Good movies that go wrong! (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

I'll go with Event Horizon. It had such a great basic idea, but nothing was done with it and it just ended up being a weak remake of other stuff.

 

[Nick Sievers]

The Contender, comes to mind for me right away. I was really enjoying it up until that really BAD speech by Jeff Bridges at the end. For me, it tarnished a very good drama.

 

[Andy Olivera]

"They must have done something to us." and then something like "Yeah, I think they did." Unbearable crap, as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed; forgot about that. Man, even in his greatest film Cameron can't write believable dialogue.

 

[Paul_D]

RE Minority Report

I'll go with Minority Report too, an excellent SF thriller until the last half hour when it just seemed to fizzle out, shame.

Steve, are you aware of the 'hidden' ending? If not, check out the official discussion thread. It'll open you eyes! (pun intended)

 

[MichaelAW]

What hidden ending of Minority Report? Just put it in a spoiler tag, rather than have us go digging through a long thread for it (which I was a part of, and don't remember seeing).

 

[Paul_D]

The film essentially ends with Anderton going into the prison. Everything afterwards is his fantasy. The break occurs with the shot of John, in a suspended state. It then cuts to the scene in Burgess's office. Everything from this point is perfect. His wife discovers he is the killer. Frees John with minimal effort, sets up Lamar's public 'outing' as the killer', and in the climax, Lamar shoots himself. Precrime is decommissioned, the precogs are freed, and John and Lara have another child. It's perfect. A total tonal shift from everything that has gone before it in the film.
There are 3 distinct moments when this fantasy ending is revealed:
1) Drug dealer. "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king." He's in the land of the blind (the prison), and he only has one eye (the spider destroyed his left eye, which was forshadowed by the shadow cast over his left eye as he's talking to the drug dealer at the beginning), thus he is king (he can decide what happens in his own private world)
2) Prison warden, first visit. "They look peaceful don't know. But in here (pointing at head), busy, busy, busy."
3) Prison warden, second visit. "You're part of my flock now John.... They say it's a rush. They say your life flashes before your eyes, that all your dreams come true."
Obviously, like Blade Runner and Total Recall, the ending can be taken as fact - the happier version. But it's far more satisfying, and far more consistent with the mood and message of the rest of the film, to treat John's incarceration as the actual ending. Everything else is futile fantasy.
Any ambiguity, which isn't a bad thing IMO, was dispelled when Spielberg himself commented that this is his first truly horrific ending.

 

[Steve Christou]

That's very interesting Paul, now I wonder what Spielberg, Cruise and the screenwriter would make of this interpretation of the ending.
ps. Now I can appreciate why you loved the 'Total Recall was all just a dream" thing.
pps. Here's a good one, Neo finds that his adventures in the Matrix were all really a drug induced dream within a dream, interesting eh?

 

[Paul_D]

That's very interesting Paul, now I wonder what Spielberg, Cruise and the screenwriter would make of this interpretation of the ending.

Spielberg's on record confirming that it is a dream. Really enhances the film.

 

[SteveGon]

I would say it does! I had heard this interpretation of the ending before but wasn't aware that Spielberg had confirmed it as being the real one. Or is he just taking advantage of it? Sorry, the cynic in me just had to say that! Anyway, I'll have to check Minority Report out again though I do want to say that the ending wasn't the only problem I had with it.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread...

 

[Michael*K]

Where exactly did Spielberg confirm this or was it just a rumor started by someone? It's like me confirming that Albert Einstein said 2+2=5.

 

[Paul_D]

It's like me confirming that Albert Einstein said 2+2=5.

Bad comparison.
p.s. Steve, sorry for derailing the thread.

 

[Paul Richardson]

Here is how Fallen cheats:
The narrator is Denzel Washington, telling us about the night he "almost died." Fair enough. Of course, the twist at the end is that it's not John Hobbes (the character Washington plays for most of the movie) narrating, it's Azazel. But Azazel's narration shouldn't be in Washington's voice at all since by that point he's no longer inhabiting Washington's body. If anything, it should be a series of purrs and meows.
It's a cheat because it's a logical inconsistancy used to trick the audience. The twist would have been fine had Azazel still been in John Hobbes's body.
As for Contact, I "got" the ending, I just felt it lacked the imagination and wonder of the two hours that preceded it.

