MovieChat Forums > Before Midnight (2013) Discussion > As a fan of the first two films, i must ...

As a fan of the first two films, i must say that i did not like this one

posted 11 years ago by gianlu-1
24 replies | jump to latest

I just finished watching this movie and I feel that I need to get this off my chest. Firstly, I'm a really big fan of the first film, and a HUGE fan of the second. The first two movies hold a special place in my heart (especially the 2nd) and I feel that they are truly genius films.

To me, what makes them genius is this: despite the constant conversations of small talk and of minor things, there is a constant major undertone that carries both films.

In the first one, that undertone is this: Will these two young people fall in love by the end of the movie?

This undertone makes the film charming to watch, due to the fact that as Jessie and Celine engage in the small talk conversations they do throughout the film, we see Jessie trying to court Celine and Celine slowly falling in love with him. That undertone grows throughout the film until the question is satisfied at the end: They fall in love. But then a new question arises: Do they meet together again in six months? Ending the film in an interesting way.

The undertone in the second film is this: Will Jessie and Celine reunite and get back together?

Again, this undertone carries the film, so when Jessie and Celine engage in the small talk conversations, the subtle undertone of them getting closer and closer to each other, and falling more and more in love again, grows, until we get our answer at the end in a very ambigious, though satisfying way.

Both films had an undertone that carried the story, that made Jessie and Celine's conversations charming, interesting, funny, and even heartbreaking to watch. That's what made those two films great.

Before Midnight has none of that.

No undertone. The small talk conversations are small talk conversations, the pointless bickering is pointless bickering, the pretentious dialogue about life, love and relationships are just that: pretentious dialogues about life, love and relationships. There is no undertone!!!

With no undertone, there is no story.

The only glimpse of a plot in this movie is Jessie feeling bad for his son, and that he left New York City to go live in Paris with Celine. Since this is the only form of conflict we see in the film, this is the only sort of story we got, therefore the film should have focused on this aspect more.

But it didn't, we just get the beginning at the airport (which, I must admit, WAS a great beginning, and a great way to start the film, the opening with Jessie and his son and then walking out of the airport to find Celine waiting for him at the car with their two daughters was a fantastic opening) and then there ridiculous, totally overblown argument at the end, in which Celine gets furiously angry for hardly any reason.

The film's somewhat ambigious ending seems very forced as well, as if that entire 20 minute argument at the end was nothing but a cheap ploy and setup to end the film in a sort of open way. The entire film has no undertone, no inner conflict, no real plot or story, but then they suddenly drop this huge silly argument on his out of nowhere and over nothing, just so that they can end the film as they did the last two: "Do they stay with each other or do they not?"

Please.

I really wanted to like this movie, especially with all the appalling praise its getting, and even more especially that I am a really big fan of the first two, but, for the reasons I stated above, I just don't find it to be a good movie. A poor conclusion to an otherwise great set of movies.

[–] Speeders 11 years ago

I just finished the film a few minutes ago too! I agree with you so much. I had seen the first a few years ago and really liked it and finally decided to watch the trilogy back to back with this being my first time seeing "Sunset" and "Midnight". I really liked the first two, especially the first (while being a bit adolescent and pretentious but still very warm, fresh and charming) and the follow up to be very interesting. I found the final chapter (or is it?) to be very lacking. I can see the charm and can understand its fan base, I could be missing the point in every way but I really didn't fall in love with it unlike seemingly everyone.

The other two films had a deadline, an urgency, which was more fascinating to watch. Some may argue the final night in Greece and the hotel room but it's just not the same. It's so mundane and uninteresting to me. I loved Celine in the first two but she was unbearable here. The whole movie was like watching paint dry. I might appreciate it more when I'm married in my 40's as it's an interesting take on marriage after the honeymoon phase, it really is, especially compared to the two films but I just didn't find it tackling the subject in an interesting, gripping way unlike its predecessors. I thought the screenplay is extremely weak (how it scored an Oscar nomination is baffling), it seemed like it was written in a drunken haze over a weekend. It wasn't natural, the dialog wasn't good, the inciting incident of the conflict like you said came out of nowhere. It's sloppy. Sure, it's not unlike real life but yeah, didn't work for me as a film.

