Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Oh, I look forward to that. I cannot wait.
Leave the World Behind
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
Oh, I look forward to that. I cannot wait.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Can you honestly sit there and say that some movies, art, literature, music, TV shows, etc. are not designed to appeal to people of a certain intelligence level? This was a dumb movie designed to entertain people who can't or don't want to think very much.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
So, this is sort of the type of critique I was expecting -- objecting to plot holes and such. And that's fine but I think the bigger issue is the film didn't succeed in making you suspend disbelief. I don't think any factual issues with the film are big enough to prevent someone from enjoying the storytelling. I mean, how did Maximus survive traveling on horseback from northern Germany to southern Spain with a shoulder wound still bleeding? Nobody cares and that didn't ruin anyone's enjoyment of Gladiator.
I'm only going to respond to things I think are inaccurate.
I mean, this is based on a novel published in 2020. So, clearly it was not conceived first as a film and there is a lot in the original source material besides these visuals. I think it had strong themes (if at times overt) and the visuals are in service to the themes.
The best explanation I could come up with for the deer is that they were affected by the microwave weapon that Kevin Bacon mentioned. After all, they can't cover their ears as humans can. This is actually a major plot point that I'm surprised you missed.
During the conversation with Kevin Bacon, Bacon suggests that Archie's symptoms might be caused by a microwave weapon developed by the Russians that travels through sound waves. (Actually, generative AI on google tells me "The absorption of pulsed microwaves can create an acoustic wave in the head. The pressure wave may initially be perceived as sound by the target. The wave can travel through the brain and damage soft tissue.)
Bacon references Havana Syndrome, which was the supposed effect of this weapon used by Russian operatives on American diplomats in Cuba in 2016 and perhaps later. (This was one plot point with the film that lit up on my disbelief radar because my understanding is that Havana Syndrome was debunked as a fantasy of the state department and that the symptoms reported were psychosomatic.)
There may also be some biological warfare afoot as Archie was bitten by an insect. But it seemed to me like that was a red herring. The better explanation was that Archie took a big dose of these harmful sound waves (because he didn't immediately block his ears like the others) and ended up with strange symptoms. (Bacon notes that people with Havana Syndrome lost teeth as well.) So, it seems possible to me that this weapon is having strange effects on the wildlife as well. Maybe interfering with their fight or flight instincts. Or that could be something else happening to them we don't know about.
The sound waves (or perception of sound) could be caused by a plane flying overhead.
The basic point is there is some advanced weaponry aimed at them and they don't know how it works. This really doesn't bother me.
I think the payoff for the cabin was simply to get Ali's daughter and Roberts in a position where the former is surrounded by deer and the latter has a choice to abandon her or come to her rescue.
There is no invading army. That was Ali's point at the end. (The society tears itself apart, which is more cost-effective than an invasion.) They tell you that there was a blackout in Manhattan. But maybe the local power plant in LI was unaffected. Clearly, it benefits the story if there is still electricity, especially the main point which is to contrast the sumptuous comfort modern Americans live in with what's about to come. But I don't think it's implausible that they might still have power.
Actually, they specifically tell you that they're not going to the Hamptons. They're driving to a hamlet an hour away from home (in Park Slope, Brooklyn). I looked on google maps and this puts them about midway across Long Island, about 50 miles from Brooklyn. But the basic idea is that they're going to a sparsely populated scenic area relatively closeby to the city. I don't think the real-life geography matters more than that basic idea. You can argue about whether or not the city looks accurately distant in the drone shots, but that's the type of cheat that any filmmaker would make. And the Manhattan skyline can be seen up to 80 miles away, within the range they drove. Here are the two drone shots where we see Manhattan in the distance:
Possibly, although it's a judgement call. Maybe they rent it out and give the money to the daughter as her allowance. Maybe they just use the house during the summer and rent it out in the off-season. Most wealthy New Yorkers who go to Long Island for the summer only go there for the summer. This is not an impossibility. And maybe the dad isn't as rich as he tries to make himself seem.
I think it was acknowledged that the dad was being awkward, especially by his daughter. Keep in mind, this is also a man who thinks that things are much worse than he's trying to let on, and he is also probably starting to wonder if his wife is dead. In other words, he's frazzled. Clearly, the filmmakers were trying to engineer a situation where the newcomers seemed suspicious. But nothing about it was factually impossible.
Possibly they escaped from a local zoo or something and found their way to this heated pool. Maybe their navigational instincts are off.
She's supposed to be the only one willing to observe and acknowledge how off things are.
I think the character development is she ignores her gut instinct to rely on her parents and then finally strikes out on her own. It's a funny scenario because I think we've all been in a position where you're dying to know the end of a story. Imagine if you were partway through the finale of a long TV show you were really enjoying when the TV cut out. And the ending was very interesting to me both because she blows off everything else that's going on to indulge in her cultural/technological comforts (which is kind of a running theme in the movie) but also because it shows, in a positive way, what art/entertainment can do for the human soul even in the worst of times.
Um...what's the problem here? Have you never met or heard of people who were just like these people? One of the things that I liked about the movie was that the characters seemed nuanced and dimensional. And I don't think any of them is completely negative. They have strengths and weaknesses and oscillate between being likable and dislikable. In particular, the young woman had a kind of rich girl entitlement mixed with a sort of woke suspicion of white people. And she feels territorial against Roberts as well as competitive but in another sense she's looking for a surrogate mother. Yes, Roberts is an angry *****. She makes her misanthropy known in the very first scene. But she is capable of friendship and she comes to the young woman's rescue. Hawke isn't a total pussy. He cheats on his wife with students and also sneaks cigarettes behind her back.
