The Last Movie You Watched (no spoilers)

chf · Jan 18, 2019

Blackshirts BLVD said:
Apparently we will have to agree to disagree, because that is literally a lack of development. I mean seriously, what developed? What changed (besides their circumstances/conditions... which isn't development, that is basic story progression)?

As for the end, the ending is not the time to show character development. It is too late by this point unless the movie is a mystery/thriller genre, where revealing something at the end serves a larger purpose to the moive as a whole.

Well, for starters... the way the movie read to me, was that it was what it was. It was not meant to demonstrate character development. It was meant to demonstrate a handful of other things in my opinion though...

* Brotherhood/family commitment or strength
* Prototypical heist
* Revenge/ Avenge
* Cat & Mouse through the 'smart' veteran detective.
* The unfortunate nature of being too late / Regret

Now you CAN display character development through these facets, but it isn't a given because it is dependent upon the character not the story. Take Jeff Bridges character for example. He acts a particular way from the very first moment he is on screen.

then his partner dies

Then at the end he is the EXACT same. Sure his characters purpose might now serve an avenging cause as demonstrated through his final interactions with Pines character, but his character is the EXACT same even through that process.

As for the 'good ole boy' cliche, I was just using the apologizing as an example. Run down the check list. Pine and Foster serve as the prototypical yang/ying bro duo of a heist flick. Again, I don't think there is anything wrong with that and they both do a fair job of it. However, there is no development or change in them nor between them throughout the film. And that's rather sad.

As for how I would have shown development or at least, what I think would have helped because again, I don't feel that this movie was done with that as an intention.

Nonetheless, I think showing or having a real backstory to go along with Pines "she died" statements would have been better. Had we known how the bank did it, particularly if it was deeply dependent on their situation and eventual outcome. Fosters character talks VERY briefly about how he shot dad and that mom never liked him... these are great avenues to use to show how a character grow or change. The movie allows us to assume that the environment that existed between Foster and the dad/mom could be what drove him to crime (hell, HE SHOT AND KILLED THE DAD), but this is never shown and in my opinion therefore falls flat. Pine is the good one, but we never see him care for his mom, see his devotion, see how the banks greed essentially altered his and her condition which led to this, etc...

As for Bridges character... his character is a monotone, old school veteran ranger stereotype and he actually has the perfect moment for character development as we witness the interactions between him and his partner and the blatant foreshadowing that eventually leads to his very sudden and rather unexpected death. But after that scene, Bridges is the same as we was before, only retired.

I understand time passed, but outside of wanting to avenge his partner, his partner dying appeared to have no real impact on his character.

I hope this better explains my position. Again, I thought it was a good movie for what it was. I thought the acting was good. The visuals were nothing special. The story was nothing special, I would argue that it underwhelmed as a whole. And there was no respectable character development. I use the word respectable there, because simply adding a motive/emotion such as revenge or avenge does not equate for an entire movie lacking in this department.

Again, 6/10. But I am more than willing to read your takes on the movie and see how you viewed it. I am perfectly willing to accept a difference of opinion on this one as opposed to the shit shown a.k.a. Bird Box.

chf · Jan 18, 2019

Blackshirts BLVD said:
Apparently we will have to agree to disagree, because that is literally a lack of development. I mean seriously, what developed? What changed (besides their circumstances/conditions... which isn't development, that is basic story progression)?

As for the end, the ending is not the time to show character development. It is too late by this point unless the movie is a mystery/thriller genre, where revealing something at the end serves a larger purpose to the moive as a whole.

Well, for starters... the way the movie read to me, was that it was what it was. It was not meant to demonstrate character development. It was meant to demonstrate a handful of other things in my opinion though...

* Brotherhood/family commitment or strength
* Prototypical heist
* Revenge/ Avenge
* Cat & Mouse through the 'smart' veteran detective.
* The unfortunate nature of being too late / Regret

Now you CAN display character development through these facets, but it isn't a given because it is dependent upon the character not the story. Take Jeff Bridges character for example. He acts a particular way from the very first moment he is on screen.

then his partner dies

Then at the end he is the EXACT same. Sure his characters purpose might now serve an avenging cause as demonstrated through his final interactions with Pines character, but his character is the EXACT same even through that process.

