This movie is incoherent but enjoyable.

>>81754108
Sorry anon. The movie CAN be coherent. The director just decided to put the last 20% of his plot in the film and had the first 80% in comic books! He didnt realize he can just put a ending in a film without explaining jack shit!!!

With the books it makes sense as people meeting themselves via timetravel fucks the world up more and more and you get the paradoxes. The film starts with everything already paradoxed to fuck so you dont understand what or why stuff is happening!

>>81754108
Nobody saw this?

>>81754108

It's a masterpiece. One of the most staggeringly brilliant movies of the current century. It is a film so overloaded with ideas that it resembles almost nothing else. Its fractured and fragmented and perhaps this is the best, and only truthful, way to capture contemporary reality.

>>81754108
great soundtrack, love the Jane's Addiction motif. I feel like this movie would have been more mindblowing when I was in college.

>>81754720
A film cant be a masterpiece when most of the story isnt in the film and is elsewhere!

>>81754978

Yes it can. I've never even read the book, that is irrelevant. The film's meaning expands beyond its own boundaries. It is a transgressive work of art that is attempting to do things nearly no other film has done.

>>81755175
"I cant understand a film so its complex"

>>81755322

"I think the word 'complex' is inherently a word indicating praise"

Are you a retard?

>>81754108
>>81754640
>>81754978
>>81755175
>>81755175
>>81755322

You're all arguing a null point.
The fucking narration explains pretty much everything that is going on. How you can say the movie isn't straightforward in any sense is retarded.

>>81755376
the narration stops halfway through.

>>81755376
It needs a Directors cut

>>81755376

You're an idiot. If you think the movie isn't deliberately structurally complex then you either have zero understanding of how traditional films are structured or you think you're somehow smart because you "get" it. The movie obfuscates its meaning purposefully. Of course you can get an understanding of it but it TRIES to be dense on purpose. To miss that is to miss the point of the film.

>>81755450
It explains enough by that point.

>What Fluid Karma is
>Who the Baron is
>What he was doing
>What USIDENT is
>What the Governor's family is doing
>That Roland can't forgive himself for scarring Pilot
>The Power and it's plot
>Multiple direct references to Revelation and which characters are meant to be which

>>81755472
Kelly wants to make one, but mixing the theatrical with an hour long prologue that recaps the graphic novels.

>>81755527
You're an idiot for missing my entire point.
I'm not saying I'm smart, I'm just saying the fucking narrator explaining shit is explaining shit. Point blank.

>>81755472

THIS.

The movie was pretty good but it felt like a bunch of separately filmed shorts tied together into a single movie. I should really dig it out and watch it again sometime.

>>81755576
Mixing like that could be awesome

>>81755576

To refer to Southland Tales is "straightforward" is disingenuous beyond belief. Or you're just a moron who doesn't know anything about movies and can't tell when one is deliberately messing with structure and storytelling.

>>81755702
Again, you're just missing the fundamentals of what I'm saying.
Which is that the narration explains everything to the viewer.

>>81755815

My goodness. It's almost as though over the course of a 2.5 hour film the constant change in scene/perspective/storyline and the multiplying plotlines end up becoming difficult to keep a hold of and the narrator describing the current scene is actually not essential for understanding the entire film!

What a shocking discovery!

Kelly himself says the movie takes multiple views to fully get a grasp on the plot. You're an idiot and the movie is far from "straightforward." Clearly you've seen the film many times and can follow it (as have I) but you should stop being so autistic and find a way to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is coming to a movie for the first time. It is far, far from straightforward.

>>81755947
>It's almost as though over the course of a 2.5 hour film the constant change in scene/perspective/storyline and the multiplying plotlines end up becoming difficult to keep a hold of and the narrator describing the current scene is actually not essential for understanding the entire film!

Again, I'm saying it's actually not because Pilot explains everything.

>>81754640

Sometimes when a director de emphasizes something essential (like oh God what the fuck is going on?), it's to emphasize something else that he really wants you to look at.

But audience members tend to distrust movies rather than to give themselves over. It's why people can't appreciate really intense art

>>81755992

are you high?

>>81756074
Are you?

I'm not saying the movie isn't complex, I'm just saying it's not hard to understand, especially on the first run. In the first few seconds Pilot is quoting Revelation and expositing. It's an interestingly made movie, with commentary on culture of the 21st century at that point...but it's not hard to understand the actual base plot because of the narration.
Which explains pretty much everything.

>>81755992
>Again, I'm saying it's actually not because Pilot explains everything.
>but it's not hard to understand the actual base plot because of the narration.
>Which explains pretty much everything.

File: Southland Tales Cannes Cut.ts_20170326_183649.350.jpg (201KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1920x1080px

I liked the movie. People should watch the Cannes cut.

>>81756219
That was in reference to
>and the multiplying plotlines end up becoming difficult to keep a hold of

And again, in response to that:
>I'm saying it's actually not because Pilot explains everything.

>>81756146
not the anon, you're arguing with, but you seem to have a good grip on what was going on. What was Jon Lovitz's deal, I only watched it once but remember being completely baffled by his character.

>>81756252
The Cannes Cut is trash and actually needs the comics.

>>81756287
>What was Jon Lovitz's deal, I only watched it once but remember being completely baffled by his character.
He was in love with the revolutionary, which she was exploiting. Him shooting the two comics was part of her plan.

>>81756303
What's wrong with it? I've watched both, and Cannes clearly lets the film breathe. It needs the extra runtime.

>>81756287
He and Cindy, the rival comedian to Amy Poehler's character, hijacked their scheme to get rid of them. Mainly because Cindy hated her and they were well known/influential USIDENT protesters and thus were threats to his job in general.

They didn't want the tape to be leaked, but other characters did, leading to the shoot out.

>>81756367
Saying it was trash was too far.
It's still an interesting movie, but it does rely too much on the comics. And the way they re-ordered scenes in the theatrical I think help the movie's flow.
Whereas in the Cannes Cut, alongside the extra scenes, are a bit more wasteful.

A mix of both would've been cool though.

>>81756438
The comics were a fatal mistake either way.

People would have been fine with another 45 minutes onto the movie. Well, more people than would have ever been motivated to seek the comics out.

>>81756377

I don't remember Lovitz's character ever talking to Cindy

>>81756520
They had a scene where they were in bathrobs at her loft at night while talking about the tape of the shooting in their possession.

kino
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCYB0lzoofc

>>81756551

This is amazing.

The guy arguing about the movie's straightforwardness literally can't even remember the characters' names.

That is Zora there buddy.

>>81756606
I haven't seen the movie in 3 years.
Names or not, am I wrong about the instances of the plot here?
Am I?

>>81756640

Don't bother my man, you proved my point better than I ever could have.

>>81756693

>clearly answered your question
>somehow proved your point

I'm not that anon, but c'mon.

>>81754108
I like it more than Donnie Darko.

>>81757814
Me too but not by much. The director seems to think he's smarter than he actually is.

I wanted to fuck Sarah Michelle Gellar so fucking bad after that movie.

Ignoring that, I think if the same story even with the same or nearly identical script were made with a different director and different casting and different costume and set designer and different everything else, it could have been done really well.