Discussed this already. He didn't cover his ears during the sound. Also, maybe because of the insect bite. Bacon says that people with Havana Syndrome lost teeth. I don't think it's typical radiation poisoning. Anyway, this is basically not a real-life ailment. Fictional symptoms from a fictional weapon (with a real-life tie-in).
There are certain generic medications that you might expect him to have, including antibioitics and potassium iodide (for radiation poisoning). But his most valuable asset might be information about what happened to the boy and how to treat it. The bigger point is that Bacon is the only one who prepared at all for emergencies. Seeking his help is a hail mary.
I mean, the story at the heart of the movie is strangers helping each other and forming a larger family unit (Hawke's family and Ali's family). The reason society breaks down in the movie moreso than in an actual disaster is because there's a total blackout of communications and information. Nobody knows anything and nobody is coming to their rescue, unlike after a hurricane. It's sort of a Twilight Zone-type plot, where human nature is portrayed darkly and somewhat exaggerated or accelerated. But keep in mind that Bacon helps them after all, and not because Ali points a gun at him but because Hawke pleads for his mercy.
He is loading more than cases of water; he's loading big bags of rice and some sort of FEMA-approved Emergency supplies in buckets, and some other stuff. He's not parked that far away. She stares at him for a few moments and then gives him a weak smile. I think the bigger issue here is that she came out to the "country" for some idyllic relaxation and this guy looks like he's preparing for a hurricane. There are probably also no survivalists in her Park Slope neighborhood.
I thought he had taken some turns somewhere. The point of the scene is he can't get anywhere without GPS. Maybe that's unrealistic, but don't forget that this guy is a professor. I have known some spacey professors.
I think she was working in a house where something bad happened (plane crash? ransacked?). I wish I spoke Spanish. And she proceeded to flee on foot. I know she said something to him about something happening at her house and how he was the first person she had seen all day. Obviously, we're not supposed to look positively on him leaving her there. He may have been afraid there was something wrong with her because of how she looked and spoke.
When I first saw the plane, I thought it was spraying a gas cloud and I'm assuming that he did, too. I don't know why they would go to all this trouble to leaflet such a sparsely-populated area. But in the movie they specifically made the point that these leaflets were designed to confuse and terrify the populace.
Yeah I dunno, I would have thought there would be a greater mix, too. Maybe they came from the same warehouse shipment. Maybe they hadn't been painted yet. I don't think the cars were real, so I'm assuming that the filmmakers could have had any colors and models they wanted and chose these ones. It was a nice visual choice. It seems less likely to me than seeing a variety of Teslas but not totally impossible.
We're in a sparsely-populated hamlet so they might not see many people in the immediate vicinity. I would have expected to see people in the traffic jam but I couldn't tell how far ahead the first non-teslas were. They're supposed to be 50 or so miles from Manhattan, so too far for the refugees streaming out of the city. Anybody already in Long Island might be more or less staying put.
[QUOTE
So, a guy drives onto his neighbor’s driveway and parks. He is there for about a minute using his phone before he realizes the house and yard have been hit by a tornado or something. How is it that he could pull all the way onto a circular driveway and yet wouldn’t have seen all that damage and debris from the moment he pulled in?[/QUOTE]
On his phone, he's texting his wife for the umpteenth time (who he thinks might be dead) asking her if she's ok. So, I think he's pretty preoccupied. But he notices the mayhem before he gets out of the car. Really, this is just an example of him not noticing something before the audience does. (Mostly we just see him so far.) This is a small artistic cheat.
He sees the watch through a clearing before he can see anything else on the beach. The arm that it's on is severed ad buried in sand. The body of the pilot is above the sand and somewhere else. Not seeing other stuff first -- small artistic cheat.
The plan was directed to crash in the same spot by the hackers. Windows get blown out by sand. It's possible the wall stands.
They were drunk. I don't think she was supposed to be a good dancer. They have almost nothing else to do with their time, or at least they don't know what to do. And they're still not sure how bad things are.
Gotta go... try to finish responding later...
jmone
Well-known member
It's fine to enjoy movies and for whatever reason. Just because you like a movie does not make it objectively "good", but rather entertaining for the individual. I really enjoy the original Suicide Squad & Battleship. Maybe it is the sound tracks on both? Regardless, it would be misguided of me to call them Cinematic masterpieces no matter how much I enjoyed them.
No problems with the "I can't say enough good things about this movie...", " but it really is nowhere near "Cinema with a capital C". Apart from my previous observations, the other irritant I found was the various trite threads along the lines of "You can't trust white people" --> "She saved me by yelling at some deer" --> "We hold hands at the end of the world". Wow, such shared hardship really does form lasting bonds and overcome bigotry.
Again - I think it's fine for what it is, another mid budget, made for TV, B grade flick.
PS - For balance I also watched the final Episode (part 1 and 2) of Friends as surly this was the whole point of this movie?!?!
Too much Sachine for my taste but I guess it rated really well at the time. I don't think this was Cinematic either.
No problems with the "I can't say enough good things about this movie...", " but it really is nowhere near "Cinema with a capital C". Apart from my previous observations, the other irritant I found was the various trite threads along the lines of "You can't trust white people" --> "She saved me by yelling at some deer" --> "We hold hands at the end of the world". Wow, such shared hardship really does form lasting bonds and overcome bigotry.
Again - I think it's fine for what it is, another mid budget, made for TV, B grade flick.
