Owls in that kind of forests.. movies always have owl sounds to signify an undisturbed nature or something. Why would he ride a bike that weird, and why are there owls?!
The whole music scene when he comes 'home', who would want to live like that? How can she play AND have a 'casual conversation' when this concert is going on? Sure, classical music doesn't require ANY concentration, I'll just casually chat while we're doing this performance in this SUPER CRAMPED space, because that's how these things work.
This music that involves several instruments, is SO silent, they can have casual conversation without raising their voices, and NONE of the musicians get angry, peeved or annoyed that people are just casually conversing while they are trying to play and perform.
Then the guy walks a couple of meters and closes the door and you can BARELY hear the music anymore. HOW SILENTLY ARE THEY PLAYING WITH THIS MANY INSTRUMENTS INSIDE A HOUSE/APARTMENT?!
Of course he digs ANOTHER beer from the in-room fridge (why trust anyone with a shared fridge in the kitchen with your beer, you need your OWN fridge in your ridiculously small room for someone that supposedly works in a high-tech laboratory), and then looks at the weirdly-placed, crappy print-out picture of Einstein that has to have these banal quotes about 'Genius at work' right next to him. Because of course we have to have them, so USAian audiences can know Einstein was a genius.
Then he just product-placements his way through Budweiser, which he barely even drinks (people ALWAYS drink beer by just taking one sip and then no more, right?), after giving the most famous 'genius scientist' (how cliché, could they not find any photos of Tesla, for example? Give us a refreshing change already! Even Einstein himself considered Tesla a genius, but sure, use the most over-used cliché ever) to some cookies, whose wrapping is intact and faces the camera oh-so-conveniently, because that's how people eat cookies, they never crumple the wrapping at all or throw it away or have it face away from the camera, or upside down or anything. It's AS IF someone had meticulously and carefully placed it exactly there, where it's well-lit, too.
Why does this man have crappy-looking, unpainted models of the most primitive airplanes taking space unnecessarily in a room that looks like it would be too small for a first-grader?
Why does he have a stupid astronot [sic] suit also.. I mean, this guy has hoarded and cramped his RIDICULOUSLY tiny room so much, it's a miracle he was able to put a fridge and bed in there! What the heck is the theme here? We have to have all KINDS of 'sciency' and 'spacey' stuff so we know this guy is a genius, but we also have to have him drink cheap beer instead of actual champagne, wine or something more refined, so we know he's one of us, one of the people.. WHAT IS THIS MOVIE?!
The next time we see nurse Ratchett, which is almost immediately after this pointless and weird scene, she, OF COURSE, has a cigarette BETWEEN HER TEETH. Not on her lips normally, not in her hand, but BETWEEN HER TEETH.
She is trying to walk and talk, but chooses to hinder all this by putting a cigarette between her TEETH instead of lips or fingers. Teeth. It HAS TO BE TEETH! Does someone have a tooth-fetish?
The cigarette is not smoking. It's NOT even lit! WHY WOULD SHE DO THIS? Why is it not a 'full', fresh cigarette at least, if she's not smoking it?
Is this a smoker or not? Is she someone SO addicted to cigarettes, we can't have even one second of her on screen without her manipulating one, lighting one up, or having one between her teeth, OR someone that tries to quit smoking or has quit smoking, but has to constantly fondle cigs like an idiot kid that doesn't know how to let go? You can't show her constantly lighting up if she's not a smoker, and there's NO reason to show her having a cigarette between her teeth when SHE HAS HER HANDS FREE!
She even takes the cigarette out and just keeps it in her hand afterwards, so WHAT WAS THE POINT of keeping it inbetween her teeth in the first place?!
The only reason anyone WOULD put a cigarette between their teeth is if they're busy doing something else with their hands, but she clearly ISN'T, so why are we shown her to have done this cumbersome, unnecessary teeth-thing? Is it her fetish or something? WHAT is going on here?!
Not to mention the constant inconsistency (I know, sounds like oxymoron) with the cigarette status - it's smoking in one scene with a big ash pile building up, but 0.01 microseconds later, the pile of ash is GONE and the cig is considerably shorter, and she THEN proceeds to take a puff, only to have camera jumpcut away, so we never ACTUALLY see her smoke? IS THIS THE POINT? WHY IS THIS CIG THING SO RIDICULOUSLY WEIRD?!
I swear, someone could go completely clinically insane just analyzing her cigarette smoking in this movie, what the F were they thinking?
