ArmandFancypants wrote:Ball's writing is as obvious and painfully obnoxious as all-get-out. It's beautifully shot, both leads are pretty great, but all of Mendes' other films are much better.

Vader182 wrote:

ArmandFancypants wrote:Ball's writing is as obvious and painfully obnoxious as all-get-out. It's beautifully shot, both leads are pretty great, but all of Mendes' other films are much better.

The Colors trilogy is obvious, but you don't see me complaining. It's the execution, and the details, that matter.


-Vader

I've only seen Red, but I'm sure the characters don't go about expressing whatever subtext is supposed to be.

I kept waiting for Deanna Troi to show up. Ultimately it was only Captain Archer, but still. The finished film is in a much better state than Ball's nightmarish original draft (complete with trashy courtroom framework!) but it's still a film that leaves not a whole lot to the imagination.

And yeah, I'd comfortably take Skyfall over this.

I love the film but I can kinda understand his complaints about some of the writing. Sometimes there was this extremely latent exposition that felt forced, and even a bit pretentious in places. I don't think the writing is all bad but sometimes I was like"okay, society is bad, being a weirdo is good... I get it already." I still love it but I see his point.

ComptonTerry wrote: don't think the writing is all bad but sometimes I was like"okay, society is bad, being a weirdo is good... I get it already."

What? Society is bad, being a weirdo is cool? I did not got that out of the movie lol.


Btw Armand, do you like Forrest Gump considering you don't like American Beauty?

Of all the possible films you could call out for poor exposition (and there's A LOT) I dono why you'd choose American Beauty. It's not a difficult film to grasp but i'd credit that more to competent direction. I can't even think of any this-is-how-i'm-feeling dialogue that wouldn't have occurred naturally.

RIFA wrote:Btw Armand, do you like Forrest Gump considering you don't like American Beauty?

Certainly not.

ArmandFancypants wrote:

RIFA wrote:Btw Armand, do you like Forrest Gump considering you don't like American Beauty?

Certainly not.

Well at least we agree on that. I was asking because I generally despise Forrest Gump while loving American Beauty... maybe not despise it, but I really am sick of the fuss around it when I see it being so mediocre from various points of view.

Nothing in this movie is said or done without impetus from the characters. And just because you understand a film's message doesn't make it any less powerful. I shouldn't have to watch a movie seven times to understand some subtle bullshit message and I'm tired of the idea that true art has to obscure its meaning in "subtlety," because if art is to have a purpose in equal to other professions and mediums of change, then the message has to be able to be grasped by a large enough population of people who can affect that change or arrive at a collective catharsis. Quite frankly, if I don't understand a film's message on the first or second viewing, the filmmaker has failed and he/she can blame the audience as much as they want, but they inherit the majority share of the blame. And even when I do understand it on the second or third time, I'm having to search for that meaning through analysis which kills any sort of immersion and dulls the catharsis.

American Beauty was such a nationwide phenomenon because it was a smart, character-driven film with a relatable message that a lot of people could tap into. A film is contrived when something happens because the writer is pushing it along through anything but character motivations. And, furthermore, if you have any doubt in Ball's ability, watch Six Feet Under.

(but skip true blood )