I'm still going to give it a chance. Although I've been disappointed in Shamalyan's last two movies, it's on the level of being disappointed with pizza (to use a hatrack friendly metaphor): even when it's bad it's pretty good. His execution is usually good, although from the trailer the writing in this one seems even more forced than The Village. We'll see.
Posted by Squid Martigan (Member # 9276) on :
My goodness, that looks dreadful. No matter what goodness he might once have been capable of, the man responsible for double-stupid-duds Signs and the Village has not earned any movie-goer's trust or money.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I thought it looked interesting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It looks like an odd rehash of a dozen other movies combined, but hell, some of the best movies ever are just rehashes of other movies with a new take on it.
It still looks interesting, and regardless of what others have said about his recent movies, I really liked them, and will see Lady in the Water.
Also, it didn't look like reverse crying, what is that a reference to?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So, I'm a big fan of writer/director/producer types; I think there's a certain artistic integrity to it. I thought it might be interesting to compare the relative success of some of my favorites. Here are four that I could think of (feel free to suggest others), and the average imdb ratings for movies they wrote and directed (and often produced, but not always).
Wes Anderson: 7.45 (4 Movies) Terry Gilliam: 7.28 (7 Movies)* M. Night Shyamalan: 7.25 (4 Movies)* Baz Luhrmann: 7.2 (3 Movies)
*Discarded 2 movies each because they had fewer than 1000 votes --- As for SqM's assertion that Signs and The Village are "double-stupid-duds," I reiterate that I think they can only be considered that in relation to Shyamalan's other, very successful (in an artistic sense) movies. Compared with most multiplex atrocities, I think both movies hold up quite well.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I thought "Signs" worked because of the great subplot that was going on in tandem with the film, which is (what I thought) the film was about.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I thought 'Signs' was wonderful. It scared the crap out of me. It was one of those movies where, in the jam-packed sold-out theater, people were screaming, grabbing each other, *I* was almost on the verge of tears -- it was practically hysteria. Maybe I just got caught up in the madness of the crowd... But I've tried to analyze why it freaked me out so bad, and I think it's because I couldn't imagine how the good guys would win. That movie had this fatalistic weight that was terrible to watch.
Then, of course, that deus ex machina ending --
But I realized then that what I need in a movie is "an out."
Plus I'm a big baby.
'The Village' ... was a gross miscalculation by Shyamalan on almost every level. That whole "everything you just watched, and everything you just cared about was a lie Ha ha I'm clever" thing. How can that create anything but a feeling of a kind of betrayal in your audience?
I'll see 'Lady in the Water', most definitely.
Not only do I want to see what Shyamalan is up to, but I'm very curious about Bryce Dallas Howard.
I'm a long way from giving up on Shyamalan.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I've tried to analyze why it freaked me out so bad, and I think it's because I couldn't imagine how the good guys would win.
Yeah, who woulda thunk that the aliens would dissolve in a substance that covers 70% of the surface of the planet they chose to invade?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You misspelled "Spoiler Alert", Tom.
Sheesh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh, so when H.G Wells kills off the invaders with microbes, it's acceptable.
But Shyamalan and water? That's just nuts!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Oh, so when H.G Wells kills off the invaders with microbes, it's acceptable.
But Shyamalan and water? That's just nuts!
Yeah, yeah, it is. Back when Wells was writing, microbes were revolutionary things that it was conceivable aliens might overlook when invading. It's a little harder to believe they might not have noticed all that water. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
lol...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
"Ooooh, look. Pretty, shiny blue liquid. I wonder what it could be. Well, let's launch an invasion of the entire planet first and find out later.
...OW OW IT HURTS OMGZ THE PAIN!!!!11!!"
-pH
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*giggle* I liked Signs too. I've enjoyed all of MNS's movies mostly because I'm the ideal movie-goer. I'm a big baby, I get caught up in the action, I scream and gasp when it's supposed to be scary, I am scared when it's supposed to be scary, I'm way too willing to like most characters who are supposed to be likeable...and I never. ever. EVER. figure out the twist before it smacks us in the head like a wrecking ball.
