The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
It's not about the film being clever. It's about it being weak and not entertaining.
Consider the possibility that it's deliberately vague without actually trying to pretend it's really clever.
Hedfix wrote:
> You understood it as far as you thought it could have been 2/3
> things, so you didn't fully understand it.
I understand that there isn't supposed to be a concrete singular ending, because it's much easier just to leave it vague and open.
> You understood it as far as you thought it could have been 2/3
> things, so you didn't fully understand it.
I understand that there isn't supposed to be a concrete singular ending, because it's much easier just to leave it vague and open.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> That's what really annoys me about the film. It's deliberatly vague
> because it wants to seem more intelligent than it really is.
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.
> That's what really annoys me about the film. It's deliberatly vague
> because it wants to seem more intelligent than it really is.
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.
So your explanation is that it could have been a few different things but you're not sure which?
You understood it as far as you thought it could have been 2/3 things, so you didn't fully understand it. Thankfully understanding it isn't the point.
You understood it as far as you thought it could have been 2/3 things, so you didn't fully understand it. Thankfully understanding it isn't the point.
Hedfix wrote:
> Ah, explain it to us then.
You're right that you don't have to understand it to enjoy it, but what's wrong with understanding it and not enjoying it?
To me, the ending seemed like a bit of a cop out. Whether the whole film was just Donnie travelling forward in time, only to go back and die to save all the other people, or whether it really was some guff about parallel universes, it's a really easy get-out for the director. "Oh, I know, instead of costructing something original we'll just have him travel back in time so that none of it happens". I didn't like it.
> Ah, explain it to us then.
You're right that you don't have to understand it to enjoy it, but what's wrong with understanding it and not enjoying it?
To me, the ending seemed like a bit of a cop out. Whether the whole film was just Donnie travelling forward in time, only to go back and die to save all the other people, or whether it really was some guff about parallel universes, it's a really easy get-out for the director. "Oh, I know, instead of costructing something original we'll just have him travel back in time so that none of it happens". I didn't like it.
Dringo wrote:
> So many bits that jus**t don't fit together... so it isn't
> "easy" to unders**tand.
That's what really annoys me about the film. It's deliberatly vague because it wants to seem more intelligent than it really is. Some people look at it and say "woah man! that's like really deep and meaningful" I look at it and say "that's completly sh*t"
It's no more intelligent than Back to the Future, it's jus**t the director decided to mess around with the ending so it seems like it was open to interpretation. When really it's a badly plotted piece of crap for a film. I will admit I didn't think it was that bad of a movie, but then I got to the 'twis**t' and I los**t all interes**t from then on.
> So many bits that jus**t don't fit together... so it isn't
> "easy" to unders**tand.
That's what really annoys me about the film. It's deliberatly vague because it wants to seem more intelligent than it really is. Some people look at it and say "woah man! that's like really deep and meaningful" I look at it and say "that's completly sh*t"
It's no more intelligent than Back to the Future, it's jus**t the director decided to mess around with the ending so it seems like it was open to interpretation. When really it's a badly plotted piece of crap for a film. I will admit I didn't think it was that bad of a movie, but then I got to the 'twis**t' and I los**t all interes**t from then on.
I've never really thought it was hard to understand. I mean, what isn't there to understand about it?
blimmerfisch wrote:
> And there we go.
> Modern day Nostradamus or what
Did I say that everyone who enjoyed it was a gothic loser?
> And there we go.
> Modern day Nostradamus or what
Did I say that everyone who enjoyed it was a gothic loser?
Oh and gerrid:
Watch Time Bandits.
Watch Time Bandits.
Page: