Film four -- Urban Legends
Sep. 21st, 2006 01:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI try to avoid slamming films, or books, or people unreservedly. It can be very funny, and satisfying, and very occasionally effective, but I always think "What if they could see this?" and try to be nice. However, the first film I wanted to comment on I will anyway.
I envisage an initial planning meeting that went like this:
SCENE: A BOARDROOM
Chairman: We need to make a punchy film! Exciting, and appealing to the new web 2.0 generation of kids.
New guy: Ooh, ooh, I know! Pick me! It should be a thriller about urban legends!
THE END
What, you expected more? Well, exactly -- the way I see it, the lack of anything more was exactly the problem. It was indeed about urban legends. And it just about managed to be a bit scary sometimes. I was going to praise one scene, but then remembered that was in a different movie. Nevermind.
I totally failed to notice or care about any of the characters at all. As I recall, one was a smarmy male journalist, one was a dick, a couple were supposed to be women in tight sweaters, one was a medium-large black woman no-one ever spoke to. Oh, and the university authorities were autharitarian. Various people were cross with various other people for flirting with each other, but it wasn't clear who was going out with whom, or if they should be, or if anyone had any genuine emotions or just behaved like automata.
There were reenactments of urban legends which acted out the story but comprehensively missed why they were interesting or creepy in the first place. Anything is scary if it might kill you, but it's creepy only if you're worrying about it first.
There were a couple of twsists at the end, where it was revealed which of the characters was the killer, and when someone turned out not to be dead after all but be hiding behind them (pointed up with skillful dramatic irony when someone says "If this were a movie, I wonder if the twist would turn out to be them still alive and hiding behind us"). But since I didn't care already, I wasn't especially shocked by the twist. I think someone died for good at the end, but I can't remember which -- I may have got bored at this time.
So, sorry, director/writer!
However, it does illustrate an interesting point. Some works need a background knowledge of the genre to be enjoyed -- you need to be used to conventions to follow them, and practiced at holding complex plots in your head, and this often lets them support a better work eg. good books.
Some works are easily accessible, but seem formulaic and painfully simplistic if you're used to the genre. Eg. Harry Potter, Robert Jordan, superhero comics. When you're introduced to fiction, they're wonderful, they contain all of the great things you love fiction for. But once you've read them, they're not sustainable.
Some works are both. Eg. Ender's Game, Winnie-the-Pooh. OK, I'm exagarating. And it depends what metagenres you're used to. But works easily accessible, but gaining more levels the longer you spend looking at them, and consuming lots of attention by literate people :)
Some works are neither. This film wouldn't mean much if you hadn't seen a thriller before, but if you're looking for a standard thriller to sustain your diet until the next masterwork, I can't see you not getting bored either. Am I being too harsh to something some people no doubt love because I just don't understand it? Maybe, I'll let you know.
I envisage an initial planning meeting that went like this:
SCENE: A BOARDROOM
Chairman: We need to make a punchy film! Exciting, and appealing to the new web 2.0 generation of kids.
New guy: Ooh, ooh, I know! Pick me! It should be a thriller about urban legends!
THE END
What, you expected more? Well, exactly -- the way I see it, the lack of anything more was exactly the problem. It was indeed about urban legends. And it just about managed to be a bit scary sometimes. I was going to praise one scene, but then remembered that was in a different movie. Nevermind.
I totally failed to notice or care about any of the characters at all. As I recall, one was a smarmy male journalist, one was a dick, a couple were supposed to be women in tight sweaters, one was a medium-large black woman no-one ever spoke to. Oh, and the university authorities were autharitarian. Various people were cross with various other people for flirting with each other, but it wasn't clear who was going out with whom, or if they should be, or if anyone had any genuine emotions or just behaved like automata.
There were reenactments of urban legends which acted out the story but comprehensively missed why they were interesting or creepy in the first place. Anything is scary if it might kill you, but it's creepy only if you're worrying about it first.
There were a couple of twsists at the end, where it was revealed which of the characters was the killer, and when someone turned out not to be dead after all but be hiding behind them (pointed up with skillful dramatic irony when someone says "If this were a movie, I wonder if the twist would turn out to be them still alive and hiding behind us"). But since I didn't care already, I wasn't especially shocked by the twist. I think someone died for good at the end, but I can't remember which -- I may have got bored at this time.
So, sorry, director/writer!
However, it does illustrate an interesting point. Some works need a background knowledge of the genre to be enjoyed -- you need to be used to conventions to follow them, and practiced at holding complex plots in your head, and this often lets them support a better work eg. good books.
Some works are easily accessible, but seem formulaic and painfully simplistic if you're used to the genre. Eg. Harry Potter, Robert Jordan, superhero comics. When you're introduced to fiction, they're wonderful, they contain all of the great things you love fiction for. But once you've read them, they're not sustainable.
Some works are both. Eg. Ender's Game, Winnie-the-Pooh. OK, I'm exagarating. And it depends what metagenres you're used to. But works easily accessible, but gaining more levels the longer you spend looking at them, and consuming lots of attention by literate people :)
Some works are neither. This film wouldn't mean much if you hadn't seen a thriller before, but if you're looking for a standard thriller to sustain your diet until the next masterwork, I can't see you not getting bored either. Am I being too harsh to something some people no doubt love because I just don't understand it? Maybe, I'll let you know.