Not quite sure why critics are panning this movie
I mean, it's not an Oscar winner but as entertainment I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think one reason being it's not your usual shallow, one dimensional Hollywood action/thriller
shareI mean, it's not an Oscar winner but as entertainment I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think one reason being it's not your usual shallow, one dimensional Hollywood action/thriller
shareThat reason seems to be the one that most of we admirers have settled on. The other reason is that it doesn't portray autism in the way they think is accurate ; or that it does, and that makes it mocking.
shareGood movies promote themselves. Word of mouth, etc. and the next thing you know...disaster. People like this movie more than other movies. They buy this one and watch it 20 times, instead of wasting money on 20 crappy movies.
Hollywood accounting is pretty amazing, but you still have to level things out with excess promotion of garbage, and paid trolls ripping any decent movie.
Did you want to talk about conspiracy or are you just here for a discussion? ;-)
paid [ my bold ] trolls ripping any decent movie
> I think one reason being it's not your usual shallow, one dimensional Hollywood action/thriller
Did we watch the same movie?
It was exactly that. The only reason it was entertaining is because of the impeccable technical production values and a skilled cast. But story-telling? Yet another boring pile of hollywood tropes and non-sensical coincidences.
For example:
1. Who was the british woman on the phone? She's just a prop.
2. The two brothers just happen to run into each other while on opposite sides of a fight (I don't know about you, but I saw that a mile off because hollywood)
3. What part of his moral code explains all the times he phones in tips?
4. What moral code does he even have? All I saw was something about not being a victim and putting family first
5. How did either brother get into their respective businesses? Yeah he said he became an accountant because its a growing profession, but that doesn't explain working for criminals
6. Why kill Dana? She wasn't going to make trouble the way Wolff might.
7. Hiring an expensive private security team to defend an empty and vulnerable house instead of just moving to a securable building for a couple of weeks - guy didn't even have a family to uproot, just himself
8. Megalomaniacal villain gives monologue and then immediately gets his just deserts and is killed
I could go on, but it should be obvious. The story was poorly conceived and cliched. It only worked because of good pacing, good sets and the cast's ability to wring every last drop of character out of such thinly written roles.
Other posters say the actors were terrible, and ugly. At least you disagreed with that.
share1. Who was the british woman on the phone? She's just a prop.
2. The two brothers just happen to run into each other while on opposite sides of a fight (I don't know about you, but I saw that a mile off because hollywood)
3. What part of his moral code explains all the times he phones in tips?
4. What moral code does he even have? All I saw was something about not being a victim and putting family first
5. How did either brother get into their respective businesses? Yeah he said he became an accountant because its a growing profession, but that doesn't explain working for criminals
6. Why kill Dana? She wasn't going to make trouble the way Wolff might.
7. Hiring an expensive private security team to defend an empty and vulnerable house instead of just moving to a securable building for a couple of weeks - guy didn't even have a family to uproot, just himself
8. Megalomaniacal villain gives monologue and then immediately gets his just deserts and is killed
I could go on,
... but it should be obvious. The story was poorly conceived and cliched. It only worked because of good pacing, good sets and the cast's ability to wring every last drop of character out of such thinly written roles.
> OMG, she wasn't British, and it showed who she was at the end--a very neat twist.
So it was the autistic girl using the computer's voice. That one got by me, I just assumed that whole denouement was about explaining that he gave his millions to that facility because he knew the girl when he was a kid.
Not really a twist though.
> You need to start first.
You seem exceptionally invested in this movie. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Not really a twist though.
You seem exceptionally invested in this movie.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but I really hated Her. Interesting how that works...
shareBelieve it or not, there is a lot of science in Her, including the implications of self-aware AI, and some irony, like which "her" was the title character? Most people think it was Samantha, but I think it was Amy. And of course the lack of serious action and reliance on dialogue was a big turn off for many. The Accountant has dialogue AND action, and a lot of low key/dark humor, a lot of which doesn't get much of a laugh, like the segue to "Crazy Eddie and the Panama Pump!". Crazy indeed.
shareI loved it ; but any movie based on a Stephen King book is sure to be good.
