So bad, it's unintentionally hilarious. T.U.R.K.E.Y
-
Bozohead — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 02:53 PM)
The film contains every cheesy London cliche in the book - spotless streets, strictly white, plummy voiced people only, meetings at the Tate Modern, Thameside luxury apartments overlooking the Houses of Parliament
So you're saying theres no Tate Modern? No luxury apartments overlooking the Houses of parliament? That every single street, even in the rich areas, are dirty? Theres no rich white people living in London?
The movie never claimed that this was all there is to London. Should Woody have gone and filmed the slumier sides of London and just randomly inserted the footage into the movie to make people like you happy? -
hugh1971 — 13 years ago(May 30, 2012 07:21 AM)
Quite right. Whenever any film is set in Britain, good old British inverted snobbery rears its ugly head and people start complaining. How DARE they set a film in the 'unreal' world of the upper middle class, and not in a council flat in Dagenham where all the REAL people live?
I come from London and believe me, people like those in the film exist. In fact,I know people in London who are MUCH posher and MUCH plummier!
(I did think the use of the word 'poppa' was a bit weird. Britons of that class would say 'daddy' or 'father' or perhaps even Papa, but not 'poppa'. They also wouldn't say 'come to our country house', they would say something like 'come to our place in Berkshire')
But that's not the main pointthe problem with this film is the weird, zombie like acting. OK the film is meant to have a slightly otherworldly feel to it, what with the Dostoesvsky themes etc, but if that was the intention, it didn't come across well, it just looked like bad acting. Everybody seemed to be stiff as if they were in a period drama. -
The_BIFTAs — 13 years ago(October 21, 2012 10:51 AM)
Totally agree with the OP. Such cliched drivel - we were literally gasping out loud throughout at how bad it was.
The script could have been written by an immature 12-year-old, and the acting was abysmal.
"I'll have a baked potato - yum yum!" Who on earth says "yum yum"?
Worst film I've ever seen. Diabolical.
Films from a Parallel Universe -
http://www.biftas.co.uk -
Mher-arabian — 13 years ago(January 11, 2013 01:17 PM)
Old post but whatever. Match Point is my favorite Woody Allen film. To me, a film's resemblance to reality is not as important as other aspects of filmmaking, such as the directing, acting, writing etc. This film is highly entertaining. I don't really care whether it's realistic or not. It's a good film.
-
futurehaker — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 11:47 AM)
I agree. This was a pretty good flick. At first I didn't think so but as I kept watching (and I do admit some scenes, especially with the music playing, are a bit too long and boring) I started enjoying it more and more.
And I don't know why everyone thinks it's so unrealistic. I thought it was if you just ask yourself "can this happen to anyone?" My answer to that is a definite YES. Now, in terms of police work, I will agree that it wasn't very believable but that's only right at the end of the movie so it didn't bother me that much. Otherwise I too hate unrealistic movies if it's all throughout. But again in this case I thought it was very realistic up until the end.
At the same time you have to consider the luck factor which I think was the main point of the film. The director tried to portray how luck is important in how our lives turn out. I think he accomplished that perfectly when he tossed the ring and it didn't fall in the waterwhich at first I thought was bad for him.
In any case we're entitled to our own opinions and had I just went by the comments made here I'd have missed a pretty good movie. I decided to watch it anyway to see if it's really worth the 7.7 rating and I think it's right up there. I'd give it a 7.5 -
futurehaker — 12 years ago(September 26, 2013 05:15 AM)
I agree. This was a pretty good flick. At first I didn't think so but as I kept watching (and I do admit some scenes, especially with the music playing, are a bit too long and boring) I started enjoying it more and more.
And I don't know why everyone thinks it's so unrealistic. I thought it was if you just ask yourself "can this happen to anyone?" My answer to that is a definite YES. Now, in terms of police work, I will agree that it wasn't very believable but that's only right at the end of the movie so it didn't bother me that much. Otherwise I too hate unrealistic movies if it's all throughout. But again in this case I thought it was very realistic up until the end.
At the same time you have to consider the luck factor which I think was the main point of the film. The director tried to portray how luck is important in how our lives turn out. I think he accomplished that perfectly when he tossed the ring and it didn't fall in the waterwhich at first I thought was bad for him.
