable', but delivering his lines professionally basically makes the movie.
This movie is a mess when you watch it as an adult human being, but it has all these trappings for women that they can't resist (family theme, holiday stuff, tearjerking and heartstring-tugging bruteforce stuff, decorations, cuteness (or what passes as such), and so on). The only thing missing is 'injected romance', which I hate with a burning passion.
Of course the whole 'mom-son' stuff always appeals to women's nurturing instincts. Hey, don't kill the messenger..
As a movie, as a story, as a 'something to watch', this is 'passable' at best, but all these sort of superficial or superfluous elements combined easily make it very popular indeed. I never saw the point of watching this movie, but youtubers always react to it, so I have stomached it a few times, and the only things worth something about it in my opinion are the aforementioned child actor performance, some of the humor, the relatable old man stuff, the surreal basement monster-stuff (I wanted more of surreal stuff like this) and John Candy.
That's about it.. can't really think of anything else that appeals to me in this movie.
In my opinion this movie is factually below mediocre and not really worth watching, because we've seen it all before and it doesn't bring anything truly interesting or new. No exploration of new and amazing worlds/territories, no good spiritual message, no gorgeous nature scenes, no inspiring music, etc.
In my opinion, this is not a particularly good movie, and it has very long stretches of 'boredom' and many scenes are too long anyway - the whole beginning with the family drama and the tickets and the attic and pizza and all that is just too long to wade through more than once.
It also doesn't make almost any sense at all, it stretches the suspension of disbelief thinner than most saturday morning cartoons with falling anvils and such.
I don't think all movies become popular because they're somehow amazing or good movies, or even have any kind of 'magic' to them. Some do, but this is not one of them.
There's nothing all that good or interesting about this movie, but as it has been 'professionally made', it has a 'sappy melancholy' about it, it's a 'christmas theme' movie, and it's 'safe viewing' for a family, it has been selected and picked a lot for watching with a family (you can't always watch all good movies with your family, because they are either too dark, have too much sexual content, too much cursing or violence.. err, forget the last part).
Then families watched it, and it was 'an OK experience' that panders to what women love (though, don't almost all movies..), so moms loved this movie due to all the 'cuteness', kids love it due to the cartoony violence and stupidity of the thugs, men tolerate it because everyone else in the family loves it and so on.
One good thing about this movie - it does NOT have 'injected romance'! So far, my list of such movies is rather small, maybe 7 movies altogether. I can only remember a few off the top of my head:
- Bad Taste
- Stand By Me
- Misery
There are more, thankfully, but can't remember them right now. Even 'Memento' is not fully free of this.. well, maybe 'Shutter Island'?
I mean, why does 'diversity' always HAVE to mean 'blackwashing'?
I would LOVE to see an Asian or Caucasian 'Black Panther'! Why not? I mean, we have had black Nick Fury, female 'Ancient One' and so on. Why can't we do anything to any character, why would there have to be some artificial limitation?
I say go ALL-OUT on this stuff, stop saying 'diversity' means 'black people' - let it truly mean ALL people! Let ANY actor/actress of any age/shape/etc. play _ANY_ character they damn well please! Wouldn't that be freedom? Wouldn't that be true equality? Denying someone a role because of their physical body is just... wrong, isn't it?
Instead of race being important and 'a problem', why not toss it aside and raise important things like your personality, your soul, your character, your humor and so on above this temporary physical stuff?
I say LET white people wear blackface without consequences - why not? Can't we just finally take back the freedoms we let historical monsters take away from us? Modern white people have not enslaved black people or mocked them in blackface like the historical monsters did, so why would they have to suffer?
I also say let black, asian, eskimoan, mongolian, aboriginian, indian, etc.-bodied (remember, it's JUST A BODY, not YOU!) wear ANYface!
Indian wearing 'yellowface' would be something no one would probably even care about, let alone mind. But draw a Manji somewhere and people lose their minds and call you a naazee.
Why is this? Manji isn't even the same as the dreaded swastika. But even swastika only has power, because people GIVE it power. Why can't we take it back, take it AWAY from the naazees and use it for good?
Freedom of speech is something we ALL have, but for some reason, only black people can say the N-word. What the hell is that? There are also many other 'forbidden' words, like 'Porch simian', etc. Why should this be? Can't we have humor about words and call each other whatever? It ain't right..
Why don't YOU discuss?
I am tired of people throwing a topic they DO NOT OFFER their own opinion/viewpoint on, and then telling _OTHERS_ to discuss.
It's like saying 'my lawn is full of overgrown grass, mow..'
Who the heck is gonna be motivated to do anything that you do not do yourself? We can't expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves, now can we?
However, because the topic itself is semi-interesting, I will ignore your ALL-CAPS topic and your ONE-WORD post where you demand others discuss something you yourself WON'T.
An 'Asian Superman' - well, Superman is KRYPTONIAN, so there goes that point.
Asian actor to PLAY that Superman? Now, that's a different story.
I have always thought everyone should have the same opportunities in life, regardless of things they can't change, like physical stuff.
Obviously, movies are a visual medium, so sometimes this might be a bit challenging; to combine 'full equality' with 'satisfying audiences visually' is a tough job. A midget playing a giant might be slightly difficult to pull off.
However, kids do not have strict limitations the same way, so when they play, they can easily 'be anything', regardless of their or anyone else's physical body features or bugs.
This means, an asian or black kid can easily play a superman role with other kids, and no one sees anything weird about it. Why can't adults do the same? Why can't we all have the freedom to do, play and be whatever we want? I mean, if an asian man wants to play a historical black woman, why should their physical limitations be some kind of good way to deny them? Is it right to judge the man because they happen to reside in a specific physical body?! Isn't that the VERY DEFINITION OF RACISM?!?!