In short, his movies have been lots of fun for me. It's why I like 'em and it's why I'll go see this one. Plus, I enjoy both Giamatti and Howard in the stuff I've seen them in so far.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I liked Signs, just because of the character relationship stuff.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I liked Signs. But I didn't really get it. Parly because I started watching it about a half hour into the film. And partly because it was in Spanish, and I don't speak a bit of Spanish.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
Signs is one of my all-time favortie movies. Maybe I'll watch it again this weekend... its been awhile.
I'll certainly give "Lady" a chance.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
Oh yeah, and I also really like Unbreakable.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I liked Unbreakable too. I've not seen Sixth Sense.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
The whole "alien" thing in Signs was just a backdrop for the priest's issues with the creator etc etc blah.
That Brazilian birthday party video still freaks me out. Nicely done imo.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
After watching "The Village", I added Shyamalan to my relatively short list of people who should get punched in the face.
What a ripoff of a movie. The colors were pretty, as was Ms. Howard. That's all it had going for it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Oh, so when H.G Wells kills off the invaders with microbes, it's acceptable.
But Shyamalan and water? That's just nuts!
Yeah, yeah, it is. Back when Wells was writing, microbes were revolutionary things that it was conceivable aliens might overlook when invading. It's a little harder to believe they might not have noticed all that water.
First of all, how were microbes new things, when we've known they exist since the 17th century?
Second, I'm sorry, but even when the first WotW came out, it still makes little sense that we'd believe that super advanced aliens capable of interstellar travel and invasion of an entire planet didn't even take a soil sample.
"Hey let's conquer that planet over there." "Wait, what do we do if one of the natives sneezes on us?" "Please, what are the chances of that happening?"
There's zero excuse for the remake, where they buried giant robots underground, and a very tiny excuse for the original.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Of MNS's movies, Unbreakable was definitely my favorite. In Signs the whole alien invasion thing makes so little sense on so many levels (water, tactics, the crop circles as a signal of where to land, kidnapping people instead of killing them, etc) that it seems clear to me they weren't invading Earth. The aliens never said they were out for conquest, but everyone seems to criticize them based on that standard.
Obviously, this was an eXtreme Sportz Weekend. They're a bunch of bored alien 20-somethings who get kicks out of going to a planet that's full of deadly water, tagging the place with cropland grafitti, and seeing who can race out to the moon with the most goofy-looking earthlings stuffed in a sack in their saucer. It's probably why they were naked, too. Better ratings on the interstellar telecast.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But I've tried to analyze why it freaked me out so bad, and I think it's because I couldn't imagine how the good guys would win.
Yeah, who woulda thunk that the aliens would dissolve in a substance that covers 70% of the surface of the planet they chose to invade?
They might've had a fighting chance if they hadn't decide to invade in the nude.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
What they didn't reveal in the movie was that this was a VAST improvement over the previous invasion attempts on the Amazon, the Northern coast of Washington State, and Disney's Blizzard Beach Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Looks like storybook creatures are climbing out of the pool.
I'll see it. I even liked 'The Village' enough to buy the dvd.
Something about the way MNS tells stories reminds me of Jodi Picoult books. The characters and situations are so well portrayed that you barely even mind that half the time the plot doesn't make total sense, and the ending is usually clever and unexpected, but somehow just a tiny bit disappointing. And yet I always have to go out and watch/read the new one the minute it comes out.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The Sixth Sense was very good. It was a big surprise, but even if you knew the ending, it was still worth watching.
MNS has gone downhill from there. Now he just tries to use fancy movie tricks and a "SURPRISE!!!!" ending to carry an otherwise mediocre movie.
I never saw Signs, I couldn't bring myself to, but both Unbreakable and The Village had a few good parts, with a lot of junk thrown in and a surprise ending which a) wasn't much of a surprise, and b) made you mad because you waited the whole movie for a cop out.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
M. Night claims that this film will have -no- twist ending.
Take that as you will.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
He's a liar, a blooming liar.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
If in fact there is no surprise ending in Lady, that would be a surprise.
