Support NeoGAF

[WHOAguitarninja]

hitty examples are great because they are actually STORIES, REAL ones, where SOMETHING happens. At the end of The Usual Suspects, you're left with a "This was all a dream" equivalent, where everything you witnessed was actually, in part or totally, bullshit, and NONSENSICAL bullshit, even. So what's the point in being jerked around for 2 hours, not knowing clearly is going on, only for being told later that it's bullshit?

Just to clarify, you're saying that a make beleive story is okay, because it's real, but a story in which a person in the story makes up the story, is complete bullshit?

No offense, but that's absolutely retarded logic.

I don't know why you're arguing that the "what is going on" is hard to follow. It's easy. There is no point in which I was confused the first time I watched the movie. None at all.

I like it because it's a story about a criminal mastermind sneaking right through police's fingertips, and it's told well. And it's a nice plot twist because you don't even realize that is what is happening until the very end.

And about the names...do you know who made your coffee mug? Picking obscure things from around the room is not even comparable to calling things "staples" or "McDonalds". I mean please...if you're going to try and hate the movie, atleast do it using logical reasons.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

No one is comparing the two. You completely missed the point and have apparently forgotten your first few posts in the topic.

there are a million suspense/mystery movies where the end sums up the whole movie, and you called it a cop out, like it was all a dream or something.

Have you ever seen a mystery film? Hitchcock did it a bunch, but nobody calls Rope, Vertigo, or North by Northwest crap, now do they?

North by Northwest and Vertigo made sense while you were watching them, and they weren't completely redefined by their twists. The story told during those movies were real, and therefore were not an "it was all a dream" copout. There wasn't really a "twist" in Rope, as far as I remember, and the twist in North by Northwest was revealed rather early, as the one in Vertigo. The twist in North by Northwest was far from being the important point of the story, and the Vertigo "twist" was the main psychological point of the story, and was revealed early enough to encourage reflection by the viewer.

Definition of the already VERY well known "it was all a dream" copout and its mean mean copycats :

An ending is an "it was all a dream" copout when all the story you've been told is something that has not happened, except in someone's mind. It is used, in the case of The Usual Suspects, to generate some shock and surprise to the audience, and make them THINK that they've seen something interesting, when in fact, if you took the end of the movie out, the movie would have been a complete disaster. If you take The Sixth Sense, for example, which uses a similar trick, but is an entirely superior movie (even though not the masterpiece some think it is), the movie would STILL be an entertaining horror movie without the twist, using a more conventional horror movie ending. It would not be regarded as it is today, but still, it would have been a good movie.

There are arguably two scenes worth reminding in The Usual Suspects, and these two scenes are the only ones I ever hear people talk about when they talk about the movie. Those are the ending, and the keyser soze flashback sequence, which is all shock and violence (and bullshit, in the end). The rest is pure filler.

And about the names...do you know who made your coffee mug? Picking obscure things from around the room is not even comparable to calling things "staples" or "McDonalds". I mean please...if you're going to try and hate the movie, atleast do it using logical reasons.

And... what was the point of using those names to generate a story? Why not come up with some names you just invent? Just to leave a notice to the policemen saying "Hey, I just told you bullshit!"? Give em some chance of finding out you didn't tell the truth?

Their argumentative skills are depressing?

Aren't YOU the one who said it's story was too hard to follow but then turned around to say there was nothing to "get" about it?

It IS too hard to follow, and there IS nothing to get about it. The movie's relationships between the characters was pretty hard to follow, and trying to figure it all out was worthless, cause in the end, it's all an invention. So there you go, hard to follow, nothing to get about it. Anything else?

Oh, I just saw that a number of online reviews agree with me that the movie's plot is too labyrinthine for its own good. Guess they're as dumb as I am at "getting" storylines. The list includes "world famous" movie illiterate dumbass Roger Ebert, who hated the flick mentioning, as some others do, lazy screenwriting. Wow! I must really be completely and totally wrong on this one.

 

[Solo]

Convert now or fall forever!





:lol




Opinions are like assholes or so they say.

 

[ChrisReid]

The story seems fine if you can accept by some strange coincidence the coffee mug and his lawyer were both named Kobayashi.

Wow.. just wow.

 

[=W=]

blah blah blah

I don't think you get it. People like the movie because they liked the story Verbal Kint told. The fact that the ending made the entire story he told questionable doesn't matter, it was just a good ending because it played a trick on the audience.

Seems like you're too pretentious to allow yourself to be tricked. You don't like the movie, you've said your piece, your opinion is not fact, give it up. And just to lay this on the table, I hate your avatar.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Seems like you're too pretentious to allow yourself to be tricked.

Oh, I was tricked. How would I possibly not be tricked? The movie cheats to trick me. Any movie can trick you when it doesn't lay enough clues for you to find the truth (see the AWFUL Travolta movie named Basic for another exemple). The point of seeing a movie is not in being tricked, at least that's not what I see movies for.

And just to lay this on the table, I hate your avatar.

Oh well, it can't possibly be uglier than yours, can it? I'm about to change it anyway.

Edit : Avatar changed! Rejoice!

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

What's good about the Usual Suspects is that Verbal was apparently telling enough of the truth to match with what the detectives knew. So it's likely that most, but not all, of his story is accurate. That makes the twist potent, not the f-u that FJ sees it as. Watching the movie, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if Keaton was Soze or not-- missing that Verbal was. And there are clues to the fact that he's BS-ing-- why in the hell would he ever have been in Nicuragua picking coffee? He was fuckign with the detective at that point. And the Detective calls him on BS in one point-- why didn't Verbal shoot Soze when he had the chance? And he acts hsi way out of it. Great exchange.

Yeah, it is one of the best neo-noir movies. What else compares? It's not like there are a lot of them.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

What's good about the Usual Suspects is that Verbal was apparently telling enough of the truth to match with what the detectives knew. So it's likely that most, but not all, of his story is accurate. That makes the twist potent, not the f-u that FJ sees it as. Watching the movie, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if Keaton was Soze or not-- missing that Verbal was. And there are clues to the fact that he's BS-ing-- why in the hell would he ever have been in Nicuragua picking coffee? He was fuckign with the detective at that point. And the Detective calls him on BS in one point-- why didn't Verbal shoot Soze when he had the chance? And he acts hsi way out of it. Great exchange.

This is good argumentation, although I don't think anyone could have predicted the ending of the movie, and I still believe the movie is 90% manipulation, 10% actual story. And the actual story is typical police procedure stuff, nothing groundbreaking either. Well, nothing deserving the attention it got. I believe the movie is good at what it's doing, which is manipulation. But I also believe the movie is bad at being entertaining and though-provoking the whole way through, which is what I'm watching movies for. It is also rather bland looking. Anyone saying that it has great cinematography definitely hasn't seen enough movies, and well, it's not as if Singer has made any other visual masterpieces.

Yeah, it is one of the best neo-noir movies. What else compares? It's not like there are a lot of them.

This is awful argumentation. Neo-noir exists since Roman Polanski's Chinatown. There's a HELL of a lot of neo-noir flicks. Chinatown is a great flick, watch it.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

An ending is an "it was all a dream" copout when all the story you've been told is something that has not happened, except in someone's mind. It is used, in the case of The Usual Suspects, to generate some shock and surprise to the audience, and make them THINK that they've seen something interesting, when in fact, if you took the end of the movie out, the movie would have been a complete disaster. If you take The Sixth Sense, for example, which uses a similar trick, but is an entirely superior movie (even though not the masterpiece some think it is), the movie would STILL be an entertaining horror movie without the twist, using a more conventional horror movie ending. It would not be regarded as it is today, but still, it would have been a good movie.

Damn. So I THOUGHT I enjoyed the movie, but actually didn't? Well damn, case close, glad we cleared that up.

Give me a break. Here is why this is not pertinent to this story.

1. The twist was a crucial point in what was actually happening. It shows, after all this build up, how exactly the suspects came to be in this place, and more importantly, what Spacey was doing there in the first place. It is an often overlooked question of why exactly Spacey was in prison to begin with. I beleive he says it is tax fraud, but the fact that it's NEVER touched on again, and there is very little evidence given of Spacey's background to indicate that he really is a criminal, calls into question if that's actually why he is there. It leads one to think he is not entirely truthful in why he is there.

2. It explains his 'gimp'. So far as I remember, until the end it is never actually mentioned WHY he's a cripple. He just is, and we're supposed to accept it. It doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to draw some small amount of sympathy from the other guys. It turns out this sympathy and compassion is what he uses to catch every one of them off guard, ultimately using them to acheive what he wants.

3. It's a mystery built into the story. The story, until the end, leaves one wondering who is Kaizer Soze. It's not a matter of "oops! I was just some criminal who happened to tell a story to get out of jail". From early in the movie, Kaizer Soze is introduced when that burned guy starts screaming about Kaizer Soze and the cops are noticeably shocked. It leads you to wonder who exactly he is, and the ending is what reveals that.

It's not something that was tacked on at the last minute, it's the final peice in the puzzle that ties everything together. And yes, it does tie everything together.