PS - For balance I also watched the final Episode (part 1 and 2) of Friends as surly this was the whole point of this movie?!?!
Too much Sachine for my taste but I guess it rated really well at the time. I don't think this was Cinematic either.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Abe, while I appreciate your attempt to explain away the plot holes, the tons pf implausible actions of the characters, and many "cheats" by the filmmakers, you shouldn't have to work so hard to defend a movie. That right there should tell you something about the quality of the filmmaking. If the audience is forced tp ignore dumb crap every couple of minutes or make excuses for plot holes, then it's not a good film. And what about all the other stuff you didn't even address? That's because it is indefensible, right?
The audience should not be expected to brush off so many dumb, stupid, childish, inexplicable filmmaking cheats. That's exactly what I mean when I say it was made for morons. It is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.
BTW, if you think that skyline view of NYC is from 50-80 miles away, you are out of your mind. 50-80 miles would be over the horizon even if the observer was at the highest point on Long Island. That skyline is 10 miles away at most. And what happened to Queens and Brooklyn? Yes, I heard Julia say they were not going the the Hamptons specifically, but the house was obviously located someplace at the far end of the island. Who cares what the town is named? If the filmmakers didn't wan to be constrained by reality, then they should have chosen an entirely fictional geography with no place names at all -- including New York City.
Okay, maybe the wristwatch was on a dismembered arm. I'll give you that. But then where does it go after he finds it? As soon as he finds the watch and arm he loses balance and falls down right in the same spot -- literally face to face with a dead pilot a couple of feet away. How could he not have seen the pilot before the buried watch? And where is the arm in the wide shot when he stands up? And how is it that he didn't first see 10,000 other pieces of aircraft debris all over the beach?
Kevin Bacon's references to the debunked Havana syndrome are laughable. And even if there was a legitimate Havana Syndrome, it didn't cause teeth to fall out, nobody ever claimed it was painfully audible, and if it did exist, it would have been a narrowly focused beam. You can't just make up weapons out of thin air.
Your arguments are not persuasive. They are just excuses. As I said several posts ago, I would be willing to let a few dumb things pass by, but not this many over and over again. I don't take much stock on Rotten Tomatoes reviews either, but when 2/3 of the audience gives it a thumbs down, that says something.
This movie did teach me one thing, though, the next time I see someone stocking up on tiny bottles of water and big bags of rice, I will certainly have a different perspective of what they are up to.
The audience should not be expected to brush off so many dumb, stupid, childish, inexplicable filmmaking cheats. That's exactly what I mean when I say it was made for morons. It is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.
BTW, if you think that skyline view of NYC is from 50-80 miles away, you are out of your mind. 50-80 miles would be over the horizon even if the observer was at the highest point on Long Island. That skyline is 10 miles away at most. And what happened to Queens and Brooklyn? Yes, I heard Julia say they were not going the the Hamptons specifically, but the house was obviously located someplace at the far end of the island. Who cares what the town is named? If the filmmakers didn't wan to be constrained by reality, then they should have chosen an entirely fictional geography with no place names at all -- including New York City.
Okay, maybe the wristwatch was on a dismembered arm. I'll give you that. But then where does it go after he finds it? As soon as he finds the watch and arm he loses balance and falls down right in the same spot -- literally face to face with a dead pilot a couple of feet away. How could he not have seen the pilot before the buried watch? And where is the arm in the wide shot when he stands up? And how is it that he didn't first see 10,000 other pieces of aircraft debris all over the beach?
Kevin Bacon's references to the debunked Havana syndrome are laughable. And even if there was a legitimate Havana Syndrome, it didn't cause teeth to fall out, nobody ever claimed it was painfully audible, and if it did exist, it would have been a narrowly focused beam. You can't just make up weapons out of thin air.
Your arguments are not persuasive. They are just excuses. As I said several posts ago, I would be willing to let a few dumb things pass by, but not this many over and over again. I don't take much stock on Rotten Tomatoes reviews either, but when 2/3 of the audience gives it a thumbs down, that says something.
This movie did teach me one thing, though, the next time I see someone stocking up on tiny bottles of water and big bags of rice, I will certainly have a different perspective of what they are up to.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Please explain this amazing technology that hackers have to control a commercial aircraft remotely. And why couldn't the pilots just override it? And why would the hackers choose to crash the plane in the exact same place they already crashed another plane rather than spreading the mayhem all over the place?
You both did a nice job, Doug of circling all the holes in red and Abe of patching over them with spackle, but they still show through the paint.
That $0.02 out of the way, I agree with jmone above and would zero in on the significance of a great soundtrack and music score, and what that adds to a movie. Diamonds are Forever was a really stupid, dumb Bond Movie made watchable by the cast, the location, the visuals and especially the soundtrack and Shirley Bassey. Bullitt was a pretty good movie with great visuals, marvelous Lalo Schifrin score, great cast, a solid story and plenty of holes in it. Marathon Man had a great cast, stunning visuals, compelling soundtrack from Michael Small. None were epic but they are rewatchable today because they were completed works. You weren't left having to finish the story yourself, and with music so entertaining that you would go back to the theater to rewatch or even purchase the motion picture soundtrack. Beautiful works from John Williams, Henry Mancini, Hans Zimmer, James Horner, Nino Rota, John Barry, Giorgio Moroder.
