|
Post by mllemass on Oct 3, 2017 4:53:49 GMT
I'm so happy that he wasn't in a "standard thriller or family drama", and I hope that he always avoids anything that is "standard". He's so much better than that. And he has played "Everyman" parts before, so I can understand why he'd want to take some risks and do something different. I really liked TCIT, but I can see why it wouldn't be for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by kreizimam on Oct 4, 2017 18:53:36 GMT
I've annoyed some people on twitter already but since there are some not so flattering remarks here I wanted to get my thoughts out without annoying people (I hope). Went in ready to love this and even though I had been given a rundown of the story and I thought it sounded weird and disconnected, I thought they would make it work. To me they didn't. No explaining of why people did certain things is gonna change the fact that I was utterly bored. And then that made me feel bad because what am I a toddler? I need bright colors an a loud music to be entertained? Oh I can't help how I felt. I didn't find any motivation to want to keep watching. Disliked all the scenes with Charles, and I scoffed at the symbolism (it's been kinda frustrating having people think if they just explained that he was also a "child lost in time" I will suddenly like that storyline). Everytime they showed the committee I wondered why we were being shown this. The whole concept of Time not being linear being a comfort to grieving parents was interesting but they didn't really go into it enough and at the same time I hated how the grandma just said the whole point of the pub scene and that was it. And the ending felt weird and I was left resenting Julie for not telling Stephen about the pregnancy. Don't wanna be completely negative--Benedict and Kelly did have chemistry, and the whole concept and two people being broken apart purely because of a tragedy was kinda interesting to see. And of course Benedict looked beautiful. Overall, a huge disappointment for me and it left me longing for Benedict to be in your standard thriller or family drama. Something not risky, something I could just enjoy where he plays an Everyman. Oh well, hopefully I'll get it eventually. I think I like it more than you did, but agree with most of your comments. For someone who don't read the book it's seems all over the place. And when someone booksplained it, well it just seemed they try to crammed what may have been better as a three part miniseries into one tv movie.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Oct 4, 2017 19:37:30 GMT
Well, I never read the book and I didn’t find it boring, hard to follow, nor difficult to understand. I loved the emotionality about it. I loved the character arcs and the running parallels throughout. I really loved the editing of the scenes (but I really dig non-linear timelines in films). It all seemed to flow together quite well to me.
And I especially loved the riskiness of the non-heroic character that BC played. This was a departure for him - or at least he hasn’t played a character like this in a very long time and it was actually a bold step for his first project with his own company. I hope to see a lot more of this type of material come out of SunnyMarch.
There will always be a place for big budget “thrillers” and comic-book hero movies in his repertoire, but films like TCiT are the beautifully unique polished gems in my treasure box of his works.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by pankakesnotstellar on Oct 12, 2017 13:30:16 GMT
Well, I never read the book and I didn’t find it boring, hard to follow, nor difficult to understand. I loved the emotionality about it. I loved the character arcs and the running parallels throughout.. :-)) Yeah, it was not difficult to follow or to understand for me. It just didn't flow... And the editing was its main reason... I didn't really see any character arc except for the suicidal friend who spirals into madness. That's because he's only in one time line. You can't have a character arc with the time lines so chopped and multiple about the same story. 5 minutes into the film you see him calmly eating dinner with friends after the tragedy (assuming sufficient time has passed), so there's all the development you need. He has found some sort of stability... That's pouring a cold shower over all the feelings you worked up from the tragedy... So now it becomes more of a thriller, oh what happened, how did he arrive at this stage, then it goes back to him trying to find the child in very amateurish ways, it's just him working through his tragedy, so you work up the feelings again, then it goes back to the present where it's all a bit weird about his friend and his everyday life... Oh he sometimes sees the wife... She's fine. She's gone somewhere, started a new job, new house..... etc... All of this is a mess imo... It doesn't flow emotionally at all "Mr. Nobody" is a little known masterpiece film of time lines and drama... I sincerely recommend it for anyone curious about different time lines and drama with a little bit of sci-fi thrown in. Benedict was wonderful and I like when he plays normal every day men (although for him this means someone who works in the wider circle of the prime minister) but this story needed another treatment. These are just my ramblings as the result of all the posts I read on this thread
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 12, 2017 13:56:09 GMT
I loved the editing. I think the director assumes the audience would understand the passing of time and that they don't need an explanation. That audiences would fill those spaces that could be/are common places. Here is the tragic scene (which it's wonderfully and brutally edited with music CUT real life sounds and with BC watching the police car and then he being inside as looking himself/he trying to be someone else), BC's character is silently traumatized by it and then he goes with the wife and tries to tell her, BIG DRAMA but then cut, we don't need the drama. This is not that kind of movie. Two years pass (they actually mentioned it) and he is dinning with friends trying to have a normal life but he doesn't have a normal life. He is trapped between that incident, his own past and the present. He can't look forward. He also doesn't know when he is: in the past or present.
Maybe it could have been a more traditional narrative but it wouldn't had capture the instability and obsession with time of the original source. That's why I think it's a good adaptation. Bad adaptations are literal, about explanations and words, this one captures the mood and the main theme of the story which it's of course time.
The development of the character is there is just that they don't scream it.