There are arguably two scenes worth reminding in The Usual Suspects, and these two scenes are the only ones I ever hear people talk about when they talk about the movie. Those are the ending, and the keyser soze flashback sequence, which is all shock and violence (and bullshit, in the end). The rest is pure filler.

The fact that you view the rest as filler should discredit you right there. That's essentially saying that a movie scene is useless if it isn't shocking or surprising. The rest is building the story, it's creating the mystery, and it's building on Spacey's helplessness. It does so quite well, I might add. It is...NOT...filler. At all. That's an absolutely absurd claim.

And... what was the point of using those names to generate a story? Why not come up with some names you just invent? Just to leave a notice to the policemen saying "Hey, I just told you bullshit!"? Give em some chance of finding out you didn't tell the truth?

Because it's the way he wanted it. In retrospect, I think the line where he says something like "you think a criminal like that would come this close to being caught and then pop his head up again? no, my guess is, after this, you'll never hear from him again". That made it clear that he was done putting himself in the open like that, and that he was going underground. What would be the fun if the cops didn't know just how close they came.

Also, if he had made everything up, he would run the risk of forgetting a name. It's easier to have it right there infront of you incase you forget a name.

It IS too hard to follow, and there IS nothing to get about it. The movie's relationships between the characters was pretty hard to follow, and trying to figure it all out was worthless, cause in the end, it's all an invention. So there you go, hard to follow, nothing to get about it. Anything else?

How is it so hard to follow. As I've stated, I don't know anyone who's found the movie to be difficult or complex in any way. It's not hard to follow, and I'd agree that there's really not much to "get" about it, but that isn't something that makes it bad. The Aviator had very little to "get", but it was still a fantastic movie.

Oh, I just saw that a number of online reviews agree with me that the movie's plot is too labyrinthine for its own good. Guess they're as dumb as I am at "getting" storylines. The list includes "world famous" movie illiterate dumbass Roger Ebert, who hated the flick mentioning, as some others do, lazy screenwriting. Wow! I must really be completely and totally wrong on this one.

Rotten tomatoes puts it at 89%. The "Cream of the Crop" put it at 83%. That is a damn good percentage. Calling on reviews to say how it is bad is quite dumb in this regard, as the vast majority would say that the movie is quite good.

Also Roger Ebert is FAR from the gold standard in terms of movie reviews. I thought that had been quite well figured out by now but I suppose not.


I don't think anybody is saying it's the greatest movie of all time, but to out and out call the movie as BAD, is just lunacy. It's your opinion, yes, but it's not one that is shared by most, and that does not make them wrong in any way shape or form.

 

[=W=]

Oh, I was tricked. How would I possibly not be tricked? The movie cheats to trick me. Any movie can trick you when it doesn't lay enough clues for you to find the truth (see the AWFUL Travolta movie named Basic for another exemple). The point of seeing a movie is not in being tricked, at least that's not what I see movies for.

Why can't the point of a movie be to trick the audience? To make them question everything they thought they knew to be true? If it tells a good story in doing so, then wouldn't that make it, you know, good? Just seems to me that you don't like being tricked because you think you should be able to figure it all out and have everything wrapped up in a neat little package, or else it's a bad movie.

And I enjoyed Basic, but mostly for its atmosphere and good direction, rather than the story :lol

Oh well, it can't possibly be uglier than yours, can it? I'm about to change it anyway.

I was just saying it while I happened to be responding to you. The hair and the expression just bring out passionate feelings of hatred. No offense meant.


[edit] LA Confidential is the best neo-noir movie ever.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Well, I need a definition of neo-noir then. I hadn't considered that you meant the term to apply to anything post-50s. Chinatown is indeed a great flick, and much better than Usual Suspects. heck, I even like Body Heat more than Usual Suspects. But Usual Suspects is a great movie. *most* movies are mostly manipulation. That this one is highly engaging on the way makes it better than most. I didn't feel ripped off at the end (all movies are "just a dream" virtually), I had something to think about-- the unreliable narrator and what's true and what's not.

I agree, the cinematography is nothing interesting. It's a script movie, and a "character actors get to shine" kind of movie-- which they do, greatly. It's enjoyable seeing several of these guys play a little more central role. This was before Spacey got all the screentime that he wanted.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Damn. So I THOUGHT I enjoyed the movie, but actually didn't? Well damn, case close, glad we cleared that up.

Give me a break. Here is why this is not pertinent to this story.

1. The twist was a crucial point in what was actually happening. It shows, after all this build up, how exactly the suspects came to be in this place, and more importantly, what Spacey was doing there in the first place. It is an often overlooked question of why exactly Spacey was in prison to begin with. I beleive he says it is tax fraud, but the fact that it's NEVER touched on again, and there is very little evidence given of Spacey's background to indicate that he really is a criminal, calls into question if that's actually why he is there. It leads one to think he is not entirely truthful in why he is there.

