Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The Cinema
  3. SPOILER! The absurdities that ruin 'Shattered'

SPOILER! The absurdities that ruin 'Shattered'

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Cinema
47 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote last edited by
    #35

    aef-6 — 15 years ago(May 12, 2010 12:20 AM)

    Good explanation.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote last edited by
      #36

      Albatoss — 15 years ago(August 06, 2010 01:34 PM)

      It's a movie. Why does everything have to be so literal?

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote last edited by
        #37

        dcavalli — 15 years ago(August 07, 2010 03:20 PM)

        For the convenience of the plot, I'm guessing Dan's parents are dead, and he doesn't have any siblings to visit him (or they all hate him) and notice any changes that might indicate that it's someone else with his face. Blood relatives who saw him grow up might pick up things that friends don't. In 1991, DNA wasn't widely used, so the deception could last longer.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote last edited by
          #38

          Natron — 14 years ago(September 19, 2011 07:35 PM)

          Because our brains work, and we are invited to think as it's a mystery. If the creators didn't want us to think they would have cast Jim Carey in the lead role.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F Offline
            F Offline
            fgadmin
            wrote last edited by
            #39

            MassiveG — 15 years ago(August 22, 2010 07:24 AM)

            Who cares? Its a movie and a work of fiction. Its supposed to be ridiculous.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              fgadmin
              wrote last edited by
              #40

              IMDb User

              This message has been deleted.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • F Offline
                F Offline
                fgadmin
                wrote last edited by
                #41

                mcfly-31 — 14 years ago(September 04, 2011 09:14 PM)

                Everyone loves to claim "I figured it out!" like they want a medal or something. I saw it in theaters and remember NOT TRYING to figure it out. Just go with it. It's upon multiple viewings that it becomes more ludicrous. I'll take my turn:

                1. If Judith paid off Klein, why not remove all evidence of his services from Dan's work office? How did she even know of Klein? Who's dumb enough to not use a Kinko's fax machine and not her husband's?
                2. Dan borrows the maid's car so Judith won't noticing him following her? Wouldn't she also recognize the maid's car???? Why was Judith driving so erracitcally? What was the point of her speeding and cutting across lanes if there was nothing to be rushed to?
                3. Why is this toxic ship sitting there for 9 months?
                4. Why fire shots to "scare you"?; Judith is one hell of a stunt driver.
                5. The performances were fine, except for Kilmer, she sleptwalked through the whole thing. Though the New Year's flashback at the end was painfully overacted. Why they all decided to talk like they were in a soap opera is beyond me.
                6. The voice thingwell, you'd need a an extra 20 minutes of start to show us Merrick before the accident. Then you could alter his voice and say the accident effected his speech, I donno.
                  They didn't think we were stupid. It's called stretching credibility in order to make the film last. They knew of the countless fruck ups in the screenplay (Peterson adapted the book himself) but they just had to laugh it off to get to the big payoff. Which was great ("I'm holding my own dead body!"), but hardly enough to save all the contrivances.
                  "If I had ya where I wanted ya, they'd be pumpin your ass full of formaldehyde!"
                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  fgadmin
                  wrote last edited by
                  #42

                  stayup_all_night — 14 years ago(September 10, 2011 09:57 AM)

                  It's a catch-22. You could make it more believable by showing his face more deformed and scarredbut that would totally give away the ending. They showed his face totally deformed at the beginning, so much so that it was surprising he ever looked normal again. Well I guess he really didn't. That's good enough for me - good movie!

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • F Offline
                    F Offline
                    fgadmin
                    wrote last edited by
                    #43

                    stayup_all_night — 14 years ago(September 10, 2011 10:07 AM)

                    My main point is that despite what we saw on film, his face really was totally disfigured. We have to assume that. The movie-makers couldn't show us that because it would give-away the ending.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • F Offline
                      F Offline
                      fgadmin
                      wrote last edited by
                      #44

                      RSBonos — 13 years ago(August 14, 2012 11:38 PM)

                      The leap of faith could have worked if the protagonist had a mutilated face from the accident. No plastic surgery could have reconstructed someones real face like that, let alone transform it from a strangers face. This is in the same universe as Face/Off.
                      The film was still entertaining.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • F Offline
                        F Offline
                        fgadmin
                        wrote last edited by
                        #45

                        The_Gribbler — 12 years ago(April 28, 2013 04:18 AM)

                        I guess I'm just surprised how many people watched this multiple times. I fell asleep to this last night and I came here just so I didn't have to watch it again.
                        "I watch a lot of movies" - Me.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • F Offline
                          F Offline
                          fgadmin
                          wrote last edited by
                          #46

                          htownsteve — 11 years ago(May 22, 2014 10:02 PM)

                          Wow. You folks sure have spent a lot of time and effort to deconstruct a movie that no-one has seen, will probably never see; and, never come HERE to read about it. Congratulations on wasting all that time!
                          I enjoyed the movie. Reminded me of a Hitchcock flick. The ending was no dumber than 80% of EVERY MOVIE I've ever seen.
                          Son, you can't polish a turd

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • F Offline
                            F Offline
                            fgadmin
                            wrote last edited by
                            #47

                            franzkabuki — 11 years ago(November 27, 2014 02:55 PM)

                            There probably are movies with a more ludicrous "twist" out there, but at the moment at least I can't think of any. The idea that a face as disfigured as Berenger's in the beginning can be restored to look as smooth, is unbelievable in itself, but the fact it's made to look like a spitting image of another man, is taking the bullsh-t onto an altogether outlandish level. And, yeah, then there is Hoskins - whose "comic relief" character was kind of out of place to begin with - with his supposed "aqualung" Shattered is very much a plot driven movie and thusly, despite some moody direction and reasonable amount of suspense before the final act, such utter absurdities DO matter - a great deal.
                            "facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0

                            • Login

                            • Don't have an account? Register

                            Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • Users
                            • Groups