28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Irish]

It seems obvious to me that both of these things can be true:

• A lack of plot holes doesn't make a movie better.
• Plot holes can detract from a movie.

Quibble on the first point: If I'm not sitting there second guessing the story then that's a sign the script was well written and that's a sign it's a "good movie," at least for me.

[Irish]

But when people call movies authentic or visceral, they're usually talking about elements like the tone or the aesthetics of the overall experience, and not the underlying logic of their plots, and I see a lot of people ignoring strong underlying craft to criticize movies solely because of "plot holes", even if those movies do adhere to a certain consistent internal logic, like the aforementioned Quiet Place... but, even if they don't adhere to any sort of internal logic at all, the presence of plot holes still isn't an element that fundamentally makes what would've been a good movie bad, just like their absence isn't something that makes a bad movie good (otherwise, filling in all the holes in Batman Vs. Superman would make it good, which definitely isn't happening).

Authenticity is a euphemism for truth --- ie, the work in question is "logically" consistent in voice and story.

I wouldn't use the "Quiet Place" as an example of consistent internal logic. Apocalyptic stories invite the reader or viewer to project themselves into the story, to imagine what they would do in similar circumstances. That's part of the fun. But when we do that, we naturally second guess the world and the characters. "Quiet Place" isn't consistent because it sacrifices detail to arrive at its set pieces. I think that's perfectly allowable; the movie is really about its big action beats. It isn't so concerned about world building because it wants the audience to enjoy the tension around Emily Blunt in the bath tub or those kids in the grain silo.

Who cares about the nail on the stairs or the mysteriously quiet baby?

PS: The opening of "Chinatown" isn't a plot hole. You might find it implausible (I don't) but implausibility isn't quite the same as a logical gap in the plot. There is a major plot hole around Ida Sessions, the secretary character, much later in the film, but it doesn't matter because nobody ever notices.

[megladon8]

Quibble on the first point: If I'm not sitting there second guessing the story then that's a sign the script was well written and that's a sign it's a "good movie," at least for me.

How about if the script was well written but the movie surrounding it was garbage?

[Irish]

How about if the script was well written but the movie surrounding it was garbage?

Got an example?

I don't think I've ever seen a movie that had a great script but was trashed by other choices.

[MadMan]

Truth!

If it wasn't true, MC wouldn't love Torque!

Torque is big dumb fun.

[StuSmallz]

Yeah, we are done here.

...okay, we're done.

[

Show Spoiler

In all seriousness though, I got a bit too wrapped up in the debate there, and took the "someone who didn't care about plot holes" comment a bit too seriously, so my apologies on that point.

]

It seems obvious to me that both of these things can be true:

• A lack of plot holes doesn't make a movie better.
• Plot holes can detract from a movie.

But I'm not trying to say that films are never improved by having logical plots, or that plot holes can't hurt movies at all (although like I said, either one can depend on whether or not the hole is necessary in order to provoke a greater emotional response within us); what I'm saying is that plot holes on their own are not the sort of thing that can solely determine whether a movie is good or not, which is the kind of argument that I'm seeing increasingly more and more of online in an era where CinemaSins has over 8 million subscribers (ugh). Even in something like Prometheus, one of the most nonsensical films I've seen in recent years (to the point that it's become sort of famous for not making sense), even if you fixed/explained every single hole in that film, that still wouldn't fundamentally make it a good movie, because it would still be a pretty but functionally generic Sci-Fi/Horror movie with broadly-sketched characters that I don't care about because it's clear that they're there to simply be Xenomorph fodder, with an unearned sense of self-importance due to the shallow lip service it pays to greater themes, and the way it tries to coast off of an unnecessary connection to an actual great film series (at least, it was for the first two movies), because those are the actual, crippling flaws of Prometheus, not the quibbles about the plot. If it was actually scary or awe-inspiring on the whole, I would've been able to forgive it every single one of its plot holes to one extent or another, because of the visceral response it could've inspired in me otherwise, but that effect was not fundamentally there, so that's why I didn't care for it... not because the plot didn't make sense, which is just a symptom of bad filmmaking, not the actual cause.

[megladon8]

Got an example?

