For those who rated it a 1 - Locke (2014) Discussion

[–] danzogreen 10 years ago

It's a sad time, people rate based on their emotional reaction and not on the actual merits of the film.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 10 years ago

I rate on entertainment basis.
Either I like it/it entertains me, or not. Me and only me.

I was pissed about the “end“. It has none, it just stops. I felt my time got wasted. The movie didnt bore me, was probably a 7 candidate... but not unfinished like that. I gave it a 5. Wish I had spent my time on sth else.

However on a scale from 1 to 10 its quite harsh to give out 1s.
But each his own system and useless to judge it.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] rindercella 10 years ago

I rate on entertainment basis.
Either I like it/it entertains me, or not. Me and only me.

I was pissed about the “end“. It has none, it just stops. I felt my time got wasted. The movie didnt bore me, was probably a 7 candidate... but not unfinished like that. I gave it a 5. Wish I had spent my time on sth else.

However on a scale from 1 to 10 its quite harsh to give out 1s.
But each his own system and useless to judge it.

Exactly this^^^^

It's not "Hardy"; it's the film itself.

"Men like you don't die on toilets." Mel Gibson-Riggs, Lethal Weapon

reply

[–] bishp23 9 years ago

I was pissed about the ending as well, but I really enjoyed. Definetely a movie I'll remember for a long time.

reply

[–] LutherMahoney 9 years ago

It has no ending? It just stops?

No - there is a clear ending. Locke has finally made his choice after spending 90 minutes wrestling with the decision. He will go through with his plan to visit his former one night stand and their new baby, owning his share of the responsibility. The movie ends with him driving on, having turned off the highway, presumably to wherever the hospital is. That's it. The whole movie is about him making this choice and owning up to all of the ramifications, to his family, his career. This is the drama of reality. Why does there need to be anything else?

It's an outstanding film. One of the best of 2013.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 9 years ago

He didnt wrestle, he was determined from the beginning. His reasons made that obvious. His actions too.
Abandoned his project, well not really but leaving it like that to his colleague wasnt really okay. And went so far to explain it to his wife.
Thats quite a set mind.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] LutherMahoney 9 years ago

No. Those inner monologues, framed as dialogues to his dead father, were revealing of an inner struggle. Yes - he seemed resolved from the beginning, but the entire journey was about coming to terms with the decision.

reply

[–] Nokitron 9 years ago

Damn that's so pretentious. At least resolve the movie by giving one more scene on way back home or something that fits. The keyword here is resolve.

The spook never ends.

reply

[–] simpsonment 9 years ago

There is nothing 'pretentious' anywhere. People just give their own interpretations. That's how it works. 'Pretentious' means you are a lazy viewer.

I Sympathize with Lars Von Trier.

reply

[–] CptHowdy87 9 years ago

No - there is a clear ending. Locke has finally made his choice after spending 90 minutes wrestling with the decision. He will go through with his plan to visit his former one night stand and their new baby, owning his share of the responsibility. The movie ends with him driving on, having turned off the highway, presumably to wherever the hospital is. That's it. The whole movie is about him making this choice and owning up to all of the ramifications, to his family, his career. This is the drama of reality. Why does there need to be anything else?

Exactly. It's a shame that so many people need to be spoon-fed and have things drawn in crayon for them to understand.

The morons posting about how "nothing happens" "it just ends" probably discovered Tom Hardy after watching Batman and decided to check out some of his other movies. Stick to your typical hollywood fare and leave movies like this to real film-goers that want to venture out and watch things that are a little more challenging and mature.

reply

[–] msougata 9 years ago

You should have opted for Start Wars, First Blood or Tom and Jerry. You do not have the capacity to understand and appreciate this kind of movies. In all the movies you try to find "entertainment". All movies don't provide your brand om entertainment. What would you do if you see 3 Iron by Kim Ki Dook? You will rate it 0. I had rated it 10. I have rated this film 10/10 as well. This is one of the best films I have ever seen.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 9 years ago

It's quite of a limited mind to jump onto the conclusion that I don't have the capacity to understand this movie or appreciate similar movies just because I didn't like how it ended and rated it lower because of that.

I wouldn't know whether a movie entertains me or not unless I watched it.

