U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-07-2016, 07:28 AM
 
1,666 posts, read 372,594 times
Reputation: 952

Advertisements

Also, I wanted to say that this movie isn't doing well at the box office, therefore, like harry chickpea, I think that a lot of other people are over-thinking this movie and letting their expectations get in the way and are not experiencing the beautiful movie going experience that this movie is.

Also, I wanted to say that I thought that this was one of the best movies that I've seen in a long time... especially in comparison to a lot of the movies that they have out today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2016, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
15,240 posts, read 45,723,769 times
Reputation: 22415
William, the appreciation for a movie comes from a bunch of factors. As Hitchcock said, you have to have a willing suspension of disbelief. In other words, the consistency of the story and presentation in a good move will not jar you out of the fantasy by inappropriate inclusions, sloppy continuity, or actions outside of the logic within the fantasy.

I'm happy that you were able to enjoy the film through ignoring the flaws or not seeing them. If a flaw in the film didn't distract you, then the director and cinematographer and writer and all the crew were able to do a little finesse that didn't negatively affect ticket sales, and possibly saved a little money in the production.

My work, livelihood, and career have been tied to the industry since 1970, and my relation with it even goes back to my grandfather. I have seen thousands of films. I don't generally act as a critic because the taste for a film can be personal and relate to events within the lives of individual moviegoers.

I do, however, criticize what I see as poor craft, much as a furniture maker would criticize splinters in an expensive sideboard. Poor craft that is allowed to stand results in more poor craft and it reflects poorly on those in the industry that work very hard under sometimes grueling conditions. A simple example of what I reference is the "shakey cam" knock-offs that came after "Blair Witch Project."

A couple of direct responses and then I'll step back.

The logic in the coded message:
First, the ONLY reason the husband was involved was as a weak and transparent plot device to further the action. If you thought a friend was stealing from you, would you enlist the aid of that person's best friend or closest relative to prove that they were guilty? It doesn't pass even grade school logic.

Second, since there was a mass of coded messages being decoded and there was (according to the plot) no way of determining the source - other than it came from a particular area - the design of the trap was to have a specific set of words to key in on. Example: If I know that "turtle" really means a tank, and "Booless" means a particular officer, and I know that Booless has no relation to anything to do with tanks, a fake message that includes Booless and turtles being forwarded is damning. If I, as a friend of the suspect, change "turtle" to "armadillo" and "Booless" to "Wimpy," the person looking for the key in the coded message will never find it. If I then destroy what I have written, there is no trace.

For anyone passingly acquainted with programming logic, the sequence in the film is an affront, and immediately removes the willing suspension of disbelief.

The Grisham book:
You didn't notice it, but it was played for attention as an Easter Egg. To work, an Easter Egg is hidden and an unexpected treat to find. This one was literally waved in the face of the audience multiple times.

Phosphate:
It was phosphate mining, supposedly. Aside from there being zero backstory of his actually visiting a mine, phosphate is strip mined and a dusty process. To the film's credit, there was notice that his hands were soft, unusual for someone who might have reason to use a hammer, have them abraded by sampling and testing, or be in contact with chemicals. Obviously, he would not look like a laborer or miner, but the signs of a profession can be readily apparent. Morocco DOES have phosphate deposits, so some research was done.

Car:
During the storm, there is no dust buildup on the car, except as a suggestion on the windshield. There was a jump cut after the sandstorm, so the car could easily have been cleaned, but the transition was jarring for any number of reasons. If you make out in a car during a blizzard, you are likely to find your car stuck. Sandstorms with that much sand blowing are like blizzards of sandpaper. Draw out some possibilities on your own.

