Memento

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
It did make you want to take polaroids of everyone you knew and write, "Don't believe his/her lies" on them, didn't it?

David, Monday, 26 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Sorry David I don't understand the question :( Gale

Gale Deslongchamps, Monday, 26 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

No, David - it didn't, because I was already doing that.

Kerry, Monday, 26 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

There was an allusion made in some article I read about something being as complex and convoluted as the plot to _Memento_. Well, complex I'll buy, but convoluted (which sounds like a backhanded way of saying "unnecessarily complex") it ain't, IF you're paying attention.

So when's Carrie Anne Moss getting more roles where she's not Keanu's love toy? Preferably in flicks NOT involving Mars.

David Raposa, Monday, 26 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Memento and Amnesiac will forever be lodged in the same memory bank inside my head.

bnw, Tuesday, 27 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Memento would've been great if it ended after 5 minutes.

Kris, Tuesday, 27 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

it had a huge plot hole that i can't remember. anyone?

Alan Trewartha, Tuesday, 27 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

As far as I can remember the huge plot hole is merely the one of motivation. When he discovers that he killed his wife he is happy to continue killing people as it drives him. However this relelntless and pointless chase of justice is based on a very selfish whim, which does not strictly fit the character we have come to believe.

There are a few similar motivational problems with Memento which can be excused due to the genre of film it is (Teddy is never more than a cypher) - but I really enjoyed it and thought it was virtuoso film- making, and in particular, writing.

Pete, Tuesday, 27 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

there was something more basic than that. the conceit of the film revolves around what the character/audience does and doesn't know (like all thrillers, but more so). i seem to recall reconstructing the order of events and realising there was a huge shortcut from the beginning to the end because of some obvious piece of information.

I did enjoy the film BTW -- certainly one of the better films i've seen in the last year or so -- but i'm damn positive there was something that didn't ring right with the plot mechanics. it's bugging me now.

Alan Trewartha, Tuesday, 27 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

You know, I haven't seen the film but I read a review earlier this year and immediately guessed he killed his wife. Was it meant to be a big surprise in the film?

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Well, yeah its supposed to be a big surprise because he is trying to find his wifes killer...

Which might be Alan's plot hole to be fair because if he killed his wife in the way suggested by the flashback section then the whole reason why he got the condition (brain bash by wife killers) never happened.

Pete, Tuesday, 27 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

It was only interesting while I was watching it, but there's nothing in it that really sticks, and so I forgot it.

Kerry, Tuesday, 27 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Ok the plot hole is that if he supposedly can't remember anything after 'the accident' then HOW does he always remember and understand his odd condition? You'd think he'd wake up everyday thinking it was still the time of the accident, since no new memories had been formed since.

But as for Pete's idea of the injury never happening - if the twist ending was that if it was *his* wife that was the diabetic and Sammy's (the guy he'd been insurance investigating), then I think we are also to assume that he's personifying other aspects of his own problem as Sammy's. Specifically that the short term memory loss was determined to be psychological not physical in nature. I think that's the idea anyway.

An ok movie... I felt oddly indifferent while watching it tho.

Kim, Sunday, 2 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Even the director doesen't know quite how the real story goes. His brother (who wrote the short story) refuses to tell him.

Will, Monday, 3 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

i've remembered something to do with a number plate. ah who can be bothered?

Alan Trewartha, Monday, 3 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

eight years pass...

I don't believe he killed his wife. But either way, biggest prob for me was how Natalie treats Leonard. When she sees him in her boyfriend's car and clothes she's all 'wtf!' but when she learns of his condition it's as though she suddenly doesn't care that her boyfriend is missing and Leonard has apparently nicked all his stuff. Yeah she manipulates him but she still ends up helping him, and never goes "where is my boyfriend you fucking retard!". Maybe she hated her bf but the script gives no indication of that (apart from showing him to be a drug-dealing douche).

Still, dope film, great idea and superbly executed - aside from minor misgivings like above.

CATBEAST 7777 (ledge), Sunday, 10 January 2010 16:13 (fourteen years ago) link

i've never seen an argument for him killing his wife?

pretty sure natalie is tryin to find out about her bf, but i need to see this again obviously (see above).

Not a reactionary git, just an idiot. (darraghmac), Sunday, 10 January 2010 22:36 (fourteen years ago) link

killing his wife = sammy jankis is a confabulation, it was leonard's wife who had diabetes and him who gave her the multiple shots. "revealed" to leonard by teddy at the end (beginning).

CATBEAST 7777 (ledge), Sunday, 10 January 2010 22:43 (fourteen years ago) link

also there's a subliminal flash of leonard in place of sammy at the asylum, at the conclusion of sammy's story.

CATBEAST 7777 (ledge), Sunday, 10 January 2010 22:46 (fourteen years ago) link

oh yeah kinda remembering the shots thing now, and his wife being csi girl. must watch again- got this for xmas actually

Not a reactionary git, just an idiot. (darraghmac), Sunday, 10 January 2010 22:57 (fourteen years ago) link

six years pass...

(Teddy is never more than a cypher)

― Pete, Tuesday, 27 November 2001 01:00

ISWYDT

Noel Emits, Sunday, 11 September 2016 21:51 (seven years ago) link

three years pass...

I watched this for the first time in a while. It still holds up as entertainment, but it made less sense to me than ever before. So Lenny is in pursuit of "JG," right? And Teddy has been exploiting his condition to trick him into killing ... people with the initials "JG?" And if Teddy planted the information that the big bad was a guy with the initials "JG," why would he choose his own (real) initials? I feel like I'm missing something here.

There's also a shot of Lenny with his wife (in color) where he has "I've Done It" tattooed on his chest. Is this a made-up memory? Obviously he doesn't have "I've done it" tattooed on his chest for the rest of the film, so that must either be a flash-forward fantasy (?) or a fake memory, like a dream? It's all pretty blurry to me.

Oh, and why would Sammy's/Lenny's wife even need his help for insulin shots?

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 18 January 2020 18:33 (four years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.