A cardinal rule I believe a film should have if to make an engaging experience for the audience. I am convinced after watching this film that whoever made it weren't interested in the engagement of the audience. Rather it was like a group of professionals doing their jobs as efficiently as possible at the sacrifice of soul and heart. The result being a film that looks gorgeous but feels vapid. The main character is a brick with the tonal range of angry to slightly more angry. The thing is I got the impression that this wasn't the result of poor acting, rather narrow acting. This is pretty much the same for all the characters whose names I couldn't commit to memory because it didn't seem important. It didn't seem necessary to remember their names because they're not humans, but robots.
The story was, in the most literal sense of the word, stupid. Not the concept, I'm sure the book was better considering that it won awards, this movie however was badly plotted like a script that never had the fine-tooth comb inspection for inconsistencies and as a result it had characters who would do things that made no sense. Why did she hop in the car but only until they arrived at her place did she threaten to call the cops? If she had to be on an IV drip while experiencing hallucinations, how could she summon the power to bolt from her room under the supervision of three nurses? Why were they frantically running and in the next shot slow to a walk? She kills the old man making her a murderer! Who in the name of the holy Buddha would let two kids see a dead body in a poorly lit, unhygienic, unsupervised room? And perhaps one of the most stupids lines I've heard
"You know where I live. I saw you, walking across the street." "Wasn't me. Unless your seeing things?"
(I mean come on!)
These types of questions arise only when the filmmakers are doing chess piece storytelling. Character goes here, character goes there, with little consideration to the weight of the assembly of the scenes. Shower scenes are a good symbol of showing the intimacy and vulnerability of a character both physically and psychologically, making an audience wonder just whats on their mind. I never wondered what was on her mind because shes a moron. Shes a brick. She loses track of her brother, finds that hes been with the old man of whom she is suspicious of for (at this point in the film), no reason. She hastily rushes him out but when he tells her shes her own person of something (which is a lie because she is not a person. Is a brick!) she immediately stays to loiter.
Another thing that bugged me was just looking at the characters lifeless deadpan expressions throughout the film. It was like watching paint dry. It made the movie feel longer then it actually was. I get the points of conveying a serious, socially awkward person who wont react with the classic 80s movies one-liner, but moments, especially at the beginning never seemed motivated. The main character is just a rude dick was the impression I got from it. It's just one-dimensional characters. This results in narrow acting on behalf of the actor but its not their fault. The script is putting them in a cage and not letting them expression the wonderful chaos which is humanity.
You, whoever might be reading this, may feel like that these are the reasons that pissed me off and though these did little to help this feeling it was not the major contributor to these feelings of anger. I just hate the fact that there are problems like these in the first place. These are rudimentary errors that vanish under the level of scrutiny of an impassioned filmmaker. It never felt like they celebrated each scene and its narrative weight. I could skip scenes in the movie and feel like I hadn't missed anything important. I couldn't get invested because scenes felt long but said little. That is the reason The Changeover pissed me off. It didn't care if anyone watched it. It just seemed like an opportunity for talented film creators to do their job. The result is a polished turd. I don't care how nice the lighting is, I'm still staring at crap!
The story was, in the most literal sense of the word, stupid. Not the concept, I'm sure the book was better considering that it won awards, this movie however was badly plotted like a script that never had the fine-tooth comb inspection for inconsistencies and as a result it had characters who would do things that made no sense. Why did she hop in the car but only until they arrived at her place did she threaten to call the cops? If she had to be on an IV drip while experiencing hallucinations, how could she summon the power to bolt from her room under the supervision of three nurses? Why were they frantically running and in the next shot slow to a walk? She kills the old man making her a murderer! Who in the name of the holy Buddha would let two kids see a dead body in a poorly lit, unhygienic, unsupervised room? And perhaps one of the most stupids lines I've heard
"You know where I live. I saw you, walking across the street." "Wasn't me. Unless your seeing things?"
(I mean come on!)
These types of questions arise only when the filmmakers are doing chess piece storytelling. Character goes here, character goes there, with little consideration to the weight of the assembly of the scenes. Shower scenes are a good symbol of showing the intimacy and vulnerability of a character both physically and psychologically, making an audience wonder just whats on their mind. I never wondered what was on her mind because shes a moron. Shes a brick. She loses track of her brother, finds that hes been with the old man of whom she is suspicious of for (at this point in the film), no reason. She hastily rushes him out but when he tells her shes her own person of something (which is a lie because she is not a person. Is a brick!) she immediately stays to loiter.
Another thing that bugged me was just looking at the characters lifeless deadpan expressions throughout the film. It was like watching paint dry. It made the movie feel longer then it actually was. I get the points of conveying a serious, socially awkward person who wont react with the classic 80s movies one-liner, but moments, especially at the beginning never seemed motivated. The main character is just a rude dick was the impression I got from it. It's just one-dimensional characters. This results in narrow acting on behalf of the actor but its not their fault. The script is putting them in a cage and not letting them expression the wonderful chaos which is humanity.
You, whoever might be reading this, may feel like that these are the reasons that pissed me off and though these did little to help this feeling it was not the major contributor to these feelings of anger. I just hate the fact that there are problems like these in the first place. These are rudimentary errors that vanish under the level of scrutiny of an impassioned filmmaker. It never felt like they celebrated each scene and its narrative weight. I could skip scenes in the movie and feel like I hadn't missed anything important. I couldn't get invested because scenes felt long but said little. That is the reason The Changeover pissed me off. It didn't care if anyone watched it. It just seemed like an opportunity for talented film creators to do their job. The result is a polished turd. I don't care how nice the lighting is, I'm still staring at crap!