Roof:
Again, programmer's logic. Men who are married and make love to their wives go to the roof. The characters live in an apartment building. Pitt is the only one on the roof. Therefore-


Ultimately, we come down to an argument. You can say that I am overthinking, that I am finding flaws that people don't find. That is the argument of ignorance, where you implicitly state - "I'm stupid or have set my mind on stupid to enjoy the film, and you didn't, so I'm smarter." That isn't the point for me. My point is that as a professional production with an A list cast and big money, craftwise the film is manure, a form of soft porn designed to show the attractiveness of the main characters over a period of a couple hours, at the expense of the plot. It is sanitized, stylized and an example of some of the major flaws in film-making as it exists today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 03:14 PM
 
1,666 posts, read 372,594 times
Reputation: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
I'm happy that you were able to enjoy the film through ignoring the flaws or not seeing them. If a flaw in the film didn't distract you, then the director and cinematographer and writer and all the crew were able to do a little finesse that didn't negatively affect ticket sales, and possibly saved a little money in the production.
Hi, Harry. Well, I went in to see this movie for it's spy story and it's love story. And for it's spy story, I didn't think that it delivered. Therefore, I was more focused on the love story and how the main characters' relationship was going to turn out in the end. Therefore, my experience wasn't that I didn't see any flaws in this film, however, my focus became on one thing... And as the film progressed, that focus intensified... And that's what the movie became about for me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
A couple of direct responses and then I'll step back.

The logic in the coded message:
First, the ONLY reason the husband was involved was as a weak and transparent plot device to further the action. If you thought a friend was stealing from you, would you enlist the aid of that person's best friend or closest relative to prove that they were guilty? It doesn't pass even grade school logic.
But, Harry... a lot of that was in the previews because Pitt was to find out if his wife was a German spy, and if she was, he was ordered to kill her. Therefore, I would say that generally, most people who were going in to see this movie knew that that was the premise of the film, even though they may not have known the details of how Pitt was going to find out whether or not Cotillard was a German spy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Second, since there was a mass of coded messages being decoded and there was (according to the plot) no way of determining the source - other than it came from a particular area - the design of the trap was to have a specific set of words to key in on. Example: If I know that "turtle" really means a tank, and "Booless" means a particular officer, and I know that Booless has no relation to anything to do with tanks, a fake message that includes Booless and turtles being forwarded is damning. If I, as a friend of the suspect, change "turtle" to "armadillo" and "Booless" to "Wimpy," the person looking for the key in the coded message will never find it. If I then destroy what I have written, there is no trace.

For anyone passingly acquainted with programming logic, the sequence in the film is an affront, and immediately removes the willing suspension of disbelief.
I see. But the only thing that I can say about that is that at that point in the movie, Pitt really didn't know whether or not his wife was guilty or innocent, and therefore, by doing the test, he could see for himself whether or not his wife was guilty or innocent. Also, recall that Pitt was hoping that this test would prove that his wife was innocent, because I think that he said that at one point in the movie. Perhaps to his sister.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post

The Grisham book:
You didn't notice it, but it was played for attention as an Easter Egg. To work, an Easter Egg is hidden and an unexpected treat to find. This one was literally waved in the face of the audience multiple times.
Well, that is strange. Because from what you're saying, they apparently did that for a reason. Even though a John Grisham book would be out of time sequence in the 1940s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Phosphate:
It was phosphate mining, supposedly. Aside from there being zero backstory of his actually visiting a mine, phosphate is strip mined and a dusty process. To the film's credit, there was notice that his hands were soft, unusual for someone who might have reason to use a hammer, have them abraded by sampling and testing, or be in contact with chemicals. Obviously, he would not look like a laborer or miner, but the signs of a profession can be readily apparent. Morocco DOES have phosphate deposits, so some research was done.
Good points. However, as the CEO of a phosphate company, I don't see a problem with Pitt having always been clean shaven and well dressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Car:
During the storm, there is no dust buildup on the car, except as a suggestion on the windshield. There was a jump cut after the sandstorm, so the car could easily have been cleaned, but the transition was jarring for any number of reasons. If you make out in a car during a blizzard, you are likely to find your car stuck. Sandstorms with that much sand blowing are like blizzards of sandpaper. Draw out some possibilities on your own.
But that's not fair, Harry. Because the scene after the 'sandstorm' scene seemed to denote that a significant amount of time had passed because it was now a sunshiny day, and Pitt and Cotillard were in tuxedo and evening gown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Roof:
Again, programmer's logic. Men who are married and make love to their wives go to the roof. The characters live in an apartment building. Pitt is the only one on the roof. Therefore-
I see. I thought that you had meant that Pitt was able to go out on the roof, but Cotillard wasn't. However, in response to what you're actually saying... they really didn't show the roofs of other buildings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Ultimately, we come down to an argument. You can say that I am overthinking, that I am finding flaws that people don't find. That is the argument of ignorance, where you implicitly state - "I'm stupid or have set my mind on stupid to enjoy the film, and you didn't, so I'm smarter." That isn't the point for me.
Um, no... That's not what I'm implicitly stating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
My point is that as a professional production with an A list cast and big money, craftwise the film is manure, a form of soft porn designed to show the attractiveness of the main characters over a period of a couple hours, at the expense of the plot. It is sanitized, stylized and an example of some of the major flaws in film-making as it exists today.
Hmmm. Well, I viewed the film this way...