As for the 'good ole boy' cliche, I was just using the apologizing as an example. Run down the check list. Pine and Foster serve as the prototypical yang/ying bro duo of a heist flick. Again, I don't think there is anything wrong with that and they both do a fair job of it. However, there is no development or change in them nor between them throughout the film. And that's rather sad.

Edited above for length.

Okay, I think I see where you're going, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on a fundamental level. Yes, there's tons of shlocky Hallmark movie of the week type movies or books or stories out there where we have a plucky protagonist who has a problem put before him, and through the solving of said problem reflects back and undergoes fundamental change at the end. Perhaps they let love into their stony heart, and hold hands on the beach with the formerly mousy now beautiful love interest as we fade to black and roll credits... whatever.

But those characters aren't usually very REALISTIC.

There's a whole school of film-making that wants to portray more realistic, more TRUE people. So in those kinds of stories, even though the protagonist may triumph, he or she may still be stuck in who they are. Kind of like real people. True change is incredibly rare.

So in movie classics, like, I dunno, there's thousands of examples, 'Shane.' Our hero wins the conflict (in writing terms this makes it a comedy as opposed to a tragedy, but let's not get sidetracked), but the ending to some is really unsatisfying. Shane doesn't stick around to bask in the glory of his victory. He doesn't hold hands with the girl on the porch as the kid plays in the yard as we fade to black and roll the credits.

He leaves and rides of into the sunset, off to the next task for a gunslinger (or to go off to die?).

The movie leaves that up to us to decide, but it's a bit of gut punch even if you think he's just riding off to the next gun battle down the road.

So let's take this movie. Now you mentioned how you want the whole backstory fleshed out. I disagree again, because that makes it a different movie, it becomes about THAT, not the story that the movie make wanted to tell (what happens when people have no hope, are desperate?)

Now, imo, both brothers remain true to who their characters are. The criminal brother, it's foreshadowed, is going to solve his problems with violence. That's his nature, and he stays true to it. The CHANGE he undergoes, is the decision he has to make about how that's going to play out. Who the winner is going to be (it's not going to be him).

The whole movie, the tension of it (to me it was EASILY one of the best movies of that year), was four guys, 2 criminals 2 cops, on a collision course that we could all see coming. Any of them could have decided to avoid that collision, but all four were committed to seeing through what they saw as their duty ( to family, to the law, to their code, whatever)

I thought the portrayal of working through that decision was incredibly well done. These weren't characters in an Aaron Sorkin show. There were going to be no big stirring speeches or pages of exposition about their inner motivations. They were going to have to convey these complex emotions with a few words, or a look, as you mentioned above in your writeup.

But to me, that's part of what made that movie great, not a weakness. How many Aaron Sorkin speaking good ol' boys have you met?

At any rate, much like Shane, there wasn't going to be a lot of dialogue from the protagonist, and there wasn't going to be a warm fuzzy ending. Yes, just like Shane, the protagonist 'won,' but the victory was costly, and the audience was left maybe wondering if it was all worth it.

Anyway, I haven't seen it since I saw it in the theatre when it came out. So I'm going to look around and see if it's on netflix or amazon, would be worth a rewatch to see if I just missed something.

Thanks for the good-faith reply though. That's pretty rare around here.

chf · Jan 18, 2019

calsnowskier said:
The Big Sick

I didn’t realize it was autobiographical. Nice little flick.

7.5/10

I liked that movie a lot. You know who's been killing it later in his career is Ray Romano. He's really good in this movie, and I think he's fantastic in 'Get Shorty.'

Clayton · Jan 18, 2019

Dark Knight again.

Probably my favorite Nolan movie. Still need to see Memento

calsnowskier · Jan 18, 2019

Clayton said:
Dark Knight again.

