FilmMakerr
Veteran
I didn't like LITW. But I do like Shyamalan.
Woah...does this film suck...
- Thread starter DeSica
- Start date
Ted Spencer
Veteran
To me, the most interesting part is what kinds of films he'll make going forward. No question in my mind, Sixth Sense was his best movie, and by several classes. It's actually a good movie on its own terms. Because that movie made his reputation, plus scads of $ (as well as scads of $ from Signs), he'll always have the power to make movies... barring a total change in the business. Once you reach a certain level of success, you'll always get "another chance".
That said, I'm genuinely curios about his career going forward. He's young enough to still be able to pull out of the downward spiral he's in. But I wonder if he has the constitution to manage such a feat. His main problem is an insane ego. Probably the most megalomaniacal major director out there, which is saying a lot. It's practically pathological, a medical condition. With a problem that serious, it's impossible to take feedback. So he can't learn from his mistakes. I'm afraid he's doomed. He's not living in reality, can't assess the impact of his artistic choices and won't listen to criticism - looks like a recipe for disaster. Oh well, it'll be interesting to watch the trainwreck
I have to agree with this, and to all of DeSica's points as well. I thought LITW was mindblowingly atrocious - the cinematic equivalent of a train wreck that barrels off the tracks and collides with an airport full of fully loaded jumbo jets, then drags the entire surrounding landscape off a cliff into a flaming sea of tar 1000 feet below.
Am I making myself clear?
Actually, the above would have made a much better movie, even if it only lasted 5 minutes...
I thought "Sixth Sense" was an absolutely superb film, and I had high hopes that M Night could become one of our greatest filmmakers. Sadly, that was his only really good movie. Every one since, IMHO, has been worse than the last, reaching profound wretchedness with "The Village" before descending into the aforementioned beyond-the-powers-of-the-metaphoric crappitude with LITW.
One thing that stands out especially tellingly for me in it is the Bob Balaban critic character (although he's an actor I like a lot - re: "Close Encounters" etc.) who is devoured by the turf-dog after some choice words for...uh...hey...whattaya know...the M character! Sending us a message, M? Don't like all that nasty criticism?
Try making a *good* movie next time! That ought to get 'em back on your side!
Seriously, I think he needs some kind of an artistic intervention. He's very talented, and has lots of very talented friends, right? Friends shouldn't let friends make films like LITW.
DeSica
Well-known member
Get off the fence, already....
This may have to do with problems between him and Disney. They parted ways over the project, and I get the feeling that some of what Balaban's character says is a dig at their expense, plus a jab at critics in general. They may have clashed over some plot points, or "family film" formula, and I think M might have been taking a shot at the suits. If the moment, (or the film, for that matter) had worked, it could have been seen as a witty jab. Instead, it seemed too self involved.
Like the cookbook manuscript guy....and his profound message. Was that character really worthy of so much screen time, much less a place in the film? Story touches him? Story makes him see more clearly? Ironic that his own story is so flat and convoluted...
Again, could be aimed at Disney for not seeing the film his way...not getting the vision.
And the dude who is the wise man (or respected man, whatever)...his line about just wanting to believe like a child again...it had no meaning, since we really never learned much about him. Or was that an attempt at begging the audience to buy the whole preposterous premise of the movie?
This was a pretty complicated procedure for a fairy tale...
'You need a guild, a wise man, a man with no secrets, a healer, a guardian, two midgets dressed as Keebler elves, a three legged dog, a Trini Lopez album, Ron Jeremy....'
Sure. If he just stepped back and waited for the right script to come his way...but from what I have read so far, this next one he has written sounds iffy...
I would love to know what the differences were with Disney. It could be they saw this coming, and when they suggested changes (not that I side with studios, let alone Disney), he got bent out of shape and set out to prove them wrong.
I'm guessing the suits at Disney feel pretty good about how it all worked out...
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
I jumped off the M Night train in the middle of The Village... as soon as they revealed the monster costume I felt intellectually raped for buying into any of the pre-release marketing. I wish that movie would have ended in a matter of minutes after that scene because it dragged on... continuing to "reveal" the "rest" of the twist, which was already completely and painfully over for anybody with half a brain.
