1 - when you can tell that the creator is in love with his character
This is usually found on indie films [at least for the most part]. And by this I mean those movies that even on the cover the main character [usually either a hero type or a villain/demon/whatever] is in full display.
It's as though the creator draw that character while at high-school and he/she dresses like it ever since.
This will [more often than not] be the major flaw in those movies. Too much time spent with the visual of that character, none with an actual story [or one that at least makes any sense]
Examples: Lord of Tears, Prototype, The Babadook
2 - Rub it one more time
This is when the guy wants you to REALLY NOTICE what one character says/do, an idea, a specific location, or forces a certain vibe upon the viewer.
When you want to convey an idea [any idea] that is the center of an argument, there is no need to repeat it ad nauseam. All it takes is a clear demonstration of that idea either via uncomplicated dialogue, a simple shot [of the action] or even some music/sound [or the absence of it] at the right time
Example: The Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh ["I was lonely, I was lonely, I was lonely, I was lonely, I was lonely..."]
3 - Pseudo-intellectual drivel
I appreciate some thoughtfulness. I appreciate some [good] insight into the thematic the movie is based on. I absolutely loath pseudo.intellectualism in any shape or form, specially when the writers could easily do a bit of research into what they are writing about instead of pretending to be saying something profound.
Examples: Prometheus [gods are aliens, dna, "science"...]: BvS [gods, devils... whatever]
4 - "Artsy Fartsy"
This one requires no explanation. It's visual pseudo-intellectualism. Shallow, uninteresting, boring.
Examples: Lord of Tears; Hotel, Second Earth; Requiem for a Dream...
Addenda:
5 - Everything and the Kitchen Sink
Storytelling [whatever format it may take] is an art form in itself. It requires lucidity from the storyteller to focus on what the actual message he/she wants to convey is and the proper way to do it.
More often than not you are watching a movie with a synopsis/plot that interests you, only to find that the storytelling keeps jumping its focus on various things that have no real weight to the story itself and wastes time on needless stuffing.
This is a clear indicator that the person who came up with the story doesn't really know what he/she wants to say.
Examples: Waterworld, Alexander, and way too many to specify
6 - Message? What's that?
On the other end of the spectrum, you have those that simply have nothing to say and they seem damn proud of it.
Often will mix disconnected avant-garde visuals [of the "artsy fartsy" kind] with a semblance of a script. The end result is a head-scratching dumbfounding waste of film.
Example: Hotel
7 - The obligatory Twist
I like me some "Twist in the end". Some movies need it for the full effect of the story/plot to be delivered [example: Usual Suspects].
But as great as it is for the movie to kick the viewer in the teeth; not every movie needs them. Specially ones which you can see the twist coming from a mile away or the writer decides to employ the Twist just because.
A forced Twist that has no sensible connection to the motif of the story line [or the genre] in itself becomes nauseating; and these include:
- the lead character was evil all along
- the lead character has double personality
- It was all a dream
- it was all an experiment
- the character/s was/were dead all along
- the fragile/young/etc is the lonely survivor
-
Examples: Cube, Fight Club, Signs, Number 23, The Sixth Sense...
This is usually found on indie films [at least for the most part]. And by this I mean those movies that even on the cover the main character [usually either a hero type or a villain/demon/whatever] is in full display.
It's as though the creator draw that character while at high-school and he/she dresses like it ever since.
This will [more often than not] be the major flaw in those movies. Too much time spent with the visual of that character, none with an actual story [or one that at least makes any sense]
Examples: Lord of Tears, Prototype, The Babadook
2 - Rub it one more time
This is when the guy wants you to REALLY NOTICE what one character says/do, an idea, a specific location, or forces a certain vibe upon the viewer.
When you want to convey an idea [any idea] that is the center of an argument, there is no need to repeat it ad nauseam. All it takes is a clear demonstration of that idea either via uncomplicated dialogue, a simple shot [of the action] or even some music/sound [or the absence of it] at the right time
Example: The Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh ["I was lonely, I was lonely, I was lonely, I was lonely, I was lonely..."]
3 - Pseudo-intellectual drivel
I appreciate some thoughtfulness. I appreciate some [good] insight into the thematic the movie is based on. I absolutely loath pseudo.intellectualism in any shape or form, specially when the writers could easily do a bit of research into what they are writing about instead of pretending to be saying something profound.
Examples: Prometheus [gods are aliens, dna, "science"...]: BvS [gods, devils... whatever]
4 - "Artsy Fartsy"
This one requires no explanation. It's visual pseudo-intellectualism. Shallow, uninteresting, boring.
Examples: Lord of Tears; Hotel, Second Earth; Requiem for a Dream...
Addenda:
5 - Everything and the Kitchen Sink
Storytelling [whatever format it may take] is an art form in itself. It requires lucidity from the storyteller to focus on what the actual message he/she wants to convey is and the proper way to do it.
More often than not you are watching a movie with a synopsis/plot that interests you, only to find that the storytelling keeps jumping its focus on various things that have no real weight to the story itself and wastes time on needless stuffing.
This is a clear indicator that the person who came up with the story doesn't really know what he/she wants to say.
Examples: Waterworld, Alexander, and way too many to specify
6 - Message? What's that?
On the other end of the spectrum, you have those that simply have nothing to say and they seem damn proud of it.
Often will mix disconnected avant-garde visuals [of the "artsy fartsy" kind] with a semblance of a script. The end result is a head-scratching dumbfounding waste of film.
Example: Hotel
7 - The obligatory Twist
I like me some "Twist in the end". Some movies need it for the full effect of the story/plot to be delivered [example: Usual Suspects].
But as great as it is for the movie to kick the viewer in the teeth; not every movie needs them. Specially ones which you can see the twist coming from a mile away or the writer decides to employ the Twist just because.
A forced Twist that has no sensible connection to the motif of the story line [or the genre] in itself becomes nauseating; and these include:
- the lead character was evil all along
- the lead character has double personality
- It was all a dream
- it was all an experiment
- the character/s was/were dead all along
- the fragile/young/etc is the lonely survivor
-
Examples: Cube, Fight Club, Signs, Number 23, The Sixth Sense...
__________________
You're more advanced than a cockroach, have you ever tried explaining yourself to one of them?
Last edited by Little Devil; 03-09-17 at 03:45 PM.