Leave the World Behind

[ahalpert]

Mick is my go to for movie reviews, but the gratuitous swearing, potty mouth dialogue and incessant f-bombs turned me off as well.

It's an interesting reaction because I thought the dialogue was very realistic, including the swearing. I've met people who talk like all of these people. (Notice that Ali's character didn't swear, as far as I can remember.)

I'm not sure what Mick found so unbelievable. I thought Ali was taking an unusual risk and making a big sacrifice by helping out tue other damily, but then again he may have simply reasoned that there was strength in numbers.

What about Hawke's character driving off and leaving thr Hispanic lady beyond while making a stone-faced grimace and obviously feeling terrible about himself? I thought that was so on point.

But at the end of the day, a movie like this isn't interesting to me purely based on how realistic it is to the scenario. I'm in it for the exploration of psychology, philosophy, and modern society. It wasn't really about a cyberattack, it was about the atomization of society into disconnected individuals and our inability to interact directly with the world because we're so used to living mediated experiences. A lot of the action becomes metaphorical -- the oil tanker grounding on the beach and the beach goers doing nothing about it until the very last minute. (I had no issues with that CGI but I was watching on my phone which is more forgiving than a larger screen.)

We don't appreciate Dr Strangelove for its realism. We appreciate it for how it makes us feel and what it makes us think.

 

[ahalpert]

Add me to the list of people who really enjoyed it. I've not seen everything he's done, but Esmail ticks so many of my boxes. I feel like he was a bit more conservative than average (for him) here and that restrain really worked. Completely agree with Ahalpert.

The bizarre moments, be it with the animals, the teeth or the tanker at the beginning were so conceptually unsettling, even though the CGI didn't work for me, I loved the concept enough to not care.


​​​​​​Thought the soundtrack was fantastic, made me think of the British Utopia series soundtrack which blew my mind back in the day and it had a twist of Netflix Dark just toned down enough for my taste.

Loved the ending, literally laughed out loud at the audacity and how well it had been built up to by Rosie's story.

Then again, so much of enjoining fiction has to do with implicit values that I'm not surprised a lot of people didn't like it.

I recently watched Saltburn and thought it was great, in the tradition of American Psycho or Night Crawler, and have seen a lot of people really hate the movie and couldn't help but notice that most of the specific criticism has more to do with politics/morals than with anything that had to do with the quality of the film.

Hard agree. I'll have to check out Saltburn

BTW I realized recently there was a motif of ECU montages around drug use. (Not as extreme as in Requiem for a Dream but a little like that.) It happened with making coffee, drinking alcohol, a little bit with vaping (when the fire lit up) -- and then at the end with the Friends DVD. Exact same type of montage there at the end

 

[ahalpert]

I deleted it.

Spoil sport!

 

[ahalpert]

.

So to summarise: of all the things that people say to justify not liking a film, very little is worth listening to and it's almost always up to you to figure out why they didn't like it, wether they actually say it among the noise or not say it at all


Also, as much as I like democracy as a political system, I'll be damned if I'm going to let other people decide for me what I enjoy or not!

Yeah, this is why I think it's necessary to bore down into the reasons people liked or disliked something. And while I could understand someone saying it's not the type of story that interests them or they thought that there were plot holes or they disliked the characters and couldn't root for them or they disapproved of the politics-- it was so well made that I can't understand someone at least giving it props on a technical level. And the dialogue was far more interesting and better written than 95% of film dialogue. To me that's simply a fact.

You can tell me that you don’t like jazz but you can't tell me that Coltrane is a bad saxophonist.

What was really interesting to me was the cinematography. It was incredibly careful and well-articulated cinematography.

It was full of compositions that one might usually consider "wrong" that did wonders for the emotional tone. And lots of unusual choices such as direct profiles in conversations, birds eye view even in interiors, and dutching the camera 90 degrees. Tons of use of drone (and, I imagine, technocrane) to great effect.

