MovieChat Forums > Fear X (2003) Discussion > My explanation - Simple

My explanation - Simple

posted 17 years ago by guyheath
9 replies | jump to latest

I just watched the movie and came to the board to see what others thought. I would have to say that some of the thoughts here were very creative; yet, there is nothing in the film that would lead the viewer to support any of the ideas that I've read. The cop is harry, the face breaking through the red color, the white guy is that and the black guy is this, he moved from one side of the street from where he leaved to the other side, etc. A good film has to lead the viewer so that that viewer can decide how to interpreate the film.

I would have to say that this film's main focus was to try and trick the viewer into beliving that its director is really cool or some type of creative story teller. This is false and wrong. The film fails at any attempt of true film making. It is not the first film to fail and it will not be the last. Trying to add all these complicated ideas to a story where the director does not lead you to is an insult to all those films that were able to succeed like The Usual Suspects.

Bottom-line, take your finger and thumb and create an "L." That's just the way it is. There have been far to many films that have succeeded where this one did not!

Too bad, but that's show bizz.

[–] gazzasanderson 17 years ago

Thank God for that!

Somebody coming on here after watching that tripe and not pretending to be a pretentious arrogant smug know-it-all who understands the ending.

When movies are this bad, why are there so many ***holes who have to write or interrupt threads claiming the movie is good and/or crystal clear to them?

I said this before and I'll repeat it now: Some of the threads on this movies message board have talked about Schizophrenia theories and the like. Listen, deliberating whether Verbal Klint is Keyser Soze is one thing, but deliberating whether Harry is Peter; even if there were clues that some of you guys think you can see; is just pointless because the movie is just not interesting enough. I suspect most of you are seeing these clues to whether Harry is Peter because you want to show off some kind of intelligence you think you have - there was NOTHING in this movie to sustain that kind of interest.

It is a dreadful, boring, empty movie and all you guys making up theories are basing it on nothing. Who were the Police Officers speaking to at the Hospital? Who cares? The Director purposely made that person invisible or was too stupid to widen the screen to include him/her. You're all basing your theories on your own imaginations rather than realizing that the Director is truly awful and hasn't put together a movie to base your deliberations on

And again, there is this little pear of wisdom from the Director himself: It depends on how I feel that day. And of course that pisses off a lot of people because they’re not used to a film without an ending. But what the *beep* is an ending, you know? - Nicolas Winding Refn, Director 'Fear X'

So, well said Guy Heath. Well done for being different.

PS.. The Director, Nicolas Winding Refn, his film company went bust after this movie.

[–] JoeTouchole 17 years ago

Years ago I would have been right with you and said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. However ( and this is as tough for me to say as it is for you to hear ) if that is what someone gets from the film, then so be it.I've watched it 3 times now and still feel like I fell asleep and missed half of it.Now my reaction is based upon my intellect (limited) and my life experiences.Based upon those 2 resources, I haven't a clue. The previous comments were merely the thoughts and impressions that were formulated based upon the intellect and life experiences of that individual.Sure I didn't take anything from it and it appears you didn't either, but why bust the chops of someone that did ?

[–] guyheath 16 years ago

I would still say that if you're making a film, you're not trying to show how clever you are. Film makers are communicating a message. Two images come to my mind regarding this film that make my case.

This first, is the scene in the movie "Sling Blade" when John Ritter's character is in discussion with another character. John's character explains that he (John) doesn't understand what the guy is saying. In fact, what the other guy is saying makes no sense. The other guy says, "I rest my case!" This is Fear X for me, I'm John Ritter, What the film makers is doing in his film makes no sense to me. In this case, the film maker is the other guy so full of himself he says, "I rest my case!" As though his lack of communicating his ideas clearly is some sort of pass or key to being clever!

The second image comes from the movie "No Country For Old Men!" Its the closing scene with Tommy Lee Jones' character talking about his dreams. No matter what you think about the dreams, or how you interpret the dreams, you see how the film maker lead the character (and of course you as the veiwer) to come this point in the film. It was great film making with open/abstract interpretation, but still with common threads for communications. Two Films, Fear X, No Country For Old Men. Two clear examples how to and how not to be abstract and open-end ideas.

That's show biz!

[–] little_joost 17 years ago

guyheath , ur just stupid for not understanding. Very good movie

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 17 years ago

As much fun as a hernia operation without anesthetic.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

[–] AJSabbo 17 years ago

Oh wow, good explanation there buddy. Obviously YOU understand it and are therefore very smart. Give your explanation if you have one. I think you have filled in the holes with assumptions and imagination like a 12 year old kid would.Your a *beep* idiot.

[–] guyheath 16 years ago

I diffently don't understand the story the film maker is telling, so if you feel good about calling me stupid, then that's your bowl of rice, my man!

[–] larry-708 17 years ago

interesting movie ruined by a lazy storyteller (the writer) who couldn't come up with an ending and so he just quit telling his story. i didn't pay a cent to watch it and i still feel totally ripped off.

[–] QTFilmFan 13 years ago

I thought it was great and pretty straightforward. Sort of a weird hallucination brought on by too much grief and sleepless nights. And the filmmaker was just expressing his love for such filmmakers as Kubrick and Lynch. I wonder why Lynch gets praised for making films that make no *beep* sense what so ever and this film gets a bad wrap for also making no sense, though like I said before i thought it was pretty straightforward. Guy works for an organization that kills corrupt cops, kills other guys wife on accident. other guy kills the corrupt cop killer. Organization covers it up. Guy goes back home. The end. This all happens within a hazy dream/hallucination, much like a Lynch film. I also agree that movies don't need endings. I also believe that movies don't need plots. Thats just what I believe.