Nov. 22, 2005, 4:26 a.m. CST
Can it be? Well - at least he's got adecent actor on coard - even if he has to resort to Tim-Burton-esque gimmicks in his title.......... Hope M. Night can turn things around with this movie.
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:31 a.m. CST
When a plurality of the present audience at Grauman's Chinese boos a trailer, it's gotta tell you something. LAME.
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:34 a.m. CST
.....man M. Night Shyamalan? HIS NAME HAS A THICK AIR OF PRETENTION TO IT!!! If this movie doesn't have a twist in the end I'll die of a heart attack!
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:40 a.m. CST
Seriously, it's a Spoilnopsis. I wish I could erase the memory of reading it. Sounds like a neat idea though. Now, what will win? Your curiosity or your spoilphobia?
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:42 a.m. CST
Wasn't 'The Village,' uhhh, anti-conservative? Do you just assume that Shyamalan is a conservative because he made a movie about faith?
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:46 a.m. CST
How lame. After the Village, I'll never watch another Shamalyan film ever. Maybe he'll get caught fucking the fish woman by the tenants and we'll see some of that patented Giamatti shame/indignation/sadness!
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:46 a.m. CST
that one actually made sense. kind of witness meets truman show meets planet of the apes. mesa like.
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:51 a.m. CST
well. I'll see this because it's paul and bryce and m'night, and the concept intrigues me. except for the final soundbite and some nice photography this wasnt much of an apetizer. bad choice of music I say. thats where the feeling of pretentiousness comes from.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5 a.m. CST
by Det. John Kimble
So I guess the twist is the Lady in the Water is Wilford Brimley.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:05 a.m. CST
In my opinion, 'The Village' was entirely anti-Bush, but whatever. Thanks for mocking me for saying the word "faith," but I was trying to paint with broad enough brushstrokes to keep the nerfherding political/religious debates at bay; so much for that.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:10 a.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:15 a.m. CST
by Tubbs Tattsyrup
I mean, come ON - it's about a community that is kept under control and kept within that space, BY THE LEADERS OF THE COMMUNITY, and through the use of a made-up threat, which rears its head every so often to keep people from leaving. Maybe it's about the American media then, I dunno. But it sure ain't pro-conservative. I thought the allegorical aspect of it was quite well-done, even if the thriller plot was a bit hackneyed. Flame on. Oh and I hear M.Night is writing the script for LIFE OF PI, to be directed by Alfonso Cuaron? If so, that's great. Well, it's great that the 'Fonso is directing, anyway.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:39 a.m. CST
by Gheorghe Zamfir
Jean-Pierre Jeunet is the man now, directing and adapting the screenplay (with the same guy he adapted A Very Long Engagement with I believe).
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:50 a.m. CST
all you movie haters really have to get a clue. Why do you even go to movies if you hate all the stories that are told? M Night is the best director working today. Outside of SPeilberg, who else makes movies where people actually say "Hey did you hear about the new ___Insert Director here ___ movie". No one. His catalog is interesting and original. Just because by watching it, you can sometimes see the ending coming, doesn't mean it's not a great story.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:05 a.m. CST
Please not another gimmicky so called twist. I mean, I've enjoyed his films so far, but was almost relieved when Signs didn't have one. It does look like Cocoon though.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:08 a.m. CST
or will it be Dennis Hopper and Linda Lawson?
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:08 a.m. CST
Some of you people are going to shout "pretentious" if Shyamalan's name is involved. There was nothing pretentious about that trailer. It beautifully sets up, in a few seconds, the life of a man who exists at the edge of other people's lives, which seem, on the surface, to be more interesting, more glamorous, etc. Then it informs you that the story is about this man, and something that involves him which makes his life interesting or remarkable. Finally, to let you know where the movie is going, it drops Shyamalan's name because...get ready...he's done a great job branding himself. It's called advertising and marketing, boneheads, not pretentiousness.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:11 a.m. CST
I dont know what it is but everyone of his recent movies...sixth sense, Unbreakable, Signs and The Village have all been average movies that i have enjoyed. Each one however had me hooked the whole way through because he sets up such cool premises that you think you are gonna get a sweet payoff which never happens. His twists always bring the ending down to a smaller more intimate level and not where you wanted it to go. I am not ragging on the guy i enjoy the movies he makes but they always have the same effect on me...Disappointment. Basically i am just pissed i never saw Bruce Willis flying around in a superhero costume at the end of unbreakable.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:12 a.m. CST
Fun, fun silly-willy! Narf!
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:14 a.m. CST
"The Statue is a gift from French citizens and has come to symbolize hope for naked women everywhere... BOCCE BALLS!!!"
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:15 a.m. CST
Mr Bush does all the hard work for the artists. Nobody could make a better job of making Bush look like the retarted hand puppet that he is better than old Dubya himself. Man i laugh everytime that guy opens his mouth and more moronic phrases spew forth.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:21 a.m. CST
is also a "lady in the water". you heard it here first. or the twist is there is no twist. on the village: i don't think its supposed to be eiter pro or anti bush (or whatever). i think it's more intended to make us think that a totalitaritan community maybe isnt necessarily purely evil, that sometimes what appears to be oppresive and deceitful have the best of intentions, and that all lies are not necessarily bad. it doesnt give a clear cut view of whether or not hurt and the elders are good or bad, I think you are allowed to make that decision yourself, and for that i applaud m'night. its an allegory that doesnt pass judgement. the point of the story is excactly the same as the original planet of the apes. who here can say that dr.zaius' lies and misdirections weren't at least a little bit justified? it's a fascinating debate: freedom vs. safety. no easy answer. discuss.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:24 a.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
All of his characters are dead serious and full of pathos because they all have the weight of the world on their shoulders and literally every scene is the most important thing in the universe for the time it's happening. But seriously folks, very fifth Twilight Zone episode was about a dead guy who didn't know he was dead. Every fifth Star Trek episode was about a colony who learned they were in a guilded cage but decided to stay anyway. Signs was just a mess. Unbreakable was the only sort of original film. They all have one thing in common though. 2 hours of mumbling and the twist at the end. I have my volume up so high when I'm watching a M. Night movie, when I change the channel I blow out my timpanic membrane. And to think there was a rumor that he was going to be involved in Indy 4.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:30 a.m. CST
Years before M.night got his deal with Disney and brought Bruce Willis's career temporarily back on track. He made movie a which bombed so badly that it was thought that he would never recover. The movie in question starred Rosie ODonnell and was all about a young girl who got cancer and made miraculous recovery. This movie bombed with the public who thought the whole thing was to sacchrine. M Night went to ground and began working on the stories which would rescue his career, first was the adapation of Stuart Little which is one of finest family films ever made. Apart from adapting Stuart Little, He began working on the Three movies which would make him a power player in hollywood. Hollywood is always looking for a new ideas. So M Night gave them three, Signs supernatural Film, Unbreakable, Superhero film and The Village, which is war movie. What film will lady in the water be? I have no Idea. The bedtime story tag? Well that could mean that he going back to the movie he made with Rosie O'Donnell but the difference now is M.Night is no longer rookie in Hollywood player, this is someone who delivers. We will see whether or not audiences like the non-twist Shyamalan and what hollywood makes of this non-twist movie is anyones guess.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:31 a.m. CST
Even Sixth Sense doesn't hold up to repeat viewings. Each film he has made has been worse than his previous efforts. After The Village debacle I can't imagine this new one being anything but unwatchable.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:33 a.m. CST
How could you forget The Sixth Sense, emeraldboy?
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:36 a.m. CST
This is is follow up the Stuart Little!!! When I saw the Narf, i thought youve been Watching Pinky and the Brain again, havent you M Night?
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:41 a.m. CST
You're giving MNS way too much credit, talking about allegory and symbolism and shit. He's nothing more than a one-trick pony (Sixth Sense was good, but only because we had never seen one of his movies before - all the rest were predictable bulls**t following the exact same formula with increasing layers of lameness). And yes, I did see them all (don't give me the argument that if I didn't like them why did I see them - I was willing to give them a try in hopes that I would be pleasantly surprised). But I won't be going to see this one. Even though it has Giamatti in it. And yes, I am a hater. To quote Ice-T, "I hate the f***ing air!"
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:42 a.m. CST
I forgot about that one sorry.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:43 a.m. CST
Who'd have thought they'd take the remake fad so far that now Shyamalan is remaking a Hideshi Hino episode from freaking GUINEA PIG!
Nov. 22, 2005, 7 a.m. CST
Although it was pretty random. Guess it was pumping on the stereo eh?
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:02 a.m. CST
I fucking wholeheartedly agree . What the hell are you lot talking about ? Pro conservative /anti conservative allegorys ? Yes way too much credit . Now go and read 'Lord of the Flies' and do me a report on symbolism . Fucking learn something and don't bring up this enterataining yet shallow directors name in the same sentence as 'allegory' again .
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:04 a.m. CST
I'm really not sure where he is going with this...and maybe that's a good thing. Quicktime IS glorious...as the trailer LOOKED awesome. I saw it with an audience at Goblet of Fire also. There were no groans or boos...but of course this is rural PA. It takes rude city folk to make that stuff happen. I WILL see the movie because I'm a fan of MNS. I've found something nice to like in every movie he's done since SIXTH SENSE. I'm sure this will be the same way.
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:18 a.m. CST
...so it'll look damn nice, whether it's any good or not.
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:19 a.m. CST
of course, you should be able to figure that twist out within the first five minutes, but, i dirgress...
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:25 a.m. CST
What are you guys, Shyamalan's fucking PR department? Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and (yes) Signs were all damn good movies, though. The Village was balls. This could be great, but the trailer reeks of pretense. Didn't he write this one for his kids? Well, worked okay for Princess Bride...
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:40 a.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:48 a.m. CST
And yes! The twist should be that there's no twist.
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:50 a.m. CST
by I Dunno
You must not have seen any old sci-fi movies or TV. There isn't an original thought in any of his films. People who think his movies are original are the same phillistines who think The Matrix brought anything new to the table.
Nov. 22, 2005, 8 a.m. CST
I have to say that, despite thinking all of Shyamalan's previous films were pretentious and annoying, this one looks less so because of Paul Giamatti. Of course, it's meant to look interesting - it's a teaser trailer... But I am curious. Either way, SIGNS really sucked!! Never saw "The Village" because of "Signs"...
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:01 a.m. CST
by Lezbo Milk
he got fame for the twist, because striving for it has ruined his movies for me.
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:07 a.m. CST
I'd rather have a film that aims to be smart than a film that aims to be dumb, pretentious is low-brough slang for "I wish I was that smart, so instead of accepting the fact that something is beyond my intellect, I'll drag it down to my level".
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:07 a.m. CST
Wheres the expensive cgi money shots and bombastic rock score? Why did some shots last longer than 2 seconds? Call yourself a movie? No wonder no one likes it.
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:20 a.m. CST
I love Unbreakable and find it gets better with each viewing, and will always be grateful for the incredible blindsiding he hit me with when I saw The Sixth Sense for the first time (cue impotent geek yells of "Hell, he didn't fool me! I saw it coming!"). I've even grown to really enjoy Signs. The Village, however, was a jaw-droppingly poor piece of shit. I couldn't believe what I was watching. It was like a parody skit of an M Night film that just wouldn't end. Atrocious. I won't pre-judge his new movie, but he really does need to wash away the taint of The Village, so there's a lot riding on this baby.
