This movie had way too many sub-plots that were not needed
-
kram23 — 15 years ago(December 15, 2010 12:09 PM)
"Too many sub-plots for what? A Michael Bay flick?"
Good god, I'm so sick of seeing this canned response whenever someone criticizes a respected film. I mean, if you're going to reply like an elitist, at least come up with something new.
As for the topic at hand, I agree somewhat with the original poster. I don't think any of the subplots should have been outright eliminated, but they could have been trimmed for better overall pacing. Despite that, it was still a good movie. -
chester-copperpot-1 — 15 years ago(December 18, 2010 09:40 AM)
John Sayles is a unique and truly individual and independent film maker. There's nobody else like him. If he didn't make his films, nobody would make his films instead. Michael Bay is a dime and a dozen hack with nothing of his own to give the world. And tomorrow, there will be another dozen like him.
-
chester-copperpot-1 — 16 years ago(September 07, 2009 02:28 PM)
Actually, I'm a little offended by your assumption that the film would be "better" if you took away some of the scenes.
Exactly what scenes should be cut? How many sub-stories to take away? And what kind of film would you have then? What would that film tell you? And what would be "better"?
You are sorely mistaken if you believe that any scene in this film is superflous. This just isn't a plot-driven film that I somehow take for granted is the only kind of films you are familiar with. This is a character-driven film, story-driven. The plot is not the be all and end all of film dramaturgy, everything in this film tells the audience something, everything makes sense, everything is there for a purpose. It just isn't always there with the sole mean of driving the story forward. The stories told in this film IS this film. -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(September 15, 2009 07:05 PM)
Totally agree with chester-copperpot. There are two main plotlines, the murder mystery and the rekindling of the romance between Sam and Pilar. But like chester says, that doesn't make the rest of the scenes superfluous they are the PURPOSE of the film.
Roger Ebert says it best in his review. Here are some excerpts:
"Those stories the murder and the romance provide the film's spine and draw us through to the end. But Sayles is up to a lot more than murders and love stories. We begin to get a feel for the people of Rio County, where whites, blacks, Chicanos and Seminoles all remember the past in different ways."
"[Sayles] creates a sure sense of the way the past haunts the present, and how old wounds and secrets are visited upon the survivors. "
"
"Lone Star" is not simply about the solution to the murder and the outcome of the romance. It is about how people try to live together at this moment in America.
(my emphasis) There are scenes that at first seem to have little to do with the story's main lines. A school board meeting, for example, at which parents argue about textbooks (and are really arguing about whose view of Texas history will prevail).
Scenes involving the African-American colonel (Joe Morton) in charge of the local Army base, whose father was Big Otis, owner of the bar.
Another scene involving a young black woman, an Army private, whose interview with her commanding officer reveals a startling insight into why people enlist in the Army. And conversations between Sheriff Deeds and old widows with long memories. "
"by the end of the film, we know something about how people have lived together in this town, and what it has cost them. "
""Lone Star" is a great American movie, one of the few to seriously try to regard with open eyes the way we live now. Set in a town that until very recently was rigidly segregated, it shows how Chicanos, blacks, whites and Indians shared a common history, and how they knew one another and dealt with one another in ways that were off the official map. This film is a wonder the best work yet by one of our most original and independent filmmakers and after it isover, and you begin to think about it, its meanings begin to flower."
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
Byzantine15 — 16 years ago(September 27, 2009 12:45 PM)
With all due respect to the OP, it seems you were looking for something a little more simple in terms of what it was trying to say. When the credits roll, we could come to the conclusion that the film was about history (personal or collective, old or new). The murder/love story may have been merely the 'parable' with which these ideas were dramatized. A common theme in the plot and subplots is a softening of a previously stubborn and unaccommodating philosophy or attitude. Sam seemed intent on demonizing his father, until he learns that Buddy was just an imperfect man. The colonel begins to show a new found tolerance when he lectures the girl who tested positive, and gradually takes on a new attitude towards his son and father. Mercedes begins to lighten up on her 'law and order' mentality towards illegal immigrants. If you're perceptive to that theme, none of the side stories are in any way redundant.
"By God, I heard the crow call my name!" exclaimed Caw. -
KazKazui — 10 years ago(December 19, 2015 12:04 PM)
I think the whole story about Payne, Otis and the grandson should be cut. The whole time I thought this would lead to something, it didn't. That soapy family darma was there for nothing, it added nothing to the story. Also the drug addicted female soldier. Payne as a character and the whole army stuff was there fot nothing. The two army guys who found the body would have been enough. And yes, Otis was more or less important, but not more than Hollis, and we learnt almost nothing about Hollis while we got Otis full family backstory. It just makes no sense. Maybe Sams ex-wife also was not neccessary, but it was such a minor scene that it was okay. Other then that, the film was not great in my opinion, but pretty good.
