Discussions of specific films and franchises.
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Big Ben wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:25 am
I liked this. Perhaps it's the cynic in me but I didn't feel the money angle needed to be explored more because it's about as common a motive as can be in these situations. That does not however mean I feel criticism should be forwarded for making
it so basic. Perhaps the mundane nature of the motivations was the point but at the end the film feels significantly less threatening than the film's trailers make it out to be.
If Johnson wishes to do more with Craig's character in a possible sequel (Which is reliant on box office returns.) I imagine there is potential for improvement moving forward.
Like I said in my first post above, the film is not what it is advertised to be at all. This is not at all a whodunit. As some review said echoing what I said, it is more of a how will it play out rather than a who dun it.
I think that might one of the reasons why no motives are developed at all. It is actually really thin and sketchy. In place of a murder mystery, you instead have the extremely improbable plot after the reveal.
I can think of several changes that would at least add a little more intrigue and suspense -
1. Chief among them would be holding Marta's main 'reveal' flashback - which shows how Harlan died UNTIL AFTER the will is read. So basically the scene with Chris Evans when she confesses, should have been the place of the reveal. I think that would have lent more intrigue to the entire section when she destroys some of the evidence. And also raise the stakes of the reveal when you know she is going to inherit all that money. And would have also helped to muddy the waters somewhat - maybe she did it on purpose?
2. The Chris Pine conversation with Harlan - which is held for the final explanation - should have been featured much earlier - possibly in the scene between Evans and Marta as well.
There are 2 things which give away way too early that Evans is the bad guy - one is the dogs barking. Like literally the first time you see him and the dogs bark, that's straight out of Hound of Baskervilles (or the reverse of that) and finally, every single person's conversation with Harlan is shown EXCEPT Evans'. Which makes you think it is incriminating.
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am
This was...ok I guess.
I found it pretty uninteresting overall as it is a movie largely concerned with plot machinations and not any interesting character interaction or depth. The characterisation throughout is at the very basic level needed to serve the plot machinations. Which would be fine but there is a also an air of smug satisfaction in the script when it really isn’t as smart or clever as it thinks it is. Convoluted in parts yes, subverting genre tropes in others yes, intricately plotted (to an extent) yes, but It never did anything that really surprised me or thrilled me or made me really feel anything.
Ana De Armas is definitely the MVP though so hopefully more good things happen for her out of this being a success.
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
The more I reflect on it the more I think that De Armas provides the honest warmth that holds the picture together. There’s a lot to find pleasure in but I wonder how much a different actor would have affected my enjoyment and I predict quite a bit more than most films of this nature that rely so heavily on plotting. Perhaps that’s an obvious statement considering hers is the only character we really get fleshed out, but this only heightens that need for the right actress to blind the other deficits.