Latest from M. Night

Some pretty crappy movies do big box office. But big box office does tell us something, you're right. People aren't going in that many numbers for no reason. Signs had great moments. I think that's what it was. People all told their friends about the new movie by the Sixth Sense guy and that it scared them a few times. Mel ain't hard to watch. But it's just really unsatisfying as a movie. I tried watching it again recently. Bored the heck out of me, and I love creepy, atmospheric sci-fi. Then again, I absolutely love movies others didn't like. A.I. to me is a masterpiece (to me and the New York Times but no other apparently).
 
The thing about Signs that just killed me was the water thing. I mean, c'mon, aliens travelling light years to take over our planet and they haven't made a simple effort to find out if the element that dominates 75% of the earth is harmful to them or not? Give me a break. I know this isn't the main crux of the story, but it shows the laziness that M Night has resorted to. Sixth Sense was so expertly crafted. You need to put that same amount of effort into all of your movies. Now we have to deal with his take on Finding Nemo. I predict that this movie will be his least successful.

What did Village take in again?
 
You arent that simple are you?

Was it merely water? Or was it something else? Was it a unique chemical element found in our water? Perhaps it was the Oxygen or maybe oxygen gas that is dissolved in water. Maybe their skin is made of Potassium? Maybe the alien skin was a kind of hydrophobe.

My point is; you see 'Water' and assume how simple that is. But what if there is something else and water just happens to be the carrier

Maybe we need the little Jurassic Park DNA cartoon guy to be in every film that requires detailed explanations for those who dont get it?

Id bet money that M Night wouldnt say 'I dont know....' if asked why water hurt the Aliens
 
So, I would like to hear your assessment (So I can debunk it of course) of the film.
Click to expand...

Well, since you asked. :happy:

In all seriousness, thanks for taking the time to post your take on the film. I hope that I wasn't coming across as antagonistic, I was genuinely curious as to what you thought of it.

To start off with, my overall gripe with Signs has a lot to do with the pacing of the film, and I think this is something that M. Night suffers from as a director. His pacing is incredibly inconsistent. He breaks up the tension in Signs at the strangest moments. So strange in fact, that I used to be convinced there was something I wasn't seeing, but I've since decided that M. Night just paces things poorly. More on this thought in a bit.

Specifically my grip in Signs is roots in the characters. I guess I don't understand why the trama and motivation of Gibson's character is kept a secret through most of the film. We are given a character who has lost his faith, and we're expected to empathize with him having no basis of background. We are eventually given his story through the flashbacks, but those flashbacks come and seemingly random moments throughout the film and do not serve the (assumed) intended purpose of keeping us glued to the screen to learn the inner demons of Mel Gibson. Instead they break up the real tension on the screen between the characters and thereby ruin two aspects of the film. M. Night even put a flashback in the MIDDLE of the climax. What? Climax, hello, the audience is kind of needing to be engagued in what's happening in the moment, not worry about what happened before the film even started. I always felt this was akin to the hero hanging on the edge of a cliff by his pinky finger, the foot of the villan mere inches away from crushing the hero's hand, forcing him to fall to his death, and suddenly we cut to the hero at the tender age of 10 picking flowers. It just didn't make any sense to me. As far as Signs was concerned, this was the source of the poor pacing. I always felt the film would have been better served if we expereinced Gibson's history in real time at the beginning, and then after the truma we got a "five months later" or however long it was.

I also felt that we were never given a true reason for the behavior of Gibson's children. OK, the whole family would be affected by aforementioned trama, but I just didn't buy that as motivation for the random screaming matches that would ensue. Another fault of M. Night's films is that I find them to be populated with characters that have psychotic episodes for no reason other than having a psychotic episode. Signs was esspecially guilty of that.

Last, and definitely least, I found it a strange plot choice to have an advanced alien race who are suseptable to water to decide to stop by earth which is covered in, all together now, water.

But I will grant that the very last shot of the film where Gibson is gathering things from his dresser and turns to show the camera his collar, and then you have a slow fade is a beautiful shot. It's stuff like that that makes me say M. Night is a great director, but not a great writer.

So I leave this to you, Mr. Hudson, to debunk. :thumbsup:

EDIT: Alright, you handled the water thing while I was typing. Touche Mr. Hudson. The score is 15, love (I don't actually know what that means, but I know you play tennis so I thought I'd sound smart. :) )
 
So you say eads.

1park32.jpg


Nice take Krestofre. I dont find you antagonistic at all and welcome your opinion.

I agree that M Nights film's at times are a little too deliberate in its pacings; Unbreakable I found very hard at times to stay with due to the slowly evolving pace; but am such a fan of Bruce that I allowed it

In fact, there isnt much I can debunk as even if your points do not bother me they are valid points

And I do understand your points on the pacing and flashback; let me ask you? You probably do not like Tarantino's films? I'm wondering if the non-linear approach is'nt your bag?

15 - 0 (Nice). In tennis, that is simply one point to none within a game. You have to win 6 games to win a set and sets are generally best of 3 (Unless a major which is best of 5); also must win by 2 games which is why you see scores of 6 -5 or 7- 6 and a tie break............

Whew; just got waaay off topic. Hey! I beat my brother dwon Thanksgiving morning 4 - 6, 6 - 2, 6 - 2

Anyway; nice input on the film; its refreshing to get strong reasons and not just 'That was lame' responses
 
Good question about the non-liner plot lines. Actually I'm perfectly OK with non-liner storytelling. I wouldn't call myself a huge fan of Tarantino (he tends to be a touch too violent for my tastes) but I love the way he tells a story. I'd be hard pressed to find a better master of dialog than Tarantino. The man can write a sharp script. Signs just always felt like it should have been a linear story to me. But I guess there's something to say for M. Night making billions of dollars and me living in Springfield Missouri. :)
 
Who said you had to explain anything? Who says M Night does? Did you even read my post?

