Author Topic: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho  (Read 15648 times)

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26435
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2009, 10:22:04 PM »
Okay, so here's how I'm about to roll.

I think we are given just enough about all the characters in each film for the viewer to fill in the gaps, I like that, but maybe you'll call that lazy film making or writing or something. Here's how I took the Reeves character. It seemed to be common rebellion, and perhaps prostitution is extreme, but the film, as Melvil has said, draws attention to just how extreme it is, it doesn't want just the heightened sense of reality that occurs in Out of Sight, it wants something more, and the bisexual prostitute works well for that.

Conversely, Clooney becomes a criminal for the challenge and because he's clearly disgusted with the establishment, apparent in his scene where he goes off on Dick.

It's all mostly irrelevant though, the why in both films is not supposed to be spelled out because both films invite the viewer to observe, not interact or escape.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27320
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2009, 10:22:59 PM »
The characters didn't bother me a lot. Sometimes I'm willing to go along with "this is just who they are, and it's not something that can be explained." I felt like both movies gave us enough on the characters for me to go along with that.
I think Melvil hit on my core problem of Out of Sight, the film demands a suspension of disbelief. The film demands it to such a degree that I simply can't accept the movie world it presents. The premise is preposterous in itself. Add in the stupidity of the black criminals in the third act and it was just too much for me to take.

Oddly enough, this is where you lose me. I think you have to realize that not every movie is real life. This film is decidedly un-realistic. If you don't like the zany-ness you're watching it wrong.
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9978
  • Eek
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #22 on: April 28, 2009, 10:24:51 PM »
I think this opening scene with Clooney tells us all we really need to know about him.


Not only is it a ton of fun, but it makes for a great introduction to his character. He's a bank robber, he's cool and professional about it, and if he had a better car he just might have gotten away with it. As we learn more about his history, it's clear that getting caught and failing is not going to stop him. It's what he does, and despite getting caught multiple times, he's good at it. We also see through the job offer he's given that he's not one to work a normal job, it's just not in his blood.

I think Melvil hit on my core problem of Out of Sight, the film demands a suspension of disbelief. The film demands it to such a degree that I simply can't accept the movie world it presents. The premise is preposterous in itself. Add in the stupidity of the black criminals in the third act and it was just too much for me to take.

I never felt like I was supposed to take the story too seriously. I can maybe see having a problem with some scenes where it suddenly does ask you to take it seriously, but for the most part it was just a fun ride.

jbissell

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10842
  • What's up, hot dog?
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2009, 10:26:59 PM »
The characters didn't bother me a lot. Sometimes I'm willing to go along with "this is just who they are, and it's not something that can be explained." I felt like both movies gave us enough on the characters for me to go along with that.
I think Melvil hit on my core problem of Out of Sight, the film demands a suspension of disbelief. The film demands it to such a degree that I simply can't accept the movie world it presents. The premise is preposterous in itself. Add in the stupidity of the black criminals in the third act and it was just too much for me to take.

The stupidity of Snoop and his gang is established well before the third act.  It's not like they are portrayed as criminal masterminds and suddenly CINECAST! up the heist.  They're a bunch of CINECAST!ing morons.

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9978
  • Eek
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2009, 10:29:52 PM »
On the MOPI side of things, I think this scene maybe best explains Keanu's character.


The absurdity of meeting his father wearing that (when through the rest of the movie he dresses pretty normally) shows how much he enjoys throwing his lifestyle in his father's face. The extremity to which he takes his rebellion (prostitution) doesn't need to be explicitly explained for me to buy it.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26435
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2009, 10:30:10 PM »
The characters didn't bother me a lot. Sometimes I'm willing to go along with "this is just who they are, and it's not something that can be explained." I felt like both movies gave us enough on the characters for me to go along with that.
I think Melvil hit on my core problem of Out of Sight, the film demands a suspension of disbelief. The film demands it to such a degree that I simply can't accept the movie world it presents. The premise is preposterous in itself. Add in the stupidity of the black criminals in the third act and it was just too much for me to take.

The stupidity of Snoop and his gang is established well before the third act.  It's not like they are portrayed as criminal masterminds and suddenly CINECAST! up the heist.  They're a bunch of CINECAST!ing morons.

jbissell is correct, the film establishes this early on and only reinforces it when we are reintroduced to the characters. As I said earlier, I think we are shown at the very beginning, as Melvil said, all we need to know about Clooney's character at a base level. He may be professional, but it doesn't matter what kind of car he is driving he is doomed to be caught and to keep trying again. It explains his attraction to J-Lo's character.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 23886
  • A Monkey with a Gun
    • Creative Criticism
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2009, 10:31:38 PM »
The characters didn't bother me a lot. Sometimes I'm willing to go along with "this is just who they are, and it's not something that can be explained." I felt like both movies gave us enough on the characters for me to go along with that.
I think Melvil hit on my core problem of Out of Sight, the film demands a suspension of disbelief. The film demands it to such a degree that I simply can't accept the movie world it presents. The premise is preposterous in itself. Add in the stupidity of the black criminals in the third act and it was just too much for me to take.

The stupidity of Snoop and his gang is established well before the third act.  It's not like they are portrayed as criminal masterminds and suddenly CINECAST! up the heist.  They're a bunch of CINECAST!ing morons.
When they decide to shoot the safe that pretty much ends any doubt I had before. My conclusion is that Out of Sight is as stupid as hell.

You can argue all day about it being a "movie" but I don't care. It's stupid. I don't care what universe you hail from. Some of you may like the stupidity of it all but I just can't stand it.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27320
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2009, 10:37:49 PM »
So you admit to watching Out of Sight as if it were Schindler's List?
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

jbissell

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10842
  • What's up, hot dog?
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2009, 10:38:20 PM »
The characters didn't bother me a lot. Sometimes I'm willing to go along with "this is just who they are, and it's not something that can be explained." I felt like both movies gave us enough on the characters for me to go along with that.
I think Melvil hit on my core problem of Out of Sight, the film demands a suspension of disbelief. The film demands it to such a degree that I simply can't accept the movie world it presents. The premise is preposterous in itself. Add in the stupidity of the black criminals in the third act and it was just too much for me to take.

The stupidity of Snoop and his gang is established well before the third act.  It's not like they are portrayed as criminal masterminds and suddenly CINECAST! up the heist.  They're a bunch of CINECAST!ing morons.
When they decide to shoot the safe that pretty much ends any doubt I had before. My conclusion is that Out of Sight is as stupid as hell.

Really?! Them shooting at the safe was the deal-breaker for you? Why wouldn't they try that?

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 23886
  • A Monkey with a Gun
    • Creative Criticism
Re: 90s US Round 5: Out of Sight vs. My Own Private Idaho
« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2009, 10:38:37 PM »
So you admit to watching Out of Sight as if it were Schindler's List?
I admit to watching Out of Sight as a person of reasonable intelligence.

Really?! Them shooting at the safe was the deal-breaker for you? Why wouldn't they try that?
No. It was just the point at which I felt my position from minute 15 was vindicated beyond a shadow of a doubt, at least in my own mind.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 10:40:08 PM by lotr-sam0711 »

 

love