"Tuck and roll baby... Tuck and roll... this thing's headed right for the airport!"
It's ironic that this guy looked to be on course for Steven Spielberg and instead he's becoming a modern day Ed Wood.
"Tuck and roll baby... Tuck and roll... this thing's headed right for the airport!"
It's ironic that this guy looked to be on course for Steven Spielberg and instead he's becoming a modern day Ed Wood.
Good point. An old guy next to me groaned when they revealed that. He blurted out "There's no monster". Audiences want to believe in the monster. That has to be the mother of all storytelling errors. You could feel that movie nosedive at that moment.
CRASH!!! What a disaster.
mjjason
Well-known member
I thought that was quite predictable. Once they showed the council of Elders in the first 5 minutes of the film and showed how restrictive they were of people leaving the town it was clear that they were behind the "monster".
The only part I did not see coming was the fact that it was taking place in modern times and not in the past. But by that point I had lost all interest in the movie and didn't care what era it was taking place in and why they were living secluded lives.
Last edited:
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
...what an asshole :/
People are too harsh on the village. I agree that the marketing was very bad...as it promised something other than what they delivered.
But I think the Village is a good film and the story is an interesting idea. The direction, cinematography, music, sound, and acting were all fantastic. Certain parts of the story don't hold up...but the technical quality is great.
I think its my favorite Roger Deakins movie, and the score by James Newton Howard is perfect.
I'm looking forward to "The Happening"...since it will be his first rated R film.
But I think the Village is a good film and the story is an interesting idea. The direction, cinematography, music, sound, and acting were all fantastic. Certain parts of the story don't hold up...but the technical quality is great.
I think its my favorite Roger Deakins movie, and the score by James Newton Howard is perfect.
I'm looking forward to "The Happening"...since it will be his first rated R film.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
That's exactly the problem for me - it's an interesting idea, but a poorly realized script.
Which from my perspective is just a wasted idea now - until another couple of decades roll by and someone can remake it.
Really bad movies are never as frustrating and aggravating as the movies that look like they could have been good, but completely missed the mark somehow. Notice how there were never 10 page threads about how much 'White Chicks' sucked...but we're still dredging up the Village 3 years after it came out... clearly there was something there, but I think its pretty clear it didn't come anywhere near hitting its potential.
True - but the story is what holds everything else up - and if it fails...the whole thing comes tumbling down. Sure, I can appreciate the Village for looking great and sounding great - but at the end of the day, there are many movies that look great, sound great, and have a great script behind them as well.
Wow.
He's got quite a list of films behind him.
Those are strong words.
DeSica
Well-known member
I didn't see The Village, but I don't think the idea of no monster is bad.
It is an interesting theme to show how people can be so afraid of something they do not understand, and are not even sure exists...and how fear can be used to control the masses as well as individuals.
As Luis and others have pointed out, the execution may not have done the idea justice. I probably won't see the film, since so much of it rests on that twist...which suggests that his films are not the kind you can view again and again with much satisfaction.
As for the guy who moaned about their being no monster, I always looked at M,'s films as psychological thrillers more than horror....so it is kind of a propos.
It is an interesting theme to show how people can be so afraid of something they do not understand, and are not even sure exists...and how fear can be used to control the masses as well as individuals.
As Luis and others have pointed out, the execution may not have done the idea justice. I probably won't see the film, since so much of it rests on that twist...which suggests that his films are not the kind you can view again and again with much satisfaction.
As for the guy who moaned about their being no monster, I always looked at M,'s films as psychological thrillers more than horror....so it is kind of a propos.
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
again, i actually find this really interesting. I didn't hear any good things by the time i got around to seeing The Village and actually quite liked it. And now people are saying the marketing for the film wasn't good, and again I have to completely disagree, I loved the trailer, and having seen the film, I think it's perfect in context.
To each there own...
To each there own...
DeSica, M. Night is actually one of my favourite directors coming from the USA these days.