And it's not just that they made strange choices. Basically all the choices worked for me emotionally and I thought -- this cameraman has incredible intuition

And by the way, im just mentioning the aspects of the cinematography I found notably unusual. It was full of stuff we typically consider quality work, such as long fancy oners that proceed through multiple setups

 

[Paul F]

Ok, I'll take a stab at it. But I suspect it is pointless. Our minds work so differently that I feel we are ships passing in the night.

But it's necessary. People often don't really know why they don't like something or they do but won't admit it because what it looks like.

Why is it necessary? Why does it matter how they evaluate a film? It's art.

They'll say it's bad, but often provide reasons or reasons that are only the result of their not having paid attention..

I don't understand what you are saying about others. Maybe they pay attention in a way that is different from you. Maybe they don't pay attention. Why does that matter to you? Why is "it necessary"? Is there something you want to accomplish?

Many of the criticisms about Saltburn I've seen go "the plot is stupid... Movie makes no sense... The sex and gay **** is disgusting". I thought the plot was fine, everything made perfect sense to me and if there was something that I overlooked, I overlooked it because I was having a great time. There was quite a bit of disturbing sex stuff in the film. I'm not bothered by it, but it clearly bothered these people.

....... They were never going to engage with the film at the level that it required

I'm missing what you're getting at. If someone thinks a plot is stupid, that is not a legitimate reason to not like a movie? If the sex didn't bother you but it bothered others, that's not a reason to dislike a movie? They have to be engaged the way you are to watch a movie? Why all the judgement of how others watch and form opinions about a movie? You appear to be so judgmental. Sort of "Their stupid. They don't know how to watch movies". I don't understand why another person's reasons for not liking a movie are incorrect.

So to summarise: of all the things that people say to justify not liking a film, very little is worth listening to and it's almost always up to you to figure out why they didn't like it, wether they actually say it among the noise or not say it at all

So if you don't like a film, I shouldn't listen to you? Again, so judgemental about other's opinions. It seems like anyone that doesn't like what you like is to be dismissed. I don't follow this thinking.

I'll be damned if I'm going to let other people decide for me what I enjoy or not!

This seems out of context. I can't figure out why you made this statement. No one here said anything about what you should watch. What were you thinking about when you said this? It seems unrelated to the discussion of the film. On the one hand, you make that statement, but then you spend the entire post criticizing how others evaluate a movie. I'm perplexed.

 

[CharlesPapert]

It was full of compositions that one might usually consider "wrong" that did wonders for the emotional tone. And lots of unusual choices such as direct profiles in conversations, birds eye view even in interiors, and dutching the camera 90 degrees. Tons of use of drone (and, I imagine, technocrane) to great effect.

And it's not just that they made strange choices. Basically all the choices worked for me emotionally and I thought -- this cameraman has incredible intuition

And by the way, im just mentioning the aspects of the cinematography I found notably unusual. It was full of stuff we typically consider quality work, such as long fancy oners that proceed through multiple setups

Just like we bristle when directors take credit for the cinematographer's ideas, let's not jump to the conclusion that the compositions should be credited to the cinematographer. Given Sam Esmail's previous work in Mr. Robot that was full of unorthodox framing choices, I'd be pretty inclined to think he was the driving force in many of the choices--or it was at least a significant collaboration.

 

[jmone]

Given all the polarization of views, I gave it a watch. I found it consistent with many other recent productions. Mostly forgettable.

Mediocre story line, slow pacing, lack luster writing and an attempt to "jazz it up" with pretentious camera movies like the 90 degree shot of the water glass that adds nothing but to pull you out of the film. Likewise, I found the soundtrack tended to be over dramatic for what was happening on screen most of the time and reminiscent of 80's horror flicks. The acting was workmanship at best and unenthusiastic at worst. I did not get invested in the characters, their struggles or what their fate would be..... and they had plenty of screen time for a limited cast to flesh this out better.