In any case we're entitled to our own opinions and had I just went by the comments made here I'd have missed a pretty good movie. I decided to watch it anyway to see if it's really worth the 7.7 rating and I think it's right up there. I'd give it a 7.5 -
NoodleLizard — 12 years ago(June 18, 2013 12:57 PM)
I can watch it every few years and be entertained, but yes, it's teeming with big problems - just like all of Woody Allen's later films. But this one does have some unintentionally funny moments which make it more watchable - mostly due to poor scriptwriting and resultant disinterested performances. There's a scene towards the end where the woefully underused James Nesbitt and Ewan Bremner are contemplating the murder which is so poorly-written and acted that you would expect it from a first-time teenage drama student.
As someone else mentioned, there are so many scenes and plot points which repeat themselves, characters and plot points/themes that just disappear and far too many "remember we're in London" shots - all elements which contributed to making 'The Room' so brilliant/awful. Give John Rhys-Meyers an indiscernable and hilarious accent and this would be just as funny.
There's so much clunky exposition as well, which is strange because other parts of the script manage to avoid being heavy-handed very efficiently. It's as if Woody had good and bad days whilst writing it and never revised it once he'd finished.
That all being said, though, it's not
terrible
, just surprisingly goofy for a film which is clearly intended to be sophisticated and dark.
These bastards! -
annlevtex — 12 years ago(August 12, 2013 05:49 PM)
I thought this was just Crimes and Misdemeanors with a Brit Twist. Except the first film was much more richly woven in terms of plot and characters and had humor, which this did not.
I hated pretty much all of the characters except the peripheral ones: the old lady who got killed, the neighbor, the detectives. Chloe was nice enough but basically an insipid princess.
The acting was good, especially from Scarlet I thought. But it was like a play in a way, not a movie.
I thought it was amusing in the end that Chris was quoting Sophocles. Wasn't he a tennis pro? How did he get so deep? LOL. -
maryj482 — 12 years ago(October 08, 2013 06:03 PM)
(Some Spoilers ahead) Just saw this movie again after watching it a few years ago. Chris was a bit of a reader/studier of the arts. Dostoyevsky, Sophocles, Opera, the Tate-Modern. I guess he had a lot of time to read while on the tennis circuit. I think he used these things to put the meaning of life into some kind of context.
I like this movie but I can see where the OP is coming from. The acting is clunky and cliched. The dialogue is often laughable and awkward. The symbolism is heavy-handed. Chris and Nola are both tennis balls that hit the net (the net being the chance to enter into a rich family). They both bounce up in the air in such a way that they could come down on either side of the net. It is a known fact that two tennis balls flying like this together are likely to have an affair. The tennis ball might land on one side of the net or the other. It all depends on luck (though there are probably ways to actually determine this based on Newtonian physics). The point is driven home more literally later on with the throwing of the ring. Also, in case we didn't get it, in the middle of the movie Chris once again tells his philosophy over dinner with his rich friends, in case we forget it from the beginning monologue, and at the end when the baby is born (I don't care if he's great, I just hope the baby's lucky!). Yes, we get the point. Luck happens. Chris is lucky. Nola is not. Hopefully Chris's baby will be lucky. Chloe is possibly still flying through the air at the end of the movie. Will Chris decide to keep her around, or eventually dispose of her too?
However, in seriousness, we are being told this story from Chris's perspective, which makes the movie sort of brilliant. Chris is kind of wooden and clunky, with bad dialogue, and a great deal of insincerity (though everyone around him is portrayed as almost unfailingly sincere in all that they do). This is how he portrays his world. He is trying to fit the events of life into some kind of symbolic meaning. He has worked out an ideology about luck, and is telling his story to further his point. Despite his accent, he is supposed to be Irish (I am not the best with accents but he did not sound Irish to me at all). The cliche'd aspects of London would likely stick out to him more as a recent arrival, and color his representation of the city. He has an eye for the finer things, so that is the London we see. To his mind, his wife is insipid and clingy and sweet, but boring and often irritating to him. It is kind of a chore for him to keep her happy. That is how we see her too. I wonder how she would tell the same story? or Nola for that matter.
The police bit felt rushed-through and left a lot of questions. I don't think the outcome was particularly unrealistic, given an overworked police force and a low-profile case like this being shoved to the side if not enough evidence presents itself. It was just rushed and didn't fit with the rest of the film somehow, which was kind of slow by comparison. It is also the bit that Chris is not telling us about as he cannot have seen the private talks of the police about the case. It would be interesting if the movie had more of the police-side in it, as the Crime and Punishment parallel could have been worked out more with the detective who knew what really happened but had no evidence to prove it.
Anyways, I went on a little long with this post! I dont think this movie is a TURKEY but rather a sort of clumsy film with some good ideas in it.