Enigmatic: Your take on Signs is Inspired! And with that in mind it might even enhance my enjoyment of it with the next viewing. Well done!
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
The worst part of Signs was that we actually saw the aliens.
On a related note, I knew the catch of The Sixth Sense well before seeing it, and didn't really enjoy it. I think I would have liked it a lot more if I hadn't known. I like trying to "figure out" movies (and books) instead of knowing the whole plot going in. That's also why Revenge of the Sith was an excellent movie-going experience for me - I was spoiler-free. Completely.
I don't think I'll see this movie. If it comes around to a budget theatre and I have time, sure, but I won't actively seek it out.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:What a ripoff of a movie. The colors were pretty, as was Ms. Howard. That's all it had going for it.
I thought that the first half was excellent. Really truly great cinema. I thought the second half was a stinking pile of dung.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have liked all his movies, with our without his twist endings and plot holes. Actually, I have figured out his "twist endings" ten or fifteen minutes into every one of them. He leaves huge clues such as the conversation at the table in "Sixth Sense," fear of water with glasses everywhere in "Signs," the constant reading of comic books in "Unbreakable" and etc. Knowing the ending actually frees the viewer to sit back and enjoy the film, look for other clues, and recognize thematic symbolism. His movies are great because they have more character and artistry than 90 percent of the Hollywood trash.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I think I'm the only person on the planet who truly enjoyed The Village. But then I'm obsessed with stories about people making sacrifices and working together for causes bigger than they are that they believe in very strongly...Yeah, sounds about right.
I was reading months ago about Lady in the Water and an article I was reading right out and spoiled the "twist," apparently, and I'm not sure how secret that bit of knowledge is but it's almost intriguing enough to want to see it. I love eye candy enough to be interested, anyway.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
According to M. Night, there is no "twist"...so the article might have intentionally revealed whatever may seem like a secret.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
OhhhhhHHhh, hmmmm!
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Wow. While I was pretty rough on the trailers, I have to admit- the new poster looks pretty darn cool.
Increase the size and check out the detail.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Makes Howard look creepy as all hell.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I think that's intentional. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Why are people complaining about water-sensitive aliens invading a planet that is 70% water, when we explore or plan to explore planets that are 100% hostile to us? These aliens probably felt lucky that they could breathe our air at all.
They weren't here to occupy or colonize. Just to pick up some sample humans. Not much different from us picking up rocks on the moon. If the rocks had fought back by cutting holes in our suits, we'd have been just as dead.
Regarding War of the Worlds, isn't it possible that these aliens had conquered disease on their own world, and on many others, and simply didn't anticipate that our diseases would pose a unique threat that their science wasn't prepared to counter?
You've got to be willing to cut a science fiction movie at least some slack ... otherwise, how can you enjoy any of them?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
The problem with that line of thinking is: it shouldn't be the job of the audience to find justifications and explanations for obvious mistakes made by the filmmakers. Down that path lies Star Trek fandom.
(And we all know how dangerous that can be.)
It's the job of the filmmakers to present a credible story in the first place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Just to pick up some sample humans. Not much different from us picking up rocks on the moon.
Didn't they launch, like, fairly massive attacks? More like a major moon mining operation.
And you'll note that when we went to the moon, we wore spacesuits.
I felt that Signs was a pathetic waste of film, on almost all levels -- especially its cheap copout of a core metaphor.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Ack, creepy!!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I didn't bother watching Signs. Once someone told me they couldn't handle water, I had to wonder if they were making crop circles in some desert. Water vapor in the air doesn't bother them I guess, it's only water in glasses that they can't handle.
Hold on a second, I have a phone call: Oh, M. Night Shaymalan, it's for you. Day of the Triffids says you stole their ending and wants to know if they can have it back. What's that Triffids? No, I won't call him that! This is a family website. You talk to him. OK, they're really pissed, they said that if the lady in the pool is allergic to sunlight or turns into a wolf on the full moon they're coming for you.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)