No, I'm not talking about the latest moron, whoever he may be, who's decided to recreate that "really cool" scene from Jackass: The Movie. Frankly, I've got a very Darwinian attitude towards this stuff. I figure if you're not smart enough to be able to tell movies from real life, then I can only hope you manage to off yourself before breeding thus sparing us (and the gene pool) your excessive stupidity.
No, this is more for the idiot statements I keep hearing coming from movie directors that keep embracing bad ideas because they're more "real".
The most blatant example of that these days has to be the dread handheld camera. Steadicam exists for a reason, people, but for some reasons, directors like this seem to think it's "more real" or "more immediate" if they're jerking the camera around so you can't focus on anything for minutes on end. I assume it comes from the world of documentary and news footage, but frankly, if I've got to unfocus my eyes so I can "watch" your film without feeling an urgent need to vomit, I'm of the opinion you're doing something wrong.
But lately "it's more real" has been used to justify some lame-ass movie endings. In the original ending of Dodgeball, their plan was to end the movie with Vince Vaughn's team losing the game, because in real life, the good guy doesn't always win. I've already made it very clear what I think of this inane idea, but that's not going to stop me from mocking it once again here.
And then there's Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Don't get me wrong, I had a good time at this movie. It's very over the top and driven almost entirely by the chemistry between Brad and Angelina, but that's okay because they're having enough fun to carry us along for the ride. For the most part.
But I walked out of the theatre under the impression that, as they neared completion of the film, they realized that they'd written themselves into a corner and really had no way out of their ending. I mean, they either get the Butch & Sundance exit, or they get away… the problem with the former being this is a comedy and no one's going along with that ending (see Dodgeball above) and getting away with it assumes that they've gotten rid of everyone that's looking to kill them. Which is where they backed themselves into a corner, 'cause how you gonna do that? The ending they came up with is cute and glosses over that whole problem, but it just looked like they were putting a band-aid over a plot hole.
Until I read an interview with the director where he discusses the ending and says that the reason they didn't pursue the original ending—which had Brad & Angelina hunting down and eliminating their respective bosses (which, arguably, WOULD have solved their problems)—and chose the ending they filmed was "Because if you think about a relationship, there is no point at which you suddenly defeat the forces of antagonism."
So let me get this straight… after nearly 2 hours of an over the top assassins and spies action-adventure, you're going back to the overarching conceit for the film (covert ops as a metaphor for marriage) to explain your non-ending? Because it's more TRUE TO LIFE? Are you kidding?!?
Let's face it… we're not going to the movies for real life! Certainly not during the mindless entertainment months of the summer movie season. (If we were, Cinderella Man would be doing a HELL of a lot better!). So why are we letting the riduculous notion that it's "more realistic" intrude in our movie watching? Give me my brain candy and let me relax, watch my unrealistic movie and get AWAY from the real world for a while.
Geez, is that such a difficult concept?
No, this is more for the idiot statements I keep hearing coming from movie directors that keep embracing bad ideas because they're more "real".
The most blatant example of that these days has to be the dread handheld camera. Steadicam exists for a reason, people, but for some reasons, directors like this seem to think it's "more real" or "more immediate" if they're jerking the camera around so you can't focus on anything for minutes on end. I assume it comes from the world of documentary and news footage, but frankly, if I've got to unfocus my eyes so I can "watch" your film without feeling an urgent need to vomit, I'm of the opinion you're doing something wrong.
But lately "it's more real" has been used to justify some lame-ass movie endings. In the original ending of Dodgeball, their plan was to end the movie with Vince Vaughn's team losing the game, because in real life, the good guy doesn't always win. I've already made it very clear what I think of this inane idea, but that's not going to stop me from mocking it once again here.
And then there's Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Don't get me wrong, I had a good time at this movie. It's very over the top and driven almost entirely by the chemistry between Brad and Angelina, but that's okay because they're having enough fun to carry us along for the ride. For the most part.
But I walked out of the theatre under the impression that, as they neared completion of the film, they realized that they'd written themselves into a corner and really had no way out of their ending. I mean, they either get the Butch & Sundance exit, or they get away… the problem with the former being this is a comedy and no one's going along with that ending (see Dodgeball above) and getting away with it assumes that they've gotten rid of everyone that's looking to kill them. Which is where they backed themselves into a corner, 'cause how you gonna do that? The ending they came up with is cute and glosses over that whole problem, but it just looked like they were putting a band-aid over a plot hole.
Until I read an interview with the director where he discusses the ending and says that the reason they didn't pursue the original ending—which had Brad & Angelina hunting down and eliminating their respective bosses (which, arguably, WOULD have solved their problems)—and chose the ending they filmed was "Because if you think about a relationship, there is no point at which you suddenly defeat the forces of antagonism."
So let me get this straight… after nearly 2 hours of an over the top assassins and spies action-adventure, you're going back to the overarching conceit for the film (covert ops as a metaphor for marriage) to explain your non-ending? Because it's more TRUE TO LIFE? Are you kidding?!?
Let's face it… we're not going to the movies for real life! Certainly not during the mindless entertainment months of the summer movie season. (If we were, Cinderella Man would be doing a HELL of a lot better!). So why are we letting the riduculous notion that it's "more realistic" intrude in our movie watching? Give me my brain candy and let me relax, watch my unrealistic movie and get AWAY from the real world for a while.
Geez, is that such a difficult concept?
Comments