2. It explains his 'gimp'. So far as I remember, until the end it is never actually mentioned WHY he's a cripple. He just is, and we're supposed to accept it. It doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to draw some small amount of sympathy from the other guys. It turns out this sympathy and compassion is what he uses to catch every one of them off guard, ultimately using them to acheive what he wants.

3. It's a mystery built into the story. The story, until the end, leaves one wondering who is Kaizer Soze. It's not a matter of "oops! I was just some criminal who happened to tell a story to get out of jail". From early in the movie, Kaizer Soze is introduced when that burned guy starts screaming about Kaizer Soze and the cops are noticeably shocked. It leads you to wonder who exactly he is, and the ending is what reveals that.

It's not something that was tacked on at the last minute, it's the final peice in the puzzle that ties everything together. And yes, it does tie everything together.

The fact that you view the rest as filler should discredit you right there. That's essentially saying that a movie scene is useless if it isn't shocking or surprising. The rest is building the story, it's creating the mystery, and it's building on Spacey's helplessness. It does so quite well, I might add. It is...NOT...filler. At all. That's an absolutely absurd claim.


Because it's the way he wanted it. In retrospect, I think the line where he says something like "you think a criminal like that would come this close to being caught and then pop his head up again? no, my guess is, after this, you'll never hear from him again". That made it clear that he was done putting himself in the open like that, and that he was going underground. What would be the fun if the cops didn't know just how close they came.

Also, if he had made everything up, he would run the risk of forgetting a name. It's easier to have it right there infront of you incase you forget a name.

How is it so hard to follow. As I've stated, I don't know anyone who's found the movie to be difficult or complex in any way. It's not hard to follow, and I'd agree that there's really not much to "get" about it, but that isn't something that makes it bad. The Aviator had very little to "get", but it was still a fantastic movie.



Rotten tomatoes puts it at 89%. The "Cream of the Crop" put it at 83%. That is a damn good percentage. Calling on reviews to say how it is bad is quite dumb in this regard, as the vast majority would say that the movie is quite good.

Also Roger Ebert is FAR from the gold standard in terms of movie reviews. I thought that had been quite well figured out by now but I suppose not.


I don't think anybody is saying it's the greatest movie of all time, but to out and out call the movie as BAD, is just lunacy. It's your opinion, yes, but it's not one that is shared by most, and that does not make them wrong in any way shape or form.

First, all your claims about the story are useless, since nothing is proven right or wrong at the end. You cannot "explain" a part of the story, his limping or his part about being in prison with some guys or who Kaiser Soze is, or whatever. It explains absolutely nothing, since it's all been invented. Care to prove me wrong? It's gonna be a whole lot of fun, because the movie completely pisses on its own reality, making the whole of what you're going to say about what happened or not complete speculation.

About the movie being confusing, people tend not to be eager to admit that they didn't completely get a movie, because they feel they'll look stupid doing it (look at the Donnie Darko fanboys for another example, or at the David Lynch fanatics).

Arguably, Rotten Tomatoes Cream of the Crop is the only part worth looking at, and 83% isn't really considered a masterpiece.

Roger Ebert knows more about movies than the totality of this forum's users, and his opinion is read by and respected by hundreds of thousands, which means a lot. If he's mesmerized by a movie plot, there's a good chance a lot of people will be.

 

[Solo]

This thread needs more LA Confidential love. One of the greatest neo noir pictures (I personally rank it #2), and a film the was ROBBED by that POS Titanic for Best Picture.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Why can't the point of a movie be to trick the audience? To make them question everything they thought they knew to be true? If it tells a good story in doing so, then wouldn't that make it, you know, good? Just seems to me that you don't like being tricked because you think you should be able to figure it all out and have everything wrapped up in a neat little package, or else it's a bad movie.

Just for the sake of explaining what I think is a good twist, I'll go back to The Sixth Sense exemple. It is not a masterpiece, but it is a great exemple of how I like to be tricked. The perfect twist is the one that I didn't see coming, but that I think I COULD have seen coming. Get it? Any lazy screenwriter can throw a twist in your face without laying any kind of real hints about it. What's cool is having a twist that makes sense but is so hard to imagine that even with all the clues laying in front of you, you don't consider it an option. If you DO consider it an option, there is a number of options that you would consider, making it hard to guess. You want another good exemple of a good twist? Watch Brian de Palma's Femme Fatale, which takes the "it was only a dream" gimmick and re-actualizes it into a potent plot device WITH real good hints provided. You want another exemple of a really bad twist? See the incredibly lame "The Bone Collector", which hints the whole way through at a possible suspect, before making a total stranger of which you get a stupid 5 second glimpse once into the movie the guilty serial killer.