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:24 a.m. CST
by David Assholehof
Some of you give the man the credit he deserves, and I applaud you. M. Night takes his true, creative ideals of movie-making and backs it up with some of the best technical directing capabilities in Hollywood. He's purely gifted. He makes films he would want to see, not what you all are expecting. He makes films in the purest sense and lacks the care that you all like it. Some connect and some do not. The nay-sayers are all jealous and are wating for him to make a crappy movie like Stealth, or worse yet, a freaking prequel. Get a grip dorks and watch some IFC or better yet, AMC and some Hitchcock films. It doesnt get better than that.
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:25 a.m. CST
by David Assholehof
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:28 a.m. CST
by David Assholehof
This post makes me realize why I hate box-offices and long lines. I dont want to see any more movies with you people. Ever. Good-bye, cruel, er, DUMB world... *DYING BREATH*
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:30 a.m. CST
I'm a fan of MNS movies, and while the Village wasn't great, it was still original, and that's enough to get me to go to see his movies. He's an original filmaker, and in this day and age of remakes and sequels, it's nice to get an interesting and unique story once in a while. Plus. the movies got Paul G, which in itself is enough to pull me to the theater.
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:39 a.m. CST
Yes Brain, but Unbreakable would have been better if Bruce Willis had worn a red cape! Narf!
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:45 a.m. CST
by Mr Bungle
...they're all fucking women. Respect to anyone who stills makes original films, regardless if the finished product is coherent or not. Idiots use the terms 'pretentious' to put down what they know has potential but are afraid to embrace because there's an element to it they don't like. In this case, M Night. Yes the Village sucked. I don't know any director who hasn't made at least one shitty movie during his career. The others are mostly class (besides some parts of Signs), and should be respected as such. If anyone deserves a chance to shine repeatedly it's him.
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:47 a.m. CST
Loved it. Endings Smendings. People get too bent out of shape about his endings. How about the beauty of the rest of the film? The villiage is one of the best looking films of the last 10 years.
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:58 a.m. CST
are simply wrong. it was pretty obvious.yes, I'm talking to you mr. matersuspiriorum. just because you're not capable of abstract thinking doesn't mean nobody else are.
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:05 a.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:14 a.m. CST
Merman, dad... MerMAN!!
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:16 a.m. CST
by Osmosis Jones
And James Newton Howard's score will be the only worthwhile element of this movie, as usual.
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:21 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...that everyone who has taken it upon him (or her) self to debunk the claim that Shyamalan is pretentious in this talkback has, in turn, come off as very pretentious. Who saw that twist coming? Truth is, M. Night has made two good movies and two piss-poorly structured ones that attempted to be a lot more than they were (rehashed Twilight Zone or Outer Limits concepts from the school of Bad Irony Theatre). The Sixth Sense was an excellent and surprising film, but doesn't have the rewatchability of, say, The Usual Suspects, despite having a similar twist at the end. That's because The Usual Suspects was complexly crafted and layered to allow a viewer to get more out of it with subsequent watchings. The Sixth Sense wasn't (it's like bad porn in that, once you've seen its money shot, it never excites you quite the same way again). Unbreakable is a much more complex and interesting film (which, I think, borrowed quite a bit, conceptually, from The Usual Suspects) and holds up as Shyamalan's only real masterpiece. Signs was tripe posing as an exercise in spirituality with plot holes large enough to waltz Mel Gibson's ego through. The Village was ham-fisted social commentary with a Planet of the Apes-style ending that was telegraphed from frame one. Shyamalan's simply overrated by his fan base and has been hyped to such a ridiculous level that everything he does now has a target pre-painted on its ass. You'd think that would inspire him to change things up, but it really hasn't in his last two outings. I may rent this one and see if he's evolved any.
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:26 a.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:30 a.m. CST
Screw Spiderman. ... as for this movie, I'm a lover of all things Giamatti, I'm so glad he's getting all these great roles lately.
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:37 a.m. CST
by David Assholehof
So basically, he's made a wide range of films, some of which you do like, some you do not? And thats bad? A director reaching creatively? I say keep going, M. Night. Even Spielberg broke a few eggs along the way...
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:54 a.m. CST
by David Assholehof
He is the new Sean Connery, only not.
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:54 a.m. CST
by comparing him to spielberg... well... i suppose compared to the utter tripe that hollywood spills out you're right, some semblance of originality and personal investment goes a LONG way. but seriously, if you're still sucking off "the sixth sense" or... anything of his (with the semi-exception of "unbreakable") i'm really, really sorry for the range of movies you've been exposed to. there's a LOT, as in: an abundance, of better films out there.
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:01 a.m. CST
by David Assholehof
me not preten.. tenshush.. thing you say. keep talk and I smash.
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:15 a.m. CST
by David Assholehof
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:23 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...quite well. Shyamalan's made some good movies (Sixth Sense was good but I have to disagree about the rewatchability, knowthyself, and Unbreakable was great). He's also made some stinkers. His stinkers stank because they were cliche and predictable. And they smelled even worse (to me) when they were lauded (by his fans and by Shyalaman himself) as brilliant. That's the part that's bad, Assholehof - that M. Night doesn't seem to think he needs to evolve as a filmmaker and he just assumes his critics don't "get" him. It's the same complaint I have about Tarantino, by the way, knowthyself. Neither of them are challenging themselves, much less their audiences these days. Shyalaman's trotting out variations on his standard suprise/twist ending trick (does that really make it more than one trick, moviemack, or is it more like directorial MadLibs?) and Tarantino is just throwing everything that's stuck in his drug addled subconscious against the screen, pretending it's fresh and new because so few other people have studied the sources as closely as he has (or can remember what they saw through the haze of bong smoke). While I believe it's vital to the creation of any "art" for the "artist" to believe he or she has something worthwhile to say, if that artist believes it doesn't matter whether an audience can connect with or appreciate the art is simply pretentious. If such an attitude makes the artist and his or her few die hard fans feel better about themselves, that's fine. But it certainly doesn't make the artist any better or the fans any smarter. For more on pretention, check out Gallo's "The Brown Bunny." Thank you and have a nice day.
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:31 a.m. CST
by Hugh Jass
OK, the Sixth Sense was mildly original, but the rest of his movies sucked ass. I got suckered into the Mel Gibson picture and the one about the comic book indestructible guy. I cant even remember the titles because they were so incomprehensible and unentertaining. The fact that some studio keeps throwing money at this asshole and letting him churn out more crap is mind boggling. M. Night Shaboobadoo or whatever the fuck his name is should go back to film school and learn how to make something that actually entertains people. His self indulgent, boring pictures aren't worth wasting time on.
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:33 a.m. CST
And if you think Signs was a more brilliant movie than The Village then you didn't understand signs. Signs was NOT an alien movie. The aliens were only there to throw you of track. The movie worked on me, cause I get it.
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:40 a.m. CST
what the music was in the trailer?
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:50 a.m. CST
I think Shamalamadingdong recognized that holding back a large twist wouldn't cut it anymore. I mean, why else would he "spoil" so much in the synopsis? I think everyone should read it before making up their minds about this movie. And yes, I thought this teaser was great. Pretentious... pffft!
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:55 a.m. CST
by I Dunno
That's mildly irritating when people claim that if you don't dig something then you don't "get it". Just because the alien invasion was a mere back drop doesn't mean that it didn't have to make some semblance of sense. Signs was bad, the Village was horrendous. I'm not the type that figures out a movie ahead of time. I tend to enjoy the moment in a film as opposed to trying to think ahead and guess the ending like it's a murder mystery so I didn't see the twists in the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable The Usual Suspects or even Fight Club but I guessed the twist in the Village based on the trailers. Actually it wasn't a guess as much as a threat, like, "If this turns out to be set in modern times and only the leader or leaders knows about it I'm going to slap you, movie". Maybe it's because I've seen Star Trek and the Twilight Zone before.
Nov. 22, 2005, 11 a.m. CST
Cl. Blimp - just because I'm capable of utilizing correct grammatical structure doesn't mean everyone else is, yes, I understand. And let's please differentiate between what filmmakers mean to do and what the minds of pseudointellectual viewers will foist upon the filmmakers as intent. Yeah, that's right, I'm talking to you!! MNS got lucky with Sixth Sense (he just happened to be that fifty millionth ape at a typewriter who managed to bang out Shakespeare - or at least a semi-decent thriller) and then, like a zombified idjit, kept making the same movie over and over again!! And it's MS. matersuspiriorium, thank you.
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:09 a.m. CST
How M Night keeps getting to make crappy movies. I kid. I actually liked Villiage, but couldn't stand Unbreakable. I bet the twist is that Paul G has been in the water the whole time and the community in his pool is the real world.
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:10 a.m. CST
Oh well. I want to see more Stuart Little stuff.
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:13 a.m. CST
Comparing Tarantino and M Night is very relevant, even if their styles and genre tastes are anything but similar. They both have the word "genius" and "master" tossed at them with alarming regularity and lack of judgment. They've both created exceptional films on occasion but seem to be treading water somewhat these days. They both also have a frightening number of fans who will not only excuse but actually try to transform any eventual turds by said filmmakers into works of misunderstood genius through the sheer power of internet discussion. Show me a Tarantino or M Night fan who dares to call Kill Bill and The Village for what they truly are, and I'll take them seriously. Show me fans who make excuses for every single bit of celluloid created by these directors and I'll laugh in their faces.
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:24 a.m. CST
M Night has taken another big fucking chance to try and show us something different: One hour of setting the mood, 59 minutes of scratching our heads "what the heck is in the damn water", one minute before we go back to the box office asking for our money back "THAT was the THING in the water? This is why I slept two hours to find out?"
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:29 a.m. CST
Why is it that if people like a movie that you (and by that I mean the colletive you, not you in particular, even though I'm directing this question at you) didn't care for they must be wrong? Why can't they just have a differing opinion from yours? People deal too heavily in absolute truths around here. As far as talkbackers are concerned there are no opinions. Everything is fact, and if someone didn't like a movie then it's a fact that it's horrible and everyone who liked it is either a fool or they're fooling themselves. It goes the other way, too. Why is it that if people don't like a certain movie that they just didn't "get it"? Seriously, can't any of you people just chalk this stuff up to opinion and let it go? Get this: I didn't care for Blade Runner. I actually fell asleep trying to watch it. I don't attack its fans and put people down for calling it a classic. I just figure it's a difference of opinion and let it go. Why can't talkbackers do the same?
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:36 a.m. CST
He always has such a good thing going with his movies...and they never pay off...I keep thinking to myself "HE'S GOT IT THIS TIME" and then...like clockwork...he blows it...statistically...he has to hit it sooner of later
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:38 a.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:52 a.m. CST
It's not that I don't condone differing opinions concerning individual movies. What does bug me, however, is the zeal with which fans of any particular director will defend his or her entire oeuvre no matter what. I have several favorite directors, but there's no way in hell I can defend all of their work with a straight face. This is particularly true of good or great directors who will try different ideas or approaches. Sooner or later it will misfire, but that's okay. What's not okay (or believable, rather) is defending a turd simply BECAUSE it was made by a good or great director. If a truly daring or innovative director attempts a host of different styles or techniques, the quality of the work will vary. Being able to see the flaws in one's favorite director doesn't mean one can't love them as much as before.