That $0.02 out of the way, I agree with jmone above and would zero in on the significance of a great soundtrack and music score, and what that adds to a movie. Diamonds are Forever was a really stupid, dumb Bond Movie made watchable by the cast, the location, the visuals and especially the soundtrack and Shirley Bassey. Bullitt was a pretty good movie with great visuals, marvelous Lalo Schifrin score, great cast, a solid story and plenty of holes in it. Marathon Man had a great cast, stunning visuals, compelling soundtrack from Michael Small. None were epic but they are rewatchable today because they were completed works. You weren't left having to finish the story yourself, and with music so entertaining that you would go back to the theater to rewatch or even purchase the motion picture soundtrack. Beautiful works from John Williams, Henry Mancini, Hans Zimmer, James Horner, Nino Rota, John Barry, Giorgio Moroder.
I won't do a point by point rebuttal because I agree with some of your criticism and because I'm not trying to convince you your opinion is wrong, I'm just trying to convince you that your opinion is just that, your opinion.
Reading through your issues with the film, my judgment is that you do not like it because you don't like most of the characters it depicts because their values don't match yours.
The son is a dickhead, simple as that. He is terrible to his sister all the time and he is a peeping tom towards the other girl, so it's a nice echo that shows he knows being like that is "wrong" but it doesn't stop him. Met many dickhead in my life. This was easy to understand and accept for me.
I don't know what the situation with Air b and b is in USA, but this seemed perfectly normal to me. Over here people rent super fancy places for parties (some renters now forbid this) and as filming locations (also forbidden by some renters now). I can only imagine the owners are rich. I guess a lot of rich people want to be richer, having an asset like that and not making it work for you seems wasteful. It's greedy, but I've also known a lot of greedy people in my life (why are Bezzos or Suckerberg still working? A guy in my company got a 39 million bonus last year, why is he still working?)
They don't trust the white people. Information is power. You want the power balance to be tipping towards your side. Admittedly, they were terrible at it. I would have done the same, but I would probably have been better at coming up with an excuse to appease the white people.
Again, I get it. I'd probably do the same for a while. Probably play a video game instead, but the same kind of burying my head in the sand until I've gotten over my denial stage. It's a coping mechanism, a bad one, but a real one.
This seems very credible and relatable to me.
I don't know, man. If I were a young smart black woman and I was trying to get into my house that I think of as a safe space and some white family were there trying to stop me,I think I'd be pissed off too.
Same with Roberts, if I were a cynical marketing person who does not trust people and who has paid the rent, I'd be angry at the interlopers too.
I also notice the use of the word pussy to describe Hawkes' character, more on that next.
Again, I get him. I'd be stressed in this situation and without good signalling and a GPS, while under stress, I could see myself becoming unable to reach my objective anywhere I'm not familiar with. I'd be like "did I miss the exit? Have I driven too far? Maybe I've not driven far enough yet?"
I happen to be Spanish. The lady talks about working for rich people who've left her behind. People can easily walk 5km per hour, in this context a person in the middle of nowhere doesn't seem that unlikely. In any case, if I'm Hawkes' character, barely coping myself, I'm afraid I'd most likely also not pick her up. I'm already freaking out, I would not be able to cope with another person freaking out in a language I don't understand to top it off.
Again, I'd be freaked out by the litter, because initially I thought it was gas and even if it's only paper, so much weird **** is happening, I'm primed to freak out.
Now back to the pussy thing, I feel the choice of word is significant here. The character you refer to as a pussy is a man who is emotional, something more traditionally linked to women and it's being presented as a negative trait. This hints to values whereby a man should not be emotional, with the possible implications that a man should be stoic and men who are not such are less of a man and maybe less worthy of respect. More on this later.
Again, I get her. My reaction was her reaction. If I saw someone buying a lot of water when there's no apparent reason for it, I'd think there's something wrong with that person. In the context of the USA, I may jump to the conclusion that that person is a prepper (the media has given me the impression that there are lots of preppers and sovereign citizens loose there), and I'd immediately would be afraid of that person because I assume preppers have weapons and also are very fearful people who will lash out if they decide I'm somehow a threat to their security. There may be millions of other reasons why people buy a lot of water, but I've been primed by media to think that's weird prepper behaviour. You could say I'm prejudiced against preppers.
Again, I get it. I don't care if their dancing is not great (why would that matter for the "quality" of the film, anyway?). This scene is about them making a deeper connection, which happens without words (this is something I've experienced myself, surely not such a strange event) and leads to a bit of unwanted sexual tension (again, been there, done that). This seemed to me like a very understandable human situation again where you are trying to bury your head in the sand.
Here there's generalising about what people from the USA do in certain tragic circumstances. Maybe if you live there and you see this happening regularly, it's possible to hold this as truth. I'm a Spaniard based in London. My perception of the USA is very mediated, having only been there for a week a few days in Madison and a few in New York. I remember hearing about people in New York helping each other when there was a big snow storm ages ago that cut power to big parts of the city. But I also remember the looting after Katrina and how the police waited outside during a recent school shooting and only a few specific people went in with the sole purpose of rescuing their own children, not the intention to solve the situation.
My point here is that you seem (through this very superficial analysis of mine) to have a worldview in which people from the USA are "good" and good men are not "pussies".
However, this film presents you with a bunch of characters that contradict that worldview. One of the main men is a "pussy", the other manipulative and greedy even though he's rich, two harsh women, a creepy boy and a girl that doesn't want to deal with reality. You don't like them, you cannot empathize with them and they don't seem "real" to you, so you were never going to emotionally connect with the film. Hence, for you, the film is bad.
It's not that you missed things in the film. It's that once the film through its characters didn't fit in your worldview, you most likely ceased to engage with it and started to look for flaws to justify your dislike. All your other criticisms (some of which I agree with), don't matter to me, they are just a man that's not stupid rationalising why they dislike something so much.
Regarding points that you brought up that I agree with: the watch thing also briefly took me out, his survival after the plane crash seemed a bit unlikely to me, I also thought the tanker most likely would have become stuck without getting that close to it beach. However, the film does not contradict my worldview, I believe that humans are flawed and capable of great, but also really crappy things. The film matches that very well, so I wasn't frustrated by it and quickly suspended my disbelief because what was going on was more interesting and engaging to me than the brief feeling of "Huh, that doesn't make much sense."
Regarding The Road, I watched it back when it came out. I remember not liking it. I'm not saying it's a bad film at all, but it was so bleak that it made me put all my defences up, so even though I recognised the parent-child relationship was beautiful, I wasn't able to engage and ended up feeling a bit bored and empty by the end. Maybe now that I'm a father, it would be able to break through. Who knows? It would not be the first time that I don't care for a film on first watching it and later on connect deeply with it.
May give The Stand a chance some day. Been curious about King for years but never know where to start.
Also, may I suggest you tone it down a bit. There are at least two people in this conversation who obviously really liked the film, your saying that the film is for morons, people with low IQ or a turd is simply rude and uncalled for. Neither me, nor Ahalpert have been anything but polite and civilised in this conversation.
Reading through your issues with the film, my judgment is that you do not like it because you don't like most of the characters it depicts because their values don't match yours.
The son is a dickhead, simple as that. He is terrible to his sister all the time and he is a peeping tom towards the other girl, so it's a nice echo that shows he knows being like that is "wrong" but it doesn't stop him. Met many dickhead in my life. This was easy to understand and accept for me.
I don't know what the situation with Air b and b is in USA, but this seemed perfectly normal to me. Over here people rent super fancy places for parties (some renters now forbid this) and as filming locations (also forbidden by some renters now). I can only imagine the owners are rich. I guess a lot of rich people want to be richer, having an asset like that and not making it work for you seems wasteful. It's greedy, but I've also known a lot of greedy people in my life (why are Bezzos or Suckerberg still working? A guy in my company got a 39 million bonus last year, why is he still working?)
They don't trust the white people. Information is power. You want the power balance to be tipping towards your side. Admittedly, they were terrible at it. I would have done the same, but I would probably have been better at coming up with an excuse to appease the white people.
Again, I get it. I'd probably do the same for a while. Probably play a video game instead, but the same kind of burying my head in the sand until I've gotten over my denial stage. It's a coping mechanism, a bad one, but a real one.
This seems very credible and relatable to me.
I don't know, man. If I were a young smart black woman and I was trying to get into my house that I think of as a safe space and some white family were there trying to stop me,I think I'd be pissed off too.
Same with Roberts, if I were a cynical marketing person who does not trust people and who has paid the rent, I'd be angry at the interlopers too.
I also notice the use of the word pussy to describe Hawkes' character, more on that next.
Again, I get him. I'd be stressed in this situation and without good signalling and a GPS, while under stress, I could see myself becoming unable to reach my objective anywhere I'm not familiar with. I'd be like "did I miss the exit? Have I driven too far? Maybe I've not driven far enough yet?"
I happen to be Spanish. The lady talks about working for rich people who've left her behind. People can easily walk 5km per hour, in this context a person in the middle of nowhere doesn't seem that unlikely. In any case, if I'm Hawkes' character, barely coping myself, I'm afraid I'd most likely also not pick her up. I'm already freaking out, I would not be able to cope with another person freaking out in a language I don't understand to top it off.
Again, I'd be freaked out by the litter, because initially I thought it was gas and even if it's only paper, so much weird **** is happening, I'm primed to freak out.
Now back to the pussy thing, I feel the choice of word is significant here. The character you refer to as a pussy is a man who is emotional, something more traditionally linked to women and it's being presented as a negative trait. This hints to values whereby a man should not be emotional, with the possible implications that a man should be stoic and men who are not such are less of a man and maybe less worthy of respect. More on this later.
Again, I get her. My reaction was her reaction. If I saw someone buying a lot of water when there's no apparent reason for it, I'd think there's something wrong with that person. In the context of the USA, I may jump to the conclusion that that person is a prepper (the media has given me the impression that there are lots of preppers and sovereign citizens loose there), and I'd immediately would be afraid of that person because I assume preppers have weapons and also are very fearful people who will lash out if they decide I'm somehow a threat to their security. There may be millions of other reasons why people buy a lot of water, but I've been primed by media to think that's weird prepper behaviour. You could say I'm prejudiced against preppers.
Again, I get it. I don't care if their dancing is not great (why would that matter for the "quality" of the film, anyway?). This scene is about them making a deeper connection, which happens without words (this is something I've experienced myself, surely not such a strange event) and leads to a bit of unwanted sexual tension (again, been there, done that). This seemed to me like a very understandable human situation again where you are trying to bury your head in the sand.
Here there's generalising about what people from the USA do in certain tragic circumstances. Maybe if you live there and you see this happening regularly, it's possible to hold this as truth. I'm a Spaniard based in London. My perception of the USA is very mediated, having only been there for a week a few days in Madison and a few in New York. I remember hearing about people in New York helping each other when there was a big snow storm ages ago that cut power to big parts of the city. But I also remember the looting after Katrina and how the police waited outside during a recent school shooting and only a few specific people went in with the sole purpose of rescuing their own children, not the intention to solve the situation.