And yeah, L.A. Confidential is 100 times better.

 

[Manics]

Arguably, Rotten Tomatoes Cream of the Crop is the only part worth looking at, and 83% isn't really considered a masterpiece.

Roger Ebert knows more about movies than the totality of this forum's users, and his opinion is read by and respected by hundreds of thousands, which means a lot. If he's mesmerized by a movie plot, there's a good chance a lot of people will be.

So Roger Ebert's opinion is more valid than the 83% that said it was a good movie? What's your point? It's not a BAD movie, it's quite good. That's all people are trying to tell you.

 

[=W=]

Roger Ebert knows more about movies than the totality of this forum's users, and his opinion is read by and respected by hundreds of thousands, which means a lot. If he's mesmerized by a movie plot, there's a good chance a lot of people will be.

I agree with this. You don't have to agree with his opinions, because they are opinions and people will get different things out of movies, but Roger Ebert knows a shitload more about movies than anybody on this forum. He thought the plot was too confusing, and I disagree. See how I'm not saying that he's a nutjob and doesn't know what he's talking about? Simple. His ideas about quite a few mainstream movies, I disagree with him on, but as far as most independent and classic films, I agree with him probably 80-90% of the time.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

First, all your claims about the story are useless, since nothing is proven right or wrong at the end. You cannot "explain" a part of the story, his limping or his part about being in prison with some guys or who Kaiser Soze is, or whatever. It explains absolutely nothing, since it's all been invented. Care to prove me wrong? It's gonna be a whole lot of fun, because the movie completely pisses on its own reality, making the whole of what you're going to say about what happened or not complete speculation.

About the movie being confusing, people tend not to be eager to admit that they didn't completely get a movie, because they feel they'll look stupid doing it (look at the Donnie Darko fanboys for another example, or at the David Lynch fanatics).

Arguably, Rotten Tomatoes Cream of the Crop is the only part worth looking at, and 83% isn't really considered a masterpiece.

Roger Ebert knows more about movies than the totality of this forum's users, and his opinion is read by and respected by hundreds of thousands, which means a lot. If he's mesmerized by a movie plot, there's a good chance a lot of people will be.

He is shown limping out of the police station at the end of the movie. This ties in with his story about being a gimp. If you want to try and argue about anything beyond that, you're going to have to do so without me, because that's missing the point entirely and is completely irrelevant. He was in jail with the other guys because that's why he's being interrogated. That's how he got to know them and the police obviously have record of him being there, otherwise they would have shot down his story right at the beggining. This is not rocket science. Sure, the movie never explicitly states, after the twist, that he was in that jail cell, or he had been limping the whole time, but it's understood to be the case because if it had not, his whole story would have been shot down from the beggining. I don't know why you're trying to say this isn't necessarily what happened when it's obvious that it is.

There is nothing confusing in the movie though. The only REMOTELY complex relationship in the movie is the one between Keaton, Edie(i think that's her name) and Kobayashi. Even then it's not confusing at all.

I don't think anyone has said the movie is a masterpeice, I certainly wouldn't say so, but I would say that it is a good movie, and one most certainly worth watching. 83% would most definitely agree with me there.

I'm not discrediting Ebert. He certainly does know movies, but he is not the ONLY person who's opinion matters, and there are others who know movies just as well, they simply don't have the audience because they are not on tv.

Is Carson Daily the gold standard for knowing music? No, but millions of people know and listen to his opinions because he is on tv.

 

[Particle Physicist]

It's labyrinthine to no end, and at the end you're told "Well, if you didn't understand anything, it's alright, cause the point is, I WAS BULLSHITTING ALL ALONG!".

Stories about people riding a plane or whatever your shitty examples are great because they are actually STORIES, REAL ones, where SOMETHING happens. At the end of The Usual Suspects, you're left with a "This was all a dream" equivalent, where everything you witnessed was actually, in part or totally, bullshit, and NONSENSICAL bullshit, even. So what's the point in being jerked around for 2 hours, not knowing clearly is going on, only for being told later that it's bullshit?

This movie's the equivalent of a joke without a point. You're left at the end with a shocking ending that's the equivalent of "You don't know why it's funny? IT'S FUNNY CAUSE IT'S NOT! HAHAHAH!"

P.S. Take ANY Hitchcock movie, the one you want. It has better cinematography then this Singer-hacked piece of shit.