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST
Shamalan was boasting how we wouldn't see a single image from this film except on posters. Why the fuck am I now seeing a piss-poor trailer instead?
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:01 p.m. CST
Who in the fuck wants to go see pigvomit take out the garbage? What does he do in this trailer that makes people want to see the film? He walks, he cleans a RAILING (WTF?) and then he goes home, writes in his journal, and falls ASLEEP (?????) How exciting, just fucking rivetting footage all the way down the line there. It doesn't look funny, it doesn't look dramatic or dynamic, and I mean, come on, he filmed one of the worlds most gifted actors TAKING OUT THE GARBAGE!!!! He should be shot dead for trying to feed us this stinkpile.
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:07 p.m. CST
way more over-rated than any of MNS's films, yet most of you MNS haters line up to wet your pants every time The Usual Suspects is mentioned. talk about a one-trick pony. i saw it in the theatre and almost fell asleep. the ONLY thing that movie had was the twist at the end, and that was out and out lazy imo. like a mystery writer who doesn't give the reader any chance to figure out the mystery, any real indications or clues to the real culprit, then springs the big twist on who the killer really is at the end just so the writer can feel so superior; The Usual Suspects's twist is just that. a lame, lazy gimmick tacked on the end of a slow-moving snoozefest of a movie. at least in the Sixth Sense there are little hints here and there, though i confess i didn't see them the first time through. part of the fun of rewatching it is looking for the clues that were dropped yet unnoticed upon initial viewing. so what if The Village wasn't all that great, name one director/writer who never produced something mediocre. Kubrick is an all time great, but i thought Eyes Wide Shut was a waste of my time, just as an example. oh yeah, Unbreakable is one of the most under-rated films of the last decade, but i think maybe being a father i get more out of it than most of the self-gratifying trolls here.
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:18 p.m. CST
It's freaking boring and the "twist" just sucks. The ending is not nearly as creative as most claim. M.Knight's movies make too much money and are loved too much by the general public for you morons not to hate him.
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:24 p.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:35 p.m. CST
But I really love Unbreakable!
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:43 p.m. CST
I'm terribly sorry my grammar doesn't satisfy you, but until you can make yourself understood in norwegian I really dont feel that insulted. I absolutely agree that there's a distinction between artist's intent and reader's interpretation. However, in the case of the village, I think it's pretty clear that this movie intentionally is an allegory for how the world was at the time the movie was made. maybe it's you refusing to give the filmmaker credit that's the problem here, rather than me seeing things that aren't there.
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:43 p.m. CST
I thought it was great. You only did not like it IF you wanted there to be a be bad CGI monster that you were set up to believe. It was plausable, well written, well acted and a superb film in every aspect. Go see Deep Rising again for you mosnter crapfest.
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:50 p.m. CST
Perhaps the ONLY saving grace of The Village is that there wasn't a bad CGI monster at the end.
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:52 p.m. CST
I think people are drawing way too much out of it when they think it's all about how evil Bush is. No, I don't think so. I think it's more a commentary on human nature. They started their little village to get away from the modern world and go back to "The Good Ol' Days
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:55 p.m. CST
the village is not about bush, its about FEAR. fear as a weapon and a tool. and that theme is something that is easily apliccable to the world today.
Nov. 22, 2005, 12:57 p.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 1:03 p.m. CST
by David Assholehof
What are you stoned? Famke, all wet with manga tentacles... Shoulda been Ch
Nov. 22, 2005, 1:10 p.m. CST
by Neo Zeed
I'm voting Supes because those scenes looked ho-hum as hell! Besides, with M. Night you don't know what to expect, which is cool. Though it's really corny how he has to rep his name in HUGE letters. Really tacky.
Nov. 22, 2005, 1:23 p.m. CST
...at least in my opinion, comes from that interview he did with Entertainment Weekly back when UNBREAKABLE was coming out, where he basically said that only he and Spielberg have figured out the formula for quality crowd-pleasing popcorn blockbusters (obviously, I'm paraphrasing). It was quite arrogant, and the UNBREAKABLE underperformed (although, not in my eyes - I love that movie). But even when I was watching it for the first time, I couldn't help but notice the similarities in the story structure. By the time THE VILLAGE came around, (the majority of) people were on to him. Now the fear, and the cause of the backlash I think, is that Night is stuck in a formula. When he does that first movie without a twist, the general movie going public will turn their backs on him. ****Having said all that, I'm not a fan of THE VILLAGE, but Bryce Dallas Howard gave a hell of a performance.
Nov. 22, 2005, 1:40 p.m. CST
Unbreakable sets up a great comic book series, unfortunately on the dvd M Night said the 2nd and 3rd act of his superhero movie sucked and so he focused all his strength on the 1st act, discovering your powers. I haven't seen The Village, but i really liked the suspense of Signs and the intrigue and mystery/horror of Sixth Sense. Some movies you can dedicate your life to, but some movies you just f*in watch and enjoy.
Nov. 22, 2005, 2 p.m. CST
what a surprise. I love P.G. so I'll probably check this out. Village was crap though...
Nov. 22, 2005, 2:02 p.m. CST
that song is beautiful, is it from his last album, first album, off the ost??
Nov. 22, 2005, 2:18 p.m. CST
Don't tell me I was the only one here who had to drink coffee during that incredible show of dullness called Sixth Sense, since I guessed the "great twist" before the first ten minutes passed. (I admit I was expecting it to end with Brucie's dream broken by his expiring on an operating table, though - ooh, Shyalalala really surprised me there!)
Nov. 22, 2005, 2:22 p.m. CST
Sure. At least it can be seen that way. So what? I likes me some allegory occasionally. The part that I thought was cool was that the movie didn't ram it's conclusion down your throat - withess that fact that some have concluded that it's conservative tripe while others brand it as "liberal porn" (copyright Moriarity 2005). With equal justice, or injustice, IMHO. If MNS had made the movie with a literal Bush character it would be instantly polarizing. With an allegory, you can fly the relevance factor in under the radar. Damn, now I'm being pretentious.
Nov. 22, 2005, 2:23 p.m. CST
If it existed, he would've been strangled by the furious ghost of Rod Serling after the twentieth or thirtieth time he stole his idea. (With apologies to Rod, as all of Shyalaalalalala's movies are worse than one minute of anything Serling's ever done, which includes end credits as well as things that Serling did after sitting on a toilet) And, of course, Serling knew that he was just making entertaining pictures. He wasn't an arrogant, pretentious windbag that would actually call HIMSELF "the next Spielberg", he didn't insert himself in shitty films to try and patch the most annoying plotholes with thirty seconds of exposition (his works weren't shitty and had no holes...) He could've been a windbag if he wanted -- unlike Shyalapongbongdong, he had the talent and creativity to prove his worth if he patted himself on the back the way Shyajeifjeifelala does.
Nov. 22, 2005, 2:47 p.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
If people buy into it and think they're watching something deep that makes them feel 'arty'.
Nov. 22, 2005, 2:51 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...ever the angry ousider, eh? Good for you. My assertion that Shyamalan refuses to evolve as a director is based on his body of work, which is comprised of films that rely on misdirection and irony to hammer home a big payoff at the end. It's a formula that stopped working for him after Unbreakable, by many people's standards. I don't know what his direction should have been after Unbreakable (which at least had the merit of being a fresh approach to what had become a tired genre even by then - the Superhero film - in addition to a relatively satisfying Rod Serling moment at the end). Not sure where you get the film school thing. I studied some film history in undergrad and worked as a professional movie critic for several years, but that obviously doesn't qualify me to say what every director should be doing. I'm just applying common sense to Shyamalan's work. His formulaic approach is attracting fewer and fewer people with each new outing. Might be time to throw the change-up (which, for him, would probably be a movie with a relatively straightforward plot). And he is overrated by his fans for precisely the reasons Doc Pazuzu suggested - their loyalty to the idea of his greatness blinds them to his fallibility. Same deal with QT's followers and, as we all saw recently, Whedon's. These are really just today's Kevin Smiths and tomorrow's special guest comic book writers unless they grow as filmmakers and try different things (like, say, Spielberg - who has also made his share of turds). At least they aren't Cameron, who apparently so feared his inability to top his previous successes that he just went into hiding for a decade. But I'm sure you've stopped paying attention by now, 'mack. I know how reason and objectivity bore you. Nice call on Batman Begins, though. That sure turned out to be a flop.
Nov. 22, 2005, 2:51 p.m. CST
I'm looking forward to this one.
Nov. 22, 2005, 3:13 p.m. CST
I am a firm believer in The Village being a masterpiece. As someone who grew up in a religious commune [until the age of 23, I am now 29] I related so much to the story being told and the fear tactics, repression and self-preservation that I witnessed while watching the film. What allowed The Village it's poignancy is the simple fact that it's true. Communities like that do exist, they did exist. I know that fear, I know that terror of the outside world. The Village is a bell of truth....As for this new film, I am very much looking forward to it. I am a closeted fan of mermaid lore, so, this has me excited [in a gay sort of way].
Nov. 22, 2005, 3:53 p.m. CST
Save your money and download the Nymph porno with Chasey Lain.
Nov. 22, 2005, 3:57 p.m. CST
...Elijah's true nature and reasoning behind David's accident are the twists of UNBREAKABLE.
Nov. 22, 2005, 3:57 p.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 3:58 p.m. CST
...I should have said "SPOILER!" before that post for anyone who hasn't seen UNBREAKABLE 5 years later.
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:01 p.m. CST
I simply dont get why people seem to be really mad at Shamalan one of the few directors who ahsnt once done a remake or a sequel. Sure people then say you can derive other films from his movies but then again you can do that to every film. Guess what people the seven stories have been told and true originality is over.
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:04 p.m. CST
Once again i disagree with you. Im not really sure why you think directors have to evolve. I think in this day and age that QT continue to turn out films t hat both move and fascinate is fine w ith me. So he ahsnt evolved whatever that means. Thats fine if he continues to make good movies. Same goes with Shamalayn. hated The Village but every other film by him has been fascinating, involving, and unlike most directors actually makes me excited to go to the movies. Thats pretty good in my book and ill certianly take that.
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:07 p.m. CST
by fried samurai
What a small list you people must have.Ever notice how Shyamalan slowly moves his camera but with no reason or emotion.He's a hack that owes everything to Rod Serling.The Others was superior in every way to The Sixth Sense.Alejandro Amenabar makes Shyamalan's work look pedestrian.Just watch Open Your Eyes.There are tons of original filmmakers out there.Learn to read fuckin subtitles.
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:25 p.m. CST
And pretentious doesn't begin to describe this...
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:26 p.m. CST
I'm curious - has there ever been a single talkback pertaining to any film on AICN in which you've waxed lyrical about the film in question or at least expressed a modicum of optimism at the prospect of seeing it? While your taking us poor shlubs to task for liking movies certainly has earned you a place forever enshrined in the Hater Hall of Fame, you haven't quite reached the sublime heights of the art of insulting which Ringbearer9 has perfected. His "scholarly" and condescending manner of hate - insane and ludicrous though it may be - runs rings around your feeble if-you-like-this-then-you-suck mode of professional hating. I think the impact of Batman Begins left you a broken man, moviemack. You seem... weak these days.
Nov. 22, 2005, 4:52 p.m. CST
...and not have Darren Aronofsky on the list? Come on!