I guess we do need the little DNA guy.
 
DNA Guy reminds me of Paper Clip guy in Microsoft Office. It's funny that we're talking about him so much though, since M Night himself became DNA Guy at the end of The Village, giving everybody a play by play of how this was all possible.

*sigh*
 
John_Hudson said:
Riiiiighhhtttt.
Click to expand...


LOL. I take it from that, you dont believe me. The only reason I guessed the sixth sense (if you read my post) was that I had made a film only a few years before about a guy who dies at the start and then only realises at the end - a la jacobs ladder rip off. So to me it was obvious and if u saw jacobs ladder the sixth sense wasnt too much different in premise.

The village, well, this one I'll admit was not 4 minutes in, I lied - it was about 30 mins. I turned to my mate and said "I hope it isnt ... cos i'll be really pissed off' - ho hum.

I prefer signs and unbreakable simply because they are films that rely less on a twist ending. There is more to go back and enjoy. Once you have seen the ending of sixth sense and village I presonally dont find anything that would require multiple viewings. only an opinion...
 
Darkline said:
LOL. I take it from that, you dont believe me. The only reason I guessed the sixth sense (if you read my post) was that I had made a film only a few years before about a guy who dies at the start and then only realises at the end - a la jacobs ladder rip off. So to me it was obvious and if u saw jacobs ladder the sixth sense wasnt too much different in premise.

The village, well, this one I'll admit was not 4 minutes in, I lied - it was about 30 mins. I turned to my mate and said "I hope it isnt ... cos i'll be really pissed off' - ho hum.

I prefer signs and unbreakable simply because they are films that rely less on a twist ending. There is more to go back and enjoy. Once you have seen the ending of sixth sense and village I presonally dont find anything that would require multiple viewings. only an opinion...
Click to expand...

I can not get past the sheer idocacy of Night's Signs. There are so many things that just don't make sense and are too much to accept even for a movie. Just when the movie seems like it's going to get good (the night in the cellar)...guess what...it doesn't and its over.

I like Unbreakable, but without the "surprise" revelation at the end, it is very flat and plodding. The pacing of Unbreakable is almost Unbearable.

The 6th Sense wouldn't be as powerful a film without the punch at the end. If Willis and his wife just worked it out, it would be an ok supernatural thriller. The punch at the end makes people walk out with a buzz.

Always end a song with a high note, and leave your audience with something at the end of the film to talk about.

-R
 
I have to say af far as twist endings go I thought 'The Others' was far superior to 6th S. Why, as it was essenitally the same ending? I guess the writing is much better in throwing you off the scent; it had maybe 4 different unexplained threads that kept you guessing, and they seemed all unrelated. I remember thinking - 'this only has about 5 mintues to go and I dunno how its all going to be resolved.'

I never saw it coming and its the only time in a movie where a single scene simply made all the rest come together. The added touch of them seeing ghosts who were actually real people was a piece of writing which was pretty damn clever. Also with that film I felt there was more to go back and view a second time; much better developed characters IMO.

I dunno why I didnt get this but I seem to guess some of nights endings; it's all in the writing I suppose.
 
Darkline said:
I have to say af far as twist endings go I thought 'The Others' was far superior to 6th S. Why, as it was essenitally the same ending? I guess the writing is much better in throwing you off the scent; it had maybe 4 different unexplained threads that kept you guessing, and they seemed all unrelated. I remember thinking - 'this only has about 5 mintues to go and I dunno how its all going to be resolved.'

I never saw it coming and its the only time in a movie where a single scene simply made all the rest come together. The added touch of them seeing ghosts who were actually real people was a piece of writing which was pretty damn clever. Also with that film I felt there was more to go back and view a second time; much better developed characters IMO.

I dunno why I didnt get this but I seem to guess some of nights endings; it's all in the writing I suppose.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with you that The Others is a much better film than 6th Sense. There's much more of a mood and atmosphere and tension. It is very creepy at times.

As with all of Shamalamadingdong's movies, there are things in the 6th Sense that just don't hold up to questions. I don't feel this with The Others.

Regardless, I thought 6th Sense was a solid debut film from a writer-director with promise and that promise has melted away like a pat of Promise margarine spread in a hot pan or sauteed onions. I know I am solidly looking forward to "The Buried Secret of M. Night Shamalamadingdong 2". :engel017:
 
Still, Sixth Sense was the first movie in years that I actually gasped at, several times. Like "whoa, this is cool". When the girl hides the camera to show her mom poisoning her, I remember thinking, as the scene started, "what's going to happen here?" I felt like I had never seen that before. Breaking that fourth wall to show you her life through her camera. Anyway, Night buried himself with that film. Cause it was so good he's had to live up to it ever since (shades of Star Wars anyone). Strangely, like others have said, it is not a rewatchable movie. I don't know, maybe it's all that whispering.
 
Those who complain about the water in Signs also should be those who complain about micro-organisms in War of the Worlds. To me, both seemed like crappy answers for a burning question.

My two cents
 
That's a fair comment. The only argument that I would have against it would be that the micro-organism thing in War of the Worlds was there originally when HG Wells wrote the story at the end of the 19th Century. That concept was a lot more revolutionary back then than it is now. Also the symbolism is a bit more intact with the micro-organism than it is with the water.

And even though I mentioned the water it is by no means a big deal to me, and if that were my only complaint about Signs, then I'd gladly shut up and enjoy the movie. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top