[ high 5 ]
i thought the same thing, it was one of the few things that got me intrigued, i was asking the same thing throughout the whole movie. is it an AI, and did he use it as a form of something to communicate with, did he go all the way to finding such a program for that reason? all i knew from the get go is that it was computer based voice, and it was a fun twist in the end. his brother though was cliche and unoriginal, just a means to show us what his brother was up to after the flash back scenes. maybe some people guessed it earlier but it became obvious to me when he sat in the cameras. i did enjoy the movie quite a lot, 7-8/10.
shareYou have no idea what you are talking about. Your examples are ridiculous. None of them support what you are trying to say.
shareFor the sake of conversation, I am responding to your comment. You have an opinion, and I respect it. I wonder do you analyze all movies like you do The Accountant? There are flaws is most stories if you look hard enough. I think this movie was different because how many movies are made about an accountant who happens to be an assassin? How many movies talk about accounting as a profession? How many moves are made with awesome action and a story to match? The Accountant does.
1. Who was the british woman on the phone? She's just a prop.
5. ... Yeah he said he became an accountant because its a growing profession, but that doesn't explain working for criminals
8. Megalomaniacal villain gives monologue and then immediately gets his just deserts and is killed
It was ok, but it doesn't even deserve a 7/10.
Mindless entertainment, and that was it.
Critics will be critics.
We'll just have to disagree on the 'mindless' part. It certainly wasn't Hitchcock but the plot wasn't just spoon fed to the audience like the usual 'white knuckle, larger than life villain' action/thriller drivel. It actually required you to pay attention (somewhat), put 2 & 2 together
shareIt required more than just paying attention, and maybe even seeing it several times. You had to actually think in order to see all the pieces, and in one case, a little extracurricular google research was required unless you're an actual art expert--which, if you're like most art experts, would have likely caused you to feel insulted, AND still not getting the whole Pollock thing. Hitchcock was a master of suspense, but he never came close to telling a tale with this many interlocking pieces and the complexity of The Accountant.
shareOkay I'll bite, what was with the Pollock painting that was significant?
A simple mind is a tidy mind.
An eye was added to the middle of what was otherwise just noise like, all other of Pollock's paintings. For the characters, it IS the original and fits with the autistic thread of the movie, an eye looking askance from the noise and clutter. In the song at the end (I Was Just Trying to Leave Something Behind), there's a verse saying, "I can get through the wall if you give me a door", which would have been perfect to play when she was looking at it at the end, but for some inexplicable reason, they didn't use it at all.
shareI could've watched this movie half asleep, with one eye opened with no sound and I would've still pieced everything together. This makes movies like Face Off complex masterpieces. Which plot point/thematic exploration (or lack of) required any attention???
shareAdmit it, you slept through it. 10+/10 (I've only awarded 2 of those btw.)
shareEntretaining at most, I gave it a 6, too many plot holes and too much fuzzy presentation of the story.
sharethey panned this movie because it was overcast, poor plot structure and Ben Affleck was in it. it was mediocre at best.
shareIt was a decent watch, but it did have that been there seen that type of feeling that a lot of movies have nowadays. These super-agent thrillers (Bourne, Taken, Equalizer, etc.) are getting a little stale imo. This one was probably toward the top of that pack in the script department.
shareIt was the tightest script ever in the action genre at least. The Equalizer and all the Takens are way off. The initial Bournes are the only comparison, and they lack the multiple, sometimes profound, and sometimes subtle, themes going on.
shareI really enjoyed this movie because the story was different and typical. Even though I do not have autism, I share many of Christian's characteristics. Maybe the writers wanted to do a story about a shy introvert, but that would not work but a movie about a character with autism does work. I enjoyed the movie either way.
shareIt's the screenplay, thats why critics don't like this. Extensive explanation of his backstory that is hardly being used other than telling us he's autistic. Great! Also a convoluted plot with his senior accountant getting axed. Then of course the Treasury agents that serve no purpose at all and at the end of the movie have accomplished nothing. It's just not very good at all
share