it did with
-
thisnameinuse — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 06:05 AM)
I have to agree on the plus side. I loved the narration.
As a matter of fact, I really hadn't even noticed this movie as even being one that I'd pay attention to. I'd happened to have it on doing something else, when the narration started.
It was the narration itself that hooked me into this movie. It was the narration that allowed me to suspend disbelief and believe that this could actually happen. I do think that the writer should have set the discovery of Electron Compression in DNA as farther ahead than 2035 to give the movie a longer range, but that's a minor nit.
Not only that, but I think Hugh Ross as the narrator knocked it out of the park. In fact, I have some videos I'll be creating coming up here in the next few months and I will be contacting him to get his standard rates for VO work, and see if he can't narrate some of my videos. It's that good, and his voice is fascinating to me, especially when explaining the concepts he was explaining.
The great part was that it was so sparsely and well-used, in my opinion. It didn't keep popping up in each new scene, but seemed to be perfectly timed exactly when it was necessary, and receded back when the story and normal character dialogue was enough to propel the movement forward.
Guess it just goes to show that an audience is not a single monolithic group but is comprised of a number of individuals who each have different tastes and preferences.
Without the narrator, I doubt this movie would have even piqued my interest. With the narration, it's quickly becoming one of my favorite fantasy love stories.
You're makin' me beat up
GRASS! -
zezslav — 9 years ago(April 16, 2016 03:26 PM)
The narration and explaining everything to death totally killed this movie. And they even tried to make the "never aging" thing based on science, it was totally stupid.
This movie could have easily been made without the narrator. And they wouldn't have had to resort to "exposure through dialogue" either like somebody commented that that would have to be done if there would be no narrator. One could have made this movie without both. Not everything has to be spoonfed and explained to death, let the audience figure it out, or not, it doesn't matter with this film, either way the audience would have understood what caused her to not age and then back to aging, and in the end the why not aging is irrelevant in this movie. 2/10. -
iamvox — 9 years ago(April 29, 2016 10:19 AM)
The narration sounded like it was trying to be as clever and poignant as it was in "Magnolia," but it failed miserably and only succeeded in alienating me even more than the clunky screenplay and obvious (and heavy-handed) directing already had. At the end, when the narrator actually tells us what we just saw, I started wondering just how stupid the producers think the audience is, since I'm betting many of us knew how this film would end pretty early on (and all of us were right, too).
As for "Blade Runner," I don't believe that the narration was originally part of the movie but the studio wanted it so the audience would understand the film. Of course, in the Director's Cut, it's not there, and the film is so much better because it's gone. -
RPost78 — 9 years ago(May 28, 2016 10:37 PM)
Narration didn't really bother me. Since it was really late when I watched this movie it actually worked in my favor! It kept me from thinking so much!? With our without narration I like this movie. I love the actors and cheesy as it may have been actually liked the fairytale feeling!
-
TheMouseShadow — 9 years ago(June 07, 2016 05:56 AM)
When you have to have a narrator explain why the heroine ceases to age and then starts to age again with made up psychobabble your film is beyond hope.
Also, a much braver choice for ending this film wouldve been to have her die in the car wreck. But that would put off too many that want a good cry followed up by a lovestruck ending. Even though its really kind of icky that she boinked the dad and now she is boinking the son. WHat a weird vibe during the holidays. Especially if the mom finds out. -
ChocolateButt — 9 years ago(June 15, 2016 03:52 AM)
The pseudo-scientific narration was too cute by half. TV seems to do much better with narrators. See: Pushing Daisies, Arrested Development, Jane the Virginthose omniscient voices actually add something, rather than just lazily explaining things away.
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll justassume the worst." -
Ahstaroth — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 08:35 PM)
If the audience is too dumb to figure out the lightning bolt caused it even though that has been a trope since at least Frankenstein, fine, say the lightning bolt caused it. But don't drone on with a bunch of pseudo science babbling trying to make it sound realistic. It's FINE if it's miraculous and mysterious.