I don't think I've ever seen a movie that had a great script but was trashed by other choices.

Honestly, no.

[Irish]

So the podcast has (somehow) got a meager enough attention to start getting screeners and premiere tickets from smaller film companies. I'm tickled pink about it. Also, after one screener, I felt the need to tell them that if we had a negative review, we would just withhold reviewing it. I feel its a promotional thing, we're at the bottom, I want to keep these minor perks coming. I flat out refuse to put out fake positive reviews.

My question is...integrity compromised or acceptable trade-off for free shit? Keep in mind this is just small companies that most likely even you guys have never heard of, and I would not do the same if one day (haha yeah right, but hell, never thought even this would happen so who knows) someone like a WB or Paramount or one of the bigs put us on a screener list.

Wanted to rescue this from the Random thread.

Obviously, do whatever you think is right but from my experience (1) you're under no obligation to tell them anything and (2) once you're on these distribution lists you'll stay on them forever, so don't worry about it. Anybody who limits access because of the content of your reviews is somebody you can write off and laugh about.

That said, you'll get more attention if everything you do is positive and promotional. Follow John Squires on twitter. He's the editor of Bloody Disgusting (yeah, I know) and he's relentlessly positive in promoting stuff he believes in. He simply doesn't talk about movies he doesn't like, unless they're extremely high profile. Even then, he'll find a way to put a shine on a negative take.

If you're looking for mass appeal, you'll learn a lot from how he talks & tweets.

[Skitch]

Anybody who limits access because of the content of your reviews is somebody you can write off and laugh about.

I agree. I just hate when I see nothing but positive reviews for shitty movies, from sources trying to get quotes on dvd covers and free stuff.

That said, you'll get more attention if everything you do is positive and promotional. Follow John Squires on twitter. He's the editor of Bloody Disgusting (yeah, I know) and he's relentlessly positive in promoting stuff he believes in. He simply doesn't talk about movies he doesn't like, unless they're extremely high profile. Even then, he'll find a way to put a shine on a negative take.

If you're looking for mass appeal, you'll learn a lot from how he talks & tweets.

*thinks for a bit* You know what? I am...not. Its a Bloody Disgusting rep I'm trying to avoid. That may work for them for a year or two, but after a while who the hell is gonna care what you say about anything? We were previously involved with one of their contributors, and it was infuriating how absolutely anything they got sent got high praise, even if it was absolute garbage. Thats the line I don't want to cross, I'd rather have some credibility (says the guy that would happily suck off the film The Stuff at any time of day).

I don't mind championing a shitty movie, but we won't do it if we don't actually think it.

[Irish]

I just hate when I see nothing but positive reviews for shitty movies, from sources trying to get quotes on dvd covers and free stuff

Oh yeah. I'm not suggesting you become a junket whore. There's a promotional aspect to the main horror sites (Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, Daily Dead) that's really pretty gross.

But I think you can talk about the stuff you like and ignore the stuff you don't in a way that doesn't make you an out-and-out shill.

Two more recs: Dave Wain (owns a video store, collects schlock horror VOD movies) and Jayson Kennedy (rabid VHS collector, repairs and maintains old VCRs for the helluva it).

These guys do what they do for the love of it and don't care about mass appeal.

Anyway, congrats on the screener thing. Won't be long before you're attending press screenings and contributing to Rotten Tomatoes!

[Peng]

The Cannes Film Festival is rapidly assembling a contingency plan to keep the festival going.

A spokesperson for the festival told Variety on Wednesday that preparations are being made to down-size the event and limit audiences in auditoriums and other festival venues — a strategy that could help the event get around a ban that restricts gatherings to 1,000 people. While this current ban is set to expire on April 15, Cannes is preparing for a scenario in which it is maintained.

One option is to limit seating in the main auditorium where gala world premieres are hosted. The venue boasts 853 seats in its orchestra and an additional 1,456 seats on its balcony.

However, Cannes’ optimism could be short-lived if the country is placed in quarantine, as is the case in Italy. France’s president Emmanuel Macron will be making a televised speech on Thursday evening to address coronavirus concerns and possibly announce new measures.

