Hmm... I misread the title as "missing explosion" which this post is indeed missing.

The first thing that comes to mind is Harry Potter 3, which probably isn't quite what you're looking for.

Any fan of the book (or someone who's read it recently, at least) can tell you that the film is missing a few bits of info that make the ending all make sense.

KAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!

Any David Lynch movie.

I'm assuming, based on his reputation and the only one of his movies I've seen, Mullholand Drive. 

And I don't even care if it's the point of his movies.  Screw you, Lynch!

TV's Frink said:

 

Screw you, Lynch!

Best post eva! /Internets!

ray_afraid said:

TV's Frink said:

 

Screw you, Lynch!

Best post eva! /Internets!

I'm not even slightly kidding.  I hate that movie with Gump-like passion.  I think it's a pile of carp, and I don't care about the explanations of what it all means (I've heard plenty of those).  It's still carp!

TV's Frink said:

ray_afraid said:

TV's Frink said:

 

Screw you, Lynch!

Best post eva! /Internets!

I'm not even slightly kidding.  I hate that movie with Gump-like passion.  I think it's a pile of carp, and I don't care about the explanations of what it all means (I've heard plenty of those).  It's still carp!

I'm with ya! All of his films are pretentious pieces of crap. Eraserhead has some interesting qualities, but in the end it's less a film and more an endurance contest.

*EDIT: And not a fun endurance contest like John Waters 'Pink Flamingos'. It's a boring one that gives you a headache.

My favorite thing about Eraserhead is this.

There are a few problems with Underworld but exposition isn't one of them.

I thought the point with the vampires wasn't that they didn't kill people but they rarely killed other vampires, unless they really stepped out of line.

And seeing as it was highly telegraphed that vampires diddling werewolves was their highest taboo there was no surprise there.

Personally I find excessive exposition to be the bane of films like this specifically and films pretty much in general.

It's worse on television shows where the assumption is made that new viewers are so stupid that people will either not figure out enough of what has happened before in the 'previously on' bit at the beginning (which is usually unnecessary anyway) or seek out previously shown storylines using modern technology.

So every episode we have to have a good quarter of the show taken up by characters unrealistically recapping every pertinent event like they are recovering head trauma victims (an often used plot device to squeeze this sort of expositional dialogue by coincidence).

The worst form of info dump is when you have a nice atmospheric movie that has a great big exposition explosion right at the very end blowing all enigma and mystery out of the water.

Silent Hill the movie I'm looking right at you with my eyes.

TheBoost said:

xhonzi said:

The first thing that comes to mind is Harry Potter 3, which probably isn't quite what you're looking for.

Any fan of the book (or someone who's read it recently, at least) can tell you that the film is missing a few bits of info that make the ending all make sense.

It's been awhile for me. What's the film missing? (the films and the books all blur together for me)

 I can't tell you with the razor like accuracy I could have several years ago, but IIRC, it has to do with Harry's Dad's friends and their relationship to the maurader's map and that Harry's dad's patronus was a stag.  Some part of that or all of it.  I just remember being shocked that they left maybe a sentence of exposition out that sort of tied it all up in a neat cherry on top.  Not to mix metaphors.

Other than that, your question is ringing a very dull bell perhaps 10 feet behind my skull.  If I can figure out what it is, I'll let you know.

Oh wait, it's Transformers 2.  And Probably 3.  1 even, with the All Spark and the end.  They probably don't/can't make sense with any amount of expo, but it's not like they even tried.

Probably because you're in a different country. :-/

twooffour said:

I can't see the rabbit...

U R a LAIR!  if u cudn't c t3h rabbit, den u wudn't no der wuz a rabbit!  but sins u sed der wuz a rabbit, u oviosli new der wuz a rabbit! b cuz u saw it!!!!! U R SOOOOO bust3d!

I'm just relieved the rabbit wasn't in drag...have I mentioned I'm middle aged?

twooffour said:

There was a rabbit-shaped black whole of nothing flipping around :D

Ha, what you gonna say now??

Oh well, maybe I can shine it up and use it as an ashtray.

Big black magic box + no explanation = 2001: A Space Odyssey

^This. Fact is without skimming through the novel, it's 100.99% impossible to figure out what the hell the movie's about.

ray_afraid said:

TV's Frink said:

 

Screw you, Lynch!

Best post eva! /Internets!

You beat me to it!

Can we seriously turn this into the "We hate David Lynch"s films" thread? I haven't yet seen a Lynch film I didn't loathe. I don't usually loathe movies unless they are completely mindless or terrible. But I can't help it. Mullholland Drive is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I really don't get it's reputation. People must like Lynch's work for simply being weird or uneasy to understand.

At least with 2001 it makes sense at some point. You make up your own interpretation. It's meant to be non-committal. Reading the book gives some more background information and what could be construed as a partial answer maybe.

Oddly though, I like David Lynch as a person. He seems like a pretty cool out there sort of guy.

captainsolo said:

People must like Lynch's work for simply being weird or uneasy to understand.