While not great, I was fine with the VFX on mid budget set like this. My biggest gripe with much of the stuff churned out recently is the weak writing. Take the...

Spoiler: Spoilers

- confrontation in getting the Meds. One sec it is all guns in faces, then a jump cut and it's all like they were discussing what the weather might be next week. It neither works with the prior tension or the bigger situation unfolding.
- walking over the sand dune and the first thing you notice is a watch on the sand? Not the plane wreckage? It's not thought-provoking insight into something deeper. It's amateur writing.
- Some scenes I did enjoy, such as the Telsa's running amok. Not sure if Musk would find it funny but I did

In summary, I was fine watching it once... and on a streaming service you already pay for.

 

[ahalpert]

Ok, I'll take a stab at it. But I suspect it is pointless. Our minds work so differently that I feel we are ships passing in the night.



Why is it necessary? Why does it matter how they evaluate a film? It's art.

If i said i didnt like a movie because it was too scary, but you like scary movies, then maybe you'll like a movie i didn't like.

A lot of the criticism of this movie from audience reviews on rotten tomatoes basically said that the dialogue scenes were boring and there wasnt enough action. But this wasnt an action movie, and i like nuanced dialogue scenes. (I like action movies too. But, for example, the extended fight scene in The Killer was the most boring scene for me. And the dialogue scene with Tilda Swinton was one of the best scenes.)

Then there are reviews that are clearly politically-motivated. And when you read that you might think that hey, they don't share my politics so i might like the movie anyway. But you can also surmise that it's not a substantive critique of the storytelling or craft. It just rubbed them the wrong way.

For example, im watching The West Wing now. The dialogue and directing is phenomenal, and the steadicam op is the star of the show. (Which at some point should be Charles; I'll have to keep a look-out.) I dont agree with all the politics, particularly the positive light in which they depict our leaders. And i think it's worth delineating what I like about the show and what I disagree with.

So if you don't like a film, I shouldn't listen to you? Again, so judgemental about other's opinions. It seems like anyone that doesn't like what you like is to be dismissed. I don't follow this thinking.

This seems out of context. I can't figure out why you made this statement. No one here said anything about what you should watch. What were you thinking about when you said this? It seems unrelated to the discussion of the film. On the one hand, you make that statement, but then you spend the entire post criticizing how others evaluate a movie. I'm perplexed.

There's some back and forth dismissiveness of people who disagree about the film. Doug literally said this movie was made for morons.

I think Aram's point about other people telling you what to watch was just to say that, like me, he doesn't care if the movie bombs on RT if he likes it.

 

[Doug Jensen]

There's some back and forth dismissiveness of people who disagree about the film. Doug literally said this movie was made for morons.

Exactly. it is a dumb movie made to appeal to people with low IQ. I stand by that.

 

[ahalpert]

Given all the polarization of views, I gave it a watch. I found it consistent with many other recent productions. Mostly forgettable.

Mediocre story line, slow pacing, lack luster writing and an attempt to "jazz it up" with pretentious camera movies like the 90 degree shot of the water glass that adds nothing but to pull you out of the film. Likewise, I found the soundtrack tended to be over dramatic for what was happening on screen most of the time and reminiscent of 80's horror flicks. The acting was workmanship at best and unenthusiastic at worst. I did not get invested in the characters, their struggles or what their fate would be..... and they had plenty of screen time for a limited cast to flesh this out better.

While not great, I was fine with the VFX on mid budget set like this. My biggest gripe with much of the stuff churned out recently is the weak writing. Take the...

Spoiler: Spoilers

- confrontation in getting the Meds. One sec it is all guns in faces, then a jump cut and it's all like they were discussing what the weather might be next week. It neither works with the prior tension or the bigger situation unfolding.
- walking over the sand dune and the first thing you notice is a watch on the sand? Not the plane wreckage? It's not thought-provoking insight into something deeper. It's amateur writing.
- Some scenes I did enjoy, such as the Telsa's running amok. Not sure if Musk would find it funny but I did

In summary, I was fine watching it once... and on a streaming service you already pay for.