-
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 10 years ago(March 04, 2016 03:44 PM)
I think the whole story about Payne, Otis and the grandson should be cut. The whole time I thought this would lead to something, it didn't. That soapy family darma was there for nothing, it added nothing to the story.
Oh my God, the scene were Payne sees the "shrine" that his father Otis has maintained about his life, and he realizes that he has been totally wrong in assuming his father didn't care about him to me that is one of the most moving scenes in the film.
Also the drug addicted female soldier.
That is important too. Just had Payne had rigid views about his father which he had to reexamine, he had rigid views about what his son should do with his life go into the Army like he had. The scene where he talks to the female soldier makes him realize that the Army is not for everybody, leading him to assure his son that it's OK if he chooses another path. The way the son swallows and says, "really?" another moving scene.
I also felt the scene with Sam's ex-wife was very necessary, to show how mismatched they were. Made me realize that when he couldn't have Pilar, he didn't give a beep who he married, and accepted he would not be in love.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
Chief_Watches-Many — 15 years ago(July 02, 2010 06:32 PM)
Just seen this and disagree with the OP.
I thought this film was fantastic.
My TV, Films & Stand-Up -
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur11529350/boards/profile -
Kroyall1962 — 15 years ago(January 01, 2011 08:32 PM)
I agree the movie has too many sub-plots. I find Sayle's films interesting but he has a tendency to throw in characters and plot lines that interrupt the flow of the story. He did the same thing in "Limbo". Numerous characters and sub-plots are introduced and then are abruptly dropped with no explanation or resolution. Why elicit an emotional investment within the viewer in a particular storyline and then have the entire narrative disappear?
I don't buy Ebert's explanation, this film lacked focus. Of course a left winger like him would enjoy sub-plots having to do with America's supposedly racist past, that doesn't make the movie any better. Just when you are getting into the main storyline, you are taken out of it again with a propaganda break featuring 1 inch deep characters and wooden performances. I knew what these idiots were going to say before they said it. The Sheriff Wade character couldn't have been more cliched if they tried. -
Kroyall1962 — 15 years ago(January 02, 2011 08:55 AM)
The main storyline was the body in the desert and his father's involvement in it. The romance with his sister sort of ties in because it reveals his father is not quite the man he was told he was. The rest of it was extraneous nonsense that detracts from the story.
-
chester-copperpot-1 — 15 years ago(January 02, 2011 12:24 PM)
No, that's where you are wrong. The body in the desert is the mere "in" into this story, it's not the main storyline, only the beginning of a much larger drama. It's only a skeleton, both literally and figuratively, to hang the stories on to.
Try to imagine this film in your way, where the body in the desert
is
the main storyline, and the rest is just "extranous nonsense". What movie would you have then? And what would that film tell? How much would be left? Enough for a fifty minute episode of Agatha Christies "Poirot"? A whodunnit, English cottage style? -
denham — 12 years ago(January 21, 2014 09:26 AM)
Did they need a new jail? Well, it's a complicated issue
Of course the many strands entwining through this film are not least why it's a good film. However, I agree with the OP on the narrower point that it would have benefitted from a little more tightness in the scripting - the Bunny scene and the excursus on Black Seminoles being two examples.
"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken." -
aGuiltySoul — 15 years ago(January 02, 2011 07:02 PM)
I believe you might have mistaken this film for a typical whodunit. But what this film actually is, is a psychological study of Sam (Chris Cooper) as well as his community, the people and circumstances that have led up to this moment and the type of man he has become. As the sheriff we first meet him trying to solve a crime committed a long time ago, and it is indeed the vehicle that pushes the plot along, but it is how the investigation wraps around his life, and what we learn of it, that is the true story.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul." -
Kroyall1962 — 15 years ago(January 02, 2011 08:23 PM)
I understand what the director was trying to do. The result was a whodunit with a twist about a brother and sister being lovers. That plot alone was more than enough to drive the film. The other characters were not compelling and detracted from the story.
Had they been compelling, it would have been equally annoying because you would end up wanting to know more about them. You don't throw the kitchen sink into a film for no good reason. The goal of the film is one thing, the actual result is another. There is a reason that most directors don't make films like this. They understand it doesn't work. Some people liked it and accept the explanation from the director, I don't. -
aGuiltySoul — 15 years ago(January 02, 2011 08:49 PM)
WHOA! Besides being a person who gives a major spoiler away, I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that is the point of the story.
It's a climaxing moment, the final piece of a large, complex puzzle. This is, in part, the story of two interdependent communities and the parallel existence they have lived over time. Primarly, this is Sam's story and he is firmly rooted into those communities. We watch and listen as he traces his life through all of the surrounding characters. All of whom I found very compelling.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul." -
jimking-2 — 14 years ago(March 23, 2012 08:13 PM)
A person ought to be able to fix a snack, walk the dog, take a bathroom break and a few phone calls without losing track of the plot.
Too much going on in this movie!
Seriously, I consider this a classic, in my top 10.