In any case, at this point, when we have had so many weird things, like female Thor but no Male Black Widow or Male Wonder Woman (well, we did have all kinds of things in comics, of course)... why not an asian Superman?
You see how idiotic this statement is? Brighter tomorrow? You've GOT to be kidding me!
There are MANY things that are TOO BRIGHT that should be dimmed down! Most people's browser backgrounds, sunlight in your eyes when you are driving, a lamp without a shade that makes it hard to read, the flashes from a fire/smoke alarm that also intrude on your ability to just sit and stare or read a book, and SO ON.
Why is 'brighter' equaled to be better? Also, if 'tomorrow' is brighter (than WHAT? Today??), then it means, the day after THAT is going to be EVEN brighter. It will basically mean a neverending, escalating brightness that will eventually BLIND THE WHOLE WORLD!
Is this the agenda Superman wants to stand behind?!
It's so damn weak... it's like saying 'I wish things could be a bit better in the future, so I stand for that. Yay.'
HOW WEAK IS THAT?!
That is NOT heroic! You should take a STAND, and not be wishy-washy, like Charlie Brown! Heck, that line would even be too weak for him...
Take a stand, you POWERFUL, SUPER MAN ... stand for SOMETHING SUBSTANCIAL and not the vaguest, weakest thing you can find!
I can't get over how stupid that is.. brighter tomorrow. Brighter tomorrow! SOMEONE ACTUALLY THOUGHT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. Let THAT sink in... just like my hopes of ever seeing a good movie.
Now, despite the 'american way' being ridiculously stupid, questionable propaganda, brainwashing doctrine, hypnosis to keep people nationalistic and fascist (without using those words), this 'brighter tomorrow' seems...
..I can't believe I am saying this..
..EVEN stupider.
Yes, they actually found a replacement that tops the earlier one in stupidity. I did NOT think that was possible.
How did anyone think THAT would be a good thing to say? Truth is important, Justice might be even more so. A third similarly powerful and virtuous word to stand behind might be freedom (maybe the most important thing for an individual - many only realize this when they lose it), altruism, compassion, love, understanding (a little weaker now)..
There must be dozens of words or concepts that are better than 'american way', hit an emotional cord in a similar way, fit in with the other words and so on that they could have chosen.
'Brighter tomorrow'? What?
This isn't even a thing! It's a weak wish at best, it does nothing for anyone in practical terms, like freedom, truth and justice would. What the heck? American way is similarly VAGUE, but what the heck? Brighter than what? Only tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow?
You also CAN'T stand for 'tomorrow', because you are not there yet, because future does not exist yet, except as a condept in your mind. So you are standing for a concept in your mind (or at least something that CAN only exist as such, without a time machine, of course, but Superman can't turn time forward, can he?)..??
Why is 'brighter' better? How can a 'tomorrow', which is already an abstract concept, be 'brighter' (which, I think, they mean FIGURATIVELY, which makes it even more of an abstract concept) than.. what, yesterday? Today? What if today is an especially bright day, then aren't you greedy instead of humble, when nothing is good enough for you, since you STILL want it to be brighter?!
Also, what if something is too bright, so it will blind you or...
I have always questioned the nationalistic jingoism in those movies. It was NOT originally 'and the american way' (whatever THAT means, since there are MULTIPLE Americas, multiple states within one of them and so on).
In my opinion, someone coming from another planet (a lot like me) would have an 'outsider's view' on things, and would NOT become part of pretty much ANY cult, whether it's the cult of nationalism, genderism, religions, et cetera. This is also why The Christ was not a 'jew' - the sperm was not even from an Earthian's body (normal body could not handle the high frequencies of the soul of a level three entity), and the insemination was artificial (hence, virgin Mary).
So Superman should ABSOLUTELY not stand for any 'American way', or at the very least, this 'American way' should be defined. When you are born and lived your life in another country, then watch this bit, it REALLY seems alien (especially to an alien) and jarring!
It's like 'WHAT did he say? Why American way?' - it ABSOLUTELY makes no sense, and I have always wondered and questioned that. It's very frustrating to have this 'admirable entity' that does good deeds, then suddenly he's Ronald Reagan? What the heck..
I think the original phrase WAS more universal, but for some reason, The United and sometimes not-so-United States And Other Territories That Will Never Be Accepted As States For Some Reasons of The Middle Part of Northern America And Some Polynesian Islands Among Other Things That Are Not In The Americas (the more accurate name..) is so nationalistic, it's downright fascist.
They are always told they are number one and the best country in the world that enjoy freedoms that do not exist elsewhere. But when one of them visits Europe, they will be shocked that the law is actually universal, thus human rights are location-independent, and freedom exists even more in Europe than in any of the 'Americas'.
It's like the people of that country are being systematically brainwashed..
One more thing - Superman can TURN BACK TIME, so on one hand, that would explain why he is not in a rush.. but on the other hand, also describes just how FAST he is, so there's no way he would take that kind of time with his boots/socks, plus, he'd ALREADY have done it, so this big sky beam CAN'T EVEN HAPPEN, because Superman has already turned back time and prevented it from happening.
(This is why people should be Super careful when introducing time travel and other OP stuff - if you give Dr. Strange a Super powerful Sling Ring, then he should use it so solve pretty much EVERY problem that easily CAN be solved by it... and yet, he doesn't, for REASONS? I still can't get over that.. Luke should use The Force 900 times more, Yoda should blow up Death Star while meditating, Superman should just turn back time so Zod is never released from the phantom zone prison AND SO ON!)
View all replies >