I'm Thinking of Ending Things (Netflix film, not a cry for help)

[Tom4784]

cDTg62vsV4U

It looks really interesting and it's got Toni Collette in it so I'm sold.

[Niamh.]

Oh Toni Collette, I love her too, it looks weirdly interesting. Will give it a watch

[Marsh.]

Toni Collette was criminally underused in Knives Out.

[Ammi]

...a psychological horror film, it looks creepy...I’ll look forward to it...Toni Collette’s character looks fabulously unhinged...:laugh:..

[Shaun]

director's created some of the best films of the 21st century so I'm intrigued

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

What a load of shite This was

[Marsh.]

What a load of shite This was

:joker:

[Marsh.]

Did she end things?

[Ammi]

...oh...:laugh:...not even Toni Collette could make it less rubbish..?...well that’s that of that, then...

[Niamh.]

What a load of shite This was

I watched it last night, It's kind of an interesting idea in theory but meh not for me either

*Toni Colette was still amazing in it

[Niamh.]

Also, I don't know how it qualifies as a horror either

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Yes toni was amazing :flutter:

[Tom4784]

I watched it earlier and I thought it was a load of terrible, pretentious self absorbed wankery. I was bored throughout, the mystery of what was going on wasn't compelling and honestly, I was kind of done after the first half hour when I realised only half an hour had passed and two hours because those opening thirty minutes were the slowest I've ever experienced in my entire life.

The story thinks it is smarter than it actually is and everything about it reeks of a film school art film. It's not only boring, it all felt really amateurish. It's also desperate to be an awards darling to the point that it's just obnoxious to watch. For a film like this to work in which a lot of it is based around two people in a car, you've got to have compelling performances and a compelling script and the two leads bored me to tears and the script was all too minimal and lacked any good dialogue when films like this should be all about good dialogue. Only Toni Colette did anything notable and she's not in it enough to save the film. Easily the worst film I've seen this year.

Charlie Kaufman is an excellent writer and he's been responsible for some amazing films but I think this film is testament to the fact that visionary writers need a grounded team around them to stop the film from disappearing up their arse. You can tell he was allowed to run wild on this film and it shows.

[Marsh.]

It's spoiled by his desperate attempt in trying to be vague and coy and "leave it up to the viewer" in terms of all the crap thrown into the last half an hour so anyone can come up with any kind of "meaning" behind it from all the references and stuff. Probably because he knew just going all in on the ending the way the book does is a very overdone idea in film. So he tried to be too clever about it and spoiled it in the process. It would've worked much better had he just owned the kind of movie it was and stripped it back, rather than being preoccupied with trying to be arty and pretentious.

[Ammi]

I watched it earlier and I thought it was a load of terrible, pretentious self absorbed wankery. I was bored throughout, the mystery of what was going on wasn't compelling and honestly, I was kind of done after the first half hour when I realised only half an hour had passed and two hours because those opening thirty minutes were the slowest I've ever experienced in my entire life.

The story thinks it is smarter than it actually is and everything about it reeks of a film school art film. It's not only boring, it all felt really amateurish. It's also desperate to be an awards darling to the point that it's just obnoxious to watch. For a film like this to work in which a lot of it is based around two people in a car, you've got to have compelling performances and a compelling script and the two leads bored me to tears and the script was all too minimal and lacked any good dialogue when films like this should be all about good dialogue. Only Toni Colette did anything notable and she's not in it enough to save the film. Easily the worst film I've seen this year.

Charlie Kaufman is an excellent writer and he's been responsible for some amazing films but I think this film is testament to the fact that visionary writers need a grounded team around them to stop the film from disappearing up their arse. You can tell he was allowed to run wild on this film and it shows.


...yeah I loved it as well, Dezzy...:flutter:..

[Marsh.]

...yeah I loved it as well, Dezzy...:flutter:..

:joker:

[Tom4784]

It's spoiled by his desperate attempt in trying to be vague and coy and "leave it up to the viewer" in terms of all the crap thrown into the last half an hour so anyone can come up with any kind of "meaning" behind it from all the references and stuff. Probably because he knew just going all in on the ending the way the book does is a very overdone idea in film. So he tried to be too clever about it and spoiled it in the process. It would've worked much better had he just owned the kind of movie it was and stripped it back, rather than being preoccupied with trying to be arty and pretentious.

Yeah, it's all kind of meaningless bull**** that was thrown in to give the story the illusion of more depth than it actually had. I read the summary of the book on Wikipedia out of interest afterwards and it would have been a far better film if they just adapted it straight up, the ending would still be cliched but it would be better than what we got.

[Tom4784]

...yeah I loved it as well, Dezzy...:flutter:..

:laugh:

[Ammi]

:laugh:

...:love:..

[Morgan.]

I’m a film student and even I have no ****ing clue what I just watched. The car parts were just complete ‘zone out’ moments for me, I found it hard to be interested in what they were saying. And when the ending just transformed into an interpretive dance it just lost me.

[Crimson Dynamo]

(Netflix film, not a cry for help)

this still makes me laugh when the thread pops up

[user104658]

Spoilers ahead...

I thought it was OK in parts, I think key to not finding it overly-pretentious is the fact that the point is that it's overly-pretentious; the guy is a janitor who wanted to be more, and in his head thinks of himself as more, and so his imaginary conversations are supposed to be pretentious wankery; the theme of the film and the central (only) character is, literally, pretension itself. It lost me a little in the final act but I thought the car conversations were fascinating if you take them for what they are (a big ol' display of affected intellectualism).

My main issue with the movie however, was that the key "twist" (that she does not exist, or rather, that she is a manifested combination of his failed romantic hopes and his own intellectual self-image) is really obvious within the first 20 minutes for anyone who knows basic story structure. That's not necessarily a problem in itself, it's OK to know that, the problem is that the movie continues right up until the final act seemingly on the assumption that the viewer will NOT have already figured this out. Or maybe it is supposed to be a "known unknown", but if so, it doesn't do a good job of illustrating that... it still unfurls like a "twist" at the end when by that point it just isn't one.

I'd give it 7/10. There's something there but it wasn't well executed.

[Tom4784]

I was having a good day until I was reminded that this film existed.

[user104658]

the illusion of more depth than it actually had

Exactly. The movie itself is a reflection of Jake, Jake's self-image of a depth, intelligence and ability that he doesn't actually have... but that's all he is... in reality he's "nothing" - a lonely old man with a broom. And I honestly find that the most interesting part. At the very least, not something I've seen attempted often, and that's mostly what I'm looking for in a film like this.

[user104658]

I was having a good day until I was reminded that this film existed.

I reckon a re-watch is due :laugh:

[edit]In the spirit of kindness - you can skip both musical numbers.

[Tom4784]

I usually don't mind a good arthouse film but this one just annoyed me on every level.

Strangely enough, it makes me think of The Grudge films, which always has a very simple plot (you go into a house, you die at some point in the near future) but the plot is told out of order to give it the illusion of depth and meaning when you're essentially watching the same story play out to different people within the same film.

There could have been something quite profound in this film but it was too occupied with looking smart than delivering a worthwhile story which only cheapened the meaning it had.