Probably my favorite Nolan movie. Still need to see Memento

I haven’t seen Memento in years. Definitely worth a rewatch.

richig07 · Jan 18, 2019

Big Wet Asses vol. 16

5/5

Blackshirts BLVD · Jan 18, 2019

@chf

But those characters aren't usually very REALISTIC.

I don't want to disagree for the sake of disagreement, but I am not willing to accept this out right (regardless of the school of thought). I have actually found that people do change insofar that they understand the err of their ways or whatever. When someone can logically breakdown what went wrong, it allows for that change. It's the development of wisdom through witnessing, age, experience, mistakes, etc... I can see what you mean by the way you chose to describe that and while I am not saying all or most people are of the 'unrealistic' type, I would venture to say that it is dependent upon the history/experiences of the individual and is therefore 50/50 as it pertains to the individual.

So let's take this movie. Now you mentioned how you want the whole backstory fleshed out. I disagree again, because that makes it a different movie, it becomes about THAT, not the story that the movie make wanted to tell (what happens when people have no hope, are desperate?)

I agree that the movie was about a reaction to desperation, but the movie does not shy away from their reasoning. It is made clear numerous times throughout the movie (beginning, middle, end) of why they are doing what they are doing. So I would say that it is ultimately a combination of the two.

Now, imo, both brothers remain true to who their characters are. The criminal brother, it's foreshadowed, is going to solve his problems with violence. That's his nature, and he stays true to it. The CHANGE he undergoes, is the decision he has to make about how that's going to play out. Who the winner is going to be (it's not going to be him).

Remains true, yes. The change, I completely disagree here. In the beginning, Fosters character mentions something to the effect like 'you know this isn't going to end well' to which Pines character responds to the effect of 'I know' and then goes on to ask Fosters character... 'then why did you agree to help' to which he responds... 'because you asked little brother'. At this point in the movie (which took place in the first 20-30 minutes easily), I understand that both brothers know what what they are looking forward to. This scene alone serves as foreshadowing for their characters as a whole throughout the film. It is further shown when Pine catches him loading the magazines for the rifles and ultimately with the 'look' when they part towards the end. There is nothing wrong with this, I just don't see it as change or development.

The whole movie, the tension of it (to me it was EASILY one of the best movies of that year), was four guys, 2 criminals 2 cops, on a collision course that we could all see coming. Any of them could have decided to avoid that collision, but all four were committed to seeing through what they saw as their duty ( to family, to the law, to their code, whatever)

I thought the portrayal of working through that decision was incredibly well done. These weren't characters in an Aaron Sorkin show. There were going to be no big stirring speeches or pages of exposition about their inner motivations. They were going to have to convey these complex emotions with a few words, or a look, as you mentioned above in your writeup.

I agree. Albeit the Sorkin equivalence isn't a great one since he essentially specializes in fast talking and rather unnecessarily pretentious characters, neither of which are portrayed or even attempted to be portrayed in this movie from any character in my opinion. But on the whole, I agree. Which is why I said what I said, I think the movie just is what it is and I am okay with that. I just wouldn't call any of this "character development" is all.

Yes, it is on Netflix. That's how I saw it.

And just for an FYI... I have never seen Shane lol.

chf · Jan 18, 2019

Blackshirts BLVD said:
@chf

I don't want to disagree for the sake of disagreement, but I am not willing to accept this out right (regardless of the school of thought). I have actually found that people do change insofar that they understand the err of their ways or whatever. When someone can logically breakdown what went wrong, it allows for that change. It's the development of wisdom through witnessing, age, experience, mistakes, etc... I can see what you mean by the way you chose to describe that and while I am not saying all or most people are of the 'unrealistic' type, I would venture to say that it is dependent upon the history/experiences of the individual and is therefore 50/50 as it pertains to the individual.

I agree that the movie was about a reaction to desperation, but the movie does not shy away from their reasoning. It is made clear numerous times throughout the movie (beginning, middle, end) of why they are doing what they are doing. So I would say that it is ultimately a combination of the two.