The next time we see her, about a second later, that is, she's ALREADY extinquishing that cigarette by pushing it against the ashtray, while exhaling in a weard way with her lips curled, as if she's going to whistle. Seriously, WHAT is going on with her and cigarettes?? It's almost as if the actor doesn't smoke, doesn't want to actually smoke, but they wrote the character as super-addicted chainsmoker that can't fathom one second without a cigarette, so we get this really weird inconsistent cig-play that is driving me nuts.
(At least there IS smoke coming out of her mouth when she does this, but wouldn't she start doing this BEFORE she starts extinquishing the cigarette, as in, immediately after taking the puff instead of waiting this long?)
Why would everyone just allow her to smoke everywhere anyway? I know it was like 1982 or 1983 when this was filmed, but surely even then some people might not have wanted some co-worker constantly polluting their breathing air, especially in a damn LAB environment!
--
So they have a 'super-conductor chip that does not need cooling', announced casually just like that. No emotion, no excitement, just 'hey, we have this since you need it'.
Of course they fail to realize just how much money they would make from that thing alone, no need to do all this weird 'brainstorm' experiment, how much world would change just because of that and so on. But sure, let people have their Commodore 64s and Ataris, no need to advance computer technology of the time at all.
Also, there is _NO_ way any computer chip, especially some super advanced super-conductor stuff could be THAT FRIGGIN' TINY! People were introduced to microfilms probably in the 1960s, so audiences expect all high tech to be tiny, but come on, this is ridiculous. The most advanced CPUs of the time were massive compared to that thing. Computers used to be room-sized relatively recently (compared to 1982 or 1983), washing machine-sized even more recently, and now that the early 1980s is here, suddenly they have needle pin-sized chips?
WHAT?
Even the smallest version of Data's emotion chip was bigger than THAT thing, and yet they let this chainsmoker hag handle that chip like it costs 10 cents instead of probably hundreds of thousands that a prototype like THAT would likely cost.
Sigh.
This movie just doesn't let me go, it doesn't let me sink deep into immersion and enjoy the story, because it's just SO stupid with so many things.. how did all this get through? Didn't anyone care?
--
So they want this kid out of the pool. Why? Don't know.
But we DO know it's always a good idea to control a child by KICKING HIM IN THE HEAD WITH A HIGH-HEEL BOOT!
WHAT kind of parenting is that? Why can't you just trust the kid to come out of the pool? I know these people haven't seen Supernanny, but come on, a KICK IN THE HEAD?
WHAT IS THIS MOVIE?!
A kid swims in the pool, is seemingly about to come out, and the mom or whatever just thinks the best way to reach this kid is to KICK HIM IN THE HEAD.
A literal kick in the head is seen as the best form of parental control. No naughty mats, no discussions beforehand, no taking away his toys, no allowance reduction - A FRIGGIN' KICK IN THE HEAD. I can't get over this.. what were they on when these decisions were made? Just how smoky was that room, and what kind of smoke was that? Holy cow, never seen anything this ridiculously stupid before..
..especially since it's clear that actor REALLY kicks the kid in the head with her dirty damn boot while the kid is trying to just swim peacefully! WHY do they need him to get out of the pool THAT URGENTLY?! Why meet in a place where the kid is swimming anyway, why not meet somewhere else and let the kid do his thing?
Not to mention they SHAKE HANDS only after they have all walked ALL the way to that room, and the kid has been swimming there and all this 'get out of the pool, let me kick him in the head'-stuff has already happened. So these people silently walk here from outside, maybe through many hallways and such without knowing each other, and when the kid has been kicked in the head (I can't believe this actually happens in the movie), then, and ONLY then will everyone shake hands and introduce themselves.
Then they invite the kid in their CIRCLE to complain about some snorkel he gave to the kid .. I mean, why wouldn't the kid have gotten the snorkel earlier so he could've used it while swimming?
Why would the kid say 'you got the right one', as if there are SO many different types of snorkels, and the 'wrong ones' just wouldn't cut it. I mean, what the..? How many types of snorkels can there be, and what would a wrong one be like? Is it just the color, or are there different functionalities with simple snorkels? What does it matter, as long as it functions as a snorkel? RIGHT ONE?? A snorkel is not a damn FASHION statement, who cares if it's the 'right one'? Did he list the model and type before sending this guy who lives in a tiny room to shop for it, and now they meet in this lavish but weird house.. I mean, NOTHING MAKES ANY SENSE!
Why would you arrange ANY kind of meeting with other adults and then let a half-naked, wet kid disturb that meeting JUST as it's beginning? Can't this family drama be separated to some other time? What is this movie trying to show here? Why is the kid so disrespectful (then again, he WAS kicked in the head for no reason) and doesn't introduce himself or whatnot, and why do the adults treat him as if he's some force majeur that doesn't matter, and.. why doesn't anyone think it's weird this guy invites them to this pool room just so the half-naked kid can disrupt their meeting at will?
