The "intrusions" that defined the film

Not sure how much the title gives away, so I'll just lay it out clearly. I want to start a conversation about atypical "outliers" in cinema—whether they’re positive shifts or total flops. What am I talking about?

We've all probably felt that moment when a director does something totally unexpected, like stepping way outside their usual lane. Take Woody Allen's 2005 release, for instance. Match Point is a complete outlier for him. Up until then, he mostly stuck to those romantic comedies, sometimes even leaning into that classic musical vibe he's known for. He's got plenty of hits, with Annie Hall being the big one that even won over people who usually can't stand his style... though most of them didn't change their minds afterward. Why call Match Point an "outlier"? There are a ton of reasons, but the main thing is that even a casual viewer can see this was a massive, steep turn in Woody Allen's career. Unlike his earlier stuff, which, again, were mostly rom-coms, Match Point is this cold, clinical drama with a heavy thriller edge at its peak. It's a far cry from the warmer vibes of his previous work. Even the characters feel different—almost a sort of neo-Woody Allen-esque vibe—and the setting totally shifts that familiar atmosphere we expect from him. I could go on forever about why this stands out in his career, but I feel like I'm turning this into a full-blown review, so I'll stop there. This is a "positive" outlier. It's widely known that Match Point was well-received by audiences, though some might argue it was a misstep or a wrong turn for him. Personal opinions are totally fine here, just keep it relevant to the theme. Your definition of an "outlier" doesn't have to be obvious to count...

You can also bring up negative outliers—actors, directors, franchises, whatever you want. I'm guessing my example was on the positive side. I'm sure there's enough material here to keep this thread going forever. Just please don't take it as personally as people usually do with other threads...

Hopefully, the idea is clear, but if not, just speak up.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a deviation. Back in 1989, he shot Crimes and Misdemeanors, which follows two distinct paths: one humorous segment featuring Woody Allen, and then a heavy-hitting drama. Then you have September and Interiors, which I haven't seen myself, though I did read "Woody Allen on Woody Allen," a collection of interviews where he breaks down his own work. You can pretty much split his filmography into three buckets. First, there are the straight comedies like Sleepers, Love and Death, and The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, etc., followed by those pure dramas mentioned above. Finally, there are the comedies with strong dramatic undertones, such as Manhattan, Annie Hall, and Hannah and Her Sisters...

Alright, man, maybe I was wrong to assume all Woody Allen movies are just romantic comedies, but I still feel like Match Point hits differently than anything else he’s done, even if I haven't seen his entire filmography. If you were going to categorize his stuff, it feels like most of them have at least one "pair" or a recurring vibe, but Match Point doesn't seem to have a match... that's all I'm getting at. Btw, I don't know if Woody Allen has anything this cold in his catalog. Does he?

Hmm... I can't help but think of Tim Burton and Planet of the Apes.

Yeah. I was thinking the exact same thing when I wrote the intro. Totally agree. It feels like an "intruder" for two reasons:

1) it's a step down from its usual quality
2) the style is just different, which honestly isn't even a big deal compared to the first reason...

Jerry Martin19 said:Alright, man, maybe I was wrong to assume all Woody Allen movies are just romantic comedies, but I still feel like Match Point hits differently than anything else he’s done, even if I haven't seen his entire filmography. If you were going to categorize his stuff, it feels like most of them have at least one "pair" or a recurring vibe, but Match Point doesn't seem to have a match... that's all I'm getting at. Btw, I don't know if Woody Allen has anything this cold in his catalog. Does he?

Even *Interiors* fits that pattern. I haven't sat down to watch it yet, but from everything I've read, it’s easily his darkest work—definitely not your typical Woody Allen flick. It’s packed with Bergman-esque elements. Some people even go as far as calling it a blatant rip-off of an Ingmar Bergman film, though I can't recall exactly which one. 🤷

Right now, I can't stop thinking about Jim Carrey. Despite all the absolute garbage he churned out during his "career," he actually managed to pull off one incredible performance in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That’s the one film that earns him my respect. Everything else? Pure contempt. Well, maybe not *everything*

ps. I am honestly exhausted by this endless cycle of infantile bickering, constant quoting, and general spam you all keep posting. Grow up.