My point here is that you seem (through this very superficial analysis of mine) to have a worldview in which people from the USA are "good" and good men are not "pussies".
However, this film presents you with a bunch of characters that contradict that worldview. One of the main men is a "pussy", the other manipulative and greedy even though he's rich, two harsh women, a creepy boy and a girl that doesn't want to deal with reality. You don't like them, you cannot empathize with them and they don't seem "real" to you, so you were never going to emotionally connect with the film. Hence, for you, the film is bad.
It's not that you missed things in the film. It's that once the film through its characters didn't fit in your worldview, you most likely ceased to engage with it and started to look for flaws to justify your dislike. All your other criticisms (some of which I agree with), don't matter to me, they are just a man that's not stupid rationalising why they dislike something so much.
Regarding points that you brought up that I agree with: the watch thing also briefly took me out, his survival after the plane crash seemed a bit unlikely to me, I also thought the tanker most likely would have become stuck without getting that close to it beach. However, the film does not contradict my worldview, I believe that humans are flawed and capable of great, but also really crappy things. The film matches that very well, so I wasn't frustrated by it and quickly suspended my disbelief because what was going on was more interesting and engaging to me than the brief feeling of "Huh, that doesn't make much sense."
Regarding The Road, I watched it back when it came out. I remember not liking it. I'm not saying it's a bad film at all, but it was so bleak that it made me put all my defences up, so even though I recognised the parent-child relationship was beautiful, I wasn't able to engage and ended up feeling a bit bored and empty by the end. Maybe now that I'm a father, it would be able to break through. Who knows? It would not be the first time that I don't care for a film on first watching it and later on connect deeply with it.
May give The Stand a chance some day. Been curious about King for years but never know where to start.
Also, may I suggest you tone it down a bit. There are at least two people in this conversation who obviously really liked the film, your saying that the film is for morons, people with low IQ or a turd is simply rude and uncalled for. Neither me, nor Ahalpert have been anything but polite and civilised in this conversation.
Also, in case it's not obvious, I'm not a wise man that lives in top of a mountain and knows everything. Often I find myself disliking certain works with passion, unable to articulate the ultimate reason why and resorting to unsatisfactory rationalisations like plotholes even when it's obvious that if I like a film I'm very willing to overlook plotholes. Two examples that come to mind right now: Prometheus and Rebel Moon.
Last edited:
So in conclusion, some people liked the film because it appealed to them and others didn't like the film because it didn't appeal to them.
It gets back to what Aram said. Know your critics and reviewers and then find which ones align with your sensibilities. I don't know who to align with, Doug or Abe, since I haven't seen the movie. Now, I'm a bit of a moron, so Doug's commentaries make me think I might want to see it. But then I read Abe's tome about the movie and I think "Geez, I don't know".
It gets back to what Aram said. Know your critics and reviewers and then find which ones align with your sensibilities. I don't know who to align with, Doug or Abe, since I haven't seen the movie. Now, I'm a bit of a moron, so Doug's commentaries make me think I might want to see it. But then I read Abe's tome about the movie and I think "Geez, I don't know".
jmone
Well-known member
I watched it simply as it evoked such strong positive and negative emotions from our two protagonists. Imagine my disappointment.
On the other hand, this thread has a much better story line and character development. I can see the ending now. Abe and Doug, hand in hand, looking over the skyline as the last Drive In Theater goes dark.
On the other hand, this thread has a much better story line and character development. I can see the ending now. Abe and Doug, hand in hand, looking over the skyline as the last Drive In Theater goes dark.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This doesn't happen. After they dance in the basement, they go to bed. And the next day is spent searching for the little girl and trying to get help for the boy.
But I also sort of feel like you're missing the entire point of the movie. It's a critique of modern life, particularly urban life. These people don't know what is going on, don't know what to do, are under a tremendous amount of stress. They're basically indulging themselves to try to stay calm and are also just so pampered that they don't know how to respond to danger. They're confronting what seems like the collapse of their entire way of life, as inconceivable as that would be.
This was my reaction when I saw it -- that the ship would ground further out from shore and also that there should be a way for the crew to stop it. Maybe the topography of the shore allowed it to come unusually close to the sand. Maybe the hackers were able to prevent autopilot from being disengaged, as on the plane. It stops but then keeps going a bit more indicating that the engine was still running or had even been accelerated after striking land. But I really feel like whether you go with the scene or not depends on if you're already into the movie. The important and interesting factor is not the ship, it's the reaction of the beach goers (or lack of reaction).
This detail is so obvious from a thematic standpoint that it makes me feel like you missed the entire point of the movie. Starbucks represents normalcy, comfort, indulgence, capitalism, the modern way of life. These people are too out of touch with reality to linger for more than a few minutes on the bizarre accident that just nearly killed them and signals something deeply wrong happening around them. They just go off and get Starbucks.
The whole thing happens over the course of one weekend and they were still hoping to get more information. They had not yet come to terms with the fact that the US was badly losing whatever war had just broken out and there would be no help arriving or resumption of normalcy.
But the little girl reaches those conclusions first, basically because she hasn't been conditioned for as long.
Agree to disagree. I thought the camera moves were not just really well executed and refreshingly novel, but that they were well chosen and enhanced the emotional impact nearly everywhere.
The depiction of the apocalypse isn't what makes this movie worthwhile. It's the reflection on modern living and media, which was explicitly alluded to in several conversations to guide your interpretation of characters and events.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Presumably you can lock it from the inside after you start using it
ahalpert
Major Contributor
wait, what does the Boss have to do with anything?
I mean, is Springsteen usually somebody people reference as a bad musician or an artist undeserving of their fame? I have never heard that
I'm not even a Springsteen fan but he's got some great songs, such as Dancing in the Dark or Born to Run
is this your plan to burnish your taste credentials?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I have so many thoughts on this I don't know where to begin...
I think this was an intelligent movie made for people who don't want to see just another apocalypse movie and who enjoy thinking about philosophy and sociology
I said that the IQ of the viewer is irrelevant because you can't dismiss someone's argument for that reason. If you said you like some movie and I said that's because you're an idiot, then I'm not making a substantive case against the movie. Furthermore, a "stupid" person can like a "smart" movie or a "smart" person can like a "stupid" movie. It's such a cheap and lazy way of making an argument.
You should be able to construct an objective analysis of the film to support your critique (either positive or negative). Your IQ is totally irrelevant, not to mention that it's a 1-dimensional measurement of something far more complex. (Are quantum physicists the smartest people in the world? What if they're incapable of learning a second language? What if they completely lack all common sense? What if they're so physically uncoordinated that they can't catch an easy pass?)
To address your point about target audiences, I think that there are two different metrics in play: accessibility and believability.
Your argument against the film is that the action is unbelievable and that only a fool would fall for it. That's not a meritless critique of this or any film, but my personal opinion is that the plot holes (which are far fewer than you listed) are within the normal bounds for a movie and whether or not you go along with it depends on your emotional investment in the characters. And that last part is what explains the polarizing views -- the characters. People who hate the movie will straight-up say they hated the characters. I don't think that it's necessary for the main characters to be heroic or likable, but apparently they do.
But turning to the first metric -- accessibility -- this is where we get into talking about target audiences. Children's films are aimed at people who can't follow or comprehend complex action or concepts. That doesn't mean that they can't have complex facets that only the adults will appreciate or that some of those movies aren't brilliant and exquisite works of craftsmanship. But they have to be easily accessible, which is also often true in action movies or B movies.
And that's why I thought this was an intelligent movie -- the most interesting aspects are not readily accessible to the average viewer. And some of the complex camerawork was apparently distracting to people.
Compare it to The Next Three Days -- another film that I saw recently and really enjoyed. They're very different. The narrative pleasure from watching The Next Three Days basically hinges on me being completely invested in the story when Russell Crowe tries to break his wife out of prison. It's a highly implausible scenario. The fact that his wife would be in prison with no possibility of release and the fact that Crowe, a school teacher, would have the guts and the skills to make the attempt are all highly implausible. More than 50% of the movie is devoted to carefully and studiously establishing the scenario so that it seems plausible enough for me to believe it. And it does a great job of that, and there's a huge pay-off when you go along for the ride once they start their attempt.
So basically, as much as one can accomplish in a story like that, I think that The Next Three Days would not trigger nearly so many plothole warnings for Doug and he would probably therefore call it a smart movie for smart people, or at least not for morons.
On the other hand, The Next Three Days is readily accessible. You don't have to be very smart to follow the action. The characters are not that complex and neither is the dialogue. There are very few complex themes or philosophical questions invoked. It's a bit like watching an action movie or a porno. The pleasure comes from living out this depicted simulation, not from challenging your way of thinking and how you view society and reality. And in that sense I think that Leave the World Behind is targeted at a more high-brow audience. It's not targeted at people who want to live out an apocalypse simulation. It's targeted at people who like to wonder about the evolution of modern society and the implications of being subsumed by our media.
I can never get to the bottom of this thread... but I'll have to return later...
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
You can suggest whatever you want, but this is a dumb movie that was made to appeal to morons and people with low IQ. I wouldn't have said it in the first place if I didn't believe it was true. And just because it is aimed at morons, doesn't mean a few geniuses who have the right values, such as yourself, can't enjoy it too.
Howeever, I find your and Abe's explanations about the movie's massive shortcomings to be nothing more than feeble excuses for the filmmaker's poor judgment and lack of skill.
So now you are passing judgment on my values? What are my values, and how do they differ from yours? Sound slike you are saying that if I had different set of values I would have loved the movie. What values do I need that I don't have in order for me to love this film? I'm guessing the massive plot holes and stupid gimmicks would just magically disappear if I had the right values. You should hang out a shingle if you are going to practice psychology.
Last edited:
jmone
Well-known member
Not a great plan. You want to restrict who can open it as well. The Mysterious Industrial/Military Tycon Billionaire is not going to be happy to finally get back to his bunker to fine our cast had just pulled open the vault door (as it is not secured), waltzed in, locked it from in the inside, as is now knees up consuming the food and bev while watching old DVD's.
jmone
Well-known member
Nah, I think you are giving the studio to much credit regarding their forethought. This was more likely a movie made to help fill the production slate on a particular budget. They need to produce a whole bunch of "content" for their platform, have purchased a raft of scripts, and are just cranking them out as cost effectively as possible. It's just another McDonald's drive thru meal.
Oh, well. I guess we'll just have to accept the uncalled for rudeness. What can we do...?
I wonder what you think is the percentage of "smart", "normal" and "moronic" people out there.
From this conversation I gather you think the morons must be a relatively small minority, which is a very positive and healthy worldview to have and I'm envious of it.
I don't know what explanations of shortcomings of mine you are talking about. Most of my points were not an explanation of why something you thought was shortcoming was not. I made no excuses for the filmmaker and no reference to their skill.