I rate it a 6/10 which is a passing grade for me. I value it, I think it's interesting, the actors were good, cinematography was beautiful as to be expected and I like that movies like this exist and wouldn't mind seeing a fourth instalment in 2022...

[–] Makarov-324 11 years ago

I really disagree. The undertone is the fight that is hinted at the entire beginning which comes to a boil at the end. It's the question of will they get through this? Along with other questions like, did he make the right choice? Are they still happy and in love?

The undertone starts at the very beginning with the pained expression on Jesse's face as Hank leaves.

And later Celine bringing it up again during the dinner conversation.

The fight is brewing the entire movie just waiting to explode. And it's not just some random fight but one with a well written meaning behind it.

And it's the perfect continuation of the problem Before Sunset set up: Jesse loves Celine, but he also loves his son Hank. This movie has to deal with the choice he made in that final scene in Sunset. So I don't find it forced at all and it perfectly carries the story.

[–] robl0051 11 years ago

Totally disagree with the OP.

I understand if you didn't like it, but there IS an underlying and brewing conflict underneath all the PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE dialogue that all means and leads to something, a fight, the same fight they started back in Sunset. You really think Jesse could divorce his wife and leave his son on the other side of the world -- for Celine to have an affair with a married man -- and there not be consequences that would absolutely effect their relationship? That they wouldn't be reminded of those consequences every time the Ex wife got pissy, or whenever Jesse had to leave his son with her for months on end?

Yes, I get it. Who wants to watch a couple fight for 2 hours, especially a couple we've all rooted for for twenty years? Where's the entertainment in that? But that doesn't mean they didn't have a story.

By the way, I also think you totally misunderstood Sunrise, which has led to a very skewed view of Sunset, so I'm not surprised you didn't like Midnight. The whole undertone of Sunrise isn't "will they fall in love?" It's "will the love they discover that night survive the morning, or more importantly, the real world after they go home?" They're already in love before they even decide to have sex! They're young, of course they fell in love, but can that kind of whimsical, romantic love survive reality? The film doesn't answer that question (Sunset does before Midnight poses it again but in a more adult, responsibility filled situation), but it does leave plenty of clues that the relationship has just as much odds as failing as it does surviving.

[–] robl0051 11 years ago

Jesse says it all to Celine at the end of Midnight,

"You want true love, this is it! If you can't see that...you're blind."

[–] MrAleisterCrowley 11 years ago

That is a great point -- that the real issue underlying all three films is whether or not the fairy tale romance, the magical dream-love of the night in Vienna, can survive in the cold light of day, lots of days, and with both parties aging, becoming parents, and realizing that they have made some big sacrifices on behalf of this fairy tale. I loved these films, as does my wife (the first two films perfectly reflected us at those pivotal ages), and we both wanted and still want Jesse and Celine to make this work somehow. I found Jesse's agonizing over the idea that he had turned into his own neglectful father, not raising his son as he should have, was very believable as Jesse and Celine hit their early forties and start realizing that life has gone a certain way. And that time lost is lost forever. This film was the most hard-hitting emotionally, and I also felt that the tension leading to the fight was apparent from the first scene. Jesse is sad and distracted in the car and Celine is quickly becoming angry as she thinks "well I have made big sacrifices too -- did you appreciate them?"

"I love those redheads!" (Wooderson, Dazed and Confused, 1993)

[–] ICON324 11 years ago

I think the OP hit it dead on. I've expressed a lot of the same sentiments on others posts. The undertone in this movie - what they tried to exploit is: is true love perfect? This effected the dramatic structure of the film - it's entitled "Before..." something, or another, because time is an element of the story. But, as the OP said, there was not any undertone in that fashion - small talk, was small talk and time wasn't as issue - Before Midnight could have been an ordinary day, one they lived over and over again and again. And, by the end of this film - two characters, the two characters that I loved, I ended up hating.

For me the topper is Jesse's nonchalant answer to his question of fidelity - stating something like, he doesn't expect his wife, or himself, to be completely committed. Now, as I expressed in prior posts, to me this isn't Jesse - someone who longed for this french girl or YEARS, and basically - as he put it - f'ed up his whole life for her. Would someone like that be so liberal in terms of fidelity? To me, it's more of Ethan Hawke coming through the character and saying - monogamy is overrated. Not to say that, as a character, Jesse must be undefiled and perfect - but I think IF he cheated or found his wife to have cheated, he would be a bit more wounded or angry, and it would have been done with more drama and taste, rather than the abrupt way he just said "yeah, so what..."