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:06 p.m. CST
Y'see, this is what a trailer should be. It gives away nothing of the movie's plot (unlike the famous Cast Away movie-in-a-bottle trailer), and in classic Shyamalanian (say that 5 times fast) fashion, it turns the whole tone of the thing upside down at the end. For 95% of the trailer, you think you're getting ready for Sideways 2: The Next Weekend. But as soon as Shyamalan's name went up there, there was an audible creeped-out murmur of "ooooo"s in the theatre audience. It's actually so rare that any trailer (let alone a teaser) evokes that kind of reaction anymore. So I say good on him.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:12 p.m. CST
Looks good. I'll add it to my short list of movies to watch in the future (That list only including "The Fountain"). With the exception of Shyamalan's movie with Rosie O'Donnell (which I haven't seen so I won't presume to critique it) I've enjoyed every one of his movies. "The Village" disappointed me but I saw it thinking the twist was supposed to be the next best thing since sliced bread and when it wasn't I thought the whole movie was shitty. However, the twist was never the point of that movie and therefore I won't judge it based on the point. On second viewing, I found it to be pretty solid overall. Shyamalan is a good director, straight up. The fact that he gets his inspiration or ideas from Rod Serling doesn't change the fact that he at least does a good job of copying those ideas.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:16 p.m. CST
There's a series of horror movies on Showtime right now called "Masters of Horror." This trailer reminded me of an episode of the show that I watched the other night. This woman has a deformed face, but she has a nice rack, a beautiful body, and she craves wild sex. Anyway...she preys on men, has sex with them and then kills anyone close to them. They were drawing paralells between this woman and a cat. She was loyal to the men she had sex with and when she killed she offered the remains to her "master." That was one fucked up episode of tv. But it makes me wonder if this "Lady in the Water" might have some similarities. Man meets woman, she's hot, but she's a fish and there's spooky music playing in the background.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:23 p.m. CST
It's weird that people spend more time typing out things like shyamlalalaladingdong when they could just scroll to the top of the site and see the correct spelling of his name in less time. Oh well, I guess everyone here has REALLY important things to do and can't possibly be bothered by spelling someone's last name correctly.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:36 p.m. CST
At least he writes ORIGINAL stories! Go see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang bitches.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:39 p.m. CST
by Barry Egan
One of the best character actors working today. Great to see him headlining. Bring on the Cinderall Man Oscar.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:41 p.m. CST
I hate, loath, detest, despise the gargantuan heaps of steaming rancid shit that are Shayamalan's movies... with one exception. I actually quite liked The Village. It was a movie with a moral that actually holds up to repeat viewings. I don't give a flying fuck what the rest of you think, The Village was quite good and every Shayamalan movie before it was akin to cinematic rape. Here's hoping Lady in the Water maintains Shayamalan's continuing growth as a storyteller.
Nov. 22, 2005, 5:56 p.m. CST
they are saving up a bunch of surprises!
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:08 p.m. CST
Bryce's character being blind, was a perfect fit for Phoenix, given the hairlip and all.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:08 p.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:20 p.m. CST
Im assuming you were insulting me and your post and by the way I didnt say he was the last original filmaker I said originality doesnt exist anymore. The idea that any film including foreign ones which I watch despite your rude statement can always be traced to some core story. Everything can be traced or inspired by something else. Actually I do think Shamalayn moves his camera with purpose and emotion. Maybe you should try watching the pantry scene in Signs again. Absolutely shot sequence that expertly plays with an audiences expectations.
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:52 p.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 6:55 p.m. CST
seriously, with all the people accusing this trailer of being prententious you'd think they would be giving some specific reason as to why besides the fact that MNS is making it. compared to most other trailers that are simply throwing some scrambled money shots set to music that most likely isn't going to be in the film, i'd say this trailer is pretty fucking good. it sets things up, gives you a feel for what is apparantly the main antagonist, lets you know something "fantasical" is going to happen; whets the appetite for the rest of the story i'd say.
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:13 p.m. CST
by Cthulhubacca J
The 6th Sense was brilliant Unbreakable was monotonous horseshit Signs was a well-staged ripoff of Night of the Living Dead The Village is more of M. Night masturbating to his own ego, and firmly established him as a pretentious hack. Lady in the Water looks cool. But it might not change my now dismal opinion of this director
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:35 p.m. CST
Kill Bill I is a good flick and Kill Bill II is an excellent flick. and how many writer/directors would like to have Jackie Brown as their low water mark? a shitload. if Tarintino's flavor isn't yours, so be it, but taste of genre aside, as a filmaker i think he should be recognized as one of the most original, artistic American filmakers going. don't tell me the first time you saw Resevoir Dogs you weren't telling all your friends the next day they just HAD to see it because they hadn't seen anything like it before. same goes for Pulp Fiction. the reason why Jackie Brown gets hammered is because the bar had been set so high by then. its a good flick, its just not as kick-you-in-your-teeth-intense-don't-know-whats-coming-next as Dogs and Fiction. the Uma-Luci showdown is one of the best single scenes of any movie i have ever seen; acting, colors, music, set design, writing, timing, direction,...it is near perfection.
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:42 p.m. CST
by fried samurai
I apologize if you took it that way.It just pisses me off that people name the same filmmakers over and over and totally neglect the rest of the world.There's alot of talent out there with some pretty original stuff if people are just willing to search of the beaten path..peace
Nov. 22, 2005, 7:50 p.m. CST
by Josh Town
M. Night may fail on some of his concepts, but he's still, hands down, one of the most intriguing filmmakers in Hollywood today. I still have yet to catch on this trend where people feel better about themselves for trashing mainstream filmmakers who make actual good cinema. Let's see...would you rather him be like Lucas, who has made one movie over and over again, six times? Or would you rather him be like Steven Spielberg and make a lighthearted comedy a la The Terminal or a biopic, non fiction film. Shymalan is an original, and ladies & gentleman this is a rare thing in Hollywood. Despite some disappointment with parts of his films, I still generate more excitement for a Shymalan release than 90% of all other filmmakers. BTW, I love this teaser, it does what a teaser is supposed to do, make me excited.
Nov. 22, 2005, 8:02 p.m. CST
Shyamalan has to be the most overcriticized good director working today. Isnt ANY surprise twist dumb the second time around? Shouldn't Sixth Sense be easy to read WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN IT BEFORE? And what's with the politicizing of The Village? I even read an article suggesting that the red and yellow colors the film are supposed to be the Terror Alert levels. At what point are you stretching interpretation too much? The gap between quality and money in Hollywood is getting wider. The two directors representing the future are Uwe Boll and Shyamalan? I'm throwing in with M Night. Sorry for the caps. I feel better now. What does M stand for anyway?
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:22 p.m. CST
M.Knight's films are not.
Nov. 22, 2005, 9:49 p.m. CST
...the Lady in the Water, ripped from the pages of Twilight Zone and Outer Limits. And a twist ending, to boot. Meh.
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:21 p.m. CST
Please Night...make an Unbreakable 2. "Sixth Sense" was good, "Signs"...not so good, "The Village"...haven't seen. "Unbreakable"...GENIUS. A film that made you think. Bring David Dunn back.
Nov. 22, 2005, 10:22 p.m. CST
Nov. 22, 2005, 11:21 p.m. CST
by Gheorghe Zamfir
While the way some of you guys defend it is.
Nov. 23, 2005, 12:54 a.m. CST
Can anyone please provide me with a direct link to the trailer? The Quicktime plugin ain't working too well on my work PC.
Nov. 23, 2005, 1:05 a.m. CST
It's not really a good thing, but I don't think the difference between a thumbs up or a thumbs down is whether or not a film was "pretentious." Plus, the word is abused so much that it could be used to define almost any movie, sort of like (but not as bad as) "self-indulgent." Guess what? EVERY single film is "self-indulgent." You think 'The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lava Girl in 3-D' is any less self-indulgent than 'Signs?' Or 'Unbreakable?' I can't fucking stand it when people use that word. Anyway. I think it's also easier to call Shyamalan films pretentious because Shyamalan himself definitely is.
Nov. 23, 2005, 2:06 a.m. CST
Darrren Aronofsky's name. Genius. Don't get me wrong, Shyamalan has a gift, and I love 2 of his movies (and like one other), but since there is so much talk about directors... Aronofsky. Aronofsky... Aronofsky.
Nov. 23, 2005, 2:19 a.m. CST
I liked every one of his movies. I'll sit through what I think are his two weakest movies -- The Village and Signs -- a million times before I ever bring myself to watch Wild Wild West, XXX, Fast and the Furious, et al. Sorry he can't be this idealized, perfect archetypal director of our time. Then again, most people in here hate virtually every movie made anyway... sorry no one else can enjoy what I like. Ho hum.
Nov. 23, 2005, 2:23 a.m. CST
Nov. 23, 2005, 2:33 a.m. CST
Always so negative! If MNS is so over-rated then why are there so many posts on this talkback? Thats always an indicator of interest. Maybe the fact that 90% of these posts are negative is b/c you are angry that there is someone out there more creative than you or creative at all. Those who cant do teach...or endlessly bitch in this case.
Nov. 23, 2005, 4:33 a.m. CST
I am so there.
Nov. 23, 2005, 4:49 a.m. CST
Even the movie studio didn't much like The Village....notice there was no special edition 2 DVD release of that movie unlike his first 3. Let's hope his new film is nothing like the crapfest that was The Village.
Nov. 23, 2005, 6:43 a.m. CST
by Lone Fox
Utter shit. And that's a generous summary.
Nov. 23, 2005, 7:58 a.m. CST
He can't win now. If he has a twist he's damned and if he doesn't he's damned by his twisty fans. . . . .his films are pretty good but a bit overly heavy, self reverential and pretentious. That's ok. Moviemaking is an art that has to be re learned with each new director, not a science that can be stored in a text book. He's not so old. Let him mess around for the first 20 years. If he has the personality to grow then in his latter years he could sure make some masterpieces.
Nov. 23, 2005, 7:59 a.m. CST
Now THAT made me see the man for who he truely was. And pretentious is it. LOVED 'the Sixth sense' and 'Unbreakable' IS the greatest super hero film of the last few years. so how does Batman begins hold up these days to repeated viewings? I'd sooner watch Batman and robin. The film snapped 10 minutes before the film finished. Man I was extatic. I wondered outside and when the usher came out to inform us the film would be restarting I just went home.
Nov. 23, 2005, 8:54 a.m. CST
Because that movie was friggin great.
Nov. 23, 2005, 10:11 a.m. CST
I think the trailer is a hilarous set-up of foreign film trailers. No dialogue and the Italian music of Il Postino make it appear to be Paul Giamatti's first foreign language film. Of course, it's pretentous. That's how all the "arty" foreign language film trailers come across. Plus I love the spooky piano that comes out of no where just as M. Night's name appears. It made me laugh due to the satire and excited for his new film.
Nov. 23, 2005, 10:24 a.m. CST
...those damn texts giving an asinine epilouge to the whole story. When do we get a director's cut? I can't imagine that those damn things was his idea...
Nov. 23, 2005, 11:12 a.m. CST
Looks mysterious enough that I'll avoid spoilers. Hope this is better than Village (snooze) and not as full of holes as Signs. I still like the mans work so I'm sure i'll be there to watch this on opening night.
