All movies can be classified into three categories: 1) movies that are intended to be 100% realistic; 2) movies that are intended to be realistic, but have
certain unblievable plot points that must be ignored to enjoy the movie; and 3) movies that are not intended to be realistic within the bounds of modern
society. The first category is for movies like Casablanca - there was nothing in the plot of that movie that required a suspension of reality for the viewer to
be able to continue. The second category includes movies like Face Off, with John Travolta and Nicolas Cage. That movie required the viewer to believe
that it was possible to have two men switch faces and have voice implants so that they could basically switch identities. This category is the one that a lot
of people have trouble enjoying because it is a very delicate line for the movie producer. If, like in Face Off, the plot point is so ridiculous, but treated very
seriously (and supposedly in modern times) a lot of people will not buy into the premise. I can understand and respect that - if you go into a movie
expecting an action movie and you get this moronic premise it could be easy to feel insulted. On the other hand, you have movies like Armageddon, which
also has a ridiculous premise, but somehow is not as insulting as Face Off [note: I actually prefer Face Off to Armageddon as a personal preference, but I
have a very high tolerance for suspension of reality issues like these.] The third category is for movies like Star Wars. They aren't intended to be based in
reality and therefore the producers have all the freedom to do whatever they please without offending the viewer.
It is fun to debate whether movies in the second category have gone too far and why: Could oil drillers really work on an asteroid? [Armageddon] Could
we really all be living in a computer program intended to keep us in line by A.I. of the future? [The Matrix] Would a big-ass whale really let a little boy ride
on him like a horse? [Free Willy] Who really thought that a movie starring Matt LeBlanc and a baseball playing monkey was a good idea? [Ed].
But what is really more bothersome is when movies in the first category have a scene or a plot point that makes no sense. It doeesn't rise to the level of the
second category, because it isn't the premise of the whole movie, but there is just that one scene that slips into the unreal for a moment. For example:
The Breakfast Club
This is one of my all time favorite movies and I have seen it many times. It's a great movie and believeable for the most part (if you really think that the
popular kids would end up as friends with the rejects after one day in detention). But there's one scene that sticks out like a sore thumb that really should
just be deleted. It doesn't add anything but confusion to the mix. During the scene where Bender retrieves his weed from Johnson's underwear and they all
get high, Sporto gets all revved up and starts running around, dancing and leaping in the air like a fairy-boy. Then he goes into an office, shuts the door and
screams, which breaks the glass in the door. Now, come on. Was that really necessary? Impossible - yes. Unnecessary to the story - absolutely.
Footloose
Here's another one that I enjoy, but has a couple of flaws. First is the fact that Chuck is not in jail for the big dance at the end of the movie. I mean, he
had just beaten up Ariel a couple of days before - enough that she had a black eye. Her Daddy, the minister, was clearly the most powerful man in town -
how is it possible that Chuck wouldn't rot in jail for quite some time for his misdeeds?
The other thing that always gets me about this movie is the scene after the Reverend makes his little speech in church, basically giving the dance his blessing.
Immediately thereafter we see the kids cruising out to the dance site to fix it up riding motorcycles, without helmets, on the wrong side of the road. So, if I
understand correctly, they won't allow these kids to dance, or listen to rock music, but they allow them to have motorcycles and ride around without
helmets? Somehow I'm not buying it.
Ferris Bueller
Finally, another of my favorites has two things that never made much sense to me. Ferris' sister is younger than him, right? He says that he's going to
graduate, and she's still in high school, so she must be younger. Plus, at the end, what gets her to help him out is when she hears the Principal threaten to
hold Ferris back a year (and she doesn't want him around for her senior year). So my problem is: what parents would buy the younger sibling a car when
the other sibling doesn't have one? Especially when it is made very clear that he is their absolute angel. There's just no way.
Secondly, when his mother comes home for lunch and Ferris has set up the mannequin in his bed (who has a mannequin anyway? well besides the guy that
ended up fucking that one in the movie Mannequin), she peeks in his room and he's got the sound effects going on like he's sleeping and whatnot. This
scene is completely unrealistic because there is no mother that wouldn't go in the room and feel her son's forehead in that situation. No mother could stop
herself from at least that. No way she just peeks in and then leaves.
Anyway, there are many more like this and I will chronicle them as they occur to me. If you would like to submit one, send an email to
comments@sexstone.net.
And For No Apparent Reason
Archives
Baseball
Because I Can
Baseball Betting Pool
Fat Guys Get Naked Too
Fiction
Football Betting Pool
The Gogs
Guest Article
Mitch's Multi-Monthly
Meanderings
Mixed Bag
Naked Indian Lesbians
The Professor
Sex Stone