@Robll0051
As far as the last lines, saying "is this true love, and if you can't see that, you're blind..." To me THAT WASN'T TRUE LOVE. In my opinion, that wasn't love at all. In the first two films, I routed for these two to get together - whether it was destiny or not, I wanted them to be happy and together. At the end of this one, I couldn't care less what would happen to them. She was a neurotic bitch, and he was an *beep* There's no other words that could describe them any better - and I think that they could have AT LEAST have been just as happy with other people.

It's LOVE in HOLLYWOOD terms - not to mean a Hollywood ending, but the way famous people in Hollywood, live there lives - meaning shallow, hollow, and empty.

I get what they were trying to do - they wanted a 'darker' more gritty realistic version of a love story. I just feel that they butcher the characters and the special element that made many people fans.

[–] TriumphReq 11 years ago

Thank you so much! I can not understand why there are any good reviews of this. This third one was horrific and depressing. It indicates of failure and loss on so many levels. While the first two talk of exciting chance, encounter and serendipity that is so beautiful with travel and meeting people while travel the third one was mute, dull and shallow. I could not make it through it. I wanted to cry.

[–] robl0051 11 years ago

but that doesn't make it a bad movie. just because it's content is depressing doesn't mean it wasn't presented in an intelligent and cohesive way that is directly rooted in the conflicts of the characters which were subtlety established in the previous 2 films.

That's why people are giving it good reviews, they're actually judging it on it's filmmaking and storytelling, not whether it made them feel all gooshy inside.

Cause i don't know if you realize this as a fact or not...but depressing movies can still be well crafted movies, you know? Judging the art of telling the story based on it's specific medium, not the story itself.

I watch depressing movies all the time with a smile on my face cause, guess what? they're just movie.

[–] Owlwise 11 years ago

Agreed! And it was only "depressing" in comparison with the youthful dreams & unlimited possibilities of the first two films. It's actually just life -- infatuation & rose-tinged romance doesn't last forever; if the couple is to remain together & have a meaningful life, there has to be more, complete with the pains & losses of everyday life over time. It's a film about growing up, which means having to make choices, discarding some possibilities in order to pursue others. The world isn't as wide open at that point ... but it can be much deeper. It's a film that has the courage & ibntelligence to follow up on the "happily ever after" endings of the previous films & see what that really means over the long haul. I don't find it depressing at all, just ruefully wise about long-term realities, creating its own possibilities for growth in the years to come.

[–] Lord_Gyaldhart 11 years ago

You guys may hate it all you want, but fact is that this is a very good and solid movie. An idealistic part of me loves the previous films better, why wouldn't I? They are more romantic, the first one is about the process of falling in love and the second one brings back hope about finding again that long lost love and not letting it go. Under that perspective, they are great!

The third one, however; is the MOST realistic one of the bunch, it is the one that deals with what actually happens with a couple who has been together for several years, and the problems within that relationship.

The third movie is not anymore about one magical and romantic whole day and instant, but about a whole life together, which makes it the most powerful film of the bunch.

Ethan Hawke described it best when asked about the trilogy: The first film is about what MIGHT be, the second film is about what it SHOULD be, the third film is about what it REALLY is!

Life is not as perfect like the 2 previous films, life is full of hardships and obstacles, the third one is the least idealistic one, it is the one that deals with reality, once again, the character of Hawke gives the perfect example near the end of the movie: Our relationship is not perfect, but it's REAL!

The whole trilogy deals with different aspects of love, and it is about a couple who cling to it in different stages of their lives, with different perspectives each time.

I can understand that you guys like the previous 2 films better due to our innate idealism and desire for the perfect romance and love story, but calling the third film a bad one, is simply wrong.