My mental image reading this is Jaws' first half where the mayor tries to keep the beach open despite the shark.

[MadMan]

For some reason or another Bloody Disgusting follows me on Twitter. Also I guess I try to see the good in most movies unless they are complete shit or morally questionable. I tend to be really selective about what I watch and listen to these days.

[StuSmallz]

Quibble on the first point: If I'm not sitting there second guessing the story then that's a sign the script was well written and that's a sign it's a "good movie," at least for me.

I would say that it can be one indication of a good film, but not the fundamental reason why the film is ultimately good or not.

Authenticity is a euphemism for truth --- ie, the work in question is "logically" consistent in voice and story.

I wouldn't use the "Quiet Place" as an example of consistent internal logic. Apocalyptic stories invite the reader or viewer to project themselves into the story, to imagine what they would do in similar circumstances. That's part of the fun. But when we do that, we naturally second guess the world and the characters. "Quiet Place" isn't consistent because it sacrifices detail to arrive at its set pieces. I think that's perfectly allowable; the movie is really about its big action beats. It isn't so concerned about world building because it wants the audience to enjoy the tension around Emily Blunt in the bath tub or those kids in the grain silo.

Who cares about the nail on the stairs or the mysteriously quiet baby?

PS: The opening of "Chinatown" isn't a plot hole. You might find it implausible (I don't) but implausibility isn't quite the same as a logical gap in the plot. There is a major plot hole around Ida Sessions, the secretary character, much later in the film, but it doesn't matter because nobody ever notices.

But I've never seen anyone call a movie authentic because the underlying logic of the plot was consistent, so could you give me an example to illustrate? Not trying to argue this, I'm just genuinely curious on this point. As for A Quiet Place​, the baby did make some noise at certain points (that the rest of the family muffled in various ways), the nail thing is understandable because the mother probably just assumed that the bag had gotten caught on the edge of the step, and I do think the film's internal logic is more consistent then it's often given credit for, like when people unfairly trying to poke holes by working backwards from the conclusion, and ask [

Show Spoiler

"If the answer to defeating the monsters is high-pitched noises, then why did no one else try it before them?", as opposed to the real question to ask in that scenario, which is, if there are completely alien, incredibly deadly monsters everywhere that you know next-to-nothing about, then why on Earth would you make any sort of noise, high-pitched or otherwise, and risk immediately drawing them to your location, insuring a sure death for you in the process?

]

I also think that the world-building of the film is underrated as well, as they thought of all these solutions for living in a silent, post-apocalyptic world (the sand everywhere, of course, but also the solar panels for power, and the quiet box to put the baby in), but, at any rate, going by definitions by more objective sources, as well as by everyday applications by multiple individuals, I see implausibilities automatically get clustered underneath the overall umbrella of "plot hole" constantly, so I have to consider them part of that family, if, for no other reason, that just about everyone else is already doing so. Anyway, while I've never noticed any other holes in Chinatown, whatever it is, I automatically agree with you that it doesn't really matter (but then again, you already knew I was going to say that : D ) but just out of curiosity, what is it?

[StuSmallz]

Got an example?

I don't think I've ever seen a movie that had a great script but was trashed by other choices.

Are you sure about that? Because directorial choices made during the translation from page to screen can absolutely make or break a film; admittedly, it doesn't seem to happen very often, as good screenplays seem to attract good directors to them (naturally), but I can still think of plenty of well-written screenplays that were sunk by ill-fitting or lackluster stylistic decisions made by the director. Take Hell Or High Water, for instance; now, on a writing level, Taylor Sheridan's screenplay seemed quite good given what I saw in the final product, and almost every other aspect of the film (like the performances) were good as well, and it should've been at least a good movie on the whole, if not a great one, but David Mackenzie's direction of it was just so flat and even on the whole that it held the film back from fulfilling its full potential, and even a scene where a bank robber unloads a machine gun on a posse of pursuing trucks had no more tension and excitement to it than any random scene of dialogue, due to the lackluster direction of it (which is a big part of the reason why Wind River was my favorite of the "Frontier Trilogy", because Sheridan's direction of it some actual, engaging style to it).