And what other movies belong to 'this kind of movies'?

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] Robrocop 9 years ago

You should have opted for Start Wars, First Blood or Tom and Jerry. You do not have the capacity to understand and appreciate this kind of movies. In all the movies you try to find "entertainment". All movies don't provide your brand om entertainment. What would you do if you see 3 Iron by Kim Ki Dook? You will rate it 0. I had rated it 10. I have rated this film 10/10 as well. This is one of the best films I have ever seen.

Wait...what? So because you can appreciate pretentious hipster garbage and claim it to be art that somehow makes you superior? There comes a time when you watch a girl cut a hole in her pants and stuff rotten spaghetti-o-s in her orifice that it isn't art...it's just a crazy girl desperately trying to be recognized as an artist.(Internal Semiotics). There comes a time when you watch a fat girl try to dance on pounds of butter and constantly slipping over and over again, that that's humor...not performance art(Exergie-butter dance)

At the end of the day, pretentious morons are the very reason there continues to be garbage like this that people call cinema. People like you who watch the Knick and praise Steven Soderbergh's artistic camera angles when 99% of the time he's ruining performances by not focusing his shots and making it less of a show to watch and more of him trying desperately to be artistic instead of just...telling a good story.

At the end of the day Tom Hardy will be remembered for movies like Mad Max, Bronson, even Inception before he's remembered for Locke, and desperate hipsters like you will not change that.

reply

[–] SteverB 8 years ago

I normally don't bother with garbage troll posts like this, but it sounds like you need to learn the difference between "cinema" and "movies". A film like Locke is cinema. A film like Mad Max is a movie. Everyone is free to like or not like what they want. I'm not understanding your hostility to people praising this film as great cinema. Personally, I'd rather see 10 more films like this than one more superhero movie.

Unfortunately, it's people like you that prevent REAL films being made in favor of money-makers like another X-Men or another Spiderman. But that's OK because once in a great while a film like Locke comes along that IS cinematic while still being placed in a car for 90 minutes.

There are so many things wrong with your second paragraph about "pretentious morons" and Steven Soderbergh trying to be artistic (as if), that I won't even get into it. I still fail to grasp the purpose of posts like yours. By the strictest definition, it's a little pretentious.

reply

[–] jmtrc 8 years ago

I normally don't bother with garbage troll posts like this, but it sounds like you need to learn the difference between "cinema" and "movies". A film like Locke is cinema. A film like Mad Max is a movie.

OK, now you're talking out of your ar$e. Mad Max Fury Road is considered an art-house action film. While it only made a modest profit, critics loved it.

reply

[–] Dantès 9 years ago

So how should it have ended? Couldn't you anticipate that this would have no end that would be "satisfying" in a way you apparently want?

The man's life is being potentially destroyed over the course of the movie. The only possible resolutions are a) he drives the car off the road and kills himself or b) a 20 years later-ish scene where you see him either reunited with his old family or happy with his new one and you also know his huge building was a big success.

Why do you need a particular ending anyway? Isn't it interesting to think about what where things go instead of being told?

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 9 years ago

I want to be told and showed. Imaging how it could be is not satisfying for me. Start and end.
As example: him arriving would be sufficient enough for me. But I can also imagine other ways.

While I really dislike open endings the most, large time skips come second to that.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] bethsuek 9 years ago

Everyone is allowed to have their own criteria for movies, books and any other art form. That being said, some of us desperate hipsters don't need to have stories presented to us wrapped up with a pretty pink bow. Real life isn't like that. Not all movies need to be either.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 9 years ago

It's no matter of to need or not to need.It's matter of liking or preference.I didn't like the ending and someone who liked it won't make me like it all of a sudden.Like it all you want, I don't and I don't mind you liking it.But as a side note, there are movies out there with ambiguous endings that I like. Those are few though.What's a desperate hipster? xDDo you purposely look out for movies with open or ambiguous endings because you are against (mainstream) closed endings?If you don't mind animes, it's a quite a common trait there, at least for series. Movies not so much. ---Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] SteverB 8 years ago

...b) a 20 years later-ish scene where you see him either reunited with his old family or happy with his new one and you also know his huge building was a big success....

