Southland Tales

[Petey Wheatstraw]

First off I don't believe there was a script.

There was, but you act like having the actors improvise is a bad thing. Watch some French New Wave films. A director can make a great film with story and dialogue entirely improvised.

Second, the storyline was garbled nonsense.

I found the storyline pretty coherent before reading this explanation, but it does give the story another level. If you want, you can read the graphic novel of the film's prequel storyline instead of clicking on the link below.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405336/faq

I don't know how you can have good acting without a script that creates characters.

I don't think that is a sentence. 'I don't know how you can have good acting with a script that creates characters'? What does that mean? 'I'm gonna do Levytown'?

If you like nonsense then I guess you're right.

It's not nonsense. You just didn't get it.

I can see why people would be sceptical, as I said I didn't like Donnie Darko and do enjoy a lot of movies that the consensis here seem to write off (Cloverfield, Saw, etc) however while it's certainly not a good film in the standard sense.  I found it an interesting experience to watch, similar to the way I feel about El Topo or Waking Life.

What is the "standard sense"? Good is good. If you set out with one intent and end up with results that are entirely different (for example, Plan 9 from Outer Space set out to be a serious science fiction film but ended up as an unintentional comedy), you've got a bad film on your hands. Experimental films like El Topo, Waking Life, Eraserhead, etc. all achieve what they intended - the results are based on whether the viewers "get it" or not. Some viewers not "getting" a film doesn't make it a bad film. It means that it's not for them.

[ScottotD]

What is the "standard sense"? Good is good. If you set out with one intent and end up with results that are entirely different (for example, Plan 9 from Outer Space set out to be a serious science fiction film but ended up as an unintentional comedy), you've got a bad film on your hands. Experimental films like El Topo, Waking Life, Eraserhead, etc. all achieve what they intended - the results are based on whether the viewers "get it" or not. Some viewers not "getting" a film doesn't make it a bad film. It means that it's not for them.

The standard sense was pretty much covered by bettertommorow, a cohesvive plot, developed characters, etc you'll find I didn't say it was a bad film at any point.  You even (I assume unintentionally) make a similar point, it's an interesting film but how successful it is depends on the viewer not the director.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

I didn't say it was a bad film at any point.

I didn't say that you did.

[mearnest]

I'll reserve my final judgment until I actually see Southland Tales, though from what I've heard it sounds like a wreck.  That being said, it does seem that some people on the board take it a little too personally when someone doesn't like the same thing they do.  Please keep in mind that literature, film, music, etc. are all subjective.  I own and enjoy Yoko Ono records for God's sake, but I'm not going to get all up in someone's grill just because they don't dig her.  Just repeat to yourself 'it's just a board, I should really just relax.'

[ScottotD]

\
That being said, it does seem that some people on the board take it a little too personally when someone doesn't like the same thing they do. 

I've found the exact opposite, people seem to get annoyed when you like something they don't.

[Shamalama]

I enjoyed Southland Tales immensely!

I didn't love it for the plot, I didn't love it for the wonderful characters, and I didn't love it for the "tight" script.

I LOVED it for the convoluted plot, despicable characters, and the over the top, ridiculous plot.  This is the point of the movie that a lot of people are missing.  In my eyes it is a perfect representation of America today and where we will be putting ourselves in the future if we continue this self-destructive form of life-style/entertainment.

This was my initial reaction to the movie.

Now, I enjoy movies that make you think, and in this day and age information is very obtainable and free, so movies that make you go as far as doing a little research are even more intriguing!  This is one reason I really like Richard Kelly's movies!  If I want to shut down 90% of my brain and drown in my own puddle of negative brain activity drool then I will slap on Cloverfield.


Oh, and I loved Donnie Darko but have not seen the DC yet.  From what I hear though the DC carries a completely different message and if it is the director's original message then perhaps it should be taken in a complete different light.

After reading the imdb fact and doing a little wikipedia searching I have come to love Southland Tales even more!  I am glad there are still directors out there who are not afraid to treat film as an art medium with multiple facets (i.e. the actual film and the graphic novel) and not a product to be sold for big piles of cash.

In the end, I suggest watching Southland Tales with no expectations what so ever, let the characters, plot, and visuals soak into your brain.  Then do a little research, read up on it, and like me, you may enjoy the movie even more through hindsight.

[ScottotD]

I'm resigned to the fact I'll be one of few who'll even see this movie who thought Darko was worthless, it's possible I enjoyed it just because my expectations were so low.

I LOVED it for the convoluted plot, despicable characters, and the over the top, ridiculous plot.

Fair enough but you diss Cloverfield in the same sentence which was also over the top and ridiculous.  One rule what you you decide it art and one rule for other movies?

[Minnesota]

Original script. Creative storyline. Well acted. Entertaining. 

Agree, I loved Southland Tales. Its both original and entertaining. It did have its faults (Cheri O. is terrible casting in my opinion) but it is certainly a worthy follow up to the EXCELLENT Donnie Darko (theatrical).

[Shamalama]

I'm resigned to the fact I'll be one of few who'll even see this movie who thought Darko was worthless, it's possible I enjoyed it just because my expectations were so low.

I LOVED it for the convoluted plot, despicable characters, and the over the top, ridiculous plot.

Fair enough but you diss Cloverfield in the same sentence which was also over the top and ridiculous.  One rule what you you decide it art and one rule for other movies?

My point was that Southland Tales was completely self aware of its ridiculousness and was using it as a plot device, while Cloverfield, like many monster/action flicks, expects it's audience to fully surrender their disbelieve and enjoy the film at face value.  I was using Cloverfield as an example merely to differentiate Southland Tales from normal action fodder.

On another note.  I may be one of the only people I know who go into a movie with no expectations unless it's made by Uwe Boll!