"Alien Ressurection"

A plot...sure

A point........ummm.....

Well, in a way it still is.

The first half of the movie is a dream/fantasy. The second half details the events that lead Betty(Naomi Watts) to kill herself.

Jennie searches for the guy she contracted AIDS from.

It's about a contrived plastic world that the increasingly alienated Enid(Thora Birch) withdraws from until by the end she decides to leave town/commit suicide.

Purpose: to get the redneck monkey out of the White House.

Do you think she actually commits suicide? I never got that from the comic, script, or movie. Unless you're saying that leaving the town is a symbol for suicide, but I don't see it that way.

I would have to agree with Lost in Translation ... no point, no real plot... I could go to the mall, follow someone around with a movie camera and probably get a better story...

The point was seeing two people connect on a level in four days that many others don't in whole lifetimes. The movie worked beautifully in this regard. The fact that it doesn't have a standard 3-act structure is to the film's benefit in keeping with the authenticity of its characters. Life doesn't always follow a linear progression of events and movie-style epiphanies.

Well it's intentionally left ambiguous and up for interpretation. You could say Enid just left town and started a new life but remember the bus was not real. It did not have a destination display, the line was out-of-service and Enid doesn't pay a cent when she boards it. She also states earlier in the film that she would kill herself were her father to get back together with Maxine(Teri Garr). Near the end they decide to move in together. Again, it's up to the viewer to decide.

What was the point of FEAR & LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS? I mean it's just 2 people doing drugs and bumping around Las Vegas and getting into crazy encounters. Loved every minute of it. Johnny Depp & Benicio Del Tero are gods. Terry Gilliam's at the top of his game. Great dialogue (due of course to Hunter S. Thompson). Great cameos. Great soundtrack. One of my favorite films of all time.

this is what's commonly referred to as, "episodic". wouldn't be surprised if the writer(s) have a television background.

it may not be your cup of tea, but Lost in Translation, a film whose content is expressed in a naturalistic form seen in the works of filmmakers like Wong Kar-wai, Michelangelo Antonioni, The Dardenne Brothers, John Cassavettes, etc, certainly has a "point" or "purpose" in revealing the truth of its characters. moreover, the "plot" of this film is structured on an emotional plane. Two characters are increasingly alienated and lonely, they discover this shared feeling of isolation in each other. their relationship develops as their emotional investment in each other grows while in moral conflict with their emotional responsibility to their wife and boyfriend. when they must inevitably part ways, they finally declare an acknowledgement that the other was able to "see" them in a way that no one else in their lives has done before. some might call that love.

you may have no interest in films that explore emotional terrain in a naturalistic fashion, and it's fine to say you don't like it or that it's not what you personally look for in film, music, or art. but to say that the film has no point or purpose only demonstrates a narrow-minded expectation of what a film is supposed to be, as well as, a degree of intellectual laziness on behalf of the viewer to be mindful of what's being communicated to them.

"Baby Geniuses" sort of, kind of had a plot, but the only purpose I could find was to invoke extreme hatred in the viewer (a hatred not even Michael Moore could cause in one of his films.)

Sorry, I really dislike 'that' film.



In my mind, pretty much every film has a plot, even it is paper thin and contrived. Having a plot is as simple as having something happen in the story, with scenes that somehow, no matter how distantly, connect to one another. There are a few documentaries and short films ("Un Chien Andalou") that may be said to have no plot. That's my definition of course, not the official dictionary one which someone already posted.

But a 'point' is what the film is trying to do or the 'message' of the film, or the lesson it's trying to teach us. Some films, such as "Lost in Translation," tell us something about human nature, which, I think, all great films do. Of course I'm not saying I'm so smart that I always recognize some of the points in the more open-ended or ambiguous films (almost any film by Antonioni goes way over my head. I sort of enjoyed "Blow-Up" but I know I missed a lot of what it was trying to say.)

cygnet74...

Wow.

I feel the symbolism leans more towards Enid retreating from reality versus life itself. All those symbols would still apply if it were her symbolically running from a world that she doesn't belong in but is threatening to engulf her. And yes, she says she'll kill herself, but it seemed more like she was using it as a turn of phrase as opposed to a declaration of a course of action.

A movie cant exist without a plot.

Every movie has one. Yes, even movies like Care Bears and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.

You just have to use the scale of 1 to 10.

Try watching Abbas Kiarostami's FIVE.

Then try and tell me a movie can't exist without a plot.

Grim,

For case like that we will use the scale of 0.01 to 100.

I would say FIVE ranks at a 0.012 out of 100.

Okay. Kiarostami's documentary DID have a plot.

What's worse in when you recommend a movie to someone, they watch it, and then when you ask them if they liked it they say "I dunno, it just... didn't go anywhere".

What the hell does "it didn't go anywhere" mean? Anybody who ever says this loses all credibility as a movie fan, imo.

Anybody else heard this response? Drives me nuts.

I actually have a Top Four list of my favorite romances of the last few years: Eternal Sunshine, Lost in Translation, Garden State, and Buffalo '66.

If you really want to see a useless film with no plot or purpose at all, just watch Ridley Scott's Black Rain with Michael Douglas.

Wouldn't it be as easy to say that defending a plotless, pointless movie only because it's "artsy" is equally narrow-minded? Despite what some people think, if a movie is artsy and not cliche', it doesn't automatically make it a great cinematic experience. Some movies are truly pointless. We can agree to disagree, but I'm neither narrow-minded nor lazy-thinking.

If I want to see two isolated and lonely characters that fall in love with each other despite moral conflict, I don't need a movie, I can just go to work and watch some of the people here.

I don't generally respond at all. That statement shows the ignorance of the person saying/posting it and I let it go. If it's something I haven't seen I give the person the benefit of the doubt. If it's something I have seen, then I figure no amount of explaining on my part is going to be satisfactory the person because the missed it the first time around and anything I can say will only make them feel foolish when they realize their error, or defensive.

Have to agree, it is one of the statements that irks me the most. I always assume the same person will tell me Gladiator is the best movie they ever saw, next to The Rock anyways.

You need to see the director's cut of Until The End of the World. It's out in Italy as a trilogy. Buy it today.