 

[Leila Dougan]

Paul, thanks for posting the meaning of the ending. It certainly does change things quite a bit. I guess I'm just not fond of the execution of the ending. I remember sitting there in the theater thinking to myself "my god, I'm bored out of my skull and I want to go home". I liked it up until it hit the last 1/3 of the movie. Call me dense, I just didn't get it and quite frankly I'm not sure how many other people did either (not here at HTF but the public in general).

 

[Steve Christou]

Paul, I still think the ending was naff whichever way you see it.
'Brazil' had a similar sort of 'happy ending' if you remember, which the film's producers were not happy about at all.

 

[SteveGon]

It's not only a legitimate interpretation of the film's ending, it's the only way the ending makes any sense. Why the resistance?

It may be a legitimate interpretation, but is that how is was intended by the filmmakers? If there HASN'T been a confirmation by Spielberg that the last third of Minority Report is supposed to be a dream, then I'll have to stick to my guns and say that the filmmakers failed miserably with their resolution to the story.
Okay, I'll try to get this back on track. Not that I mind where it's going, but there is already a thread dedicated to Minority Report.
I'll dig out that old chestnut Alien 3. I'm sure we all agree that the rather offhand manner in which Newt and Hicks were disposed of not only negated the emotional impact of Aliens, but starts the movie off on a sour note from which it never really recovers?

 

[Paul Richardson]

I'll agree with Alien 3. Somebody once told me that they heard about Fincher's "director's cut" which made the movie a lot better. I responded cooly that unless it brought back Hicks and Newt, this was impossible.

 

[Michael*K]

It may be a legitimate interpretation, but is that how is was intended by the filmmakers?

This is the only beef I have. Sure, Minority Report is a better film if you use Paul's theory of how the last third played out. But I'm not sure if that's the way the director wanted the film to be viewed. Same thing goes for Total Recall. I really enjoys films with dark endings, but I don't go looking for a dark side to things if it isn't already there.

 

[Paul_D]

With absolutely no knowledge of exactly what Spielberg has said about the ending of his film, I can safely say that I'd bet my life that keeping it open was his intention. It is designed to be ambiguous, i.e. an audience is left to make its own mind up. In my mind, that's even better than sticking firmly to the darker ending.

But I'm not sure if that's the way the director wanted the film to be viewed. Same thing goes for Total Recall.

Verhoenven states catagorically in the commentary that it is a dream. How's that for confirmation? The way you as a viewer see it is totally up to you.
Caring about the 'director's intentions' for the interpretation of the story as if it were the aspect ratio is foolish IMO. There's a strong movement on this forum to support only what a director believes, approves, agrees with etc. Preserving the manner in which a film is presented in its original theatrical run is one thing. Following the singular, rigid interpretation that a film-maker has for ambiguous material is quite another. If it is ambigous, then any views he expresses will more than likely be his preferred interpretation, and not the final word. Whoever said you can't have your own opinion? The filmmakers aren't idiots. If the film is ambigous, it's open to interpretation, period.

 

[JohnRice]

Why does there have to be a single, definitive, "correct" version of what "really happened" in any movie? I expect even a "Mass Market" director like Spielberg knows everyone should have their own interpretation of what is shown in the story. Viewers will always come up with angles even the director never thought of. Watch something like Open Your Eyes (far better than Vanilla Sky) or Donnie Darko and tell me what the director had in mind is all there can possibly be to it.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Why does there have to be a single, definitive, "correct" version of what "really happened" in any movie? I expect even a "Mass Market" director like Spielberg knows everyone should have their own interpretation of what is shown in the story. Viewers will always come up with angles even the director never thought of. Watch something like

Consider the many endings of CE3K. And the many, many dollars picked up along the way. Or is this just too cynical? :wink: