Friday, December 14, 2007

Why was In Good Company so unsatisfying?

Movies without resolution are really annoying. When I go to see a film, unless there is a sequel in the offing, I would like loose ends tied up.

I'd like a story. With a plot. And all those fancy words like "climax" and "dénouement" and possibly other French expressions that are even sillier.

I do not want to see Topher Grace and Scarlett Johansson give us the equivalent of a disaffected shrug and then a weird, useless shot of Topher Grace running along a beach. Other parts of that movie were good, but the end completely ruined it.

Maybe this means I'm shallow or a philistine. I don't really care. Story-telling used to be an art. Now the art seems to be refusing to tell a story in such a way that people will think it's clever, and that you are so talented for making it irritatingly unconventional, in that it's not a story.

This is lame.

1 comment:

Dave said...

I agree that the ending is pretty subpar. But, to be honest, I found the remainder of the film to be so refreshing and satisfying that I actually didn't so much mind the lack of real resolution at the end.