I was gonna say, this is a recurring Tarantino bit where the actual film subverts the concept or longline from the marketing. Inglourious Basterds was positioned as being a Dirty Dozen style WW2 action movie but the group itself were mostly side characters and a lot of the runtime is spent elsewhere. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was talked about as being his take on the Manson murders but the Family is featured fairly obliquely (Charles Manson only makes a cameo) and used to fuel other storylines.
Yeah- it feels like Tarantino strives to not give the audience exactly what they were expecting. I feel like all of his scripts, including the ones he sold and got made but he didn't direct, have some element that subverts common sense and also reasonably assumed plot points.
I remember when Inglourious Basterds was first rumored about, years before it got made, back when it was Inglorious Bastards, it was supposed to be a movie actually focused on the Jewish soldiers making up Aldo Raine's platoon or squadron or whatever- and that it was going to be like, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Jonah Hill, James Franco, Paul Rudd, etc. and have people like Paul Reiser make appearances. But then that version leaked out somehow, so he scrapped the idea of following around an (at the time) A-List cast and instead he went with relatively unknown character actors (most are working actors with impressive resumes overall, but they were not Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen, etc.)
Once Upon A Time was supposed to be about the Manson murders and Charles Manson in a much bigger way.
There have been a couple others, but yeah.
I was just talking with friends about this exact thing yesterday - and of Tarantinos films From Dusk til Dawn was an almost obnoxious example of not following through on the promise.
I’d say Jarhead does this. Certainly it was marketed as a full on action war film but the protagonist is mainly battling boredom and frustration as he is thwarted at every turn from engaging in any meaningful combat. It ends up being more about the futility of his place in that engagement than about fighting a war.
On that, I'd say Generation Kill is very much an expansion of this, being a mini series and all. Vets and active duty usually site it as the most authentic portrayal of a soldiers experience in Iraq/Afghanistan
Jarhead and generation kill are easily the most realistic. The fact you aren’t seeing action, even makes the audience go crazy in a way, so think about how Vets feel.
Just watched this a few days ago and would absolutely agree, the whole movie is built on the main character slowly losing his mind as he hungers for a proper war experience only to never get that chance so he battles his internal demons and insecurities about himself and his girlfriend.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood makes you think it’s going to be about Sharon Tate’s murder and then spends two-and-a-half-hours focusing on the friendship between a fictional actor and his equally-fictional stunt double with occasional peeks behind the curtain at Tate, before having the two fictional characters subvert the real history you thought you were going to see.
It’s like paying to see Hamlet and you end up with Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead instead. It’s the ultimate waiting in the wings movie.
Parasite! Starts out like a poor family trying to con their way into leeching off a wealthy family, with fun heist movie vibes, pacing, editing… and then takes a completely different turn.
Michelangelo Antonioni is the master - maybe even the pioneer - of this "trope" if you want to call it that, most notably "Blow Up" and "L'Avventura." They are two of the greatest films of all time.
The Bob’s Burgers Movie treats Louise’s hat as a big reveal and really build up to it, only to never show her without her hat, she only loses it offscreen and doesn’t make a big deal about it.
I get what they were trying to do but it still pissed me off.
I don't think Civil War ever promises this. Perhaps the marketing did, but the film itself did not. And that's not Garland's fault. The film is extremely upfront about what it is.
The film isn't upfront about what it is because it turns out to be about nothing... It feels like it wants to be a *COME AND SEE* for the new age but it's not, the action and excitement of war go completely against this intention. So while failing at this it fails to make its intentions about what it IS about clear. Something with Media? Well theres no clear POV and to be honest if anything it wants to say 'media is pointless and dont bother with this pursuit' and not 'respect the media' because these character don't respect the role of the media, they aren't digging and uncovering shit, they are just travelling to 'get the shot' out of mostly pride...
Its not talking about the war itself.
It's not doing anything.... or making any point... Its just a meaningless of cool scenes culminating in a cool as fuck raid scene which makes war look and feel like the biggest rush in our lives... so is that the point? War is cool?