His movies, while simple on the surface (anyone can get into), are layered in a way that touch in very different levels, and make you "think"on a lot more complex subject matters, depending on your own cultural development/perceptions.
The Village was a great film, for me. It was interesting the way that he commented on our world today. A community driven by fear, haunted by fictional monsters and closed on itself.
There's always something "magical" on the way M. Night tells a story. I could only find this magic on early Spielberg films, or, in Europe, Roberto Begnini. talking about Begnini, Life is Beautiful is an example of a modern day fairy tale for Adults.
AS for Lady in the Water, the only thing i didn't like about it was his character. If he casted someone else- someone that could in someway represent who he is, than the film would be a good one in my book. The stereotipes portrayed are in fact, in my own humble opinion, a criticism to our stereotype driven society. Note that the majority of the characters end up not being what they seem like. Maybe his own character is a criticism to his Ego- but in my view fails- because of his acting skills nowhere approaching the rest of the cast.
Giammanti's acting was great, as well as Brice Dallas Howard's and the rest of the cast. He's a good actor's director.
And I do consider him a good visual director. The opening train sequence of Unbreakable is a very impressive visual experience, for example. He knows how to use cinematography to tell the story. He's no Wong Kar Wai, for sure, but he's balanced, not overly flashy like the recent directors coming from MTV's. But certainly has the sensibility and knows the visual language, in a very personal way. I do believe he has his own visual style.
M. Nights films are about the themes, the journey you take on that film and what that journey makes you think.
He achieves what I really want to as an aspiring filmmaker. Its a lot easier to tell something meaningful and deep to someone that thinks like you than to the masses. He's someone that makes his movies in a way anyone can be entertained, but never neglects to talk about relevant and important things- his own concerns as a filmmaker, or as a person. In other words, like Spielberg or Begnini, for example, M. Night is a "Mass audience Auteur". Does this make sense?
His movies, while simple on the surface (anyone can get into), are layered in a way that touch in very different levels, and make you "think"on a lot more complex subject matters, depending on your own cultural development/perceptions.
The Village was a great film, for me. It was interesting the way that he commented on our world today. A community driven by fear, haunted by fictional monsters and closed on itself.
There's always something "magical" on the way M. Night tells a story. I could only find this magic on early Spielberg films, or, in Europe, Roberto Begnini. talking about Begnini, Life is Beautiful is an example of a modern day fairy tale for Adults.
AS for Lady in the Water, the only thing i didn't like about it was his character. If he casted someone else- someone that could in someway represent who he is, than the film would be a good one in my book. The stereotipes portrayed are in fact, in my own humble opinion, a criticism to our stereotype driven society. Note that the majority of the characters end up not being what they seem like. Maybe his own character is a criticism to his Ego- but in my view fails- because of his acting skills nowhere approaching the rest of the cast.
Giammanti's acting was great, as well as Brice Dallas Howard's and the rest of the cast. He's a good actor's director.
And I do consider him a good visual director. The opening train sequence of Unbreakable is a very impressive visual experience, for example. He knows how to use cinematography to tell the story. He's no Wong Kar Wai, for sure, but he's balanced, not overly flashy like the recent directors coming from MTV's. But certainly has the sensibility and knows the visual language, in a very personal way. I do believe he has his own visual style.
M. Nights films are about the themes, the journey you take on that film and what that journey makes you think.
He achieves what I really want to as an aspiring filmmaker. Its a lot easier to tell something meaningful and deep to someone that thinks like you than to the masses. He's someone that makes his movies in a way anyone can be entertained, but never neglects to talk about relevant and important things- his own concerns as a filmmaker, or as a person. In other words, like Spielberg or Begnini, for example, M. Night is a "Mass audience Auteur". Does this make sense?
Last edited:
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
agreed, and I noticed you I didn't see "twist" anywhere in ur post, just as it probably wouldn't have appeared in my description on his work. Just good stories, IMHO
I believe the word "Twist"over simplifies and actually takes out the relevance of the scripts structure in order to achieve the "surprise effect"on the audience.