Nov. 23, 2005, 11:28 a.m. CST
...if you realize that the focus of the movies are not the initially advertised story ( like the aliens in Signs or the monsters in The Village ) but the characters themselves. Sure the Village had some problems, ( the only problem that I can't get past is the date on the tombstone ) but the story is about Ivey and her willingness of lay her life on the line for Lucius...the presence of monsters merely adds depth and side plots. Same thing for Signs. The main story is about how Gibson's character regains his lost faith, the aliens merely get people in the seats. Oh, and Unbreakable is my favorite movie of all time. I've even been in the building where the "Limited Edition" set was built... some bar in Philly. It was originally planed to be Three movies, with each movie representing the typical three acts that make up a movie, JUST Like Spiderman and others... 1:Discovery of Ability, 2:Development of Ability, 3:Use of Ability to Defeat Evil. He wants to make the other two, but has not getten backing for them yet. Shammy Is A Genius!
Nov. 23, 2005, 12:16 p.m. CST
Because that would just make my week. I hate that closing text as much as the next man, but if each film had it, then maybe it might kinda be a cool little thing these films have. I'd love to hear James Newton Howard reprise that score. Truely one of his best, and yet so simple in it's execution. Amazing film.
Nov. 23, 2005, 12:37 p.m. CST
by Gheorghe Zamfir
It wasn't something he ever had plotted out or planned though, or even something he was sure he wanted to do, Willis ran with it though and said something in an interview, and fans have taken something he said on the DVD a bit out of context, and with a lil embellishment we get the rumor that Shyamalan had a three movie arch planned and ready to go that the studio just won't finance.
Nov. 23, 2005, 1:49 p.m. CST
I just don't get you people. What qualifies as good filmmaking in your opinion? Examples? I've loved every one of Night's movies (and yes, even the Village) at first viewing and at repeated viewings. (Though I do agree with Knugen, the epilogue titles at the end of Unbreakable really pissed me off, only because they marred an otherwise flawless film. He really should have ended it differently). When people concentrate on the 'twists,' they miss the entire point of the films. I guess if people are all about the payoffs and the climaxes (and yes they're important, but they're not everything) then they might have a problem with the films. (And if you're all about the payoff then no wonder you're not satisfying your girlfriends, if you have any). To echo Redrock, what makes these movies great and original is the tone, the atmosphere, the story, the cinematography, the character moments, the acting. Before Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, who knew Bruce Willis could act? Or Donnie Wahlberg, for chrissakes? And if you go into a film hating Night, you won't leave any differently. The Village may have been his least successful because he was working with such a large ensemble and maybe the focus wasn't as strong. But Bryce and Brody were amazing and even though I saw the 'twist' coming a mile away (and I think you were supposed to), the allegory worked wonderfully. Both Signs and the Village were very 9/11ish in a sense (Signs=terrorism, Village=fear, ok it's not that simple, but you see where I'm going). I, for one, am quite looking forward to Giamatti's take on the M. Night reluctant hero. And I'll actually watch and enjoy the film, not just wait for the 'twist' and then bitch because I saw it coming. It's about the journey, people.
Nov. 23, 2005, 1:59 p.m. CST
I think you are right....to an extent. But the conclusion of a film SHOULD be satisfactory. Sixth Sense was a beautifully acted, shot and written film. But the "twist" is really all smoke and mirrrors, does it make it a lesser a film? Yes but it's still a great film. Unbreakable with the exception of the title cards is his best film. Absolutley superb. The moment with Mr Glass crashing himself randomly into comic book displays is an utterly original take on the mechanics (for lack of a better word)of destiny and fate. Again the Signs end is illogical and flawed but it really serves the rest of the film. The Village end was so silly, and I think that's what put people off. But again it's a finely crafted work. With the exception of Sixth Sense all M.Night's film play better on repeat viewings.
Nov. 23, 2005, 2:13 p.m. CST
The twist wasn't so much about shock for me, as it was about emotional weight, and that we find out that he has died in the process of finally connecting to his wife. I think once you know the twist, on second viewings you're actually able to focus more on the characters and appreciate their journey. Especially knowing Bruce Willis has died and he has to complete something to finally be content with death, the great transformation (a great initiatory metaphor, imo), makes for a very intriguing and rewarding second viewing.
Nov. 23, 2005, 2:16 p.m. CST
there were plot elements that were paid off, like the 'swing away' thing or the water glasses. But no actual twist. Even the swing away thing could be interpreted that the wife was just saying it to support the brother (not predicting anything) and Mel's character just thought of it as he's looking for a weapon.
Nov. 23, 2005, 2:22 p.m. CST
I'll agree there's no twist to Signs I only meant flawed in the old "why are Aliens allergic to water invading a planet that's 70% h2o?" sense. But The Sixthe Sense twist, to me, really takes me out of the film a second viewing. I mean has he really gone a year without talking to anyone? Or trying to eat or anything like that? It bugs me.
Nov. 23, 2005, 3:04 p.m. CST
If aliens invaded, wouldn't that be the ultimate proof that there is no God? Sort of like the coming of the Messiah for athiests? The earth would be purged of all humans and their wickedness would go with them. Animals would be free to roam about and kill eachother without our interference. But the symbolism was powerful. Water which gives us life gave them death. The battle started in the Middle East which happens to be where The Garden of Eden likely was. And it makes sense from a practical view because -being in the desert- they would have stock piles of water laying about that were probably thrown barrel-style at aliens as people ran... violla! These aliens only wanted to eat us, so the fact that most of our world is water isn't a plot hole at all. What if we found a planet of diamonds but 70% of it was lava? ------ The Village was atmospheric, but I'll never watch it again. The way those people talked was pretentious, not M. Night Shyalaman.
Nov. 23, 2005, 3:12 p.m. CST
I am a M. Night Shyamalan fan by any means (I liked The Sixth Sense a lot, and Unbreakable only slight less; though thought Signs was too forced. A little subtlety goes a long way. Besides, I could have overlooked the thematic issues if the aliens weren't so obviously guys in green suits. I know that that the primary theme was a crisis of faith, and not aliens, but they still looked kinda cheesy) but have to admit that the trailer for The Lady In The Water has a certain charm and a personal feel to it that I find interesting. The camera in the trailer wasn't obtrusive, and it felt as if Paul Giamatti just happened to be there, and the camera decided to film him, as opposed to the 'I am so beautiful, look at me, love me' school of acting. I suspect that this has a lot to do with Paul Giamatti, who is probably one of the better character actors out there. I don't have much to go on than the trailer and a feeling, though I have done less for weaker reasoning so I think that I might see this one.
Nov. 23, 2005, 3:14 p.m. CST
My first line should read: I am a M. Night Shyamalan fan by no means...
Nov. 23, 2005, 3:23 p.m. CST
If aliens invaded, wouldn't that be the ultimate proof that there is no God? Sort of like the coming of the Messiah for athiests? The earth would be purged of all humans and their wickedness would go with them. Animals would be free to roam about and kill eachother without our interference Not at all, Spangler. Aliens disprove the existance of God less than the idea that Man is not top of the food chain (though I think that the appearance of aliens is hardly necessary to illustrate that point).
Nov. 23, 2005, 3:54 p.m. CST
by slappy jones
i am not the brightest guy but the end of signs doesn't have a twist.....unless i missed it. could someone please explain what the twist was if i failed to see it....
Nov. 23, 2005, 4:22 p.m. CST
Seeing as we only got half a film in The Village, and I had it figured out along with half the audience. He has to go back to profound simplicity and get out of profound intellectualism that falls way too short as in The Village.
Nov. 23, 2005, 6:18 p.m. CST
As per Shyamalan's usual end-of-movie-twist, with Signs he decided to go one step further, this time the twist happened after the movie finished and you left the theatre. What was it you ask? Well, he designed it so that the moment you left the cinema you forgot what you'd just watched almost instantaneously. Anyway I'm thirsty, I'm going to go grab some water.
Nov. 23, 2005, 6:48 p.m. CST
by Josh Town
I have never seen someone type so much and say so little. Your critique on Shyamalan is completely ridiculous. This man has found a genre that he fits into quite well. He always brings an interesting story and fantastic approach to his work. I feel bad for you, as you seem to not be able to enjoy good cinema, primarily because you can't get that pen and paper out of your hand. Shyamalan is hands down one of the most exciiting filmmakers in Hollywood, if you don't see that, than so be it. Just don't give me any of that pseudo-intellectual bullcrap on why he is not evolving as a filmmaker. You just sound foolish
Nov. 23, 2005, 8:53 p.m. CST
I liked his first two, thought Signs was middling at best and Village not so hot - however, this movie looks good. No 'twist' or anything (I hope not) just M's great delicate touch over a modern day fairytale - I HOPE, god I hope. I saw this preview on the big screen a few days ago and thought it was just fine.
Nov. 23, 2005, 9:19 p.m. CST
Well the trailer ain't much, but it's made me interested... good that it doesn't give anything away. I'm very curious. Loved Sixth Sense... loved the heck out of Unbreakable... liked Signs, thgouh I wouldn't call that a twist ending... Haven't seen Village yet, but I may rent it I suppose... but maybe I will check out Lady in the Water...
Nov. 23, 2005, 9:32 p.m. CST
Why of course! It's obvious! Just as obvious as Harry wearing a fat suit!
Nov. 24, 2005, 12:01 a.m. CST
where I agree with Josh Town and disagree with Childe Roland!
Nov. 24, 2005, 12:05 a.m. CST
Some of you people are the worst kinds of movie snobs. Yes, I agree, Shyamalan follows a formula. So does Spielberg!!! So did Hitchcock!!! So did Kurosawa!!! Ever heard of film terms like "The three act structure", "the hero pattern", or even "the punchline"??? Formulas, Methods, Whatever you want to call them, they're elements that are used to create quality. I haven't been disappointed by anything MKS has put out so far. I expect the new film won't disappoint me either.
Nov. 24, 2005, 12:07 a.m. CST
It may be stretching logic just a bit, but you could almost believe that Bruce Willis's character is so isolated and disconnected from his life and the world that he wouldn't notice that no one was talking to him. Also, we see him in certain fragments of scenes (like we don't see him entering Toni Collette's apartment where he talks to the kid), so who's to say what a ghost's experiences are like? Especially if the person is so heavily in denial that he doesn't even know he's dead? I'd assume it's like dreams where you're suddenly in the middle of something without knowing how you got there, but in the dream context it's perfectly natural. Whether you approach it in a realistic (a bit harder) or surrealistic way, it still reveals character and can work, imo.
Nov. 24, 2005, 1:17 a.m. CST
I remember it actually explaining that, that some people who died denied it... and would go out of their way to ignore the obvious as a sort of self-defense mechanism. People with severe mental illnesses like split personalities and schizophrenia do it all the time.
Nov. 24, 2005, 1:22 a.m. CST
...that doesn't mean "too smart for them." I personally find Shyamalan very pretentious, because he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Leisurely pacing, lack of special effects and a twist ending do not add up to something that's intellectually stimulating.
Nov. 24, 2005, 1:38 a.m. CST
Do all the failed film students come here to regurgitate bad reviews and observations. wahh wahh wahh. I dont like his endings, or his twists I'm so elite. DO BETTER WHINERS!! write or direct something that doesn't get torn to shit by a bunch of nearly anonymous internet bitches. Is there some secret contest between you people where the biggest whiny bitch wins a free bag of cheetos? WTF
Nov. 24, 2005, 2:13 a.m. CST
by Chief Redcock
i really like the overhead shot of giammatti (sp?) at his desk, as well as the whole opening sequence... great final image, too, really whets your appetite. looks like shamalama-ding-dong has returned to form... i hope. let's hope he delivers. i also like the idea of giammatti being in a more moody, serious film... i think he's versatile enough to work well in this type of story. coolness all around.
