Xillix Presents: Examining the Review Gap; or, Why Everyone's Wrong and Your Movie Sucks

[Xillix]

As promised earlier, here's where I'll go ahead and delve into a bit more detail on my evaluations of Y4 films which I gave reviews that were - in the context of the overall consensus - unusually negative. Some of these will have more to them than others, and some movies that'd otherwise fit the criteria won't be discussed because I frankly don't have much to expand on. I'll do Resonance and Lucid in a later post. So then, first off:

 

Chuck Norris and Liam Neeson vs. the Loch Ness Monster by @Blankments

Obviously this is a joke of a movie. The point is that it's stupid. Apparently there's some history with this as a franchise in 2.0, but as someone who wasn't around for that I can't see why. It's a filler based on a mildly amusing concept that wasn't even written into a full story with actual jokes. As I said in my main review; it'd be fine for an SNL skit but I question whether it could be entertaining for 90 minutes. Now there's an argument to be made that a concept this ridiculous SHOULDN'T be made into a full writeup, but in my mind that more or less reinforces that it shouldn't be a feature in the first place - not one that gets solid reviews and box office and launches a franchise, anyway. Blankments can obviously do comedy (in spite of my opinion of another film of his in this thread), so the fact that with this one he just... didn't, and then got hugely rewarded for throwing a handful of celebrities together into a kindergartener's unfinished story pitch kind of rubs me the wrong way. Maybe the sequels were really good and funny, but if that's the case, I'd have appreciated this one being fleshed out and not just given a free pass.

 

By the Balls by @Blankments

I definitely appreciate the message this movie is trying to relay. I suppose my main issues are twofold; firstly, as I've pointed out many times already, humor is highly subjective and I just didn't think this was funny. With the exception of the constantly-changing menus at Konstantino's, which were always good for a chuckle. Some claim satire doesn't need to be funny; I'm not sure I agree with that in the first place, but in any case, a movie marketed as a comedy certainly should be. That said it's technically well-written and I feel like there's a lot of solid material for the actors to chew on.

My biggest issue, though, is that the bleak, defeatist nature of the story, while presumably well-intentioned, leaves film's villains not only victorious but essentially unchallenged. It allows them to more or less control the narrative and the discussion of the real-world issues at hand, exaggerated as they may be. What does Jordan actually DO in this movie? She keeps chasing the story and eventually lands the interview with Thomas, sure. But other than allowing the villain to deliver his monologue - and blackmail her - not only does this not accomplish anything, but given the course of the film and the way Jordan acts throughout, it was clear it had no chance of accomplishing anything. This is a movie where the only ones who even try to rationalize their arguments are the ones who hold the sexist, regressive viewpoints. Jordan's rebuttals throughout the film, when she bothers to make them, amount to "you must be stupid" or other such dismissiveness.

 

Clearly the intended audience is supposed to agree with Jordan from the outset, as I do, and so for them a "reasoning" for why a man shouldn't be the star player on a women's team isn't really needed, intellectually. The problem is that by making the assumption everyone in the audience will go along with this, Jordan's position as both a compelling lead character and an audience surrogate in the satire is badly compromised. Jordan comes across, to me, as a well-meaning, but rather pathetic character. The issue isn't so much that Thomas and Tom and their supporters never get their comeuppance as it is that Jordan hardly even tries to deliver it upon them, and failing that doesn't even bother to state her own beliefs or opinions at any length. This creates a situation where a viewer who agrees with Jordan, like myself, can find themselves frustrated and confused at her inability or unwillingness to argue her point and her characterization as something of a loser, and a more misogynistic viewer is left with several examples of awful but successful and seemingly happy people supporting and espousing their ridiculous views in far more detail and with considerably more conviction than the supposed protagonist. As such I found the film's intent and conception to be sound but the execution badly misguided.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Xillix

[Xillix]

Resonance @Alpha

I'll get the obvious point out of the way first: "protagonist was dead the entire time and in purgatory and none of what you just watched really mattered" is a really dumb, overused twist ending. Yes, I used the same trick in Cello, but that was a remake and I simply kept the original ending, and everyone called out that movie for not being very good anyway (which was accurate). In any case, if it were just a bad ending I'd have been more forgiving. I have many other problems with the movie.

 

My main issue is pretty simple: I thought it was boring, which is a kiss of death for a thriller. There are multiple issues at the root of that assessment, though. Firstly, to echo one of Blankments' criticisms of my own stuff, I just didn't care about any of the characters. The attempts to give Wallace some depth with the alcoholism and the strained relationship with his wife come too late and feel haphazard. The argument with his wife, especially, feels like it comes out of absolutely nowhere; especially given that at this point it's apparently been less than a week since he began working on the project, and we've had zero indication his wife had even tried to contact him during that time, let alone tried and failed repeatedly. And then he simply returns to the project with the director's blessing after only a day? The sense of the passage of time in the whole movie is very loose, which may be intentional given the twist but which seriously undercuts the potential for suspense. It's distracting, and doesn't allow for any sort of "ticking clock" sensation in the attempts to solve the mystery.

 

Let's get to that - the mystery. There are PLENTY of hints woven throughout the film pointing to the final twist. Unfortunately, that's to the detriment of the film because the "mystery" the protagonist spends most of the movie trying to solve is completely inert. This is what's supposed to hold the audience's attention, and all it amounts to is... someone was on set at a time they shouldn't have been, and screamed. And the director is shady and sleeps with his actress. And... that's it. Wallace jumps to the conclusion that someone was murdered on set, on very little evidence, and then... that's it. Finally the secretary kills herself, at which point the priest immediately re-enters the movie to say, more or less, "all these things - yes, all three of them - have happened before, and it's some kind of vague curse, so burn the film." The movie is so intently focused on setting up its lame climax that it doesn't give the audience anything else to be occupied with for the bulk of the movie. Where are the red herrings? The details that build a sense of paranoia or dread? Most of the movie is an empty shell.

 

And then we come to the climax, and Wallace burns the film, wrapping up the plot-free subplot that has eaten up most of the running time. The true purpose of the film is revealed, in case the heavy-handed foreshadowing wasn't enough for you to guess it already. Personally, I did guess it pretty early on, but was hoping I'd be wrong. So the last bit of running time is spent explaining the really bad twist. And, looking back, more or less the ENTIRE FILM is spent doing the same thing in advance. So, to return to an earlier thought of mine - if it were just a bad ending I'd have been more forgiving, but it's a bad ending that is also the movie's sole focus, leaving no room for what should have been the main plot. And that I can't forgive.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Xillix

[Reddroast]

Are you going to do a write-up on one piece @Xillix?

[4815162342]

Just now, Reddroast said:

Are you going to do a write-up on one piece @Xillix?

 

No, it looks like he is writing about films that almost everyone liked a good bit that he did not like at all.

 

[Reddroast]

1 minute ago, 4815162342 said:

 

No, it looks like he is writing about films that almost everyone liked a good bit that he did not like at all.

 

Ok

[Blankments]

3/4 of these movies are mine... hmmm.

 

I'll admit, the love of Chuck and Liam must be influenced on people who know where the sequels are coming. 1-3 got horrific reviews in 2.0 and that's why I'm going in a totally different directions in the next one. The positive reviews are indeed baffling.

 

IDK what you have to say about Lucid, but it got pretty mixed reviews in 2.0 reception so I can't imagine I won't hear much new there, no offense.

 

I would like to thank you tho for elaborating on By the Balls. Although I (and EGK for that matter) totally disagree with you, we both really appreciate you explaining more your thoughts after what felt like an initially dismissive review. Thank you for that most of all