A "Twist" only makes sense if it has a valid point to make on the story. They all do in M. Night's films. They are not "Twists"in the sake of "Twists". They are important for the narrative, and well constructed narratively. The "twist" in M Night's films are narrative moments where he wants us, the audience, to question what we have seen untill now, and think about it. He craftly, not cheaply, adds pieces of the puzzle troughout his movies in order to give the audience the elements necessary for the reflection he wants the audience to have on "the twist".
Want an example of a no point twist for the sake of having one ? - just look at Ocean's 12,, which was written and done by a very overrated director/scriptwritter, In my opinion. The ending "twist"was just ridiculous, where you were never handed the plot points in order to have a hint of such conclusion. That's poor, terrible scriptwritting.
One of my favourite scriptwritters in Hollywood today is Charles Kaufman, who wrote Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Being John Malkovich, etc. Brilliant scriptwritting, and the "twists"are layered out in a very similar fashion to M. Night's.
Last edited:
DeSica
Well-known member
Twists, in and of themselves, are not bad at all. Ones that make no sense are obviously less effective than ones you didn't see coming, but totally hold up...those are the best.
Unbreakable was a pretty good film, and I enjoyed it. When you look at it as a comic book character genesis sort of thing, then it takes on layers, which is also good. What people tend to point out in general is tht M.'s films don't always hold up to repeated viewings...which may tarnish the prestige overall, but doesn't affect your initial viewing.
The Sixth Sense worked for me...I don't really want to see it again, but I enjoyed it that first time...same for Unbreakable.
I didn't see The Village, but the premise seems fine to me...can't speak to how he carried it out. Signs held no interest for me at all, so I never bothered seeing it.
When a twist becomes expected, due to the director's style, or gimmick, then it can detract from the whole experience...like a Knock-Knock joke. You just wait for the answer to "who's there?" The lead up is boring...not that M. copies himself or anything through films...it's just that you are conditioned for the pay-off that you know is coming.
TLITW was deficient on so many levels...that is what killed it for me. Every pillar it was set upon was weak and couldn't support the film in the long run.
Nevermind the ridiculous stuff about a rabid patch of grass, monkey like creatures, a big bird, the guild, a healer, a six pack of pabst blue ribbon....
The story is absurd, the unfolding of the fairy tale is painfully plodding, the characters are for the most part vague and of no significance (Giamatti aside), and the boring build up leads to an undistinguished ending. You just don't care about these people...the events...beacause there was nothing to pull you in and make you care.
Again, the cookbook guy wasn't even needed....he added nothing to the plot. The wise man seemed tacked on. The critic was one dimensional.
And why were we supposed to care about Story? What was at stake? Something about well meaning spirits trying to help mankind? It just got to the point where you wanted it to end...fast.
I ended up wishing that giant eagle thing would rescue Giamatti from the horrible rubbish bein passed of as a movie that he was forced to wade through.
Unbreakable was a pretty good film, and I enjoyed it. When you look at it as a comic book character genesis sort of thing, then it takes on layers, which is also good. What people tend to point out in general is tht M.'s films don't always hold up to repeated viewings...which may tarnish the prestige overall, but doesn't affect your initial viewing.
The Sixth Sense worked for me...I don't really want to see it again, but I enjoyed it that first time...same for Unbreakable.
I didn't see The Village, but the premise seems fine to me...can't speak to how he carried it out. Signs held no interest for me at all, so I never bothered seeing it.
When a twist becomes expected, due to the director's style, or gimmick, then it can detract from the whole experience...like a Knock-Knock joke. You just wait for the answer to "who's there?" The lead up is boring...not that M. copies himself or anything through films...it's just that you are conditioned for the pay-off that you know is coming.
TLITW was deficient on so many levels...that is what killed it for me. Every pillar it was set upon was weak and couldn't support the film in the long run.
Nevermind the ridiculous stuff about a rabid patch of grass, monkey like creatures, a big bird, the guild, a healer, a six pack of pabst blue ribbon....