WHY IS EVERYTHING SO CASUAL, what is he wearing, why is he keeping his hands in his pockets so much, if these are important people that he has important business to deal with?
WHAT IS THIS MOVIEEEEE???!!!
"As you can see, this is a very special house". What? 'Special' is not something you can just 'see', because that is an extremely vague word that can have a thousand meanings and connotations, anyone can have their own interpretation of it and all that.
Why not use something more descriptive, as in 'unique', 'architectural nightmare' or 'stupidly designed'? Sorry, can't hold my judgment on this really crappily designed room, like why put a pool in a place like that, so then you need to have a railing and constant smell of chlorine, why is the pool so tiny and cramped-looking, etc.?
Why not have just a separate 'pool room' that's dedicated to a big pool, and then have THIS room opened up to have a bigger space, less weirdly-layered platform ceiling and so on? This architect is about as skilled as George Costanza would be if he actualy had a design a house. Who the heck thought this is good?
So they are showing them a house, and this realtor or whatever she is, just stands there, and lets the whole, weird 'disruptive kid in the pool'-scene play out without saying a word, and ONLY starts showing them OTHER parts of the house after the 'always hands in his pockets'-master gives his 'IDEA' of what to show next to her.
What the.. how does a weird scene like this get written? Could it BE more awkward, weird, unnatural and full of unanswered questions? Why even come to talk with the owners of the house, if THAT is all that happens? "This is a special house, now go look at some closets".
WHAT the fjord?! SERIOUSLY, does anyone in the world think ANYTHING about this scene makes any sense?!
(I don't even want to talk about the 'conversation' they have about cardboard boxes and such, I am too tired by all the other stuff already)
--
Then we see nurse Ratchett again, and what does she have in her left hand? Do we even have to guess? Every character has ONE trait, and hers is that she always has to do something weird with cigarettes. Seriously, who writes this crap? Let her breathe, literally and figuratively!
The peculiar thing this time is that this is YET ANOTHER cigarette that is NOT LIT. No light, no smoke, but yet half-smoked. At least make it a full-length fresh one if she's not going to even smoke it, if it's not even lit, but nope. It's always this weird half-smoked one. I don't think we ever see her start with a fresh one and then smoke it fully. It's either half-smoked, non-lit between her teeth or in her hand, or she's just lighting up a fresh one, or she's putting out one while waiting a bit and then blowing smoke out as if she's whistling.
WHAT is this movie, seriously, who can watch this and not want to slap their forehead while running against a concrete wall?
They show the lab with a big, old computer terminal displayed very prominently. Cool. However.. the monitor is turned off, the computer or terminal (not sure which that is) is turned off, there are no power cables or display cables or keyboard cables or serial or any connectivity cables anywhere. It's as if the prop department just dropped this in the middle of the floor (why would anyone tolerate THAT placement, when now it's in everyone's way) as if to say, this is an important computer, but then not connect it so it looks dead.. so it can't be important.
Wouldn't a test like this be the perfect time to have such a prominent computer TURNED ON at least? Why is it THERE, if it's not important enough to be turned on during a test like this?
This movie, computers and cigarettes don't seem to go together. The makers of this thing were not right in the head.. how the heck did they get Walken in this travesty?
Of course then we get more 'unexplained' scenes (why is the big 'model aircraft' even needed, let alone having it move?) with the 'racing' stuff, then he goes.. to a water park? How can all this sensitive electronic stuff be completely waterproof?! WHAT?! Even old TV cameras need a plastic covering around them if they're going to be used in the rain or something, but this guy can just use a waterslide with no problems? Why would he need to wear that orange suit anyway?
Even the very short cut to nurse Ratchett has her taking a puff (do we ever see her complete this action, by the way? There's always a jumpcut), and then the next time we see her, she has a now smoking cigarette on her right hand.
Can we NOT see her one second without a cigarette? Seriously, the microchip-scene is the only one so far, and that was probably because of necessity, or she couldn't have handled the chip.
So someone hired this chainsmoker addict that's so childish, she can't be without this toxic pacifier for even one second, unless she's handling some high-tech chip?
Everyone just tolerates her CONSTANT polluting of their immediate air.. I wonder if Walken liked doing this role.
Not to mention what lazy writing this is - her one trait is cigarettes, so she must ALWAYS, always have a cigarette in her hand or between her teeth. She must always be seen doing SOMETHING with a cigarette, because I wrote that as her character trait! What kind of director would go along with that instead of at least showing a little bit of realism, humanity and subtlety?