:lol sounds like you had trouble following the plot (excluding the ending) .. the story was pretty damn straight foreword up until the ending.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

If you want to try and argue about anything beyond that, you're going to have to do so without me, because that's missing the point entirely and is completely irrelevant.

I would like to know why discussing what really happened in the movie is completely missing the point and irrelevant. Really, what's in that movie worth discussing, besides the freaking plot? It's not The Thin Red Line, it's a heist flick with a twist ending!

Anyways, I respect all your opinions, and I agree the movie has some great performances and some moments. I still stand by my point that this is one of the most overrated movies of the 90s. It is in IMDB's top 250 list, by the way, at position number 19. If this is not "considered a masterpiece", well, I'll eat my socks. It's one of the most overrated movies of IMDB's list, let alone the 90s.

:lol sounds like you had trouble following the plot (excluding the ending)

Sounds like you're having trouble following my argument.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Metacritic shows Roger Ebert with the single worst score for Usual Suspects. The much more discenring Michael Willmington (and every other critic listed) gave it a high score. Arguing Ebert as the voice for serious criticism is a mistake to begin with-- doing so on a film when he's seriously out of step with much more demanding critics is doubly so.

And as I pointed out, Verbal's story clearly has quite a bit of truth to it, as it matches what the detectives know, matches that Keaton's girlfriend was involved and was murdered, and fits with the events we see outside of the flashback frame. For all we know, *all* he made up were the names and his involvement on the docks.


I rate LA Confidential and Ususal Suspects about the same. LA Confidential suffers from too simple a plot, a deus ex machina gunfight leading to a happy ending, a Kim Bassinger, tainting every frame she's in. It's a great movie, but flawed.

[Oh, and Sixth Sense *is* a masterpiece, and not for the twist.]

 

[Particle Physicist]

Sounds like you're having trouble following my argument.

nope, this has nothing to do with the argument of the copout ending. which im not going to get into.. you mentioned multiple times in this thread "the story is fucking hard to follow"

the story was pretty damn straight forward is all im saying. i just found it funny that you are acting all elitist about this movie.. yet you couldnt follow the basic story-line.

 

[=W=]

Just for the sake of explaining what I think is a good twist, I'll go back to The Sixth Sense exemple. It is not a masterpiece, but it is a great exemple of how I like to be tricked. The perfect twist is the one that I didn't see coming, but that I think I COULD have seen coming. Get it? Any lazy screenwriter can throw a twist in your face without laying any kind of real hints about it. What's cool is having a twist that makes sense but is so hard to imagine that even with all the clues laying in front of you, you don't consider it an option. If you DO consider it an option, there is a number of options that you would consider, making it hard to guess. You want another good exemple of a good twist? Watch Brian de Palma's Femme Fatale, which takes the "it was only a dream" gimmick and re-actualizes it into a potent plot device WITH real good hints provided. You want another exemple of a really bad twist? See the incredibly lame "The Bone Collector", which hints the whole way through at a possible suspect, before making a total stranger of which you get a stupid 5 second glimpse once into the movie the guilty serial killer.


And yeah, L.A. Confidential is 100 times better.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. I think you have a perfectly valid opinion and reason to dislike the film, but you stated at the beginning of the thread that you're arguing to show that it's a bad movie as if you have scientific evidence that it is a poorly written movie. I am just saying that there are reasons for people to like the movie. That's it. Just another pointless internet argument of opinion vs opinion.

I thought Kint told a great story, with great characters and great dialogue. That it might be 100% fiction wasn't the entire point of the story, it was just a plot twist to get you to talk and think about the movie later, and maybe watch it again.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

nope, this has nothing to do with the argument of the copout ending. which im not going to get into.. you mentioned multiple times in this thread "the story is fucking hard to follow"

the story was pretty damn straight forward is all im saying. i just found it funny that you are acting all elitist about this movie.. yet you couldnt follow the basic story-line.

The story is not involving me, and the name dropping doesn't help. I know the base of the storyline, but while it is unfolding, it's told in a confusing way, and it confused a lot of people I know, including me. If you want to imply that I didn't understand the story, go ahead, I never said that. I said it was fucking hard to follow. I understand plenty of things that are hard to understand, I'm a pretty fucking bright guy, y'know.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The confusion trying to piece together Verbal's story as it goes on is exactly what the cop is going through. It's meant to keep you off-balance. And like the cop, one reaciton is frustration. But Verbal's got an answer for everything, which is kinda the point.

I'm liking it even more as we discuss this.