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

[–] littlemchugh 11 years ago

You lost me at "fact is". No one else here felt the need to state their opinion as fact, so please don't either. And no one else called someone else's opinion as "simply wrong".
Also, stop being so patronising by telling the posters how "life is full of hardships and obstacles" - not one person here has criticised the film for being about "hardships and obstacles", they have criticised it for other reasons I find perfectly valid. You may disagree, and that's fine, but again don't assume everyone else is just far too 'silly' to understand 'real life'. We're not five year olds who spend every moment watching films, for all you know we all have much more pain in our lives than you!
Furthermore, I would argue that plenty of 'reality' does infact consist of 'true love' that it is not so dramatic and rollercoast-y; I have lived it myself and seen many others do the same. Yes many couples do have big problems, but not all.

So, to conclude, stop thinking you're more intelligent than everyone else simply because you have a different opinion.

[–] onlyhappyinthesun 11 years ago

Furthermore, I would argue that plenty of 'reality' does infact consist of 'true love' that it is not so dramatic and rollercoast-y; I have lived it myself and seen many others do the same. Yes many couples do have big problems, but not all.

Thank you for pointing that out! of course life isn't a pink fairytale but that doesn't mean that it is dark, boring and twisty 24/7. True life is a bit of everything.
Concerning the movie, I really feel sorry that they decided to show only that nasty part of it.

[–] move_over_fatso 11 years ago

The third one, however; is the MOST realistic one of the bunch, it is the one that deals with what actually happens with a couple who has been together for several years, and the problems within that relationship.

No, it is the least realistic of the bunch, unless by realism, you mean two married people so clueless about their dissatisfaction with each other that it can blow up in a hotel room.

I consider the third film relatively a quality film, but I thought it was flawed in the manner of the explosion, how the previous movies did not hint at Celine's character at forty, and the attempt at reconciliation at the end of the film was ridiculously false. The third movie had subtle flaws with construction, pacing, and realism.

Maybe you think the third film reflected reality because you got married, it didn't work out, and you thought your wife was a psychobitch.

The three keys to Celine in the third movie was that she was unhappy with the choice she eventually made in marrying Jesse, that she felt betrayed and manipulated by Jesse, and that she gets no satisfaction from bearing and raising two beautiful girls. There is just no way this story eventually ends up with a happy ending. The marriage is doomed, as constructed in the movie.

Instead of constructing the movie with the emotional explosion in the hotel room, Linklater probably should have portrayed the marriage at an earlier stage, when Celine first realizes this marriage is not working, and then is more conflicted about her feelings about the marriage. Its not as dramatic, but this movie is not an emotionally satisfying look at a period in their lives, and so many aspects ring untrue because of the mysterious, abrupt nature of her anger.

[–] azrai66 11 years ago

I agree with you gianlu-1. it is a poor conclusion to an otherwise great set of movies. i guess the undertone for this story line is that 'this is it'. they are together. they are dealing with whatever life suppose to be for them and what they trying to show at the end is how they manage to get along all this year...celine will always try to stir everything up, making mountain out of molehill and jesse will be the one who always trying to keep their relationship in check and that will always workout fine for them. i guess that's the dynamic of their relationship.

[–] idca 11 years ago

Of course I can only speculate but I think the undertone of Before Midnight was maybe meant to be: "Will they stay with each other or will they not"? But (like you?) what I really took from it was: "This is it". Like you said, Celine will always try to stir everything up - and Jesse will keep her in check and that's the dynamic of their relationship. That's why I, when watching the film for the first time, didn't find it to be particularly ominous when Celine said in the beginning of the film, when they're "fighting" in the car: "This is where it ends. This is how people start breaking up". Because that's Celine, she is a little overdramatic and slightly provocative, and Jesse even responds to her comment, pretty calmly and relatively unfazed, with: "You just jumped off a cliff". And I feel like that particular dynamic of theirs remains the same throughout the film. Of course they do have problems within the relationship, but I think Celine being overdramatic in that "we-will-undoubtedly-break-up" kind of way is mostly her way of signaling (consciously or not) that she really wants to talk about the problems that they do have, that she's feeling emotional about it all and that there are things that she needs to release in conversation with Jesse. I think that when it comes to Celine expressing herself, there's very little middle ground. And Jesse knows that.

[–] ComradeKubrick 11 years ago

there is an undertone in the exact same way as the first two... Will these people manage to stay married?

50 favourite film of all time in alphabetical order: http://www.imdb.com/list/1CHklqPSQSU/