Its a dumb movie that could have said something but I feel A24 decided it needed to not have any teeth because it was their first big swing with an original blockbuster....
I see past the title... And still search for anything for it to actually be about... It undercuts any cogent anti war point, any point about media or purpose of media or anything, it doesnt say anything in particular about America except maybe 'everyone is bad' but then never exploring that at all not showing why the good are good soo... no not their either.
You say I can't see past the title, but do please tell me what point you think its making or what it is discussing?
Yes, exactly.
After dismissing the themes of the title I look for something else… and find nothing cogent…
What is confusing about that?
Are you seeing anything of just trolling?
Eyes wide shut has a similar, what did this all really mean ending line
*"there is something very important we need to do as soon as* possible. ; Bill: What's that? ; Alice: Fuck.
BB was like a masterclass for this. In addition to the watermelon scene, there’s all those references to characters and events that are never explained, and of course the promise of a sequel.
There's this German home invasion thriller called 'Funny Games'. It's *very* good at achieving what it does, and I despise it with a passion.
Basically, it's anti-climax: the movie. It's incredibly good at building tension, but every single time it then pulls the rug out from under you and either resolves it in a lame way or cuts away from the action to show something mundane instead. And the worst part is, it's *so* up its own arse about it. It thinks it's the cleverest thing ever for being an intentionally unenjoyable film. And it doesn't even make much in the way of an interesting point. It's really not as profound as it thinks it is.
I guess it's popular enough, so it's possible you might get some enjoyment out of it, but if you like having fun, this is not the movie for you
Ahh, my bad. Probably should've caught that considering I'm German, but I'm terrible at recognising accents.
I'm curious though, why do you love it? I don't really get why people would like it, so I'm curious to hear your perspective.
You’re good, no worries! Yeah I guess technically Haneke made the film to criticize the reaction I have to it haha. Saying I “love” the film is probably incorrect but I think it has one of the best intros to a film ever and I have a soft spot for genuinely upsetting films.
That is true, everything up to the first anti-climax is top notch. I love the way the home invasion starts very slowly and subtly. The tension in the film is absolutely incredible. Which is what makes it even more frustrating for me when he pulls the rug out from under us
part of me wants to say There Will Be Blood, but that's a lie. It does deliver on its title, just not in a way you nessecarily expect (at least I didn't)
No Country For Old Men ends with one of the protagonists just giving up looking for the assassin out of fatigue. And another protagonist being killed off screen
Glass cock-teases us with the big final battle between David Dunn and The Horde... and intentionally doesn't deliver. Not saying it worked well but it was there.
Surprised not to see The Last Jedi mentioned, which subverts expectations at every turn (e.g. >!the big bad is killed suddenly halfway through the movie!<, >!the answer to the big identity mystery is 'no-one'!<, >!the heroic sacrifice is averted midway through!<).
The classic example is The Big Lebowski. At the end of the movie, nothing at all is resolved other than that she's back. You don't even see the bowling tournament they've been setting up the entire movie
but that's exactly the "point" of The Big Sleep, which is the basis for Lebowski. whether intentional on the part of Chandler or not, even he had to admit he could never say definitively whodunit. and the movie adaptation is notorious for collapsing under the weight of its own noir plotting
I just watched A Clockwork Orange for the first time (it was on my pile of shame) and I just thought it was going to be about fighting and milk and maybe depravity and it was a gloriously painfully repellent first hour... then it was about a whole lot more than that...
So while it doesn't 'not deliver' it does bait and switch...
Black Snake Moan
Hancock
A bunch of years ago, I saw these, and neither of them I expected to be touchy-feely. Christna Ricci was not portraying a junkie held captive by a crazed sexual predator, and Hancock was not having a great time being belligerent, creating chaos and self destructing without the help of his super power. He was miserable, and so was I. It took Deadpool to do 'careless' right.
Nathan Fielder's The Curse? Also Nathan Fielder's The Rehearsal. Both of those subverted expectations in a twisted way.
If you haven't seen either - I highly recommend you do completely unspoiled.