Contrast that with something like No Country For Old Men (which HoHW pretty obviously took after), which is a movie that only differs from the book in terms of a few very minor omissions/alterations, but is still so much more haunting, memorable, and ultimately better than the novel due to its incredible sense of style, not because the Coens did anything flashy with their direction of it, but simply because they took the sparse, underwhelming prowse of the source material, and, of their own volition, created a stark contrast of near-complete silences that seem to stretch out into eternity, until they're abruptly shattered by the sudden, bloody outbursts of violence, while also letting Roger Deakins work his magic with plenty of extended shots of the gargantuan landscapes, taking the time to establish the desolate atmosphere of the Texas plains with their filmmaking that McCarthy didn't with his writing, and all of that is due to the style they choose to apply to the film, which is the biggest reason why that film was so great, IMO.

[Skitch]

But I think you can talk about the stuff you like and ignore the stuff you don't in a way that doesn't make you an out-and-out shill.

Okay. Good. This is what I wanted to hear.

Anyway, congrats on the screener thing. Won't be long before you're attending press screenings and contributing to Rotten Tomatoes!

Thanks! And lol, I doubt that, but ya never know...never thought this silliness would last this long in the first place.

[Skitch]

For some reason or another Bloody Disgusting follows me on Twitter. Also I guess I try to see the good in most movies unless they are complete shit or morally questionable. I tend to be really selective about what I watch and listen to these days.

Bloody Disgusting is a blog. A fancy blog that literally anyone can contribute to. They designed it that way to get free writers to snag the occasional monkey-typewriter magic collection of phrases to appeal to whatever shitty horror movie is coming out this week and needs a comment on the cover attributed to "Bloggy Disgusting". I see it as a scam.

[Ivan Drago]

I agree. I just hate when I see nothing but positive reviews for shitty movies, from sources trying to get quotes on dvd covers and free stuff.

I know, right? It's almost as if you personally know someone who falls for them all the time.

[Ivan Drago]

Bloody Disgusting is a blog. A fancy blog that literally anyone can contribute to. They designed it that way to get free writers to snag the occasional monkey-typewriter magic collection of phrases to appeal to whatever shitty horror movie is coming out this week and needs a comment on the cover attributed to "Bloggy Disgusting". I see it as a scam.

Eh, they produce their own movies through Music Box Films, and sometimes ask for press to cover their theatrical releases on Twitter, so that's why I follow their editor-in-chief (when my account is active BTW). I loved a horror film they presented last year (Hagazussa) and was really disappointed to have missed out on their call for reviews of it.

[transmogrifier]

Korean cinemas seem to be scratching for things to show because of the pandemic, thus there are a fewer older movies being shown in multiplexes this week:

Schindler's List
Memento
Heat
Carol
Her
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Taken
Get Out
The Wolf of Wall Street
Spotlight
Fate of the Furious
John Wick
Green Book
A Star is Born
About Time
Harry Potter 3
Memories of Murder
Roma

Definitely going to Schindler's List.

[megladon8]

I Married a Witch remains one of my very favorites.

Think I have to push it into my top 20.

[Skitch]

Man, Heat would be great.

[megladon8]

1937's Nothing Sacred is brilliant. Smart, witty writing and performances, some beautiful and creative camerawork, and it is a surreal delight getting to see March and Lombarde in colour in their prime.

The only downside I could see in the whole film was some very uncomfortable racism. Which, yes, it's a pretty big downside. But hot damn was this a great movie.

I can see myself wanting to watch this many, many times.

The two knockout punches were hilarious stuff that could never, ever happen today.

[Skitch]

If Brightburn is "what if Superman were evil?", then Freaks is "what if the x-men were insanely overpowered?" Its too slow in the first half when they're trying to throw the audience off, but by the half way mark they tell you wtf is going on and it is awesome from then on. I recommend it. On Netflix.

[megladon8]

Rewatching Blue Velvet for the first time in 15+ years reinforced my opinion that Mulholland Dr. is Lynch's best

[Skitch]

Rewatching Blue Velvet for the first time in 15+ years reinforced my opinion that Mulholland Dr. is Lynch's best

I still need to see Blue Velvet and Eraserhead. I've owned both for years. Need to get on that.