Movies that are too weird for their own good. (1 Viewer)

[Frank@N]

I've seen a few movies lately that seem too weird for their own good.

By weird, I mean sufficiently detached from reality so as to prevent believability and frustrate many viewers.

Oddly enough, all three contained Luke Wilson...

Bottle Rocket (1996)
Home Fries (1998)
Royal Tenenbaums, The (2001)

I actually tried to sell 'Home Fries' back (something I very rarely do), but most stores refuse to accept it.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I really can't think of any for the moment, but I can honestly say that David Lynch hasn't made a film like that (or at least ones that I've seen). His execution may be highly stylized and weird, but the basic principles and concepts behind his stories aren't exactly hard to decipher.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I can't think of any of the top of my head. But any movie that goes beyond it's realm of believability does this for me. For example Star Wars, now there is a lot that they can do that we 'believe' to be able to exist in their world. But if Star Wars 3 comes out, and Obi Wan just starts flying like superman, well that would be stupid.

There are movies that do this all the time. They have a fine movie until some damn dumb thing happens that shouldn't be in that story.

 

[Jason Boucher]

I can't tell if you guys are speaking tongue in cheek. David Lynch not hard to decipher? What about Yoda flying around! Now I'm not condemning David Lynch or George Lucas, both my favorites, but I agree that sometimes films do get a little too weird for their own good.

 

[MartinTeller]

I haven't seen Home Fries, but I can't imagine what you find "weird" or unbelievable about Bottle Rocket or Royal Tenenbaums.

The only movie offhand I can think of that I thought was "too weird for its own good" is Tetsuo: The Iron Man.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

David Lynch not hard to decipher?

I know I'm not speaking tongue-in-cheek.

As I've stated before, David Lynch's style and conventions are definitely strange, but the basic principles behind his stories are just that: basic.

Erasherhead = nightmares and unexplainable things

Blue Velvet = mystery

Mullholand Drive = a girl in search of Hollywood dreams

Don't forget, this is a guy that can write the f word all he wants in his scripts, but he has difficulty saying it. I guess he remembers being an Eagle scout.

Don't get me wrong. I like David Lynch. He's a good filmmaker.

 

[Steve Christou]

David Lynch's Eraserhead, still the weirdest, strangest movie ever made.

 

[Steve Christou]

Just like to add Tetsuo: Body Hammer (1991) to the list of super-weird, a sequel of sorts to the already mentioned Tetsuo: Iron Man (1989).

 

[BarryS]

By weird, I mean sufficiently detached from reality so as to prevent believability and frustrate many viewers.

What is frustrating about a movie that is unconventional and out of the ordinary? That's one of the best things that a movie can be, in my opinion. If you want ordinary, compromising films that take no risks, then just watch a mainstream Hollywood movie. I prefer movies with more creativity and imagination than that.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Very creative, interesting, but just too weird and out there for me to enjoy it.

 

[george kaplan]

Well I do think that Blue Velvet is too weird for it's own good, though perhaps not in the sense of preventing believability or being difficult to decipher. I didn't find Blue Velvet to have anything where I thought "that would never happen, how unrealistic". Rather, I found him as a filmmaker focusing on something weird, that didn't serve the mystery, or the movie except to try to be weird. And for me, that kept the film from ending up on my shelf.

 

[MartinTeller]

The weirdness in Blue Velvet very much serves a purpose. It amplifies the disorientation Jeffrey feels in the situation he's gotten himself into. It's an Alice-in-Wonderland kind of thing.

In my opinion, Eraserhead is only impenetrable to those who try to take it too literally. I believe the movie acts mostly as a template for the viewer's imagination and fears. It lets you (and makes you) decide what it's about for yourself.

 

[TheLongshot]

I was going to mention "Fear And Loathing", since I just watched it a couple of nights ago again, and still didn't quite "get" it.

I think I'll also put "Joe Verses The Volcano" here as well...

Jason

 

[Dan Lindley]

How about Jacob's Ladder? I like the film and saw it a few times before buying the DVD, but there is something a little too odd about it. That said, Blue Velvet is perfect by me. And Fear and Loathing is a far wierder book than a movie because the movie tries to translate crazy scenes into something on screen. Oddly, reading things like the White Rabbit scene in the bathtub is far more real than watching them.

Does anyone else feel that way, that some books read far better than the movie? In some cases, books invite far more reality and suspension of disbelief than movies.

Might it be books that could be real, but aren't like Fear and Loathing? And what of Lord of the Rings and such fantasy... do movies dampen or enhance the experience for such?

Great thread.

DL

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Steven Soderbergh's Schizopolis

Early Cronenberg? Most of David Lynch's stuff. Just about ALL of Peter Greenaway's stuff. Lotsa Ken Russell flicks. Gregg Araki's junk. The Raimi/Coen combo Crimewave.

Being John Malkovich
City of Lost Children/Delicatessen

(Not commenting on the quality of these films (aside from Araki), just the weirdness.)

 

[Lawrence X]

I was going to mention "Fear And Loathing", since I just watched it a couple of nights ago again, and still didn't quite "get" it.

I thought the same thing the first time I saw it (along with other Terry Gillium movies) which is why Gillium movies seem to have so much more replayability than almost anything else. Though I will say that if you've never been deep into the drug culture you'll probably never "get" F&LILV.

Gillium is SUCH a genius - it's just astounding that he can't get financing on his film projects.

 

[Terry St]

Go watch "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", a couple Fellinni flicks like "Roma" or "8-1/2", Cronenberg's "Naked Lunch" and Seijun Suzuki's "Tokyo Drifter". Even Eraserhead fans will be wierded out by something in this list. I have to agree that Greenaway has made some pretty crazy stuff too, like "Prospero's Books". (an adaptation of the Tempest that *badly* needs to be released on DVD!!) Most of the other movies mentioned are just not wierd enough to even be considered "wierd". I'm sorry. A lot of you guys need to get away from Hollywood movies for a bit to get some perspective.

"Too wierd for their own good?"

Hell no! Wierd is good! Sgulp!

 

[MatS]

I've seen a few movies lately that seem too weird for their own good. By weird, I mean sufficiently detached from reality so as to prevent believability and frustrate many viewers.

Bottle Rocket (1996)
Royal Tenenbaums, The (2001)

try giving Rushmore a try....it's like Star Wars

 

[Joe Schwartz]

Liquid Sky was too weird for me. One viewing was more than enough.

 

[MartinTeller]

Heh, I love Liquid Sky! And Greenaway! And F&LILV is not at all weird if you've read (and understood) the book.

I guess I just see weirdness as a good quality. I might agree that City of Lost Children is too weird for its own good. Not that it's "too weird" in general, just that the weirdness seems forced.