Remains true, yes. The change, I completely disagree here. In the beginning, Fosters character mentions something to the effect like 'you know this isn't going to end well' to which Pines character responds to the effect of 'I know' and then goes on to ask Fosters character... 'then why did you agree to help' to which he responds... 'because you asked little brother'. At this point in the movie (which took place in the first 20-30 minutes easily), I understand that both brothers know what what they are looking forward to. This scene alone serves as foreshadowing for their characters as a whole throughout the film. It is further shown when Pine catches him loading the magazines for the rifles and ultimately with the 'look' when they part towards the end. There is nothing wrong with this, I just don't see it as change or development.

I agree. Albeit the Sorkin equivalence isn't a great one since he essentially specializes in fast talking and rather unnecessarily pretentious characters, neither of which are portrayed or even attempted to be portrayed in this movie from any character in my opinion. But on the whole, I agree. Which is why I said what I said, I think the movie just is what it is and I am okay with that. I just wouldn't call any of this "character development" is all.

Yes, it is on Netflix. That's how I saw it.

And just for an FYI... I have never seen Shane lol.

Well let me suggest to you that when you hear that dialogue in the first 30 minutes, as a viewer, your mind doesn't go to 'bloody shootout with one of us dead.'

But yes, the ending IS foreshadowed, and again, imo, the inevitable grinding tension of the movie is how we see that play out. It's kinda' like Jaws, you know in your heart that they're probably going to beat the shark, but you also know that some of our favorites are going to end up chum in the water along the way.

I don't think character development CAN work the way you want it to. Heck, tragedy rules out any big sea-change by the protagonist by definition, because they fail.

A character can undergo huge change during a movie and still not become a different person.

Blackshirts BLVD · Jan 18, 2019

chf said:
Well let me suggest to you that when you hear that dialogue in the first 30 minutes, as a viewer, your mind doesn't go to 'bloody shootout with one of us dead.'

But yes, the ending IS foreshadowed, and again, imo, the inevitable grinding tension of the movie is how we see that play out. It's kinda' like Jaws, you know in your heart that they're probably going to beat the shark, but you also know that some of our favorites are going to end up chum in the water along the way.

I don't think character development CAN work the way you want it to. Heck, tragedy rules out any big sea-change by the protagonist by definition, because they fail.

A character can undergo huge change during a movie and still not become a different person.

Well my head went immediately to both of them dying, but as the movie progressed, I figured it would just be the criminal brother.

Personally, I felt the tension was highest obviously in the bank scenes, but outside of that I felt it was at the casino. I didn't feel the tension brewing between the brothers and the rangers, probably because I knew it ultimately HAD to lead to that. Speaking in terms of tension, my personal favorite scene of tension(at least that I can think of right now) is the very beginning of Inglourious Basterds between Hans Landa and the Frenchman.

As for the comment of yours that I bolded, I would like for you to elaborate on that a bit because it seems self defeating or contradictory inof itself. If you undergo a HUGE change, how could you be the same person? Likewise, how could you be different person without undergoing a huge change?

chf · Jan 18, 2019

Blackshirts BLVD said:
As for the comment of yours that I bolded, I would like for you to elaborate on that a bit because it seems self defeating or contradictory inof itself. If you undergo a HUGE change, how could you be the same person? Likewise, how could you be different person without undergoing a huge change?

It's pretty common actually. People win the lottery, or have a near brush with death, or recover from cancer, and the Hollywood narrative is that they'll change for the better, they'll live life more brightly, accomplish more, love harder yadda yadda yadda.

Most often it's bullshit.

Most people who win the lottery are broke again within less than a decade. People are who they are, and REAL significant change is actually very very rare.

In movies, they don't have to show the real ending, they just imply and ending and roll the credits.

So the guy gets the beautiful girl, and they hook up, roll credits.

You don't see the slow distancing, the spiteful resentments, the fights, cheating and eventual divorce and alimony payments.

You mentioned upthread that you like Saving Private Ryan (so do I).

besides living, what was the essential change in the characters?

Blackshirts BLVD · Jan 18, 2019

chf said:
It's pretty common actually. People win the lottery, or have a near brush with death, or recover from cancer, and the Hollywood narrative is that they'll change for the better, they'll live life more brightly, accomplish more, love harder yadda yadda yadda.

Most often it's bullshit.

Most people who win the lottery are broke again within less than a decade. People are who they are, and REAL significant change is actually very very rare.

In movies, they don't have to show the real ending, they just imply and ending and roll the credits.

So the guy gets the beautiful girl, and they hook up, roll credits.

You don't see the slow distancing, the spiteful resentments, the fights, cheating and eventual divorce and alimony payments.

You mentioned upthread that you like Saving Private Ryan (so do I).

besides living, what was the essential change in the characters?

I get what you are saying. I think the disconnect was in how we each are defining change in this context. I believe you are referencing a more physical or circumstancial change (i.e. your lottery example), which isn't devoid a value in its own right. I was coming from a more emotional/philosophical change, a change in feeling or thinking. I just don't consider a physical change, a character change. I think that is where we aren't seeing eye to eye.

Its been a while since I have seen Saving Private Ryan, but let me point out a few of the elements that I do remember. Eventually each character opens up either about their home life, family, job, thoughts on the war/mission, etc... with the sole purpose to forget about their current situation being as how it is terrible. You see each character give the respect of the floor for each occurrence, you further understand where they come from, where they are now, and in my opinion you literally witness the bonding. Watching it a couple times, you can see the timing of the movie and how one story comes and it becomes reflective in the next persons. Really cool, in my opinion. I would say the same in the movie 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. Not sure if I really answered your question or went on a mini tangent lol.

chf · Jan 18, 2019

Blackshirts BLVD said:
Its been a while since I have seen Saving Private Ryan, but let me point out a few of the elements that I do remember. Eventually each character opens up either about their home life, family, job, thoughts on the war/mission, etc... with the sole purpose to forget about their current situation being as how it is terrible. You see each character give the respect of the floor for each occurrence, you further understand where they come from, where they are now, and in my opinion you literally witness the bonding. Watching it a couple times, you can see the timing of the movie and how one story comes and it becomes reflective in the next persons. Really cool, in my opinion. I would say the same in the movie 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. Not sure if I really answered your question or went on a mini tangent lol.

Well as a person who has a alcoholic brother, we're kind the embodiment of the 2 brothers in the movie, minus the good ol 'boy part; I found the emotional portrayal of the 2 brothers getting to the ending to be incredibly emotional. It rang VERY true for me.

I'll have to watch it again to refresh my memory, I've only seen it once. But my brother and I have an effed up relationship. We'd have each other's back if something like the events in the movie happened. (we'd be a lousy combo to meet in a dark alley), but then we don't talk to each other for six months.

I thought all the stuff you thought was too little (stuff being portrayed via facial expression or sparse dialogue) to be REALLY accurate.

I think there's LOTS of guys who are like that. They don't show emotion to other guys, even their own family.

War movies like SPR are the embodiment of that. LOTS of those guys never tell (or told) their families about what they went through in combat. They didn't want to burden them with their horror and grief.

I thought this movie did a really good job of portraying that same... dynamic. The horrible irony of course is that they were at war, except with a bank. And you don't get a parade for that.

Blackshirts BLVD · Jan 18, 2019

@chf

Well as a person who has a alcoholic brother, we're kind the embodiment of the 2 brothers in the movie, minus the good ol 'boy part; I found the emotional portrayal of the 2 brothers getting to the ending to be incredibly emotional. It rang VERY true for me.

I'll have to watch it again to refresh my memory, I've only seen it once. But my brother and I have an effed up relationship. We'd have each other's back if something like the events in the movie happened. (we'd be a lousy combo to meet in a dark alley), but then we don't talk to each other for six months.

I respect that. A friend of mine thinks I am crazy for my favorite comedian being Christopher Titus. Well his Norman Rockwell is Burning special rang true to me. I had an alcoholic father, divorce, moms violent boyfriends, etc... but since it hit so close to home, I felt an attachment to it and was able to connect and essentially KNOW or understand the jokes on a different level than others. And while I don't agree with him on most things politically, I still find his jokes funny on them. But I can definitely understand a connection being formed from the type of brotherhood in the movie.