I talked purely of my perception and how I was able to connect to the characters because of my own personality and life experiences. Because I was able to connect with them, I enjoyed the film and was happy to dismiss some of the verosimilitude issues that you pointed out.
I care about the characters and how they are facing the situation. I don't care, for example, about the factual geography. It's not just that I don't know it, it's really that I don't care at all.
To illustrate this, one of the Fast and Furious movie was partially filmed in my island (Tenerife). They did a few things that are obvious cheats for anyone local. I did not care either. Another movie in the series (or maybe it was the same, it doesn't matter) had bits in London (I've lived in London for almost 10 years now) where there was obvious cheating of the geography. Also didn't care. Apparently, the John Wick series cheats New York geography a lot. I am not able to tell, but when someone brought it up, believe me, I did not care.
Now, all those films, I'd agree are dumb. I don't think they are designed for dumb people, they are just not trying at all to be smart. They are just trying to be fun. Don't know about their rotten tomatoes scores, but they sure were pretty successful. As if all sorts of people could enjoy them because you can be dumb and enjoy them and you can also enjoy them if you are smart. Fur their success, it didn't matter that those films were dumb. And it definitely did not matter (to most of the people who watched them, dumb or not) that they cheat the geography.
When someone puts so much stress on something that is so generally overlooked, I cannot help but think they their real issue is with something else and that they are using this sort of fact to rationalize and give an air of objectivity to their opinion.
Yes, sir, of course I do. That's kind of been my whole point from the beginning. I've been trying to explain why from what you've written here so far, your opinion is relevant to me mostly as a counter indicator where, when it comes to art/films I'm likely to agree with the exact opposite of your view.
I don't know you, can't judge all your values, but can definitely make judgements about they ones that have transpired during this thread. For example, from your continued denigratory tone (morons, low IQ and turd come to mind) it's clear you don't put much value in being polite and respectful.
In any case, I'd like to focus on worldview, more than values first and I'll quote myself.
"My point here is that you seem (through this very superficial analysis of mine) to have a worldview in which people from the USA are "good" and good men are not "pussies"."
The "people from the USA" being good was in reference to your saying that they help each other in adversity (which I questioned and provided two counter examples for). What I can gather is that it seems that you value being able to trust your community, being about to help within your community and being stoic if you are a man (maybe women too, but your usage of the word pussy hints otherwise).
I've had quite a few bad experiences with my community while growing up. Amusingly for many more years my experiences have been overall positive, but those early years when I was less self reliant and confident colour my worldview much more strongly. I, too, think that helping one's community is good, but I'm pretty sure I'd be more like the prepper and prioritise myself and my family even to the point of ****ing other people over if I deem it appropriate.
I don't think being stoic is particularly good or bad in general. I think being stoic is good for certain situations, certain jobs (being a soldier, for example) and bad for others (being an actor for example).
Obviously this is very little. Your worldview and values can only be much more complex than that and there'll be some aspects in which I'm sure we'll agree completely.
Yes, I'm saying exactly that. If your values were different, if they matched the more cynical and softer values of the film, you would not care about at least some of the "plotholes" (I cited three where I agree with you that are valid criticisms, but I also could hardly care less about any of them, because I'm here for the characters that I empathize with, that I relate to because they are acting very similarly to how I would act if I were them).
For you to enjoy the film you'd probably need have values that support thinking the worst of people from a moral point of view. I don't know if there's a format way of calling that, but I'd say moral skepticism sounds like a good name for it. That would help you accept that all the reprobable things that characters did are realistic (abandoning the cleaner, wanting to have sex after dancing, creeping your little sister with the idea of a peeping tom for fun...). You'd also need to have tolerance for the less able, maybe the better expression is "kindness towards the different", this would help you accept the many ways in which the characters are inept (not being sufficiently alarmed about the tanker, not getting water and food just in case, getting lost in a simple journey, prioritising watching Friends over anything else..,).
Your values (whatever they are beyond valuing your community and valuing stoicism in men) are different, these characters make no sense to you, you don't see how anyone would ever act like that, so it seems stupid and frustrates you and you end up focusing on all these other things that you would not care about if you cared about the characters. The "issues" you point out would not go away, you just would not care.
However, I'm not saying those/my values are the right values. That was you, however sarcastically your did it. They are different values.. I don't care that your values are different, we need all sorts, but I sure won't be listening to someone's opinion on art as if they were fact when their values differ that much from mine.
Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm not above not enjoying things because the underlying values don't match mine. For example, I don't get soup operas. I could talk about poor writing and poor performances and all these more objective flaws in them, but ultimately, the reason I don't like them is that I don't get them at all. I watched a bit of Empire, it was fun for a short while but then it just went crazy and I found it anger inducing, the characters made no sense and I was constantly distracted by the other things I did not like. I stopped watching it, no regrets. The crazy thing (to me) is that it continued being a success for a while and I've met people who at least sometimes act like that. I don't get it. They seem crazy to me and I avoid them. I know people who watch Love Island. The few minutes I watched made me incredibly sad, not even angry, more like I'd commit suicide to avoid such people, instead of wanting to kill them. I cannot even begin to understand what's going on there and I cannot articulate how the underlying values are so alien to me. Again, I am sure I could find a million things "wrong" with the show, but none of them would explain the depth of my reaction to it, they would be banal explanations of things I know don't really matter because if I liked the show,I would not care.
It's like when someone is telling you a story. If you already like the person, you are likely to find the story interesting but if you don't like the person, it's almost guaranteed you won't care for their story.