It's starting to look as if Walken was bad at choosing scripts during the eighties.. even his Bond villain role is a better choice. How can the makers of this movie be this idiotic, when it comes to any and all of this stuff. Just let her have one scene without that accursed cigarette already!
Now we watch the things the helmet guy 'captured', and we see the zero-charisma CEO replay it or 'experience' it (kind of idiotic to have them just stare at the camera eyes wide open - wouldn't this work better if their eyes were AT LEAST CLOSED?!, or if they wore some kind of eyegear, visor, eyeglasses, SOMETHING?)..
..and just guess what happens when we see the cigarette woman again. GUESS if she has a cigarette. Yes, you were correct, this time we actually see her take a hit, but we STILL do not see her inhale - it actually looks like she didn't ACTUALLY even take the hit, but then acts as if she did, but yet doesn't inhale, but exhales so hard her lips move.
WHAT is this unrealistic and totally weird cigarette handling, and why is it so constant? If you can't make her ACTUALLY smoke, then maybe drop the whole cigarette thing instead of trying to fake it in so many really stupid-looking ways?
It is INCREDIBLY distracting, as now I can't think of anything else, especially since the pace of this movie is so slow and the movie keeps slowly underlining and showing us things we ALREADY KNEW from like 20 minutes ago.
Also, the CEO just staring creepily into the camera doesn't QUITE work as 'I am actually experiencing what he experienced'. No sense of fear, no sense of 'I feel that in my stomach' (when you first played certain car games in the 1990s, you got this stomach-curling feeling with sudden hills at high speeds, but this guy has way more advanced 'simulation', and feels seemingly nothing beyond something that makes him smile ever so slightly.. how?).
After that prolonged 'Let's look at boring things uselessly from first-person perspective'-scene, we actually get almost one full second without her smoking or handling a cigarette! Wow, that's a first.. then we see another maybe two seconds. Great!
Then what happens? Of course, she digs up a fresh one from her pocket SOMEHOW - no fumbling of a packet or anything, just straight up 'magical fresh one in my hand' and LIGHTS IT UP. How many cigarettes does she light up in this movie without smoking any of them fully, or almost at all?
Also, JUMPCUT RIGHT when she is about to inhale. Do we EVER get to see her actually inhale or smoke it normally even for a second? We don't get to see her WITHOUT cigarettes, but we ALSO don't get to see her SMOKE NORMALLY.
Then we're shown the CEO to say a few words, cut back to her and - - - WHAT? THE FRESH cigarette from about 2 seconds ago is now a TINY STUB! HOW DID SHE SMOKE 85% OF A CIGARETTE SO FAST OFF-CAMERA?!
Then she has no cigarette after maybe one more second. No extinquishing it, no ashtray needed, no smoke anywhere, NOTHING. HOW DO YOU DO THAT with a fresh cigarette THAT FAST? HOW?! David Copperfield couldn't pull it off, so what is this woman, a LITERAL WITCH?!
(Then Walken KISSES her, after she just supposedly smoked a full cig - WHAT non-smoker would kiss a smoker especially if it's not necessary at all? Rather just give her a HUG or something, don't friggin' KISS that ashtray-face! I am talking purely of her looks here, by the way, but the smell would definitely be repulsive, does Walken's character have no sense of smell?)
WHAT is this movie?!
STOP THE CIGARETTE TROPE ALREADY, WE GET IT (well, actually, I don't quite get it, why was it even necessary, let alone to do it this way, holy cow is it weird!)..
--
The dialogue in this movie..
*grabs her hand*
OK, this must mean he's going to say something meaningful, express some deep emotion or insight, experience, maybe worry about the experiment and its consequences or implications, world situation, perspective on doing this while people are starving...
..so this marvellous actor, Mr. Walken says:
'We never worked before. I always tried to avoid that, you know.'
The woman replies with..?
Nothing.
BRILLIANT!
Someone actually wrote this on paper on a real typewriter and thought to themselves, this is amazing, we don't have to improve this part at all, just leave the dialogue like this, it's so deep, rich and beautiful, amazing writing!
THen some dope approved this writing.. what kind of braindead coma patients were they using as their writers, directors and test audience?
WHAT is this movie?!
--
Then they 'demonstrate' this machine to a group of people.
In a... meeting room.
Not a specially designed, dimly-lit demonstration room with monitors around and lab assistants, not some comfortable theater or whatnot.
A.. MEETING.. ROOM. Like.. how? WHY? WHAT?
Then we get more inconsistencies - so far, everyone that experienced these boring POV homevideos, has been doing so with their eyes FULLY OPEN and staring at the camera creepily.
But now that it's a 'multiple people at once' (as if it can't be shown one by one for some reason), people actually not only close their eyes, but in synch, lower their HEADS as well.
WHAT THE.. this never happened before, why is it happening now? Why are they closing their eyes and ..WHY CAN'T THERE BE A VISOR OF SOME KIND?
This movie.. I can't take it anymore.. I just can't take it!
But wait, there's more!
Then they show some REALLY weird shot from half-behind someone that HAS their eyes open and whose head is NOT lowered, they show him BLINKING while having this thing on their head.
WHY THIS INCONSISTENCY? MAKE UP YOUR MIND ALREADY! DON'T SHOW IT BOTH WAYS, and WHY CAN'T YOU HAVE A VISOR??
Also, why does the AUDIENCE of this movie have to be subjected to this dull POV crap, why do we have to see all this footage, as if we're parents of some ten-year old that just got their first video camera and wants to show their 'home movies' and we just have to sit there and try to look interested?
WHY ARE WE SUBJECTED TO THIS?!
Why are these people next shown again eyes fully open and this time, TILTING to the motion, as if that's going to make a difference?
In face, it SHOULD BREAK the immersion, when you tilt your head/body AND the visuals are not AFFECTED AT ALL by your bodily movement!
Why and how can you still move your body normally anyway, if your eyes can't see what they're normally supposed to see? How do you block them from seeing, your ears from hearing, etc.? I mean, there are SO many questions about this stuff alone, but it's just SO stupid and disturbing that they keep their eyes open - what a waste of seeing power, just keeping your eyes open? WHY can't you keep them closed if you are not going to see with them anyway? Why even block people's vision instead of enhancing it, you know, like a VISOR? (A 'virtual reality' visor would be perfectly adequate for the visuals, you don't have to block your actual vision and manipulate the brain directly for that, for crying out loud - and which would be EASIER to achieve anyway? If they can make a pin-sized microchip, they should be able to make thin, lightweight virtual reality glasses..)
Not to mention HOW LONG these scenes are, they just go on and on and on.. as if the director didn't know how to actually make a movie. Just dump ALL the footage in the movie, maybe it'll be entertaining. Sigh.
How many time do we need to hear the phrase 'knock my socks off'? It's one thing if the CEO with no imagination uses it, but do DIFFERENT PEOPLE also have to say that? Was that the ONLY phrase the writer could come up with to describe something 'extraordinarily impressive'?
I am not even 30 minutes into the movie and I want to bash my head against a wall just to dull the pain this stupidity is causing me to experience. At least that's one way to really make the audience experience something real and something powerful.
How about the scene where the old and middle-aged man sit to supposedly eat something in the car. The old man INSTANTLY hands this guy some food package, then digs up another one for himself, asks ONE question, listens to the 'socks off'-explanation that lasts for about two seconds, maybe takes one bite of his food and starts driving off.
These big packages both contain TINY sandwitches. I guess it's more practical for the actors, but I would HATE to be either of these guys. WHY are the sandwiches so tiny? Nothing to drink? What?
Then this guy starts driving off immediately after taking one bite, but the sandwich looks like it has been half-eaten already - I am not finished with this sentence yet - he starts driving off with the SANDWICH IN HIS HAND!
WHAT?!
That sandwich is like 5 cm wide, he would eat it in maybe five seconds max., and he's not even looking at the road, but he keeps looking at the guy he's talking to. He has NO TIME to just eat that thing first, and THEN start driving? Not to mention the other tiny sandwich he just slams between the seats for some reason. Not gonna eat that? WHY NOT?
The young guy opens the package, looks at the food, then closes it again. WHAT WAS THE POINT??
The dialogue again, holy cow. 'Military application, missile guidance, that kind of thing?' - HOW could this be used for any missile guidance? Why would it need to, aren't those systems adequate? What is the logic here?
Then the younger, balding guy says something like 'Jim, they will be able to plug right into your noggin''. Didn't they KNOW THAT already?
Also, 'military applications' are not 'wide open'. SOMEONE STILL HAS TO DO THE THINGS before you can transfer that to others. Maybe 'spying' options would be better, but still, it's not all that 'remarkable' when you think about it. What can that tech do that ordinary tech is not already doing pretty effectively? Just transfering someone's experiences to another is not all that interesting in the end. Erotic applications would, again, as with all tech like this, be the most sought after, I would think.
Also also, who didn't see this cliché coming? Everything is always ruined by 'military applications', and NO SCIENTIST EVER SEES THIS COMING, and the audience is always supposed to gasp about this..
Didn't make it even to the 30-minute mark, this movie is just TOO stupid.