The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just seen it on BBC2 for the first time.
Hella weird film.
Kinda disturbing, in an odd sort of way. Gonna have to buy it I think and watch it again - try and make sense of it.
Hella weird film.
Kinda disturbing, in an odd sort of way. Gonna have to buy it I think and watch it again - try and make sense of it.
Page:
Chr1s wrote:
> in
> the hope that the audience will make up their own mind.
>
> Maybe that was what the director intended...
Yeah it's fine if you explore the ideas in enough depth for the audience to actually do that, then fine. But do you really care if he could travel back in time or if there are parallel universes? It's just presented to you right at the end as an easy way to end the film before it all gets too complicated.
> in
> the hope that the audience will make up their own mind.
>
> Maybe that was what the director intended...
Yeah it's fine if you explore the ideas in enough depth for the audience to actually do that, then fine. But do you really care if he could travel back in time or if there are parallel universes? It's just presented to you right at the end as an easy way to end the film before it all gets too complicated.
gerrid wrote:
> And the film didn't challenge me at all. I thought the plot was weak,
> and that it didn't explore the issues it skirted over in enough depth
> to be worthwhile, concentrating instead on the main character, who was
> just a typical good at heart troubled teen.
1. You perceived it as shallow and this challenged your expectations of what you wanted it to be.
2. You were challenged by the choice of main character.
3. You had issues with the plot.
Nah, it didn't challenge you at all then...
> And the film didn't challenge me at all. I thought the plot was weak,
> and that it didn't explore the issues it skirted over in enough depth
> to be worthwhile, concentrating instead on the main character, who was
> just a typical good at heart troubled teen.
1. You perceived it as shallow and this challenged your expectations of what you wanted it to be.
2. You were challenged by the choice of main character.
3. You had issues with the plot.
Nah, it didn't challenge you at all then...
[Reply to chr1s's post]
Yep.
I like movies that play about with our concepts of what a film 'should' be.
Yep.
I like movies that play about with our concepts of what a film 'should' be.
And the film didn't challenge me at all. I thought the plot was weak, and that it didn't explore the issues it skirted over in enough depth to be worthwhile, concentrating instead on the main character, who was just a typical good at heart troubled teen.
gerrid wrote:
> I find that often, if things are left open, it's because the director
> or writer couldn't actually come up with the answers to their own
> questions. Obviously sometimes the questions aren't meant to be
> answered, but the problem with Donnie Darko is that it doesn't even
> attempt to explore the questions, it just leaves holes everywhere in
> the hope that the audience will make up their own mind.
Maybe that was what the director intended...
> I find that often, if things are left open, it's because the director
> or writer couldn't actually come up with the answers to their own
> questions. Obviously sometimes the questions aren't meant to be
> answered, but the problem with Donnie Darko is that it doesn't even
> attempt to explore the questions, it just leaves holes everywhere in
> the hope that the audience will make up their own mind.
Maybe that was what the director intended...
Hedfix wrote:
> This is why I love people's reactions to this movie, they get annoyed
> at it because it doesn't wrap everything up in a neat little bundle at
> the end like so many films and tv shows do.
I find that often, if things are left open, it's because the director or writer couldn't actually come up with the answers to their own questions. Obviously sometimes the questions aren't meant to be answered, but the problem with Donnie Darko is that it doesn't even attempt to explore the questions, it just leaves holes everywhere in the hope that the audience will make up their own mind.
> This is why I love people's reactions to this movie, they get annoyed
> at it because it doesn't wrap everything up in a neat little bundle at
> the end like so many films and tv shows do.
I find that often, if things are left open, it's because the director or writer couldn't actually come up with the answers to their own questions. Obviously sometimes the questions aren't meant to be answered, but the problem with Donnie Darko is that it doesn't even attempt to explore the questions, it just leaves holes everywhere in the hope that the audience will make up their own mind.
gerrid wrote:
> The reason that I dislike the film is because I didn't enjoy it.
> What's wrong with that? I dislike it because I dislike deliberately
> vague films which leave holes instead of filling them in. I think
> it's lazy, especially when dealing with a complex subject like time
> travel.
It challenged you because it was vague?
This is why I love people's reactions to this movie, they get annoyed at it because it doesn't wrap everything up in a neat little bundle at the end like so many films and tv shows do.
Do you have the same time travel issues with Back to the Future?
"It's a car - it can go back in time thanks to the fairground electricity thing in the back! Let's go!"
Gah they didn't explain time travel enough for me, I'm leaving!
> The reason that I dislike the film is because I didn't enjoy it.
> What's wrong with that? I dislike it because I dislike deliberately
> vague films which leave holes instead of filling them in. I think
> it's lazy, especially when dealing with a complex subject like time
> travel.
It challenged you because it was vague?
This is why I love people's reactions to this movie, they get annoyed at it because it doesn't wrap everything up in a neat little bundle at the end like so many films and tv shows do.
Do you have the same time travel issues with Back to the Future?
"It's a car - it can go back in time thanks to the fairground electricity thing in the back! Let's go!"
Gah they didn't explain time travel enough for me, I'm leaving!
Hedfix wrote:
> Consider the possibility that it's deliberately vague without actually
> trying to pretend it's really clever.
Yeah, I consider that possibility and throw it out the window. I think it is trying to be clever, but that's not why I dislike it, when it comes down to it.
> Consider the possibility that it's deliberately vague without actually
> trying to pretend it's really clever.
Yeah, I consider that possibility and throw it out the window. I think it is trying to be clever, but that's not why I dislike it, when it comes down to it.
The reason that I dislike the film is because I didn't enjoy it. What's wrong with that? I dislike it because I dislike deliberately vague films which leave holes instead of filling them in. I think it's lazy, especially when dealing with a complex subject like time travel.
gerrid wrote:
>
> Same here. It's really easy to come up with a weak plot and then
> leave loads of unanswered questions and gaps to make the audience
> think that they're missing something really clever, but it's
> something else all together to deal with a difficult subject without
> cutting corners or missing things out, and explaining everything.
>
> At various points in the film I just thought "they're just
> introducing random occurences to hint at some hidden meaning or depth
> that they couldn't be bothered to actually explain or show", and
> I think it's weak.
gerrid wrote:
> It's not about the film being clever. It's about it being weak and not
> entertaining.
...
>
> Same here. It's really easy to come up with a weak plot and then
> leave loads of unanswered questions and gaps to make the audience
> think that they're missing something really clever, but it's
> something else all together to deal with a difficult subject without
> cutting corners or missing things out, and explaining everything.
>
> At various points in the film I just thought "they're just
> introducing random occurences to hint at some hidden meaning or depth
> that they couldn't be bothered to actually explain or show", and
> I think it's weak.
gerrid wrote:
> It's not about the film being clever. It's about it being weak and not
> entertaining.
...
Page: