directors that use unnecessary dialog (or a scene) because they assume the audience is just too dumb to get it.
In The Postman directed by Kevin Costner, one of the final scenes shows a man staring in awe at the statue of the "Galloping Postman" grabbing a letter from a young boy. "That was me", he says.
The Postman is one of my all-time favorite films and that final heroic scene always thrills me when I watch it, but I could do without the young man's inane remark.
...when professional hitmen make the hit, but fail to make absolutely certain that the victim is dead, so, then have to go back to make another attempt as in "Bullit" and "The Godfather". Doesn't hitman school teach them about rule #2?
- When the arc of the main character is set up IMMEDIATELY and thus RUINS the entire film by having no tension.
Most recently in AFTER EARTH.
Our main character sees his sister get killed by a alien and naturally has a fear of said alien but wouldn't you know it, the alien is blind and finds humans by smelling their fear. So when father and son embark on a mission and their ships lands, guess what was in the ship as well? Guess what is lurking in the shadows and guess what our lead has to overcome?
I knew going in the film thanks to the trailers the set up of being marooned but even before the film got to that part the stakes were set up.
- Films that STOP instead of END.
The first that comes to mind is MR. AND MRS. SMITH it seems as the entire film was doing so well on the chemistry of Angie and Brad that by the time the films ending was needing, none of three filmed "worked" so they just end the damn thing.
Directors that manipulate film inappropriately for an effect.
In the opening sequence from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Spielberg runs the film backwards to show chorus dancers magically rising from a leg split, which is an impossibility.
Geez! I forgot how much I loathe that film. Thanks for reminding me!
It's like they think we're such rubes we won't notice that it's physically impossible.
I recently watched "The Factory" with John Cusack, a perfect example. It could have used a few more minutes to find out what happened after the movie just stopped.
How It Should Have Ended (don't read this if you haven't seen the movie):
The camera slowly pans back to reveal a SWAT team, 2 FBI agents and 31 cops in the street.
...when professional hitmen make the hit, but fail to make absolutely certain that the victim is dead, so, then have to go back to make another attempt as in "Bullit" and "The Godfather". Doesn't hitman school teach them about rule #2?
Speaking of ZOMBIELAND
- When charectors who are SMART or CLEVER must purposely do something STUPID in order for the plot to move forward or for the third act to exist.
In ZOMBIELAND we see the two female leads out smart the two male leads and all of them in general have displayed common sense in order to avoid Zombies so because the film is either under written or just plain stupid [I didn't like it] do the ladies when reaching an amusement park they so desire to goto the entire film turn on all the rides and then make themselves sitting ducks which then NEED to be saved by the guys.
In HEAT we see DeNiro clearly have a code of conduct and rules that show him to be wildly intelligent and insanely discipline and during the WORST possible time in his carreer when he's met and knows a worth rival in the form of Pachino is on his trail on right on him does he act sloppy for a woman who he never even told his real name to!!! I understood the going after Waigro in the film as DeNiro is driven by revenge but once he gets away with it he should have bailed and then contact the girl much like Ben Affleck does in THE TOWN which I found superior in every way.
Directors that manipulate film inappropriately for an effect.
In the opening sequence from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Spielberg runs the film backwards to show chorus dancers magically rising from a leg split, which is an impossibility.
Geez! I forgot how much I loathe that film. Thanks for reminding me!
It's like they think we're such rubes we won't notice that it's physically impossible.
I NEVER NOTICED AND I could CARE less! who gives a damn about such a trivial technical issue - ITS A FANTASY FILM????? frevvinsakes!!!! sheeesh! bruce
I can't tell you how many arguments I got into in High School with Raiders-Lovers/Temple-Haters who would say similarly goofy things: "'Temple of Doom' sucked 'cause it wasn't realistic... You can't rip a guy's heart out and have him still be alive!"
I can't tell you how many arguments I got into in High School with Raiders-Lovers/Temple-Haters who would say similarly goofy things: "'Temple of Doom' sucked 'cause it wasn't realistic... You can't rip a guy's heart out and have him still be alive!"
Oh, boy!
Another reason why I preferred MAD MAX to INDIANA JONES
- When the arc of the main character is set up IMMEDIATELY and thus RUINS the entire film by having no tension.
.
very good!!!!! SPACE COWBOYS sets up the arc of the entire film so that you really don't have to even watch it!!! bruce
How about the trope of telling us early on that one of the characters has a fatal disease. You just know that means that later on in the movie they are going to "heroically" sacrifice themselves for their friends....except how heroic is it if they do it because they know they're dying anyway?
Tommy Lee Jones did it in Space Cowboy, was it Elizabeth Hoffman that did it in Dante's Peak?
Another reason why I preferred MAD MAX to INDIANA JONES
Not a fan of Fantasy or "suspension of disbelief", eh?
i can enjoy almost all action/adventure films and have come to the realization that many are limited by their ratings and GENRE so i will never compare films as superior when they have clearly diffrent motives like say when a film is balls to wall ACTION like THE RAID or if its an adventure film like say JOHN CARTER OF MARS or STAR TREK.
I personally like my action to have a hard edge and an almost primal element and while Indiana Jones has some great adventure scenes and is in fact a good movie, to me deep down its a bad action movie for the sheer fact that Indy always takes punches and barely sheds blood nor ever really reels from it and just goes from scene to scene... I have come to just enjoy it for a series of fun and impressive set pieces the same way I look at most Bond films until the Daniel Craig films which were actually proper action films.
I always thought FACE/OFF, THE ROCK, and CON AIR had that excellent edge of inventive action with just the right amount of bloodshed.
Back to topic...
- When a character "TALKS" about something that really hits home with another character
Prime example is the classic case when one character is at a crossroads and then runs into another who is the middle of something and starts to speak about same thing that if you switch a few words is EXACTLY the core of the other person and then it usually ends with "What did you want to talk about?" or "Are you OK?"
One of the reasons I hated the remake of KING KONG was this sheer reason of everyone spelling out in monologues the feels of one another.
- When something has to happen EVERY 15 or 20 minutes
Look no further then the recent STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS for a film that is dominated by the screenwriter "rule" of "people are fucking idiots and need something to happen every 20 mins" and my goodness does it get annoying when each beat is an action/adventure beat that stretches out the story and adds nothing but "cool."
- Shameless nudity between actors INSANELY worked into scenes and piss poorly!
Again, see STAR TREK IN TO DARKNESS
- When ideas from earlier drafts of the script are clearly left in the film and raise ideas the final cut of the film has no interest in addressing.
- LOOPER is a recent example of clever premise and slick presentation "blinding" people from how poorly written the film is. The film throws in loads of red herrings to possibly link our lead and the child he has to protect to be one and the same all for fuck all when the films ending comes into play [which does not in fact SOLVE the problem of the Rainmaker but instead gives him another person whom he lost and thus will grow up and strike revenge again].
REEL STEEL is another film that has loads of ideas for the robot of the film and then never follows through; what is Atom's secret, does he have a soul, does he feel, understand, is he self aware?
None matter much when the film reaches its finale act but so many key moments throw out beats that are hard to ignore.
How about the trope of telling us early on that one of the characters has a fatal disease. You just know that means that later on in the movie they are going to "heroically" sacrifice themselves for their friends....except how heroic is it if they do it because they know they're dying anyway?
Tommy Lee Jones did it in Space Cowboy, was it Elizabeth Hoffman that did it in Dante's Peak?
How about the trope of telling us early on that one of the characters has a fatal disease. You just know that means that later on in the movie they are going to "heroically" sacrifice themselves for their friends....except how heroic is it if they do it because they know they're dying anyway?
Tommy Lee Jones did it in Space Cowboy, was it Elizabeth Hoffman that did it in Dante's Peak?
Also Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino.
I thought GRAN TORINO played it off well truth be told considering what a hard charger Walt was that if he wasn't ill or dying he'd still have ended up in the same spot calling out the gang banger plus Walt states his intent to stop the young boy from taking revenge because he himself had be carrying the pain of killing a man who was going to surrender. The film shows early on that Walt doesn't back down from confrontation and that he keeps himself armed which I honestly thought he was going to to do: engage in a shoot out.
I enjoyed the reveal how the neighborhood stood up for Walt and didn't let his sacrifice go in vain.
Not saying your wrong but I don't feel the tension of the third act was at all ruined and if anything I didn't expect the drive by and everything else to go down...and this just reminded me of:
- WHEN THE FINALE MOMENTS OF THE FILM TAKE AWAY FROM THE "TONE" or "MOOD"
-Am I the ONLY one who lost his shit and started laughing when Clint Eastwood started singing the closing credits song in GRAN TORINO?
Or in SUPER 8 when the climatic moment turns quiet and rather beautiful fades to black and rather then letting that sit for a few seconds of darkness we have it ruined by a smash cut of credits and the ELO song from prior starts to blare.
Directors that manipulate film inappropriately for an effect.
In the opening sequence from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Spielberg runs the film backwards to show chorus dancers magically rising from a leg split, which is an impossibility.
Geez! I forgot how much I loathe that film. Thanks for reminding me!
Just to be perfectly clear, I don't object to film being run forwards, backwards, sideways or otherwise. Furthermore, realistic or unrealistic doesn't pose a problem when and if appropriate.
I merely meant that the clip reminded of me of my intense dislike for that wretched film. Filled to the brim with obnoxious characters (Willie and Short Round if my meaning wasn't already limpid), bad acting (and worse singing) and some of the worst Spielbergian excesses ever, the movie was a huge letdown after the first Raiders film is all. IMHO of course.