Nov. 24, 2005, 3:46 a.m. CST
I like M. Night for the most part. 6th sense was simply a well done film. Unbreakable was slow but solid. I actually really liked Signs, despite some percieved problems and I was so hyped for the village and while I thought it was extremely well shot and great to look at, I didn't like the last 40 minutes of it really at all (Who DIDN'T see that twist coming, I mean really). As for this movie, I'm going to be seeing it just because the director (in my opinion) has a pretty good batting average. They're always at least nice to look at. But this trailer didn't do it for me until the last 5 seconds. I just thought it was kind of pretentious (and I ususally don't think he's overly pretentious, though I may be in the minority on that) and oddly put together. The rhythm was off or something. The only intruiging part was him looking into the water with the flashlight, then darkness and the creepy music and P.G. saying "How many of you are there" in a scared voice. THAT is what I want/expect from an M. Night movie. Here's hoping trailer 2 will be better.
Nov. 24, 2005, 3:59 a.m. CST
well, twist is probably the wrong word. what night does, usually brilliantly, is play with audience expectations. with signs, he played out all the conventions of the alien invasion movie offscreen, and had the entire invasion play out from the pov (so to speak) of a basement. he knew that we had seen so many invasion movies that we would be able to follow the overall invasion plot with just the few references we got from the radio etc. sort of a twist, though not in the usual sense. still not his best movie though.
Nov. 24, 2005, 5:09 a.m. CST
I'll buy that actually. I re-watched a chunk of it last night and he does mention how he's having trouble keeping time lately. So yeh, ok. As for the prententious debate, well it's word rolled out far too often. Kid A is pretentious, Malick is pretentious, 2001 and Kubrick are pretentious. It's word only really used when someone doesn't LIKE what they are seeing (or hearing) and when what they are seeing attempts something beyond the mainstream. Pretention is only unsuccessful genius and that really is personal opinion. Whichever twat said slow pacing and lack of effects don't add up to something stimulating you are right. BUT you forget about the ideas, the writing, and the themes. Seriously go back and re watch Unbreakable check out the scene with Mr. Glass in the comic store being pushed into the comic displays. Then see what he finds there and how it drives the rest of the film. THAT is a fucking genius moment.
Nov. 24, 2005, 10:32 a.m. CST
Talk about being uptight and not able to just enjoy a film. Bruce was in complete denial and in death, I doubt time passes the same. The film explains how he's in denial. JUst STFU and enjoy a film. The Sixth Sense is fucking brilliant.
Nov. 24, 2005, 11:19 a.m. CST
he was good in sideways, though and wasted in big momma's house.
Nov. 24, 2005, 11:23 a.m. CST
by R.C. the "Wise"
M. Night better bring it. Though, I do like Bryce Dallas Howard...mmmm....mmmm. For a pale white red-head, she's beautiful.
Nov. 24, 2005, 11:26 a.m. CST
Hey, I'm not generally a realist fetish but with a film so meticulously crafted certain flaws bugged me. Like I said to oisin I can buy the whole time passes differently idea and all that. I wanted to see if that was a generla consensus or whether anybody had really thought about it that much. I'm not being pedantic, the other ghosts in the film seem behave differently than Willis does that's all.
Nov. 24, 2005, 1:18 p.m. CST
they behave differently because we see them subjectively from bruce's pov. He (and therefore we) doesn't notice his wound because he is in denial. the dream analogy is a good one. his brain simply fills in the gaps for him.
Nov. 24, 2005, 4:15 p.m. CST
if she aint cameoing it wont be the same
Nov. 24, 2005, 4:17 p.m. CST
Nov. 24, 2005, 4:21 p.m. CST
Hey, sparky. Grow up. No need to call me a twat. I don't like the guy's work, so get over it. Other than Unbreakable, which at least had an interesting concept, all of his films have been warmed over Twilight Zone plots. Don't get me wrong, they've been very prettily shot, and he's obviously good with actors, but conceptually there just isn't very much going on...
Nov. 24, 2005, 5:54 p.m. CST
No no, I will call you twat for using slow pacing and lack of effects as something to criticise him for. You said he was not intellectually stimulating and then gave evidence that has no bearing on what makes a intellectually stimualting film. So that's why you are a twat.
Nov. 24, 2005, 6:25 p.m. CST
Nov. 24, 2005, 7:28 p.m. CST
Nov. 24, 2005, 7:32 p.m. CST
I love MNS but hate bringing him up because every time I do the person I talk to has to qualify his entire filmography: 'I liked 6th Sense but not Unbreakable but I did like Sings until scene 43, I found the closeup to tight....' ***God, it drives me nuts. Do you do this with Spielberg or Woody Allen? You'd be there all week: 'I liked Batteries Not Included but not 'Always' but thought Close Encounters was better than Jaws although not as much as....' zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Nov. 24, 2005, 8:27 p.m. CST
I wasn't criticising him for slow pacing and lack of effects. I was saying that his slow pacing and lack of effects cause people to gloss over the fact that he makes mediocre, unoriginal genre films. Slow pacing + no effects = art, basically. I require more of my art, thank you very much.
Nov. 24, 2005, 9:35 p.m. CST
The guys got 4 films so far. Maybe he did something before Sixth Sense but nobody cares about that because for the vast majority of us Shyamalan didn't "exist" before Sixth Sense. Then, following that picture everything he does has this overblown and yes, pretentious "A Film by M. Night Shyamalan" on it folowed by "The Acclaimed Director of The Sixth Sense" or some such nonsense. Every time he makes a movie the advertising lists his previous twist filled pictures like they were miracles he performed or something. I like him too... and I loved Sixth Sense but thought Unbreakable was even better. Then I just liked Signs but I hated Village (sorry couldn't resist) Mostly though it's just that he's only got four pictures that anyone cares about so they find it easy to run down the list like that. When he's done as much as Spielberg or Allen then you'll see less of that kind of thing.
Nov. 24, 2005, 10:07 p.m. CST
Nov. 24, 2005, 10:08 p.m. CST
Because MNS is money in the bank. How many directors' names are known by the general public? Very few. It's more the studio that does that then M.Night anyways. It's just part of the advertising of a film and it hardly makes him pretentious.
Nov. 24, 2005, 10:41 p.m. CST
I have to agree with you there. When I went to see 'Goblet of Fire' at the theaters the other day, this preview came attached and was met with the usual rambunctious catcalls until Night's name appeared at the end, at which point everybody shut up and started whispering to their neighbor. It's funny how a director's name can be the difference between whether or not a film looks good or crap to people.
Nov. 25, 2005, 3:40 a.m. CST
That trailer did nothing for me. Is he kidding? He's not Hitchcock, could he get his name any bigger? Maybe add some neon lights around it, so we can notice it next time.
Nov. 25, 2005, 4:30 a.m. CST
The slow pacing and lack of effects don't fool anyone into thinking it's art. As I said before, the ideas, the writing and themes make the work "art". You STILL have't given any evidence as to why the films aren't intellectually stimulating. You only say that slow pacing and effects don't equal art. If you lok back at my post repsonding to you, you'll see I agree with that statement, But that it doesn't prove or back up your assertion that his films are not intellectually stimulating. Can you give ANY evidence that's actually relevant to back up your claims?
Nov. 25, 2005, 7:04 a.m. CST
by Gheorghe Zamfir
Is its the only way he can make the commercials appealing AND make commercials that don't give anything away. This way he gets a luxury not afforded to a lot of other directors, having advertising that says nothing about the film but still gets asses in the seat, it may be cheesy but as an audience we ought to appreciate it, especially these days, to have films where we don't know everything and have seen all the moeny shots months before they've been released. M Night's name has enough marquee value that advertising gets to be something simply to let us know a film is coming out, rather than some kind of shorthand for watching the film itself - sure, they could have made a trailer that's more exciting and interesting, but this does the trick of getting people to watch the film, than why not? We've all become so film hungry that I think sometimes we forget its the film we're supposed to enjoy, not its ad campaign.
Nov. 25, 2005, 9:31 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...I guess I should seriously re-evaluate my thought processes if they don't align with yours. Oh, wait...that's a good thing. You must really be insecure with your own tastes if you feel the need to attack mine specifically in order to make yourself feel better. Doesn't much matter, though, as my analysis of Shyamalan's work was thorough (you would call it "long winded") and based on objective observation. Yours is clearly a big ball of flustered feeling. If you disagree so passionately with my assessment of Shyamalan's films (and my opinion isn't the same on all of them...go double check that if you think I'm just bashing him), I would think you'd be able to present a cogent argument against my points instead of simply calling me foolish. But, then, you never do bring much to the logical side of discourse. Pity. I enjoy a good conversation about movies.
Nov. 25, 2005, 10:42 a.m. CST
by Josh Town
Having a conversation with you is like listening to that "architect" dude from the Matrix movies. You can't really make out what he's saying, though it's probably not very important. Eventually you tell yourself it's all really just a clusterfuck of words, that could of been summed up in two sentences. But, if just said in its original two sentence form, it would be meaningless, and attract no attention. What to do, what to do? Childe, no anybody like that?
Nov. 25, 2005, 10:47 a.m. CST
by Josh Town
For Christmas you may want to ask for a dictionary. Preferably one published in the year 2000 or above. You see I hate to be the one to tell you, (but I assume you don't get out much) The word "discourse", yeah people don't really use that too much anymore. And also Shakespeare, please never, ever use the word 'cogent' in a conversation with me or directed towards me ever again. It makes me squirm. Hugs & kisses.
Nov. 25, 2005, 11:07 a.m. CST
That's pretty fucking dumb.
Nov. 25, 2005, 11:07 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...Josh, ever hear the quote: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?" It was like he saw you coming centuries away. You still haven't addressed a one of my points concerning Shyamalan and apparently attacking my posting style and word choice makes you feel very smart. Here's something that might actually help you seem clever if you persist in employing this tactic: "no" in the last line of your second to last post should have been spelled with a "k," an "n" and a "w." Now who needs a dictionary, cock monkey?
Nov. 25, 2005, 12:26 p.m. CST
ok, i just read a post of yours where you stated that MNS,Tarantino, and Whedon were today's kevin smiths and tomorrow's guest comic book writers. is that right? because as well stated your points are about MNS's last 2 films under-performing, suggesting that these guys are analogous to Smith, and are headed toward comic book careers is laughable and makes you look like nothing more than a hater. seriously.
Nov. 25, 2005, 12:40 p.m. CST
...Joss Whedon is today's guest comic book writer.
Nov. 25, 2005, 12:50 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...but not the intent. Maybe reading it in context with the surrounding comments would help (or perhaps I didn't do a very good job of putting that comment in context, in which case I apologize). The intended suggestion was that, unless they evolve as film makers, comic books are where I see these guys eventually heading. And I'm actually a fan of comics, so it might not be an all-bad thing if that's where they end up (Whedon is pretty much there already and, to further the parallel, is apparently making another run at the Buffyverse even as Smith wraps his latest return trip to the well that is the View Askewniverse). Of all the directors I mentioned in this future-comic-writer's club, Tarantino is probably taking the most risks (a scary statement given the long periods of time between his cinematic releases). But I honestly believe he could crap in a hat and his fans would herald it as genius (personally I don't think he's done much to earn/maintain anyone's money or respect in the last ten years, but that's very subjective). Please, don't misunderstand me. There's no hate in my heart for any of these guys. Just a sort of melancholy over what might be if they (Smith included) challenged themselves more.