I loved the pacing. I never stay up late to watch movies these days because I get so little sleep on account of the kids. It was a struggle for me to turn this one off.

A lot of the tension comes from knowing they're in trouble and watching them do nothing. That was what the soundtrack meant to me.

I thought the characters felt pretty real and were established pretty quickly. And defied simplistic judgements.

The 90 degree shot of the water was supposed to be disorienting. So...it kind of sounds like it worked?

The thing about the VFX is that I assume there was a ton of VFX incorporated to pull off normal shots because there were too many shots that would be super difficult to pull off, especially on this budget.

Spoiler: spoilers

i think the confrontation over the meds was supposed to be another binary choice between zero sum (or negative sum) competition vs positive sum cooperation. And Bacon chose the latter. (The movie had a happy ending after all.)

And it's a comic moment when they cut back after the standoff. (Sort of insulting to people like him i think.) He tells them cash is worthless but then takes it anyway and laughs about reverting to a barter system, which it's not. And he is more attached to believing what he heard from his friend in California than the leaflet theyre showing him right there.

I think the watch was noticed from a distance before he could see the rest of the beach. Either way, as far as movie scene cheats go, it would be minor.

The whole thing with the planes or the teslas had echoes of 9/11 -- using our own advanced technology to attack us. I thought the effects in the plane crash were lovely, when he runs in the house and the windows get blown in.

The 90-degree water shot was probably one of the simplest and more common sorts of weird shots in the movie.

I liked the cinematography in the opening scene but also asked myself if the whole thing was going to be so clean and so squarely presented.

The first shot I really liked was Julia Roberts on the phone in the car. Something about her sunglasses and talking off into the air and the angle of her head and her facial asymmetry... it felt kind of creepy. More of a directing thing than a cinematography thing but thats when the imagery started provoking my reactions. And then the shot evolved through a lovely series of camera positions in the car before pulling back through a window at the end, which definitely incorporated VFX.



Another shot I'll mention was when the family was heading off to NJ. It was a typical composition until they drove away and then Ali and daughter walked to the extreme bottom of frame. I had a strong urge to reach into the screen and tilt the camera down to reframe. It's a small thing but definitely gave me the feeling that something was off, and i think a lay viewer would feel that too.




These were nowhere near the most impressive shots. I just thought they were interesting and effective choices.

IMO this was definitely not a run of the mill, forgettable film. I've been watching a lot of movies lately and for me it was the most interesting and hardest to pause watching. It was more interesting to me from a technical point of view than the other stuff I've seen lately (in order of enjoyment): The Next Three Days, The Killer, State of Play, Panic Room, The Creator, The Adjustment Bureau. And I decided not to finish Elf or The Retirement Plan. And I'd say that only The Next Three Days provoked a stronger emotional reaction from me although the story was much simpler with fewer philosophical implications and less memorable dialogue. (But sort of the perfect romance film for thriller lovers.) The Killer was really well made, had an excellent soundtrack, some interesting existential pondering, and some very memorable scenes. But all in all it didn't feel that novel or surprising to me and I didn't get super invested in the story.

 

[ahalpert]

Exactly. it is a dumb movie made to appeal to people with low IQ. I stand by that.

I await Paul's objection...

 

[Tom Roper]

Paul F - On Point 100%.

Leave the World Behind is not the worst movie but if you're ducking for cover in a food fight, that's the metaphor for incessant f-bombs or gratuitous anything. We are critics of entertainment because it's less effort than mentioning all the things we like.

 

[Tom Roper]

Abe, you are passionate about Leave the World Behind. You've explored its signals in detail and with those understandings, are they enough that you will rewatch it again and again?

 

[Paul F]

I await Paul's objection...