Yeah, sadly, this will probably be the ending of the American remake.

reply

[–] mmccaughey61-529-34296 9 years ago

Ive only watched the film once and dont recall been upset with the ending, my memory of it is that I was blown away from start to finish, anyway I,ve bought it for my wife for Christmas and we are just about to watch it again, so lets see how that works out...

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CptHowdy87 9 years ago

You're so immature and ignorant.

Welcome to my ignore list!

reply

[–] momtazul_arefin 8 years ago

I think the movie is all about a choice and where it leads one. The choice is about rectification of the past. It starts a new journey for Locke. On it's path he lost his carefully cultivated existence (built upon his job, loving wife and kids), but became a part of something new.

The movie ends with the cry from his new child, one that he could've easily abandoned, but decided against. That is the choice that he has made, which initiates the movie. Locke rides on his choice for about an hour during the duration of the movie and that ride involves him in the formation of a new entity. Being involved in a biological process means nothing, but within this one hour journey, along with everything he loses, makes Locke a father, makes him involved in the creation of a human and constructs his formation as a new Man, the one he only dreamed of before...

reply

[–] mrshpongle1 10 years ago

Well...acting was bad ass, but movie was kind of boring, im not a michael bay fan neither a professional critic, but I gave it a 1 just cause I didnt like it,

reply

[–] simonrosenbaum 10 years ago

Do you not understand how a rating system works? It sounds like you thought the film had some merit acting wise so giving it the lowest possible rating makes no sense and makes a mockery of the whole thing. What would you give a really bad film?

reply

[–] Dutch0524 10 years ago

To some degree, I agree with the OP. However, to each their own. Those that rated Locke a "one" would most likely rate a truly bad film, also a "one." Who really cares? If your decision to like or dislike a movie is based on IMDb ratings, then you are denying yourself some great movies. Besides, the number of those that rate a movie a "one" are often balanced against those that rate it a "ten"..."ten" means perfect to me but others might give every movie they enjoyed a "ten." I wouldn't let IMDb ratings determine your feelings about a movie and don't care what someone else might rate it.

reply

[–] knoxfan2008 9 years ago

You're an idiot. Birdemic is a film that deserves a one. This film had decent acting. It's visuals were far more diverse and engaging than a film set in one place should be. The script was decent. I saw Jurassic World recently, I LOATHED IT, but I still gave it a 3 because at least the sounds were professional and the camera was in focus. Shame on you if you're one of those morons who gives films a one just "cause I didn't like it", you pathetic child.

reply

[–] mrshpongle1 9 years ago

Thank u !! You are really nice...good luck watching jurassic park móviles !!

reply

[–] jonhopper217 10 years ago

I hate the 1-10 scale, because of the exact reasoning you're implying. I gave it a 5, which for me is the equivalent decent film, but the reality is, I gave it a 5, because of Tom Hardy's ability as an actor and because he was saddled with an absolutely dreadful script. The movie, in reality, is no better than a 2-3, but Hardy elevates it, because he's a damn fine actor. That being said, if I didn't personally like Hardy and it starred someone I disliked, I'd probably have give it a 2, maybe a 3 at most. The film's biggest downfall comes from the fact we can not empathize with Locke. He's an awful and shallow human being. The absolutely ludicrous conversation "with his father" completely destroys any sense of reality. The movie truly is terrible and maybe it does deserve a 1. I know I'd have no problem with it, but then again, I don't have problems with other people's votes. I'm voting it a 5. Three for Hardy, one of originality and one of the look.

Also, beware when going by Rotten Tomatoes and professional critics. They are paid to tell us if we'll like it, not if they liked it. It's the problem many critics of the 70's had with the likes of Maltin, Siskel & Ebert and others. They simplified the movie into watchable and unwatchable and swayed us, because of it. I just watched a movie ranked in the top ten by a group of 350 directors and I can tell you, it's not one of the ten best films and not even the best by this director.

reply

[–] KenYeezy 9 years ago

What movie did you watch?

reply

[–] EmptyLight 9 years ago

I rated it 3/10.

