MovieChat Forums > Locke (2014) Discussion > Great film......BUT taking to dead dad.....

Great film......BUT taking to dead dad.....

posted 9 years ago by mikeandersmike
20 replies | jump to latest

The parts of him talking to his dead father ruined the film a bit. They were awkward and unnecessary. Same topic could have been dealt with and handled another more sensible way. I would have had his wife say to him that he was only doing this because of what happened to him and he didn't need to etc etc, and he could have expressed same feelings.

By having him talk to a non-existent person, it added a layer of story (is he going crazy? was he always crazy? etc that hurt the story.

My two bits.

But riveting film otherwise.

[–] Flosive 9 years ago

Have to disagree. His hatred of his father is what drives him to be a good man. Deep inside, beneath that calm and dependable exterior, is a raging anger at his dead father and it's guiding everything he does. He pushes against it and always (usually) takes the good and solid path. Having conversations with his absent father in the back seat, while his grim and angry face stared motionless at the road, showed us that inner turmoil.

[–] mikeandersmike 9 years ago

Do you do that? Do you know anyone that has such conversations in a car with dead people? Do you know that is a medical condition? You think that is what the writers are trying to portray of him, that he should be on psychotic medication?

[–] Flosive 9 years ago

Do you know anyone that has such conversations in a car with dead people?

But he wasn't actually talking to the back seat, the constant conversation/struggle with his dead father's memory was all in his head, as was shown to us by the shots of his unmoving lips.

[–] mikeandersmike 9 years ago

So why was he continually looking at the back seat, and why was it constantly shown to the viewers by the camera? His lips are clearly moving in most of those scenes. He even looks back and says "What the *beep* are you looking at?" Stupid.

Watch this and pay attention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8DI8kRB2jw

[–] Flosive 9 years ago

Watch this and pay attention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8DI8kRB2jw

Watch 15 seconds from the video clip you posted and you pay attention this time - https://youtu.be/O8DI8kRB2jw?t=1m48s (Starting at 1m 48s if the timed link doesn't work).

It's a cinematic device and it's used several times during the movie. I can understand why you might be confused by this device in what is otherwise very realistic movie, but they are very deliberately showing us that the bitter conversation is inside his head.

His lips are clearly moving in most of those scenes. He even looks back and says "What the *beep* are you looking at?" Stupid.

And wow, I've just noticed that it wasn't just the quote, you actually called me stupid and used a capital S, you idiot *beep* *beep* . What the *beep* ? We were just talking about differing perceptions of a movie.

[–] mikeandersmike 9 years ago

I didn't call you Stupid, I was noting the scene was stupid. It is out of place in such a film. And it is stupid and poorly done........if you like it, good for you. Here is someone that agrees with me.

"There's a backstory, which explains his motivation, and here's where the film goes astray. Between phone calls, Locke snaps – the red-eyed madcap Hardy periodically re-emerging – and launches into monologues addressed to the father who let him down.

These moments feel superfluous. "

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/20/locke-tom-hardy-review

You like those scenes, good for you. Some people love Tranformers films also.

[–] Flosive 9 years ago

I didn't call you Stupid, I was noting the scene was stupid.

Not even a hint of an apology in there for the insult and confusion your bad grammar caused. Learn to use full stops.

Here is someone that agrees with me.

But he doesn't agree with you. The reviewer says those moments feel superfluous, but he doesn't criticise how they were done. He doesn't have a problem with Locke talking to a dead man, which was your main beef with this movie. He doesn't go on about how Locke must be crazy, only that "in these monologues Knight spells out too much".

You like those scenes, good for you. Some people love Tranformers films also.

Yeah, because that's the same. /sigh

[–] mikeandersmike 9 years ago

"and here's where the film goes astray."

I guess to you that means, he liked that part??? Go Away.

[–] Flosive 9 years ago

I can see now why you had a problem with the scene, you're not one to notice or bother with subtleties.

I'm gone. It's been a pleasure, I'm so glad I decided to start talking about this movie with you. (That's sarcasm btw, in case you didn't notice)

[–] kolchak-thenightstalker 8 years ago

i just watched it and i didn't have a problem with those scenes.

it seems that some users of the forum are rather rude and have anger issues especially if someone disagrees with them such as the individual you were trying to discuss those scenes with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_BbtXj2P4g

[–] Flosive 8 years ago

it seems that some users of the forum are rather rude and have anger issues especially if someone disagrees with them such as the individual you were trying to discuss those scenes with.

It seems to be common behaviour on IMDb forums, every thread is an argument to be won with a sneer, no backing down, no ground given, every point made is an excuse for condescension. I can be guilty of it myself sometimes.

Maybe it's the faceless communication, the same way drivers often see all other road users as dangerous idiots.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mirta1 8 years ago

Hey, happens on Twitter too, nowadays. Probably Facebook too. YouTube? Don't even ask.

Didn't have a problem with the scenes. I thought they warranted that emphasis, being fully played out when Hardy wasn't on the phone, because his relationship with his father was fundamental to the emotional structure of the movie. And it played off his stolid, unyielding demeanour, diving into what was really going on under the surface. I honestly didn't notice that he wasn't mouthing the words.

[–] OldSchoolRPGs 9 years ago

You've never talked aloud to yourself or about someone else?

[–] OsteRejen 9 years ago

It's not psychotic to argue with parents / loved / passed ones, in your head or out loud when you're alone.
It's an issue yes, but not crazy.
He didn't see his dad on the back seat.
That was just a way to show that his dad was on his back nagging on him emotionally.

[–] sixpaws67 9 years ago

Those moments certainly changed his personality immediately.

John 3:16

[–] yahko_kun 9 years ago

The only change I would have made about him talking to his dead dad is that he would just talk into the air without looking into the rear view mirror. Just kinda talking to the steering wheel or the windshield.

Essentially its him talking to his "bad" side and trying to prove himself that he aint like his dad and he wont abandon his bastard child.

[–] alexcregan1998 9 years ago

I completely wholeheartedly disagree with you in every sense of that statement, your way is inferior

[–] SpringheelJack_fin 8 years ago

Those scenes HELPED the film by allowing the deep seated anger that drives him to always be calm and in control rise to the surface for the audience to witness. The method you proposed his history be brought up by shoehorning it into conversation would be nothing more than lazy, cliché exposition. Also, we wouldn't be able to witness the depth and specifics of his anger, it couldn't be expressed in conversation because that would require him to lose control and defeat the purpose of his character.

Maybe movies like this just aren't for you.

[–] MrJJay 8 years ago

I would have had his wife say to him that he was only doing this because of what happened to him

That is exactly why you're not and will never be a writer.