Ahhh! I went outside to do some yard work and I was thinking about this and was tempted to come back in because EXACTLY this. I expected if I didn't respond first, anything I say would be tainted. But here's what I was thinking while I was outside.

Doug, insulting fellow film makers is inappropriate and the comment in general is ...... well, maybe you're proving Aram's point, about which, I'm still confused, but it's becoming more clear.

Now onto my sarcastic side:

As to Abe using the word 'moron'. Choose wisely Grasshopper (are you too young for that reference?). For our edification, the terms 'idiot', 'imbecile', and 'moron' were psychology terms used in the early part of the last century. They went into disuse because of idiots like us who misuse the terms.

Idiot - A person with an IQ of 0-25
Imbecile - A person with an IQ of 26-50
Moron - A person with an IQ of 51-70.

Doug did not classify what IQ he was talking about so I don't think it's fair to say he was calling people just morons. He may have meant all three levels of intellectual shortcomings.

 

[ahalpert]

Abe, you are passionate about Leave the World Behind. You've explored its signals in detail and with those understandings, are they enough that you will rewatch it again and again?

I would definitely like to rewatch this again on a larger screen and with an uninterrupted viewing. A lot of the narrative pleasure lies in not knowing what's going to happen next, so I don't see myself rewatching it on an annual basis.

Oh, I also saw Anon recently. I really liked the beginning and some of the production design. It had some interesting aspects. But the writing in Leave was way, way, way better.

 

[ahalpert]

I couldn't disagree with you more on this. It was one of the worst things I've seen. I kept watching just to see if it would get worse, and it did . . . over and over again.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Made for morons. No offense intended.

Paul - indeed, Doug specified. On page 1

Also, this is no time for yard work. There's a flame war afoot

 

[Paul F]

Crap. I was going to look back in the thread, but was too lazy. Ok, my apologies for giving Grasshopper a lesson he did not deserve. Well then, Doug's insult wasn't as bad as I assumed it was. He used the most intellectual classification of the feeble-minded. I'll shave 66.6% off my admonishment of Doug.

 

[Paul F]

What happened to Paul's post? I was going to give it a thumbs up.

Where's my upvote for the post? I put it back and I get no upvote? Ya thinks ya know people and then this happens. I only re-posted it to get an upvote.

 

[aram]

Ok, I'll take a stab at it. But I suspect it is pointless. Our minds work so differently that I feel we are ships passing in the night.

Why is it necessary? Why does it matter how they evaluate a film? It's art.

I agree, we are like passing ships in the night.
It's necessary because our time is finite. We can't experience everything and have our own opinion about everything, so we must learn to discern whose criteria we trust beyond our own.

How others evaluate a film matters because I can use their opinion to guide me and help me maximise my exposure to things I enjoy and minimise my exposure to things that feel like a waste of time.

I don't understand what you are saying about others. Maybe they pay attention in a way that is different from you. Maybe they don't pay attention. Why does that matter to you? Why is "it necessary"? Is there something you want to accomplish?

See previous answer. It matters because I don't have infinite time, one way or another they are giving me information that may be useful if I can figure out if I trust them or trust that I'll disagree with them.

This is what I want to accomplish: to have my own informed, opinion about someone's opinions so that I can use them to maximise my joy. "Good" or "bad" are only useful if I know I'm going to agree or completely disagree with someone. "I didn't like the potty mouthed characters" or "I thought the sex stuff was disgusting" are more useful because they are telling me things about the criteria a person is using to judge and I'll use that to guide me.

I'm missing what you're getting at. If someone thinks a plot is stupid, that is not a legitimate reason to not like a movie? If the sex didn't bother you but it bothered others, that's not a reason to dislike a movie?