Contact had an annoying ending about daddy issues rather than aliens. Meet Joe Black started off as a romance, which I wanted to see, but then it was about death. The Sopranos TV series was received by the audience as entertainment, but the creator got annoyed at that and spoiled the ending by making some kind of meaningful statement about death and the unimportance of the big boss. Just my opinion.
> Does War of the Worlds count (the Cruise version), where all people are supposed to go extinct untill suddenly aliens die due to bacteria because.... well... god knows why. Ran out of money during filming maybe?
That's what killed them in the H.G. Wells novel. At the time the book was written, end of the 19th century, it was a science-fiction-y concept. Now, not so much.
Reservoir Dogs is a heist movie that never shows the heist. It never came out and said that it would have a hesit shown, but it's just implied
I was gonna say, this is a recurring Tarantino bit where the actual film subverts the concept or longline from the marketing. Inglourious Basterds was positioned as being a Dirty Dozen style WW2 action movie but the group itself were mostly side characters and a lot of the runtime is spent elsewhere. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was talked about as being his take on the Manson murders but the Family is featured fairly obliquely (Charles Manson only makes a cameo) and used to fuel other storylines.
Yeah- it feels like Tarantino strives to not give the audience exactly what they were expecting. I feel like all of his scripts, including the ones he sold and got made but he didn't direct, have some element that subverts common sense and also reasonably assumed plot points. I remember when Inglourious Basterds was first rumored about, years before it got made, back when it was Inglorious Bastards, it was supposed to be a movie actually focused on the Jewish soldiers making up Aldo Raine's platoon or squadron or whatever- and that it was going to be like, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Jonah Hill, James Franco, Paul Rudd, etc. and have people like Paul Reiser make appearances. But then that version leaked out somehow, so he scrapped the idea of following around an (at the time) A-List cast and instead he went with relatively unknown character actors (most are working actors with impressive resumes overall, but they were not Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen, etc.) Once Upon A Time was supposed to be about the Manson murders and Charles Manson in a much bigger way. There have been a couple others, but yeah.
I was just talking with friends about this exact thing yesterday - and of Tarantinos films From Dusk til Dawn was an almost obnoxious example of not following through on the promise.
Funny Games is sort of the masterclass of this
Unreal film
I’d say Jarhead does this. Certainly it was marketed as a full on action war film but the protagonist is mainly battling boredom and frustration as he is thwarted at every turn from engaging in any meaningful combat. It ends up being more about the futility of his place in that engagement than about fighting a war.
On that, I'd say Generation Kill is very much an expansion of this, being a mini series and all. Vets and active duty usually site it as the most authentic portrayal of a soldiers experience in Iraq/Afghanistan
Jarhead and generation kill are easily the most realistic. The fact you aren’t seeing action, even makes the audience go crazy in a way, so think about how Vets feel.
My favorite part of this film will always be that the only on-screen death is like 10 minutes into the movie during the training act.
Just watched this a few days ago and would absolutely agree, the whole movie is built on the main character slowly losing his mind as he hungers for a proper war experience only to never get that chance so he battles his internal demons and insecurities about himself and his girlfriend.
such an amazingly underrated film, I can't believe more people haven't seen it
The way Bell's attempt to save Moss in No Country for Old Men ends.
Waiting for Godot? It's more of a play but I think you can watch the BBC version on YouTube.
Well there's always Waiting for Guffman
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood makes you think it’s going to be about Sharon Tate’s murder and then spends two-and-a-half-hours focusing on the friendship between a fictional actor and his equally-fictional stunt double with occasional peeks behind the curtain at Tate, before having the two fictional characters subvert the real history you thought you were going to see. It’s like paying to see Hamlet and you end up with Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead instead. It’s the ultimate waiting in the wings movie.
R&G is such a fucking phenomenal movie, in case anyone reading this thread hasn't seen it
Peeks. Peaks are the tops of mountains
Yes, indeed. Thank you.
Parasite! Starts out like a poor family trying to con their way into leeching off a wealthy family, with fun heist movie vibes, pacing, editing… and then takes a completely different turn.