It's got no soul, no spirit.

reply

[–] benfearn 9 years ago

A rating of 1 is ridiculous. 1 on my scale translates to 'It should never have been filmed' - I've yet to find any film that meets that criteria (and yes, I've seen Spicegirls the Movie...). Personally I really enjoyed Locke - fantastic job by TH. Agreed, the ending was a little abrupt, but that's what imaginations are for ;)

reply

[–] william-tasker-nz 9 years ago

Something else that's going on with the 1 vs. 10 thing is people "fixing" ratings they don't agree with. If it's sitting at 8 and they think it's a 6 they'll give it a 1 to try to drag the average down. Obviously the opposite applies when people think the rate is too low.

So this seems to "devalue the currency" even more than extreme reactions. It used to bother me, but now I look at it this way: On average there are probably as many idiots in one camp (1 for stupid reasons) as there are in the other (10 for stupid reasons), so hopefully they cancel each other out and it's the reasonable people giving a true assessment that decide the final score.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thegailo 9 years ago

http://www.examiner.com/review/locke

reply

[–] m-slovak79 9 years ago

i can't take anyone seriously who hands out 1/10's in general (anyone who hands out the extreme ratings too commonly i can't take seriously for that matter) as i VERY rarely hand out 1/10's myself as those are reserved for movies i hate (which nearly never happens) as in general movies bottom out in the 2-3/10 range for me as anything i give a 3/10 or less to is total failure and/or boring.

here is how i rate movies in a basic sense...

10 = About as much as i can enjoy a movie
9 = Nearly as much as i can enjoy a movie
8 = Memorable
7 = A Solid Thumbs Up
6 = A Mild Thumbs Up (My minimum score to re-watch a movie)
5 = Average/Forgettable (Thumbs Down)
4 = Below Average
3 = Failure and/or Boring
2 = Failure and/or Boring
1 = Abysmal/Hate

so as you can see i ultimately rate movies based on how much they interest/entertain me and the further they get away from that the lower the rating. rating any other way does not make sense to me since we all watch movies to be interested/entertained first and foremost and in that regard Locke does well in my mind.

Locke (2013-2014) is solid as i just finished re-watching it a few days ago now ((June 19th 2015)makes for my 2nd viewing of it total) and it held steady, maybe even slightly improved (my scored stayed the same though which is a solid 7/10). it's pretty much carried by Hardy as it shows his world unraveling and the feel/tone of it is nice to. basically it manages to hold my attention quite well throughout the movie to as while it takes place all in a car it does it quite well.

My Top 5-ish movies of 2014...

1.Men, Women & Children - 7.5-8/10
2.Nymphomaniac Vol 1 - 7/10
-.Nymphomaniac Vol 2
4.Locke
5.Edge of Tomorrow
6.The Rover

for measure... less than 300 movies got a 7/10 or higher score from me out of the 1,850+ total movies i have seen and Locke is one of those.

----------
My Top 100-ish Movies of All-Time! = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz
----------

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 9 years ago

I can't take anyone seriously who rates the old Star Wars movies with 3 and in general many of my favorite movies with 3-5 :s
You seem no fan of adventures? LotR appears to be disliked by you too.

"Compared to You
Rated 431 of the same titles.
Similar ratings for 281 of them.
Thinks another 20 are better.
Thinks 20 are worse."

And those 'red' ones are Inception, Star Wars, Cloud Atlas, Wall-E, Hunt for Red October, Silence of the Lambs, Watchmen - what the... all my fave stuff (9-10).

How come Edge of Tomorrow is so favored by you then? Would expect you'd give it max. a 5.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] DendelionBlu 9 years ago

I'll take Loke over any LotR movie every day of the year

Many reasons, but the first ones I can think of is that Locke is acted and shot beautifully, neither of which LotR is