If the whole of your point is that it's overrated on imdb, I agree. I would never rank it that high, becuase like most Noir movies, it really lacks heart or feeling, and is mostly a sideways expression of frustration at the world. The best Noir movies transcend that (Touch of Evil) , or at least nail it more solidly (Chinatown). Neither Usual Suspects nor LA Confidential does. US is a particularly clever movie in the use of the unreliable narrator, and makes you think, and LA Confidential is a glossy period homage to the 50's. Neither has much heart, and it's the failing of both of them.

Edit: Typo Confidential

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

I would like to know why discussing what really happened in the movie is completely missing the point and irrelevant. Really, what's in that movie worth discussing, besides the freaking plot? It's not The Thin Red Line, it's a heist flick with a twist ending!

Because I've told you what really happened, and how you can know it to be so. To argue beyond that is silly, for the simple reason that there is nothing to argue about, aside from some sort of bizarre concoction of "well maybe it was a half truth and he got one of his cronies to write it into the record for him" sortof stuff. There are certain things in his story you KNOW are true, because his story wouldn't get past the detective if they weren't. (for clarity, that statement was referring only to his being a gimp, not other aspects of the story).

As far as being confusing...I still don't see it. I don't feel it's told in a confusing manner at all. The only thing "confusing", is that until the end, you don't know who Kaizer Soze is. You could get confused trying to figure it out, but thats really part of the point. You're supposed to be curious, and it makes you curious.

 

[Eminem]

this thread is so depressing

 

[refreshZ]

Tell me about it.

FJ seems to think his opinion > everyone else's. Oh, except Ebert of course :lol

 

[chinch]

I'm a pretty fucking bright guy, y'know.

not a knock, but you wouldn't know that from reading this thread

 

[Scrow]

not a knock, but you wouldn't know that from reading this thread

how is that not a knock?

 

[Manics]

I'm tired of the fuckin Ebert praising. Since Ebert didn't like the movie then Foreign Jackass has some credible reviewer backing his claims the movie is no good. Let me tell you something about Roger Ebert:

the guy is a human being and makes mistakes. He has to watch a slew of movies in a day on many occasions and perhaps he was very tired when he saw Usual Suspects, or maybe he had one hoagie too many and it was affecting the synapses in his brain to the point where they weren't firing and making the required connections that you get while watching the movie. I've seen Ebert blow his movie reviews on more than one occasion -- case in point, Episode I: The Phantom Menace. While the rest of the "cream of the crop" reviews trashed that hot steaming pile of shit, Ebert praised it and had an in-depth interview with Lucas where he gushed on and on about how masterful the movie was. That movie was utter garbage yet Ebert ass-kissed it all summer long.

So don't trot out someone else's review to bolster your own point of view, noone is perfect when reviewing movies since movies, like all art, are left up to the individual's interpretation. You may hate something one day, then 2 months later go back and watch it again and suddenly like it. The sum of your experiences can influence how you view art.

That's the end of my rant.

 

[Solo]

While I want to make it clear Im not defending FJ here (as I sure as hell am not, as hes made an ass out of himself in this thread by thrusting his opinions upon us), I think he didnt mean to say that Ebert is "always right", but just that hes a respected critic.

 

[Blackace]

While I want to make it clear Im not defending FJ here (as I sure as hell am not, as hes made an ass out of himself in this thread by thrusting his opinions upon us), I think he didnt mean to say that Ebert is "always right", but just that hes a respected critic.

I agree with that

 

[Manics]

I agree with that

Oh I know, but to trot out someone else's opinion to back up your own stance is bogus. Just cause he's a "respected critic" doesn't mean his reviews are always dead on.

 

[Solo]

True, but then again there hasnt been much logic injected into this thread thusfar, now has there?

 

[acidviper]

I'm tired of the fuckin Ebert praising.

The main problem I have we Ebert is that he works for Disney/ABC/GO Network. So although he claims he gives fair reviews to Disney/Buena Vista movies, what is to say he can't gives a strangely poor review to a competing non-Disney movie that is competing for box office shares or Oscars.

Its like IGN/Gamespy doing Nintendo's online internet. One hand invariably has to wash the other - or throw mud at other peoples' hands.

 

[Blackace]

I guess my whole thing is I don't care who likes the movie.. I loved it. I respect anyone's opinion to like or not like anything...just show me the same respect instead of just saying "your opinion is stupid because I saw so."

 

[Foreign Jackass]

You guys are having way more problems with my opinion then I have with yours. You automatically think that I'm going elite and shit on you, and that I think that my opinion is more well-educated than yours or whatever. You think whatever you want, I was just arguing. Lord, it's really hard to argue here without getting people pissed at you for not actually going with everyone. Oh, by the way, Ebert states he has seen the movie twice, once at Cannes, and once at public release, so it's not a case of 'I was tired'. He's not always right, and I wasn't using his opinion as fact, I was only stating that if HE doesn't understand a plot, it doesn't make me a retard to find it too labyrinthine and hard to understand. I'd never use Ebert to back me up on terms of taste, as I already know that most of you guys hate him anyway, but you have to at least admit the guy is a bright, educated person.