Nov. 25, 2005, 1:42 p.m. CST
i'm no big whedon fan myself, i detest Buffy, though Firefly is ok and i haven't seen Serenity yet. i agree that MNS has put himself in a tough position where people who like him for his "twists" and dislike him for the same reason, a twist is what is expected of him, so if he makes a movie without a twist to satisfy haters, he will disappoint fans. myself, i am a huge fan of Unbreakable, and this trailer looks good to me. still, he knows how to shoot a scene and work with actors, so i don't think his directorial career is at risk. i confess to being a big Tarantino fan, and have been since '93 when i first saw Resevoir Dogs. i wish his production rate would be higher too, but aside from that, he does very good work, and shows more appreciation for film as an art form than most directors working today, imo. you talk about directors needing to evolve as filmakers in order to stay viable and continue to get work, so explain to me why guys like Micheal Bay are still getting work, how has he "evolved"? actually, what about Scorcese, how has he "evolved' over the last 20 years? i just want to get an idea what you mean by that term and explain why you think that evolving is so crucial to professional viability? sure, as a subjective critique you can criticize a director for not evolving, but i don't see that as an automatic translation to a career-ending trait. in fact, i'd venture that most of the moviegoing public doesn't want directors to "evolve" all that much if they like them, they want safety in knowing what to expect from a director, a known style they can depend on when they plunk down their $11. thats why movies like Vanilla Sky tank, because the public didn't get what they expected. doesn't say a whole lot for "the public", i know, but that certainly sems to be the herd mentality.
Nov. 25, 2005, 4:58 p.m. CST
We've mentioned Kevin Smith and Tarantino and Whedon (but more for tv). Who else is a well known writer/director whose name will sell a movie? I can't think of any. It seems like they're pretty rare these days. Maybe I'm missing a few.
Nov. 25, 2005, 8:27 p.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
I can't believe you slipped Whedon in there.
Nov. 25, 2005, 9:25 p.m. CST
Hey, has any seen Serenity? I dug it. Why do so many people complain about someone doing decent work when Uve Boll keeps making movies? Hell...I'm gonna make movies if its that easy. got this story about a lonely guy and a crusty sock that magicly comes to life and befreinds him....what do you guys think? I mean...it's no spiderman, but what is?
Nov. 25, 2005, 10:07 p.m. CST
by Josh Town
Nov. 26, 2005, 12:25 a.m. CST
by Neo Zeed
Because the Rock and Armageddon(yup I said it) were good entertainment and made a shitload of cash. Bad Boys 1 & 2 were hard R shoot'em ups that harkened back to the days of foul mouthed 80's actioners (In my book that's cool). Pearl Harbor sucked. I haven't seen the Island but I'm sure at worst it's merely OK. Micheal Bay is always the "stock" answer for net geeks when it comes to shit directors. It's inaccurate and needs to be retired. Please save that shit for Mark Steven Johnson (Baby's Day Out, Simon Birch, Daredevil) and Andrzej Bartkowiak (Cradle 2 Grave, Romeo Must Die, Doom) and of course Paul WS and Uwe Boll. Bay shoots a professional action picture while today's action movies look confused and defer to weak CGI /wirework. This weeks latest offender: Aeon Flux.
Nov. 26, 2005, 10:41 a.m. CST
dude, try reading things in CONTEXT before you go spouting off, it will improve those reading comprehension scores wonderfully. no one was downing Bay, duh. i find if puzzling that i said the exact same thing about Scorcese as i did about Bay, yet you only felt the need to speak up for Bay(even though there was really no need to speak up for either since i wasn't criticizing either). interesting. the subject that you jumped into yet seemingly totally missed the point of was "evolving directors" and what value there is in that. i simply used Bay as an example of a director that doesn't evolve yet still gets work regularly. of course, if you had kept reading, you would have seen i went on to question just how valuable, or not, evolving is to a director these days. there was not one negative thing said about Bay or his work. now do you "get" it?
Nov. 26, 2005, 11:10 a.m. CST
Peven you are right to say Scorsese hasn't evolved. And he hasn't made a truly brilliant film in the last 16 years. Casino was his great film. Gangs and The Aviator were ok but pretty mediocre, except for a couple of the performances. Tarantino stopped evolving after Jackie Brown and Kill Bill 1 and 2 were fun but nothing more. Bay has never evolved and with the exception of Bad Boys 1 and The Rock all his films are boring overblown predictable candyfloss. Evolution of a director is pretty important if they want to stay relevant. There are a few exceptions, Kubrick being one of them. But MNS is nowhere near that level of talent. The previously mentioned directors all get work and are all very very successful, but financial success and continued employment, as Paul WS Anderson proves, has fuck all to do with talent.
Nov. 26, 2005, 11:12 a.m. CST
Nov. 26, 2005, 12:05 p.m. CST
by Wee Willie
I've enjoyed every one of his films since 6th Sense. He's one of the few directors I'll go to a theater to see his new film - no matter what the reviews say. Yes, he's never quite hit the height of 6th Sense, but each film has been pretty interesting and entertaining in it's own way. Back in the day, directors didn't become "great" until they'd made a number of films. This is what, his sixth film? I hope he has a long and prolific career. Frankly, he reminds me, in his own way, of Alfred Hitchcock.
Nov. 26, 2005, 1:11 p.m. CST
Its just that his last few films have been C-scripts. I firmly believe he has it in him to make some truly enduring classics if given the right material. His execution is marvelous.
Nov. 26, 2005, 1:27 p.m. CST
it seems to me, what is a masterpiece movie to one may be shit to another, and evolving isn't automatically a good thing either if a director leaves his fans behind in the process. i don't see how evolving is directly tied into relevence either. lots of movies are succesful and enjoyed that have no relevence, they're simply entertaining. if no one likes a movie, its shit, no matter how "evolved" or relevent it is. the way i see it, the audience is THE reason for a movie's existence, after all. no matter how many wannabe film students might trash a movie, if people like it then it has served its main purpose. for instance, Casablanca does nothing for me personally, but i can appreciate the fact that many others really enjoy it; Better Off Dead may be considered crap by critics and the majority of "the public", but that doesn't diminish my love for it(two dollars!). this is elementary stuff, i know, but while its fun to sit around and shoot the shit about opinions of movies, too many here lose sight of that. they make statements with absoluteness like they are stating a law of science. i think maybe too many here tie their self esteem into the idea they have better taste than others, or are more insightful or intelligent because they can find fault with a movie others enjoy. talk about self-gratification.
Nov. 26, 2005, 1:40 p.m. CST
Well, peven I agree with you but only so far. A director doesn't exist solely to serve an audience. Yes they are what make it succesful, commercially, but that really isn't everything. To me it's nothing. A director has to be true to himself and his ideas. Worrying about what will please the audience is fine but you can't let them dictate your vision. To use casablanca as a good example, if they'd had test screenings in those days she'd have stayed with Rick. It would please the audience with a happy ending but it's not truthful to the story (in this case an ace bit of WW2 propaganda). The audience aren't always the reason for a movies existence. Some films are candyfloss entertainment, these films have no other intention other than raking in the cash, some films are art, ideally they should make you think AND make money. Peter Greenaways films are not seen by a large audience and don't make tonnes of money but his vision is pure and that's what makes his films interesting. Pleasing people is not ALWAYS a films main objective, making you think, deconstructing historical events, giving us insight in to the world we live in these are all just as valid as making money, to me they are FAR more important and valid reasons for making a film.
Nov. 26, 2005, 1:50 p.m. CST
by Jon Zuckerman
6th Sense was overrated, Unbreakable was geat, Sign s was a pretentious piece o shit and The Villiage was simply OK. This guy is so overrated.
Nov. 26, 2005, 1:55 p.m. CST
Everybody knows he has an evolving sensibility. Duh.
Nov. 26, 2005, 2:08 p.m. CST
...does it make a sound? if a movie plays and no one cares to see it, does it have any worth? movies aren't made for their own existence, they are made to be watched by people. thats their function. now, that doesn't mean a director should be a slave to the public's whim either, but one of the primary rules of writing, and therefore, imo, filmaking as well, is "know your audience". a director can retain his artistic credibility, his own vision, and yet remember that movies are made to be watched by other people. if a director wants to educate or enlighten people with his/her work they better make sure they make things interesting enough for people to sit through the movie, otherwise the "message" will never reach its intended destination. the word prententious was being loosely thrown around in this talkback, but imo, art created for its own sake IS the definition prententious. now, a movie that 1 million people like isn't necessarily "better" than a movie that only 1,000 people like either, or vice versa. but making movie with no regard to whether people will enjoy it or want to watch it is like making clothes with no regard to whether they will fit anyone. for example, a pair of pants is worthless if they can't be worn, right?
Nov. 26, 2005, 2:11 p.m. CST
so i'm a dyslexic typist, sue me.
Nov. 26, 2005, 2:38 p.m. CST
What is art for it's own sake? I mean that isn't art. Art has to say something, have an opinion or allow us to see things or experience things differently. The real question is does popularity make something more valid?_________ "if a director wants to educate or enlighten people with his/her work they better make sure they make things interesting enough for people to sit through the movie, otherwise the "message" will never reach its intended destination." Very true, but who's to say what some people will find interesting? I find pure maths and religion very interesting and I like Pi partly because if that. Someone who doesn't care about maths or religion probably won't like Pi (hopefully they'd actually become interested in those things because of the film though). Like you say it's subjective.
Nov. 26, 2005, 4:13 p.m. CST
I'm not gonna take the time to read the whole childe roland vs M. Night Shyamalan supporters argument, but skimming through the talkback, I saw childe roland write something about once being a "professional movie critic." That, my friends, is what we call a contradiction in terms. What could possibly be "professional" about being a movie critic. What qualifications make someone who watches and talks about movies a "professional"? Having too much free time? Having a well developed posterior? Honestly, the existence of such a thing as a "professional movie critic" is the ultimate proof that this wonderful country of ours has way too much money.
Nov. 26, 2005, 8:21 p.m. CST
Sounds like a musical. I notice you didn't answer my simple and sincere query. I can name many directors, thank you. If you read any words in my post besides 'Whedon,' you'd know I was looking for writer/directors. You know, people who direct from their own scripts? A significantly smaller number. And yes, I threw Whedon in there, but I noted 'for TV' if you recall. Yes, I believe he was one of the best writer/directors in the TV medium in my opinion. Get over it. The number of those on tv is fairly small as well. So I'm still waiting for an answer: well-known writer/directors besides Kevin Smith, Tarantino and M. Night. Go.
Nov. 26, 2005, 8:22 p.m. CST
I think Aronofsky should be on that list, right?
Nov. 26, 2005, 8:57 p.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
"Well known" does limit it somewhat but mixing the artists with the hacks we have James Cameron, the Farrelly Bros, the Wachowski Bros, the Cohen Bros, George Lucas, Christopher Nolan, Stephen Sommers, Paul Thomas Anderson, Paul W.S. Anderson, Wes Anderson, Robert Rodriguez, George Romero, Cameron Crowe, Clint Eastwood, I dunno, I'm getting tired. That should be enough for now, you get the point. They're not all household names but then neither is Kevin Smith outside the net so, whatever. You may slink away now.