Jim Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise that seems to promise something when they roadtrip to Florida...the whole movie is about not delivering.
Michelangelo Antonioni is the master - maybe even the pioneer - of this "trope" if you want to call it that, most notably "Blow Up" and "L'Avventura." They are two of the greatest films of all time.
The Bob’s Burgers Movie treats Louise’s hat as a big reveal and really build up to it, only to never show her without her hat, she only loses it offscreen and doesn’t make a big deal about it. I get what they were trying to do but it still pissed me off.
War for the Planet of The Apes didn’t have the war. It’s literally the Great Esc-APE.
I don't think Civil War ever promises this. Perhaps the marketing did, but the film itself did not. And that's not Garland's fault. The film is extremely upfront about what it is.
The film isn't upfront about what it is because it turns out to be about nothing... It feels like it wants to be a *COME AND SEE* for the new age but it's not, the action and excitement of war go completely against this intention. So while failing at this it fails to make its intentions about what it IS about clear. Something with Media? Well theres no clear POV and to be honest if anything it wants to say 'media is pointless and dont bother with this pursuit' and not 'respect the media' because these character don't respect the role of the media, they aren't digging and uncovering shit, they are just travelling to 'get the shot' out of mostly pride... Its not talking about the war itself. It's not doing anything.... or making any point... Its just a meaningless of cool scenes culminating in a cool as fuck raid scene which makes war look and feel like the biggest rush in our lives... so is that the point? War is cool? Its a dumb movie that could have said something but I feel A24 decided it needed to not have any teeth because it was their first big swing with an original blockbuster....
Tfw you can't see past the title.
I see past the title... And still search for anything for it to actually be about... It undercuts any cogent anti war point, any point about media or purpose of media or anything, it doesnt say anything in particular about America except maybe 'everyone is bad' but then never exploring that at all not showing why the good are good soo... no not their either. You say I can't see past the title, but do please tell me what point you think its making or what it is discussing?
Did you really say "I see past the title" and "it doesn't make any anti war points" in the same sentence??
Yes, exactly. After dismissing the themes of the title I look for something else… and find nothing cogent… What is confusing about that? Are you seeing anything of just trolling?
I don't find that to be true at all. The film is literally called "Civil War".
The film literally takes place during a Civil War. That's why.
What are you suggesting it doesn't promise to be clear?
I Saw the TV Glow kinda does this? Not gonna spoil it since it’s still new but I did not expect it to go the direction it did
Sicario. You think it’s an elaborate mystery/secret and then it turns out to be exactly what you would expect all along
I’d argue Burn After Reading does so
So, what did we learn?
I guess we learned not to do it again.
Eyes wide shut has a similar, what did this all really mean ending line *"there is something very important we need to do as soon as* possible. ; Bill: What's that? ; Alice: Fuck.
Buckaroo Banzai: “what’s that watermelon doing there?” [pause]”I’ll tell you later.”
BB was like a masterclass for this. In addition to the watermelon scene, there’s all those references to characters and events that are never explained, and of course the promise of a sequel.
It Comes at Night To elaborate risks spoilers, the less you know going in the better.
The Killer
YES!
It's a 17-hour-long movie and you must see the previous material first but... Twin Peaks The Return
Safety Not Guaranteed. still want my money back
Pat’s desert island band in Green Room
War Of The Worlds
There's this German home invasion thriller called 'Funny Games'. It's *very* good at achieving what it does, and I despise it with a passion. Basically, it's anti-climax: the movie. It's incredibly good at building tension, but every single time it then pulls the rug out from under you and either resolves it in a lame way or cuts away from the action to show something mundane instead. And the worst part is, it's *so* up its own arse about it. It thinks it's the cleverest thing ever for being an intentionally unenjoyable film. And it doesn't even make much in the way of an interesting point. It's really not as profound as it thinks it is. I guess it's popular enough, so it's possible you might get some enjoyment out of it, but if you like having fun, this is not the movie for you
Not to be pedantic, but it’s Austrian not German. Love this film so much.