"A plot is stupid" is not a reason to dislike a movie in so far I may think the plot is brilliant. It's like with "good" or "bad" above, it's useless to me because I don't know what criteria were used to judge the plot "stupid".
However, if someone is bothered by sex stuff in a film, that's useful. I will be more interested in watching that film, because some sex stuff bothers me, but some does not, but at least I know this "sex stuff" elicited a response in someone else and I'll be more interested in forming my own opinion now.

They have to be engaged the way you are to watch a movie? Why all the judgement of how others watch and form opinions about a movie? You appear to be so judgmental. Sort of "Their stupid. They don't know how to watch movies". I don't understand why another person's reasons for not liking a movie are incorrect.

They have to be engaged for their opinion to be worth paying attention to. Many times, I've said myself about my own opinions "don't trust me on this one, got bored and started checking my phone while they movie was on", basically meaning "yes, I've got an opinion, but it's not worth much because there may be great things that I missed or did not get because I wasn't engaging properly". This happens to me, it happens to my friends. I'm sure it happens to most people, but many people will do what I do (not engage properly) and still hold their opinion ("this was good, bad, stupid, boring...") as if it were a fact.

So yes, I will judge other people's opinions and ways of watching a movie because I need to know if I can trust their opinions and no, it's not that their reasons for liking or disliking a movie are "incorrect". It's is that when their argument is about quality, it's often useless to me because that's incredibly subjective. If I know their taste and I know I tend to agree or disagree, those judgements are useful again, but I don't have time (or the memory) to find out about enough people's taste, so other criteria become more important (did the potty mouths bother them? Did the political leaning of the film make them think the film was making great points?...).

Also, I would like to point out that it's been said I seem judgemental, however I've not said anything like "a movie made for morons" or "a movie for people with low IQ" (that was Doug, not you, but the point is still relevant).

Per allusion, I'd also like to point out that ages 10 to 13 my school was part of a program where we took IQ tests yearly. We were never told specific numbers directly, but our teachers were and they sometimes told our parents. Apparently I was on the 92th percentile. I'm sure it's lower now, but as a PhD holder and someone who works as an engineer in a financial institution (where I'm the dumbest person in the room), I'm pretty sure my IQ is not particularly low.

At the same time, I would not put much value into IQ. My brother was on the 96th and he's made so many stupid decisions in his life that he's a middle aged man living with his mom... But let's not delve in that.

In any case, please, refrain from using ad hominem fallacies and I'll refrain from using authority fallacies.

So if you don't like a film, I shouldn't listen to you? Again, so judgemental about other's opinions. It seems like anyone that doesn't like what you like is to be dismissed. I don't follow this thinking.

I cannot tell you what to do with my opinions because I've not heard enough of yours yet, but for Doug, for example, I'd say it's quite the opposite. If I don't like a film, he should listen to me and go and watch it, because we have already established we have very different tastes and he's very likely to enjoy it! The same way, if I think he's being honest and is lambasting a film, I'm more likely to go and watch it.

This seems out of context. I can't figure out why you made this statement. No one here said anything about what you should watch. What were you thinking about when you said this? It seems unrelated to the discussion of the film. On the one hand, you make that statement, but then you spend the entire post criticizing how others evaluate a movie. I'm perplexed.

Ahalpert is correct. The thing about democracy was in response to Tom using the Rotten Tomatoes score as an argument.

In summary, I criticise how others evaluate movies because it's useful in order to decide how/if I'm going to use their evaluation to guide what I'm watching.

 

[aram]

I look forward to having Aram explain to me how the total failure of this movie to entertain was all my fault because I didn't pay enough attention.

Sorry, Doug, cannot explain anything because you've only expressed your opinion in the most subjective terms: dumb, rubbish and such.

If you present a few facts about the film that you disliked, like jmone did, I could try, but ultimately, it doesn't matter anymore, because now I know we have quite opposite tastes and that's what is useful to me in the end.

​​​​​​​No harsh feelings though. After all, you work in this creative business and I'm just an engineer in a bank, possibly a philistine and I don't even know!