r/TrueFilm

As in: A Director makes a Meta-Commentary about a film-genre, he actually abhorrs.

All the aspects of the film receiving criticism are so exaggeratedly done, that I'm sure a director knows it:

Action-sequences are very repetitive? Yes!
Film ending with no conclusion at all? Yes!
Weird and silly looking aliens talking about something very epic and cryptic? Yes!
Characters are clichéd and interchangeable? Yes!
Silly unnecessary Mid-Credits-Scene? Yes!
Characters learning, that the aliens are not evil at all but still shooting them anyway? Yes!
Constant gratuitous shooting and explosions? Yes!

It's first half is fun and it's second half seems to willingly tell you, that the aspects you enjoyed about the first half are silly and empty. Then overdoing them so much, that we realize, how absurdly over the top it all is. Immersion is lost by hyperemphasis on entertainment-mainstream-movie archetypes.

I realize, that if that is true, it would be the most expensive elaborate prank in cinema history. But could that be the case?

Also: It's funny how much of this interpretation weighs on the director's name in the credits:

Would it say Haneke, von Trier or so... Meta-Commentary! Bay, Emmerich? Serious!

I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this!

Kenny's speech about how it doesn't matter if the play is real or fake or funny or tragic is a meta-commentary on the entire film. It doesn't matter if it is good or bad, or funny or sad, or satire or meta-satire, or anything at all. The point of the film is to speak honestly to this moment, just like Digger does in his monologue to the EU chamber. We are far past the point of no return with climate change and our continued extraction and consumption of oil and gas. We are beyond the point of Don't Look Up. The point of this kind of art is to show us the reality of our collective situation. That doesn't mean we should give up, just that it is important to be honest about reality.

I was surprised to learn that The Thirteenth Floor (1999) was a box office bomb. Can't tell if this is a "pleasantly surprised" reaction to what is actually a mediocre movie—or if it's a genuinely underrated film, owing solely to the bad luck of releasing a month after The Matrix.

Didn't see any problems with the writing or the direction. Effort was obviously put into the 1937 scenes: period costuming was on point; sets were great; plenty of extras to fill the frame; no obvious shortcuts. Nothing extraordinary in terms of cinematography, but still competent and well-shot, with some imaginative lighting. They seem to have used the production budget of $16 million to great effect.

In terms of acting, it was a good exercise for some of the actors playing multiple roles, with the leads getting to do some fun character work. Naturally, Vincent D'Onofrio walked away with every scene he was in, but I thought the whole cast did solid work.

Am I missing some glaring flaws? Or is this the kind of genuinely underappreciated mid-budget popcorn flick we don't often see these days?

One of the largest criticisms that I keep seeing in this sub about Digger is that the plot line with his daughter doesn't make sense or fit into the narrative and that it could have been easily dropped. I'm going to explain why this is wrong in the context of the movie and the broader context of the movie's intent.

At one point, Curtis has a breakdown over whether or not he's accurately portraying what a terrible person Digger really was and if it's appropriate that they should be going for laughs at all. Part of his motivation for wanting an accurate portrayal of Digger is that he's worried about his daughter surviving the terrible conditions that Digger is responsible for creating (a CAT 6 hurricane isn't a throwaway line). A common theme in both this and Birdman is that we are all playing parts in the shows that are our lives. Curtis is not only playing the part of Digger, he's playing his role in the play both metaphorically and literally. By continuing as this version of Digger he's not being truthful with himself, the audience, his family, or the viewer. We should be questioning why any of this is funny, our children are in danger, and we're all just continuing to play the parts we've been cast in.

Without the daughter subplot we wouldn't have a way to see how the Rockwells still have influence over the world in spite of the relative evil that was unleashed on the world. In spite of a Napoleon like exile the family was able to retain enough money and prominence that one of its only surviving members not only runs a security company that is capable of getting information that no one else can but is capable of bankrolling the entire play. There is a meta messaging about how Curtis is still benefitting from the Rockwell family too much to give them up. A Rockwell is why he has his job, how he finds out his daughter is safe, and how he even gets assurances he's accurately portraying the character. The irony in Digger's speech is that Curtis himself is still living a life that Digger is somehow still providing.

Every time Curtis brings up concern for his daughter another character encourages him to just keep doing his job. They assure him there's nothing he can do about it and the important thing is to keep barreling forward. So instead of actually stopping to care about his kid he puts his blinders on and keeps going forward. His wife insists "I know she's fine!" the way a lot of modern parents just assume things will work out in spite of the evidence that the world is completely falling apart. There's a part of Curtis that knows what he's doing is wrong. He shouldn't be working the way he is and (ironically for a Rockwell, as I already covered) he should be concerned about a family member that's far away from his moment to moment existence. We all think there's no way he's ignoring the biggest problem he's facing while continuing to live his life normally. That's purposeful.

There's also a recurring theme in this movie about how temporary relief is the only thing that matters to Digger, Curtis, the world, and by extension the viewer. We know by the end of the movie that danger is omni-present in this world but Digger ignores it the minute he finds out that his daughter is safe (for now). Up to this point you get the feeling, as a viewer, that he's uncomfortable with his role and his portrayal and the offscreen conflict makes you feel like maybe he's doing the wrong thing. That immediately goes away for Curtis (and the viewer) when he finds out his daughter is fine and he's able to let go and embrace the applause and congratulations for portraying the character of Digger. The problem is that nothing is really solved. In spite of the temporary relief of what he found out, the world has been brought low, a Rockwell is pulling the strings behind the scenes of the performance, and there is still remarkable danger that he is still facing.