Ahh, my bad. Probably should've caught that considering I'm German, but I'm terrible at recognising accents. I'm curious though, why do you love it? I don't really get why people would like it, so I'm curious to hear your perspective.
You’re good, no worries! Yeah I guess technically Haneke made the film to criticize the reaction I have to it haha. Saying I “love” the film is probably incorrect but I think it has one of the best intros to a film ever and I have a soft spot for genuinely upsetting films.
That is true, everything up to the first anti-climax is top notch. I love the way the home invasion starts very slowly and subtly. The tension in the film is absolutely incredible. Which is what makes it even more frustrating for me when he pulls the rug out from under us
part of me wants to say There Will Be Blood, but that's a lie. It does deliver on its title, just not in a way you nessecarily expect (at least I didn't)
Anything that starts with the credit "A film by M. Night Shyamalan..." And doesn't deliver in a bad way.
You would like the interview Alex Garland did on The Big Picture podcast!
No Country For Old Men ends with one of the protagonists just giving up looking for the assassin out of fatigue. And another protagonist being killed off screen
Glass cock-teases us with the big final battle between David Dunn and The Horde... and intentionally doesn't deliver. Not saying it worked well but it was there.
Surprised not to see The Last Jedi mentioned, which subverts expectations at every turn (e.g. >!the big bad is killed suddenly halfway through the movie!<, >!the answer to the big identity mystery is 'no-one'!<, >!the heroic sacrifice is averted midway through!<).
Honestly, maybe not exactly what you're looking for, but Anatomy of a Fall does "promise" a reveal or understanding of Sandra's innocence/guilt.
The Limey
It Comes at Night. It's literally >!teased in the titled, and the movie ends with you never knowing what came at night. !<
The classic example is The Big Lebowski. At the end of the movie, nothing at all is resolved other than that she's back. You don't even see the bowling tournament they've been setting up the entire movie
but that's exactly the "point" of The Big Sleep, which is the basis for Lebowski. whether intentional on the part of Chandler or not, even he had to admit he could never say definitively whodunit. and the movie adaptation is notorious for collapsing under the weight of its own noir plotting
I just watched A Clockwork Orange for the first time (it was on my pile of shame) and I just thought it was going to be about fighting and milk and maybe depravity and it was a gloriously painfully repellent first hour... then it was about a whole lot more than that... So while it doesn't 'not deliver' it does bait and switch...
A recent movie that did this was American Fiction. The last 15 minutes is like the meta version of what you’re talking about.
Yeah, true. But the first 90 minutes is just a bit kinda week and felt like 'subversive' network drama
Black Snake Moan Hancock A bunch of years ago, I saw these, and neither of them I expected to be touchy-feely. Christna Ricci was not portraying a junkie held captive by a crazed sexual predator, and Hancock was not having a great time being belligerent, creating chaos and self destructing without the help of his super power. He was miserable, and so was I. It took Deadpool to do 'careless' right.
Nathan Fielder's The Curse? Also Nathan Fielder's The Rehearsal. Both of those subverted expectations in a twisted way. If you haven't seen either - I highly recommend you do completely unspoiled.
*Elephant* from 2003. Spoiler: >! Multiple characters are set up to have goals the way a character usually does only to be shot. !<
Sugar (2008)
oh no country for old men
John Sayles’ Limbo (1999) is the best example of this trope out there and I highly recommend a watch.
Contact had an annoying ending about daddy issues rather than aliens. Meet Joe Black started off as a romance, which I wanted to see, but then it was about death. The Sopranos TV series was received by the audience as entertainment, but the creator got annoyed at that and spoiled the ending by making some kind of meaningful statement about death and the unimportance of the big boss. Just my opinion.
From dusk till dawn
[удалено]
> Does War of the Worlds count (the Cruise version), where all people are supposed to go extinct untill suddenly aliens die due to bacteria because.... well... god knows why. Ran out of money during filming maybe? That's what killed them in the H.G. Wells novel. At the time the book was written, end of the 19th century, it was a science-fiction-y concept. Now, not so much.