LotR / Hobbit are incredibly dull to me

Locke kept my attention the whole time

Follow the latest films around the world!! http://7films.dendelionblu.me

reply

[–] vargstra 9 years ago

10 = Unsentimental, yet very emotional, thought-provoking movie that touches my intellect as well as emotions. And god yes, emotions are needed. I haven't seen a Hollywood movie that is 10, even though I probably have rated some that on paper in weak moments. Or in digital print that is.. The dispair in the long takes of Michael Haneke takes me here, like in The Sevent Continent. And Pier Paolo Pasolinis voyeurism into the darkness of the mind and heart, like in Theorema and Salo. And many of Lars von Triers exploration of the wildness of the human mind, like Breaking the waves. His mommy issues almost kicks him down a notch.. But the true feelings I felt when I saw Breaking the waves on my film schools cinema, crying, while I felt the cruelty of the human nature, made me feel the message Dancer in the dark is just magic for me, even though the musical acts doesn't seem perfect, but still it's there. For me.. Gaspar Noe as his best. Pi, Enter the void and irreversible. David Lynch. You always know what the character's feel and through pop culture you see the magic. The mind is warped, but the surroundings gives clues to a great emotional truth. You desire, you feel and you live it. Not everything is what it first seem, but when you delve into it, there's no denying in the intent. Lost Highway and Blue Velvet for example melt my heart. Ingmar Bergman. Carl Theodor Dreyer.

9 = Same as 10, but with a bit more room for sentimentality but not that much, and the best of Hollywood in my eyes hava a chance. Almost a 10. 12 Monkeys I place here. Some Tarantino. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. Darren Aranofsky's The Wrestler, and Black Swan.

8 = Best of Hollywood. Sentimentality is allowed, but not over-sentimentality. It sure does need a meaning. Here is where I place Locke. And Alien. And some Tarantino. Django Unchained. Jackie Brown. Kill Bill.

7 = I enjoy the hell out of this, it's not a classic for me, but I can re-watch it, but it's on the boarder line for being a guilty pleasure. I allow more sentimentality and a good story arch is in the center of my attention. (Die Hard and The Man with the naked gun) I guess I let my nostalgic feeling of being a teenager in the movie theater get a hold of me here sometimes. Like Independence Day and Judge Dredd (I know many will disagree with me on the last one). Many family movies from the 90's like Home Alone and Gremlins belong here. And many movies that is nothing BUT guilty pleasures, which I wouldn't want to admit I liked even a bit in any even semi-intellectual film circles. (Critters, Silent Night,Deadly Night 2, Munchies, that shark movie where Samuel L. Jackson gets eaten by a mutated shark) And ok, Gravity is almost down at a 6, but it was worth a rewatch and I stand by it. But oh GOD the ending DON'T deserve a 7.

6 = Decent, worth watching. Replay value not that great, but I'm glad I saw it. Once.. Requiem for a dream. Not the masterpiece many thinks it is, but it's ok. His message gets through. Some old movies I liked as a teenager gets here when rewatching it. Like Air Force One.

5 = Ok, I saw it, it was ok in SOME sense, but not re-watchable. Leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. Loved Ghost Dad as a kid, but now it ends up here.

4 = Too sentimental, and weird storyline. If the movie is lucky I might give it an ok minus minus, bad on you, do better next time, but I believe you can do better. Steven Spielberg as his worst. War Horse made 4 for me

3 = Not necessarily the worst technical aspects, but bad story and acting. Titles are forgotten.

2 = So bad it's involuntarily funny. After feeling embarrassed and cheated for the first half of the movie I more than likely turn it off.

1 = Mostly really amateurish, and full of clichés and embarassing moments. Story doesn't make sense to me and itæs so see-through that I want to vomit. Uwe Boll and John Carter is in this cathegory for me, even though the last one had good technical aspects. But it doesn't save it for being the clichéful, weird mess that it is.

OK, I guess this post is more like an entry for myself, than for people reading it, and I know people will dissect this like a frog, but in some way, in my ADD-filled head, it makes sense.

reply

[–] Franconstein 9 years ago

I agree with you. I have this movie a 7 even though it didn't entertain me as much as many other movies I've rated 7. My usual basis is how much I liked the movie at the moment of watching it, but I can also merit acting and production values. Hardy did a excellent job here, and the movie was well-shot, the music was spot-on, and the story, told exclusively through phone calls and Locke's facial expressions, kept me waiting to see what the next call would be.

While I probably don't understand the concept behind the movie, and I don't want to get all philosophic, my personal interpretation of the movie places it above average in my eyes. I've rarely watched a movie that deserves lower than 4 on my scale.

reply