Samuel Smith5 said:Right now, I can't stop thinking about Jim Carrey. Despite all the absolute garbage he churned out during his "career," he actually managed to pull off one incredible performance in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That’s the one film that earns him my respect. Everything else? Pure contempt. Well, maybe not *everything*

ps. I am honestly exhausted by this endless cycle of infantile bickering, constant quoting, and general spam you all keep posting. Grow up.

First off (to Samuel Smith5): You really need to check out The Truman Show.
Secondly (regarding the original question): Are we counting actors here too, or is this strictly for directors?

Carol Lewis said:First off (to Samuel Smith5): You really need to check out The Truman Show.
Secondly (regarding the original question): Are we counting actors here too, or is this strictly for directors?

Jesus, don't limit the topic that much...😲

Jerry Martin19 said:As "entry points," you can list negative (assuming mine were mostly positive) jumpscares, actors, directors, series, etc. I bet there's enough material here to blow this thread wide open. Just hope people don't take it as negatively as they usually do with other threads.

😉

Kate Torres said:Even *Interiors* fits that pattern. I haven't sat down to watch it yet, but from everything I've read, it’s easily his darkest work—definitely not your typical Woody Allen flick. It’s packed with Bergman-esque elements. Some people even go as far as calling it a blatant rip-off of an Ingmar Bergman film, though I can't recall exactly which one. 🤷

If you look closely, Autumn Sonata feels like it was practically drafted using the same blueprints as Interiors. It’s not quite a case of Woody Allen simply ripping off Bergman, especially considering both films hit theaters around the same time—actually, Interiors managed to make its debut about two months before Autumn Sonata even premiered. Still, the parallels are impossible to ignore, particularly in how both movies dissect that deep, unsettling sense of alienation between mothers and their daughters.

The fundamental divide really comes down to realism; you get this profound, layered depth in the work of Ingmar Bergman, whereas Woody Allen's version feels almost entirely hollow by comparison. It’s as if Woody Allen took that heavy, brooding atmosphere characteristic of Bergman's style and simply grafted it onto his own universe, yet he failed to capture that vital spark of humanity found in Bergman's films—that underlying sense of equilibrium that persists even when things turn bleak. You just don't see that kind of balance in Interiors. Colin Jacobson

Isn't Hitchcock's Trouble with Harry a bit of a departure from his usual suspense thriller style?
If it is, I'd say it feels like a bit of an outlier, even if Shirley MacLaine is in it. 😍I LOVE YOU, SHIRLEY MACLAINE!!!

I suppose this might be the only topic where you can't really argue about Kubrick when discussing directors. Every single one of his follow-up films seemed to jump into a completely different genre. 😬

redowl90 said:Isn't Hitchcock's Trouble with Harry a bit of a departure from his usual suspense thriller style?
If it is, I'd say it feels like a bit of an outlier, even if Shirley MacLaine is in it. 😍I LOVE YOU, SHIRLEY MACLAINE!!!

I suppose this might be the only topic where you can't really argue about Kubrick when discussing directors. Every single one of his follow-up films seemed to jump into a completely different genre. 😬

Nice catch, redowl90! That’s a sharp observation about it being an outlier. Hitchcock did dabble in comedy while he was still working over in Great Britain, but even then, nothing quite hit the mark like Harry did. It definitely stands out as a deviation from the more established paths he carved out during his Hollywood years.

Zhang Yimou spent the '90s making socially conscious, heavy-hitting films that were huge successes, but then in 2004, he pivoted to martial arts movies like Hero followed by House of Flying Daggers.

That’s a weird take from you Trouble with Harry. I’ve seen plenty of Hitchcockian stuff, but I always somehow steered clear of that one. No clue why. I guess I just couldn't wrap my head around combining Hitchcock and comedy. It definitely feels like a bad misfit, just like redowl90 said...

offtopic:

@redowl90, interesting point. Ever since we cleared up that whole thing with Armin, we've been on the same page most of the time. Lately, you've mentioned a few movies in different threads that I've always had a bad feeling about, and your takes align perfectly with my gut instincts. Regardless, I guess I should probably watch them...