I think the character is "normal" because the performance. He in recent times has been linked to bigger than life characters who need big performances, crazy costumes, weird accents and eccentric tics. Stephen doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Oct 12, 2017 15:51:08 GMT
I prefer it when movies don't explain to me what I'm seeing. I don't mind interpreting things for myself. Even if I learn later that my interpretation was wrong, it doesn't bother me at all.
It reminds me of the movie Indecent Proposal, that I watched on tv once. It wasn't very good, but I stuck with it to the end. Just as I was thinking "It wasn't good, but it wasn't too terrible", there was one final scene that pushed it right into the "terrible" category. I guess they decided that the plot was too complicated and maybe the audience didn't get what happened, so they actually explained it in words. I suppose it's possible that they had a test-audience of idiots who were left confused by the ridiculous story, but explaining it at the end just made the already-bad movie so much worse.
I much rather be left wondering what happened in a movie than have it all summarized and explained to me.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Oct 12, 2017 17:47:28 GMT
Sgev said: I am in perfect agreement with your post Sgev. I absolutely loved the editing too because it allowed the audience to feel the story as well as see it unfolding through the actual editing and really intensified the whole emotion of the material for me.
I also thought the character arc of Stephen was an especially strong one and carried the film. So it is puzzling Pankakesnotstellar to me when you said that the non-linear time frame of the film threw the character arc of Stephen Lewis all out of wack. I didn’t find that at all. The fact that we had just seen the shock and trauma on his face and in his demeanor in the opening sequence, really drives home the point that his later “stability” was just a veneer IMO. That luncheon scene was perfectly placed, letting you you understand the almost helplessness that Stephen feels after the destruction of his happy life with his beloved child and wife. The whole conversation reeked of Lewis’ desperation (to not lose his friend and editor, to be spoon-fed sympathy by Thelma, to hear anything hopeful about Julie, etc.). That scene actually intensified the pathos of his character. It was a look into the long lasting effects of Kate’s disappearance on his character, and gave you a real reference point along his character’s journey in the story.
And Julie wasn’t absolutely not “fine”. She was surviving the trauma of the loss of Kate (a point that was made several times in the film) and suffering - but just in a very different way to Stephen.
It was incredible to see these characters unfold so delicately and yet so powerfully on screen.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by pankakesnotstellar on Oct 12, 2017 21:20:58 GMT
Sgev said: I am in perfect agreement with your post Sgev. I absolutely loved the editing too because it allowed the audience to feel the story as well as see it unfolding through the actual editing and really intensified the whole emotion of the material for me. I also thought the character arc of Stephen was an especially strong one and carried the film. So it is puzzling Pankakesnotstellar to me when you said that the non-linear time frame of the film threw the character arc of Stephen Lewis all out of wack. I didn’t find that at all. The fact that we had just seen the shock and trauma on his face and in his demeanor in the opening sequence, really drives home the point that his later “stability” was just a veneer IMO. That luncheon scene was perfectly placed, letting you you understand the almost helplessness that Stephen feels after the destruction of his happy life with his beloved child and wife. The whole conversation reeked of Lewis’ desperation (to not lose his friend and editor, to be spoon-fed sympathy by Thelma, to hear anything hopeful about Julie, etc.). That scene actually intensified the pathos of his character. It was a look into the long lasting effects of Kate’s disappearance on his character, and gave you a real reference point along his character’s journey in the story. And Julie wasn’t absolutely not “fine”. She was surviving the trauma of the loss of Kate (a point that was made several times in the film) and suffering - but just in a very different way to Stephen. It was incredible to see these characters unfold so delicately and yet so powerfully on screen. :-)) No, really I don't see what some people are saying they see... A dynamic editing method with lots of cuts to portray something like inner devastation and recovery if any, it's incompatible with the mood and flow of emotions they're going for...Watch any Wes Anderson, he uses descriptive narration perfectly to create the perfect mood for the story...and there is a goldilocks zone between the "doctor explains what he's doing" type of narration and "put on the creative hat" to fill in the gaps narration... Binary view of things is very reductive...And this was really a misfire for me in regards to the editing. Oh well, I hope they do better for Melrose...
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Oct 12, 2017 22:12:15 GMT
This film was the very opposite of reductivism. It was multi-layered and sophisticated in its approach and had plenty of depth in its exposition as far as I was concerned. So it hit that sweet spot of giving me just enough to engage me and pull me in but I didn’t feel at any time that I was floundering in an esoteric endeavor.
Things ran incredibly true to me throughout the film. The characters seemed organic in their reactions and it had a feeling of authenticity about it despite it’s time warping theme.
I would think that if Melrose equals TCiT’s intensity and emotion it will be job well done as far as I am concerned.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 12, 2017 22:29:20 GMT
Wes Anderson do something extremely different. From my point of views there is not a clear comparison. I don’t know! Maybe it would be more logic to me compare the narration to TTSS (I think we actually are talking about narrative not about editing). David Bordwell wrote a great essay about its narrative. They show, sometime very briefly, or mention things without repetition unlike most movies do and they trust that the audiences see and listen those details. Not everybody did and it’s ok but the info is there is just it’s not repetitive or too obvious. In the case of not showing too much is because again they trust the audience knows what is coming next. I think that’s the reason some critics praised the movie for treating the theme with respect and without morbidity.
Some of the things you didn’t like are actually the things that were best to me. The weakest parts are when they tried to explain things.
|
|