I thought all the stuff you thought was too little (stuff being portrayed via facial expression or sparse dialogue) to be REALLY accurate.

I think there's LOTS of guys who are like that. They don't show emotion to other guys, even their own family.

Actually, I thoroughly enjoy the sparse dialogue and facial expressions being a focal point in understanding the characters. I just didn't see it as growth. There is PLENTY of similar expressions or dialogue (or lack there of) in Saving Private Ryan and many other movies. To be perfectly honest, I think it is an underused technique in story writing and acting.

I would also agree that generally speaking men aren't quick to show their emotions. But that is precisely why it was an important moment in Saving Private Ryan, it is the cause of bonding under those conditions.

chf · Jan 18, 2019

Blackshirts BLVD said:
@chf

But that is precisely why it was an important moment in Saving Private Ryan, it is the cause of bonding under those conditions.

Okay, but why is that different from the bank robber movie? The stories aren't REALLY about bank robbing or about war. They're stories about character. That character is most revealed under the stress of the conflict.

TemptressToo · Jan 18, 2019

Just watched something absolutely delightful. A fun mix of mystery and comedy, not anything like I was expecting.

Look up “A Simple Favor” and watch it.

legalizequack · Jan 18, 2019

Duffman said:
The Upside, I’d say it’s about a 7/10. I usually don’t like Kevin Hart movies but he was very toned down in this one and it was actually tolerable.

This movie is a c level movie compared to the original

Blackshirts BLVD · Jan 19, 2019

chf said:
Okay, but why is that different from the bank robber movie? The stories aren't REALLY about bank robbing or about war. They're stories about character. That character is most revealed under the stress of the conflict.

See while I will agree with that overaching seniment, I don't agree that Hell or High Water showed much character growth at all even using that context whereas I do believe it is demonstrated in Saving Private Ryan. Pines character knew (according to the movie/writing) or thought that he was not going to get away with it, but maybe just maybe he can at least get it to legally stick. In my opinion, the stress never manifested because he didn't expect to survive. In SPR it is the opposite. All of them talk about what they want to do and what not when they get back demonstrating their willingness or at least hope to survive. It has nothing to do with it being a bank robber movie vs. a war movie, it is all about HOW the characters are exposed in those circumstances... which I suppose you could equate to writing/directing.

PatsFan2003 · Jan 19, 2019

Searching for Bobby Fischer.

Really good film. Makes Chess fun and interesting.

Also a great Father/Son/Family film

chf · Jan 20, 2019

Blackshirts BLVD said:
See while I will agree with that overaching seniment, I don't agree that Hell or High Water showed much character growth at all even using that context whereas I do believe it is demonstrated in Saving Private Ryan. Pines character knew (according to the movie/writing) or thought that he was not going to get away with it, but maybe just maybe he can at least get it to legally stick. In my opinion, the stress never manifested because he didn't expect to survive. In SPR it is the opposite. All of them talk about what they want to do and what not when they get back demonstrating their willingness or at least hope to survive. It has nothing to do with it being a bank robber movie vs. a war movie, it is all about HOW the characters are exposed in those circumstances... which I suppose you could equate to writing/directing.

Not sure what you're driving at here. Plenty of the soldiers in SPR knew they weren't going to make it. Which characters in HOHW didn't expect to survive? Even if they didn't why does that mean they can't show character change?

Blackshirts BLVD · Jan 20, 2019

chf said:
Not sure what you're driving at here. Plenty of the soldiers in SPR knew they weren't going to make it. Which characters in HOHW didn't expect to survive? Even if they didn't why does that mean they can't show character change?

Well then we are going to have to disagree here too lol. I don't agree here. Given the dialogue, statesments, attitudes, conversations, facial looks, etc... no one really bothered to question it until they were shot/dying. But again, to each their own lol.

Hell or High Water did not show character development in my opinion lol. Still a solid movie though.

The Last Movie You Watched (no spoilers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sarcastic F-wad

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Godmother

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads