Comedy isn't a genre that should be exempt from a point. Modern comedies have lost the satirical nature, thus they're ultimately pointless. Even comedies as wacky and unrealistic as Dr. Strangelove, Monty Python's Life Of Brian, and Deadpool had a point. Clearly, the director of this film understands that. This comedy is a satire of modern big budget cinema where everyone says it's good or everyone says it's bad, which preconceives your expectations rather than allowing you to decide for yourself. And that's the whole message of this comedy; things should be decided for oneself rather than depending solely on the opinions of others.
This writer is clearly a master storyteller. You don't need dialogue to represent or confront the conflict going on in a story. With not one word of it, we understand that this character was led by critics to expect a great film and was let down as a result of these expectations. We understand with something as simple as the other version of himself holding a dollar that what he built was a time machine.
Furthermore, I like the ending's symbolism. It's a unique opportunity to display the progression of the character. The two versions of the same character from different points in time act totally different. The younger version seems very confused, reflecting his lack of insight gained as a result of the character's journey. The other, from later in time, is relaxed and fully knowledgeable of the situation as he's already gone on the journey his younger self has yet to go on. However, ambiguously, it also presents the viewer with the possibility that the character has progressed at all. The opening shot purposely shows the reviews on the billboard, with the last scene opening on a mirror of that shot. So he was disappointed because he depended on other's opinions rather than allowing himself to make his own. But isn't he still depending on another's opinion (that of his future self) rather than making up his own mind? Nice ambiguity, with very little needed to communicate it!
This writer is clearly a master storyteller. You don't need dialogue to represent or confront the conflict going on in a story. With not one word of it, we understand that this character was led by critics to expect a great film and was let down as a result of these expectations. We understand with something as simple as the other version of himself holding a dollar that what he built was a time machine.
Furthermore, I like the ending's symbolism. It's a unique opportunity to display the progression of the character. The two versions of the same character from different points in time act totally different. The younger version seems very confused, reflecting his lack of insight gained as a result of the character's journey. The other, from later in time, is relaxed and fully knowledgeable of the situation as he's already gone on the journey his younger self has yet to go on. However, ambiguously, it also presents the viewer with the possibility that the character has progressed at all. The opening shot purposely shows the reviews on the billboard, with the last scene opening on a mirror of that shot. So he was disappointed because he depended on other's opinions rather than allowing himself to make his own. But isn't he still depending on another's opinion (that of his future self) rather than making up his own mind? Nice ambiguity, with very little needed to communicate it!