SPIES. ASSASSINS.

LOVE?

IS SHE OR ISN'T SHE?

It's as simple as that.

Last edited by William Taylor; 12-07-2016 at 03:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
15,240 posts, read 45,723,769 times
Reputation: 22415
All fine by me. My intent of the last post was to explain where I was coming from. Your experience was different than mine. Movies are like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 11:25 AM
 
606 posts, read 620,994 times
Reputation: 396
Haven't seen it yet.I thought the thing was set in France during WW2. Now maybe he was the owner of a phosphate mine in Morroco,don't know. Maybe that was the reason for the attire,he didn't need to work the mine> Anyhow, will maybe wait for it to showup on Red Box.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2016, 10:28 PM
 
43,047 posts, read 42,325,692 times
Reputation: 45225
I just saw the movie. The book Max is reading is Brighton Rock by Graham Greene, 1938. How you got John Grisham out of that is a mystery. Ok...they both have last names starting with "Gr". Get your eyes checked!

A real sandstorm would have buried the car and they'd be dead. I figured that was just to add some atmosphere to the sex scene.

Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 12-09-2016 at 10:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2016, 11:07 PM
 
1,666 posts, read 372,594 times
Reputation: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
I just saw the movie. The book Max is reading is Brighton Rock by Graham Greene, 1938. How you got John Grisham out of that is a mystery. Ok...they both have last names starting with "Gr". Get your eyes checked!

A real sandstorm would have buried the car and they'd be dead. I figured that was just to add some atmosphere to the sex scene.
Thanks for verification about the John Grisham/Graham Greene book, Mightyqueen801. However, I would like to know how you liked the movie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2016, 06:43 AM
 
43,047 posts, read 42,325,692 times
Reputation: 45225
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Taylor View Post
Thanks for verification about the John Grisham/Graham Greene book, Mightyqueen801. However, I would like to know how you liked the movie.
I liked it. My needs for a movie are more simple than some. Thought it was a good story, held the suspense, had some hooks and plot twists that kept me guessing, and I always love 1940s clothing and hair styles.

Oh yeah, and I still like looking at Brad Pitt...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2016, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
15,240 posts, read 45,723,769 times
Reputation: 22415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
I just saw the movie. The book Max is reading is Brighton Rock by Graham Greene, 1938. How you got John Grisham out of that is a mystery. Ok...they both have last names starting with "Gr". Get your eyes checked!

A real sandstorm would have buried the car and they'd be dead. I figured that was just to add some atmosphere to the sex scene.
It is time for me to get them checked! You might have been playing, but you could be on to something. Better I misread that than something relating to driving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2016, 08:53 PM
 
43,047 posts, read 42,325,692 times
Reputation: 45225
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
It is time for me to get them checked! You might have been playing, but you could be on to something. Better I misread that than something relating to driving.
Haha, good point.

If they had a character in a 1940's setting reading a John Grishom novel, i think I would have to walk out of the theater on principle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top