Jerry Martin19 said:That’s a weird take from you Trouble with Harry. I’ve seen plenty of Hitchcockian stuff, but I always somehow steered clear of that one. No clue why. I guess I just couldn't wrap my head around combining Hitchcock and comedy. It definitely feels like a bad misfit, just like redowl90 said...

offtopic:

@redowl90, interesting point. Ever since we cleared up that whole thing with Armin, we've been on the same page most of the time. Lately, you've mentioned a few movies in different threads that I've always had a bad feeling about, and your takes align perfectly with my gut instincts. Regardless, I guess I should probably watch them...

Which movies and posts are you referring to?

Isn't Mission to Mars also kind of an outlier in Brian De Palma's filmography?

Jerry Martin19 said:That’s a weird take from you Trouble with Harry. I’ve seen plenty of Hitchcockian stuff, but I always somehow steered clear of that one. No clue why. I guess I just couldn't wrap my head around combining Hitchcock and comedy. It definitely feels like a bad misfit, just like redowl90 said...

offtopic:

@redowl90, interesting point. Ever since we cleared up that whole thing with Armin, we've been on the same page most of the time. Lately, you've mentioned a few movies in different threads that I've always had a bad feeling about, and your takes align perfectly with my gut instincts. Regardless, I guess I should probably watch them...

Just a little piece of advice for Jerry Martin19: don't let your gut feelings lead you astray. At least for me, intuition has proven to be a pretty unreliable guide more often than not. Because of some vague vibes or preconceived notions, I’ve ended up stalling on cinematic treats that eventually became near-favorites. 😍

As for those outliers in a director's filmography—especially when dealing with someone major—I think those "misfit" films are exactly what you should be watching. They offer an antithesis to the usual style, creating this space to really contemplate where the film sits within their body of work. You often end up learning more from one of those deviations than from ten standard, formulaic entries. It’s much like how we learn best through our mistakes. I’m not saying a director's outlier has to be worse than their standard fare, but it definitely stands out.

Personally, I’ve always appreciated a good surprise because it brings a sense of freshness. It’s like when you go and drastically change your hairstyle; it doesn't necessarily have to be better than the old look, but it’s certainly different, and that gives you something actual to talk about.

I'll weigh in on those directorial outliers soon enough, assuming I'm not just talking to hear myself speak. 🙄

redowl90 said:Isn't Mission to Mars also kind of an outlier in Brian De Palma's filmography?

🙂 Honestly, it’s easily one of the absolute worst movies I’ve ever sat through, now that you mention it...

A total bottom-of-the-barrel disaster 👎 👎
(if I really have to go into detail, I’ll force myself to write out a couple more sentences, though the thought makes me cringe...)

Guy Ritchie - Swept Away 🙂
What on earth was he thinking? 🙏

I believe an explanation is entirely unnecessary...

Joseph Lee3 said:Just a little piece of advice for Jerry Martin19: don't let your gut feelings lead you astray. At least for me, intuition has proven to be a pretty unreliable guide more often than not. Because of some vague vibes or preconceived notions, I’ve ended up stalling on cinematic treats that eventually became near-favorites. 😍

As for those outliers in a director's filmography—especially when dealing with someone major—I think those "misfit" films are exactly what you should be watching. They offer an antithesis to the usual style, creating this space to really contemplate where the film sits within their body of work. You often end up learning more from one of those deviations than from ten standard, formulaic entries. It’s much like how we learn best through our mistakes. I’m not saying a director's outlier has to be worse than their standard fare, but it definitely stands out.

Personally, I’ve always appreciated a good surprise because it brings a sense of freshness. It’s like when you go and drastically change your hairstyle; it doesn't necessarily have to be better than the old look, but it’s certainly different, and that gives you something actual to talk about.

I'll weigh in on those directorial outliers soon enough, assuming I'm not just talking to hear myself speak. 🙄

Go for it, Joseph Lee3. Your post is totally on-topic, just from a different angle. You're treating the outlier as a learning tool, which is useful and definitely not off-topic.🙂

Thanks for the tip. I already told myself I need to stay away from prejudices. I mean, who else would've pushed me to watch three Jim Jarmusch movies?😲

😬

@Carol Lewis, acting like I'm some kind of tyrant here. No need to explain if you don't feel like it. I just thought explaining things was a better way to keep the conversation going.🙂