Nov. 26, 2005, 9:32 p.m. CST
Cameron1, you want me to provide EVIDENCE for a film's LACK of something? Do you want me to disprove the existence of God next? I've watched these films and found them wanting. You obviously have seen something deeper there that I missed. Care to enlighten us? And I mean beyond listing elements of what make a film good (themes, writing, etc.). All movies have themes. All movies have been written. I've just found the writing in Shyamalan's movies to be, while technically competent, completely unengaging.
Nov. 26, 2005, 9:44 p.m. CST
Though I'd argue that not all of those exclusively write their own material (Nolan certainly has used other writers). My point is M. Night stands pretty tall in that list and would be unique among them for the kinds of films he does. Slinking now.
Nov. 26, 2005, 9:49 p.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
Mike Judge, John Carpenter, Shane Black, James Cameron again because you were such a dumbass for forgetting him the first time, the Wayans Bros, Clive Barker, Guy Ritchie, Spike Lee...trails off....
Nov. 26, 2005, 10:43 p.m. CST
Did you see Signs? And oh yeah, and the aliens are allergic to water but come down to earth... and it made $200 million domestic...sad.
Nov. 27, 2005, 2:19 a.m. CST
by Lenny Nero
Well, former film critic and very sporadic writer for the site. The one thing I know really well is that less is more. Mystique also does wonders.
Nov. 27, 2005, 4:11 a.m. CST
I'd like you to back up your asserttions with something tangible yes. I've given a little moment in Unbreakable that I believe is a great distillation of some of Shyamalan's ideas in the film, namely that of destiny and fate. You hurled an accusation "his films aren't intellectually stimulating" without saying why that's so, I just want you to say why that's so. Now you say you find his movies unengaging, can you say why? I mean it's your opinion in this case but I'm allowed to ask why aren't I?
Nov. 27, 2005, 5:22 a.m. CST
The thing about this argument is, either Cameron1 or somebody else provided evidence of what could be considered "thematic underpinnings" to Shyamalan's work and either fishmonger or someone with the same message said something to the effect of "whatever, you're reading too much into it." So if you can't be bothered to provide evidence and if the evidence provided, contextualized and explained is dismissed as creating something that isn't there, then how can either of you even argue this point?
Nov. 27, 2005, 6:29 a.m. CST
See you late friday night/early saturday morning!!!!!!!!!!!! ;
Nov. 27, 2005, 7:18 a.m. CST
You monosyllabic cretin.
Nov. 27, 2005, 2:44 p.m. CST
check check check check
Nov. 27, 2005, 4:22 p.m. CST
Nov. 27, 2005, 7:49 p.m. CST
"I mean, come ON - it's about a community that is kept under control and kept within that space, BY THE LEADERS OF THE COMMUNITY, and through the use of a made-up threat, which rears its head every so often to keep people from leaving." ...do I need to even say anything else?
Nov. 28, 2005, 3:45 a.m. CST
Nov. 28, 2005, 10:30 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
First, Josh Town stuill amuses me. Second, Devil0509, any time you get paid to do something, you are doing it professionally. It doesn't matter if anyone other than the person signing the check thinks you're qualified. It only came up in response to someone's insinuation that I went to film school (which I didn't). You'd know that if you'd bothered to read the stuff you couldn't be bothered to read, but you were in a big hurry to make your voice heard on the matter, so I understand. It really was a dream job for a geek who enjoys movies as much as I do. If it had paid more, I'd still be doing it. Third, Lenny Nero - you don't need my help to look bad. Anyone who chimes in on a discussion someone else is having with no point other than to say "I was a film critic, too, and I think I'm a better writer than you" is simply an attention needy twit. And, finally, back to the part of this conversation I'm actually enjoying: Peven, you're absolutely right that tastes are entirely subjective. By evolution I'm referring to change. For a film maker, that's trying different things and - whether they "succeed" or not - growing from the experiences. A good example is Spielberg. The man has tried a lot of different things (horror, drama, sci fi, romance and comedy) and not everything has been universally lauded as successful. But few would ever call him a one-trick pony. You're right that certain people come to expect certain things from certain directors (same applies with fans of any medium - remember the Anne Wilks character from "Misery?"), but not every director who deviates from those expectations dooms his career (in fact, if you look at someone like John Carpenter, you'll see how the opposite can be true). Like I said earlier, I loved Unbreakable - because it was a fresh look at a genre that was already becoming tired when the movie came out. I like works by all the directors I mentioned. I just don't think they're doing good things right now. But, just as there are people in this talkback who agree with me and some who are so angered by what I have to say that they can't think of rational responses (excluding yourself, of course), it's a matter of taste.
Nov. 28, 2005, 4:15 p.m. CST
no doubt, guys like Spielberg have gone beyond simply being known for doing one kind of thing well, and are instead known for quality no matter what genre they work in. he doesn't hit it out of the ballpark everytime, no one does, but he doesn't make dogs either, so a studio can depend on a certain degree of guaranteed bank if he makes a picture for them. a case where evolving and having a diverse body of work definately translates to commercial success. on the other hand, Wes Anderson is perhaps my favorite filmaker currently working, and i like the fact that each of his films has his own personal feel to it, his "touch", that is unique to him. when you're watching a Wes Anderson film, you know you're watching a Wes Anderson film, whereas while you're watching War of the Worlds, while it is a fine movie and well-made, if you didn't already know that Spielberg directed it you wouldn't be able to necessarily guess who did, except that it was a good director. i know after "Life Aquatic" Anderson was accused of just what we are discussing, "not evolving", and making films that all have the same type of formula/feel, but i have absolutely no problem with that in regard to his work, because he does it so damn well. i love all 4 of his films so far, and i don't use the word love lightly here. i never get tired of watching them. i bet i have watched Life Aquatic close to 20 times at this point. hey, we all have our quirks, lol. but seriously, i guess the fact that Anderson embraces that idea is a reason why i dig his stuff so much. he has a perspective on the world, on life, that i want to see in his films, i don't want him to change. he is a unique voice that i'd rather not lose to homogynization. i also think Owen Wilson does his best work with his buddy Wes, and i hope the two write together again sometime too.
Nov. 28, 2005, 4:30 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...of someone whose "schtick" (for want of a better word) hasn't grown tired or stale for me. Like you, I love all of his movies so far. And I agree that they all have his signature on them in terms of overall feel. But that feel is more a matter of mood and approach to different subject matter than it is something contingent on a gimmick (like the twist or surprise ending). That's actually exactly why I like Unbreakable more than Shyamalan's other films. Because it takes a slightly off-kilter and unquestionably fresh approach to an otherwise familiar subject (not to say that approach is anything like Anderson's approach to the heist film in Bottle Rocket, the prep school comedy in Rushmore, the family drama of The Royal Tannenbaums or the action adventure of The Life Aquatic). While Anderson's approaches to disparate stories and themes may be similar to one another, they are typically fresh within or as compared to the genres they emulate. So far, Shyamalan's really only accomplished that with Unbreakable, his other pics seeming to either borrow from or pay tribute to his inspirations (assuming those inspirations were Hitchcock and Serling) a little too faithfully. He isn't showing me anything in a way I haven't seen it before. I wouldn't harp on him for it except that I know he's capable. Unbreakable demonstrated that amply.
Nov. 28, 2005, 5:05 p.m. CST
I mean when you spend 12 bucks to see a Shayanlan film you want to see a Shayalan film, for God`s sakes. For 12 I wanted my twist ending! That`s why I went to the God-damn theatre to begin with.
Nov. 28, 2005, 5:15 p.m. CST
but here's the deal; the MNS film you and i enjoy so much, Unbreakable, is his lowest grossing film, if i'm not mistaken. his first film after his huge success of Sixth Sense. so, in a pavlov's dog sense, the moviegoing public hasn't rewarded him for the kind of behavior you and i both feel would best serve him(in an artistic sense at least), and us. the studios can count too, so i don't doubt MNS is pushed to make another Sixth Sense-type film much more than anyone is pushing him to make another Unbreakable. the trick is for him to make a quality non-gimmick film that does well at the box office too. that would break any creative chains that may be holding him down. i actually do like the trailer for Lady in the Water, don't see it as pretentious, and won't have any problem with a surreal bedtime story as long as it doesn't have some kind of forced twist ending.
Nov. 28, 2005, 6:20 p.m. CST
Just wanted to chime back into this conversation. Part of what makes MNS movies work for me is not the plots or genre conventions (ghosts, superheroes, aliens, fake monsters), though I tend to gravitate towards that stuff growing up with Twilight Zone. Certainly, we've seen those kinds of stories before, and yes, there's a certain amount of borrowing from Hitchcock and Serling. Again, at the risk of pissing people off, this is what I appreciate with Whedon, too. He's steeped in the genre conventions, but he knows how to play with them (as he did with Unbreakable). But it's not the plots, it's the characters and the emotional depth available in a quiet, slow moving scene. I always remember the Unbreakable scene where BW pushes the newspaper towards his son and they silently exchange looks and he puts his finger to his mouth to say 'shh'. The emotional moment between father and son (and the conflict of those in both BW's and the boy's expression) is just flat out genius. Period. There have been moments like that in each of his films and they're just wonderful. In my mind, no one adds as much depth and weight to these kind of genre films as MNS does. As I've been saying, the twist (when it's there or not) is secondary and simply part of the conventions.
Nov. 28, 2005, 6:45 p.m. CST
as a father with 3 sons it gets me especially deep. every father wants his son to look up to him, and compound that with what had going on in that family, well, killer lump-in-the-throat moment for me. i agree, its the intimate moments and characters in that movie that get me, but then, there are no special fx or big twist or gimmicks either. the truly big "reveal" is slow and drawn out over the course of the film, though Jackson's Mr Glass reveal at the end is a nice little capper, but even without it i would have loved the movie as much as i do now. now, like i said before, i liked firefly alright, but the actors had as much to do with that as anything else; and i truly detest Buffy. oh i tried to give it a chance, but it is simply empty, shallow, substanceless(doubt that is evena word), oh yeah, and anti-male. Whedon must get all sorts of pussy the way he sucks up to chicks in his stories. in fact, thenight before Thanksgiving i was watching the firefly marathon on sci-fi channel and it struck me then too. he paints men out to be losers; either well-meaning bufoons who can be horswaggled by a pretty face a set of tits, weak and scared, or no good pigs with no intelligence or morality. meanwhile, even the villian chicks get portrayed as having some sort of redeeming value, and the "good" chicks are portrayed as the ones who really know whats going on and act patronizing to the men around them. just look at the married couple. talk about gender juxtaposition. i could go on and on with examples from Buffy too, but hey, i think i've made my point, Whedon is a sellout to his gender. but hey, what does he care? the chicks dig it.
Nov. 29, 2005, 9:37 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...with the operant conditioning theory of Hollywood film making. No doubt if enough folks like chien_sale are clamoring for the signature "Shyamalan twist" and respond negatively when its not there, the studio will encourage (strongly) M. Night to "stick with what works." But I don't have to be happy about it or reward the studios with box office dollars for stifling him and depriving us of what might otherwise be.