|
| | I gather the point you're making and, not having seen the film, don't want to disagree with it generally, other than to say - often people DO say obvious things. Perhaps it is in fact a sign of MORE realistic dialogue that things which do not have to be stated, ARE stated. And in the example you used anyway - If I was running around a massive gallery looking for a particular painting, why shouldn't a local tell me where it is? 'Intelligence' doesn't come into knowing the precise location of a painting within a massive complex. |
| |
|
| | Broon, I understand the point you are making (though I too, have not seen this movie). However, I think modern film makers and audiences have an unspoken understanding that obvious dialogue should not be used - it can only detract from a scene. Example: How often do people use a telephone in a movie and go through the routine of saying, "Hello. How are you? I'm fine. What are you up to?". Sure, we all say those things in real life but in a film it is tedious. Example #2: Person at a check out counter. "that will be $2.25. Out of $20? Your change is $17.75". This exchange takes up film time and adds nothing . However, if this trivial dialogue is used as a vehicle to convey something, then it works. For examples, see Shop Girl (not a recommendation) when she states the cost of some womens gloves. Better yet, see Swingers (definitely recommended)to see how well dialogue like this can be used. |
| |
|
| | this review forgets that this movie is a treasure hunt, and the mona lisa was the next clue. so what if they get excited for solving a riddle, is sophie supposed to stomp her feet and point? the movie is not some criterion collection director, it is a great piece of pop culture and i think people are giving it low marks just because they know it'll be a runaway success anyways. at least this movie challenges people to think. |
| |