The story is absurd, the unfolding of the fairy tale is painfully plodding, the characters are for the most part vague and of no significance (Giamatti aside), and the boring build up leads to an undistinguished ending. You just don't care about these people...the events...beacause there was nothing to pull you in and make you care.
Again, the cookbook guy wasn't even needed....he added nothing to the plot. The wise man seemed tacked on. The critic was one dimensional.
And why were we supposed to care about Story? What was at stake? Something about well meaning spirits trying to help mankind? It just got to the point where you wanted it to end...fast.
I ended up wishing that giant eagle thing would rescue Giamatti from the horrible rubbish bein passed of as a movie that he was forced to wade through.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
I could go on on the subject of 'twist' endings... and in fact wrote a whole thing which I then deleted because I think that is one topic that is usually beaten into the ground when it comes to Shyamalan.
But, this is something I would sincerely like to explore a bit:
I've heard many people say things similar to this, that they like his movies because they really 'make you think.'
And I have to be honest here...maybe I'm missing something..maybe I'm dense...but even his most ponderous film (to me), Unbreakable (which I REALLY enjoyed) didn't really make me think a whole lot after it was over. His films, when well done, are great - no question. And they can definitely be enjoyed on many levels: Story, Acting, Cinematography, theme....
...but I don't think any of his films really had me 'thinking' about much of anything after the fact. I mean, maybe thinking about the details in the plot in so far as
"oh, wow, so he was dead the whole time...that's why X, Y, and Z"
But I get the feeling that's not what people are talkng about - they seem to be refering to some deeper thematic ramifications which I'm simply not seeing or connecting with.
For example:
I think that comment sums up the Village quite nicely - and past that I don't see much to 'think' about.
I dont' want to come off as a smartass here - I mean I've seen plenty of films that have made me think after the fact... Network, Being There, Laurence of Arabia, on a more contemporary front I would even say Syriana, Eyes Wide Shut, and even most recently No Country for Old Men. These are films that made me 'think' either directly, or because they sparked conversations on topics that went past mere plot mechanics and into abstract concepts reflected in the film itself (i.e the role of Fate vs Free Will in No Country).
But past the mechanics of the plot and a specific 'controlling idea', Shyamalan's films haven't made me think much.
So - what am I missing?
But, this is something I would sincerely like to explore a bit:
I've heard many people say things similar to this, that they like his movies because they really 'make you think.'
And I have to be honest here...maybe I'm missing something..maybe I'm dense...but even his most ponderous film (to me), Unbreakable (which I REALLY enjoyed) didn't really make me think a whole lot after it was over. His films, when well done, are great - no question. And they can definitely be enjoyed on many levels: Story, Acting, Cinematography, theme....
...but I don't think any of his films really had me 'thinking' about much of anything after the fact. I mean, maybe thinking about the details in the plot in so far as
"oh, wow, so he was dead the whole time...that's why X, Y, and Z"
But I get the feeling that's not what people are talkng about - they seem to be refering to some deeper thematic ramifications which I'm simply not seeing or connecting with.
For example:
I think that comment sums up the Village quite nicely - and past that I don't see much to 'think' about.
I dont' want to come off as a smartass here - I mean I've seen plenty of films that have made me think after the fact... Network, Being There, Laurence of Arabia, on a more contemporary front I would even say Syriana, Eyes Wide Shut, and even most recently No Country for Old Men. These are films that made me 'think' either directly, or because they sparked conversations on topics that went past mere plot mechanics and into abstract concepts reflected in the film itself (i.e the role of Fate vs Free Will in No Country).
But past the mechanics of the plot and a specific 'controlling idea', Shyamalan's films haven't made me think much.
So - what am I missing?
Last edited:
Luis, I can only talk as an individual, but here are a couple of sub plots and themes I found reflecting after viewing some of his films:
In Signs, even tough it was the movie I least liked from M. Night, the story obviously wasn't about Aliens, but about faith, hope, love, destiny and moving forward towards adversity. Each character had a nuance and a simbolism inherent to them. This happens in all his films. I particularly never took great attention to the water/purity simbolism.
