MovieChat Forums > squeedle > Replies
squeedle's Replies
Creep is a copy of Air That I Breathe, and there was justifiably a copyright infringement lawsuit about it.
Yes, that seems OBVIOUS to someone like you or me with half a brain. Why would you drop off an abandoned child at a drug dealer's house in Mexico? For some reason, that concern doesn't seem to arise for any character in the film. Totally insane. These are the kind of massive plot and character motivation problems this movie expects us to accept without question!
No idea how it has such high ratings. The "comedy" doesn't work. The "romance" doesn't work. The "thriller" doesn't work. The characters, the acting, it's all over the place .This movie is a total disaster.
Nope.
P.S. I see a lot of other commenters mentioning the 1992 BBC TV movie "Ghost Watch". I checked it out and while I think it too kind of falls apart at the end, it is an absolute master class in realism compared to Late Night. Very well done for the most part, and definitely worth a watch for anyone looking for a similarly-themed movie to compare Late Night to.
Joke's on YOU! I HATED this movie AND I am retarded!
I hear what you're saying. Makes total sense. So I get where you're coming from, I think I just don't fully agree. But good to hear your take on the issue!
OP: Agreed. I couldn't make it past the first 20 minutes of double-talk and hand-wringing. I can't imagine another 100 minutes of this wanky nonsense.
Yes, I felt those scenes were more like one-off references. I can take them or leave them, they seemed to be kind of intentional wink-winks to the audience. But the number of shared plot points between this whole film overall and "Seconds" overall, without any obvious allusion to the source material, was very surprising. Seems like it warranted a text disclaimer of "suggested by" or "inspired by" or something...
No.
A shame because it seemed like it had a lot going for it, probably.
There is a strange technical issue here actually. When Brad Johnson first plays the song, it's in a different key than when Holly Hunter plays it (on the same tape) about 1 minute later. Maybe they pitched it up/down for timing reasons?
I also consider it in the same vein as "Heart And Souls" (1993).
OP nailed it. Wanky faux-insightful nonsense.
Daaaaaamn...
Meh, not sure about that. But if it works for you then cool.
^^^ YES. THIS. EXACTLY.
I get it that the husband and the wife both thought each other were guilty. I get it that Hackman was trying to fall on his sword to protect his wife. But none of that matters given the inexcusable, insane plot holes and thoroughly ludicrous coincidences mentioned above.
Here's another one: so, the husband actually believed that his jealous wife raped a little girl while wearing a condom lubricated with spermicidal jelly? What the? Why did the writers go to the trouble of adding in these bizarre extra details that serve no purpose other than to undermine and derail the plausibility of the film?
The overarching concept of the film is a very good one; and had it been executed competently, it could have been a classic. As it is, it is a sad waste. To see a much, much more compelling and intelligent interpretation of a similar story, check out 1957's "Witness For The Prosecution".
P.S. Embarrassing that Hackman mispronounces his wife Chantal's name as "Chantel" about half the time. That warranted some ADR.