The big problem here is the opening. It shows you everything that's going to happen. I reached to shut it off right there but I wasn't sure what the style was going to be. Then the narration went away and I knew that this wasn't part of the structure of the movie but just a fancy, "Two weeks earlier."
I pushed through, but as the movie went on and I didn't see what happened in the opening I kept thinking of it. Nothing indicated violence or blood and what had happened so far was so far removed from the opening that I kept wondering how things were going to get there and how the story was going to make that turn. The director ruined her own movie. I was no longer pulled into the drama on screen but was preoccupied at what I was shown in the intro. This is like showing the preview before the movie. Then I was only reminded of things from the intro when we saw them. I'm afraid the movie was ruined for me.
I wanted to give this a chance as the movie seemed like it could be something different. I had no idea what this movie was. I saw it on Prime and clicked on it. I had no clue what the story was, who was in it, nothing.
The first thing I let go, that the plot description wasn't the plot but the themes of the movie. They want you to know what it's about going into it so you like it? Okay. I guess Gen Z wants to know that the movie is going to be commentary on current issues that they care about? And they don't want to figure it out for themselves?
The second, before the movie started I said to myself and my pork rinds, "It's going to start with classical music and an old school title card." Somehow I was right. I couldn't believe it. Could I have really guessed this movie by the themes stated and the year it came out?
The third, the opening shot, after the spoiler opening, a very long shot that went on for so long that it's coolness wore off quickly. The credits rolled out unevenly to last the entirety of the shot. I don't know why newer directors are in love with long takes. It's very cool to do this, you know when you don't notice it and it adds to the story. Ask DePalma, Hitchcock and Lynch how and why to do a long take.
Fourth, full frame. Why? This is like recording in mono. Why do newer directors think that less screen is a good idea? I'm all for doing whatever but many times and I'm afraid this time is one, it just feels contrived and different just to be different.
I hate to judge a movie off of it's technical things but this comes from the director who approves the script and everything else and can be indicative of the entire movie.
I did eventually go to Wikipedia to read about what happened and yep, I was right about the eventual outcome. Well not so much as I was right but what they advertised at the start was exactly what it looked like... So I don't know why they did that? Are they afraid that Gen Z won't want to watch a movie if they don't know where it's going? Do you really have to tell people what they're going to see so they'll stay around? If that's true then even artsy movies are in trouble.
I pushed through, but as the movie went on and I didn't see what happened in the opening I kept thinking of it. Nothing indicated violence or blood and what had happened so far was so far removed from the opening that I kept wondering how things were going to get there and how the story was going to make that turn. The director ruined her own movie. I was no longer pulled into the drama on screen but was preoccupied at what I was shown in the intro. This is like showing the preview before the movie. Then I was only reminded of things from the intro when we saw them. I'm afraid the movie was ruined for me.
I wanted to give this a chance as the movie seemed like it could be something different. I had no idea what this movie was. I saw it on Prime and clicked on it. I had no clue what the story was, who was in it, nothing.
The first thing I let go, that the plot description wasn't the plot but the themes of the movie. They want you to know what it's about going into it so you like it? Okay. I guess Gen Z wants to know that the movie is going to be commentary on current issues that they care about? And they don't want to figure it out for themselves?
The second, before the movie started I said to myself and my pork rinds, "It's going to start with classical music and an old school title card." Somehow I was right. I couldn't believe it. Could I have really guessed this movie by the themes stated and the year it came out?
The third, the opening shot, after the spoiler opening, a very long shot that went on for so long that it's coolness wore off quickly. The credits rolled out unevenly to last the entirety of the shot. I don't know why newer directors are in love with long takes. It's very cool to do this, you know when you don't notice it and it adds to the story. Ask DePalma, Hitchcock and Lynch how and why to do a long take.
Fourth, full frame. Why? This is like recording in mono. Why do newer directors think that less screen is a good idea? I'm all for doing whatever but many times and I'm afraid this time is one, it just feels contrived and different just to be different.
I hate to judge a movie off of it's technical things but this comes from the director who approves the script and everything else and can be indicative of the entire movie.
I did eventually go to Wikipedia to read about what happened and yep, I was right about the eventual outcome. Well not so much as I was right but what they advertised at the start was exactly what it looked like... So I don't know why they did that? Are they afraid that Gen Z won't want to watch a movie if they don't know where it's going? Do you really have to tell people what they're going to see so they'll stay around? If that's true then even artsy movies are in trouble.