Unbreakable- for me, its about believing in one's self, a purpose in life, and pursuing goals. Its about achieving something, and not fail one's natural potential. We all have it, but end up losing this faith and strengh to pursue something with the hurdles of life. A lot more is said, obviously, but I do have to watch these movies again
The Village- Why I really like this movie, its not only about the fear, but about having the courage of braking trough this fear, and most importantly, about "love". The lead actress was blind for a reason. The real "monster" and killer of the movie was driven by the power of jealously, pure and simple. I'm not going to spoil the movie to anyone by going deeper here.
Joaquin Phoenix's character was a simbolism of courage and will towards the unknown ". His noble motives were a nod to people that never settle for status quo for no reason. What happens to him might be perceived as how this is envied by the average conformed and faith lacking person.
And of course, it was love that moved the blind girl to face the monsters. And it was love that destroyed fear.
*Note that when I say faith, I don't necessarily say its christian faith. I perceive that faith in his movies is a state of believing in something beautiful, in achieving something better, and in the essence of good.
As for Lady in the Water, all those mithological characters that M. Night created were simbolic. Also, I believe the beautifull thing about this film was that it united a group of people that looked like their lifes where without a meaning in a joint purpose. That purpose was to help someone, of course.
WOuld those group of people who are so different, ever work together for the well being of another? What where their gains in this?
As a viewer, I tend to think what would it be if our world, of such differences, would join together on a common goal, to help the ones in need? The movie is not about the fairy tale characters, or the monsters, again, but (again this is my humble opinion!) . Its about believing in something, and doing it with a noble, pure and good heart. This movie is about everyone coming together with a common goal, and about everyone's role in life- from the common gardener to the "fairy tale princess".
I really haven't seen these movies in a while, so here are just some small toughts that I could remember.
The sixth sense I believe was just too much discussed. But some themes, in his films, tend to be recurrent.
In Signs, even tough it was the movie I least liked from M. Night, the story obviously wasn't about Aliens, but about faith, hope, love, destiny and moving forward towards adversity. Each character had a nuance and a simbolism inherent to them. This happens in all his films. I particularly never took great attention to the water/purity simbolism.
Unbreakable- for me, its about believing in one's self, a purpose in life, and pursuing goals. Its about achieving something, and not fail one's natural potential. We all have it, but end up losing this faith and strengh to pursue something with the hurdles of life. A lot more is said, obviously, but I do have to watch these movies again
The Village- Why I really like this movie, its not only about the fear, but about having the courage of braking trough this fear, and most importantly, about "love". The lead actress was blind for a reason. The real "monster" and killer of the movie was driven by the power of jealously, pure and simple. I'm not going to spoil the movie to anyone by going deeper here.
Joaquin Phoenix's character was a simbolism of courage and will towards the unknown ". His noble motives were a nod to people that never settle for status quo for no reason. What happens to him might be perceived as how this is envied by the average conformed and faith lacking person.
And of course, it was love that moved the blind girl to face the monsters. And it was love that destroyed fear.
*Note that when I say faith, I don't necessarily say its christian faith. I perceive that faith in his movies is a state of believing in something beautiful, in achieving something better, and in the essence of good.
As for Lady in the Water, all those mithological characters that M. Night created were simbolic. Also, I believe the beautifull thing about this film was that it united a group of people that looked like their lifes where without a meaning in a joint purpose. That purpose was to help someone, of course.
WOuld those group of people who are so different, ever work together for the well being of another? What where their gains in this?
As a viewer, I tend to think what would it be if our world, of such differences, would join together on a common goal, to help the ones in need? The movie is not about the fairy tale characters, or the monsters, again, but (again this is my humble opinion!) . Its about believing in something, and doing it with a noble, pure and good heart. This movie is about everyone coming together with a common goal, and about everyone's role in life- from the common gardener to the "fairy tale princess".
I really haven't seen these movies in a while, so here are just some small toughts that I could remember.
The sixth sense I believe was just too much discussed. But some themes, in his films, tend to be recurrent.