I never said someone's opinion was stupid nor did I imply it. You guys are really crybabies about it. Everyone is shitting all over my opinion, and I'm not disrespecting you guys for it. Learn to argue without resorting to "YOU'RE SUCH AN ELITIST, STOP THINKING YOU HOLD THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH", and start actually arguing, like Ignatz Mouse and morbidaza, for example.

Oh, by the way, morbidaza, you explained two points that were made "real" by the movie, the prison part and the limping, but really, everything else in the movie could be pure fabrication, no?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Oh, by the way, morbidaza, you explained two points that were made "real" by the movie, the prison part and the limping, but really, everything else in the movie could be pure fabrication, no?

Could be, but not likely. In fact, it's quitel likely that almost everything happened very closely to the way it was described, except for names (which he'd understandably lie about) and his own involvement.

 

[Zaptruder]

FJ, your opinion, despites your insistence shits on our opinion. So thus we must take to arms, and battle it out with faulty logic and useless prattling! WINNER TAKES ALL! LOSER BOWS AND GROVELS IN SHAME! WHICH WILL YOU BE?!

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Oh, by the way, morbidaza, you explained two points that were made "real" by the movie, the prison part and the limping, but really, everything else in the movie could be pure fabrication, no?

Not everything, I wouldn't say. Spacey couldn't know at that point exactly what the detectives knew in regards to certain things (such as what happened on the boat), so he couldn't really stray TOO far from the truth. The question marks pop up more in the details. Was it really keaton's idea to nail the cops running the "taxi" service? How exactly DID the funny talking guy(can't remember his name) die. We can assume that Kobayashi, and the meetings with him were more or less accurate, because they provide a framework for why the boat incedent happened, which we've already established had to be a pretty accurate story, with only minor details changed. Of course we don't know what Kobayashi's actual name was, but we do know he exists as he is seen at the end.

I think the only things that we can't be reasonably sure about are things such as who's idea crashing the escort service's plans were, and names. Somewhat minor things such as that. I think that in most cases, names were probably correct because in most cases they were Soze's enemies in one sense or another, and he wouldn't have much reason to try and protect them.

I think you and I are taking somewhat different approaches to the movie though, I am assuming parts of the story were accurate where they didn't have any reason not to be, and you're looking at it the other way and seeing it as if we can't be certain that something happened a certain way, theres no grounds to assume that it did.

I can see how your POV on the movie would lend it to be frustrating, which is a large part of the reason I don't share it.

 

[duckroll]

I watched Usual Suspects on LD some years back. I missed it in the theatres. The back of the LD had some shit like "If you can figure out the ending of the movie you should be working for the CIA". So I started watching it knowing there was something to "figure out". Right from the get-go I knew Kevin Spacey was Kaiser Soze because it was so obvious in trying to not be obvious. So yeah, the twist kinda sucks if you see it coming, but I still enjoyed the movie.

Kevin Spacey >>>>>>>> Bryan Singer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Foreign Jackass

:lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Foreign Jackass]

I watched Usual Suspects on LD some years back. I missed it in the theatres. The back of the LD had some shit like "If you can figure out the ending of the movie you should be working for the CIA". So I started watching it knowing there was something to "figure out". Right from the get-go I knew Kevin Spacey was Kaiser Soze because it was so obvious in trying to not be obvious. So yeah, the twist kinda sucks if you see it coming, but I still enjoyed the movie.

Kevin Spacey >>>>>>>> Bryan Singer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Foreign Jackass

:lol :lol :lol :lol

GAF >>>>>> duckroll

:lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Particle Physicist]

I watched Usual Suspects on LD some years back. I missed it in the theatres. The back of the LD had some shit like "If you can figure out the ending of the movie you should be working for the CIA". So I started watching it knowing there was something to "figure out". Right from the get-go I knew Kevin Spacey was Kaiser Soze because it was so obvious in trying to not be obvious. So yeah, the twist kinda sucks if you see it coming, but I still enjoyed the movie.

Kevin Spacey >>>>>>>> Bryan Singer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Foreign Jackass

:lol :lol :lol :lol

yeah, if you are told there is a twist in the movie.. it kind of ruins it. when i saw it, i knew nothing about it.. other than hearing it was a good movie. same with the sixth sense, the ending came out of nowhere because i wasnt expecting a twist.