Latest from M. Night

but this is the thrid time. and it just annoying use fire wasnt there some water element in 6 snese only watch it once. village could careless, bored.
 
i just think putting a movie with a weakness then in your next movie the same weakness make you less powerful.
 
With War of the Worlds the movie moves about 90 miles and hour until the last five minutes, when everything's neatly tied together and the son that disappeared conveniently appears in Boston.

War of the Worlds had its moments, some really cool Spielberg camera moves, but I don't think the film went beyond its action. It was all action, in fact it was a lot like a Michael Bay movie, which is surprising, because Spielberg is usually very good at combining action with an emotional anchor. I didn't feel that anchor at all with War of the Worlds. The film was a ride, one I enjoyed, but not much more than that.

I think if a film is good enough people are willing to suspend some some illogicical plotholes. That's part of the challenge of science fiction. You create a universe and define the rules governing it.

War of the Worlds lacks the psychological terror and suspense that Signs has, the same terror that's present in a lot of Hitchcock films. M.Night has made a pretty good career of borrowing Hitchcock's tricks, including the Macguffin.
 
I think the inherent problem in critiquing this movie is that it has two fronts. This faith based, locked in a house element, that actually works quite well. And then the alien invasion element. Now if your'e a sci-fi nut like me, this element being believable is a pretty big deal. And aliens doing reconnaisance for at least 50 years (or whenever these "signs" in crop fields started appearing) but never testing to see if they were compatible with the most dominant element on earth (that includes anything that water is made of, since all they would have had to do was gather a sample and do a few tests), is just unbelievable. And if something that unbelievable is at the core of a science-fiction story, a lot of science fiction nuts aren't going to buy into the story. You act like all these people are idiots, and yet this is major problem that a lot of people have had with the film. It continues to come up everywhere.

Now I can see your average non-science fiction fan not caring about this. But some of us do. That's the reality.

Now had this movie not climaxed in a bunch of water killing an alien, I may have bought into it, since like I said before, I think the rest of the film's pieces work. But it did. And you always leave with the ending of a movie. Not the beginning And that ending, in my OPINION, sucked.

Remember, people not changing their opinion after your argument about the water is no different from you not changing yours. It seems to be you who is not accepting others opinions. I, however, can see why someone would like this movie.

As far as what I would've done differently: I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THIS MOVIE. If my film is based on an unbelievable premise and I can't find a solution for it, I don't make the film.

And that, my friend, is all I'm saying.
 
c.g._eads said:
I, however, can see why someone would like this movie.
Click to expand...

And that is the difference and I thank you for saying it.

And I can't see how someone would not like this movie. :thumbsup:
 
John_Hudson said:
And I can't see how someone would not like this movie. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

HAHA! :thumbsup: I agree 100%... I'll never understand the grief M. Night gets from so many people. The man is a gifted filmmaker that has an uncanny knack for taking everyday, "been there, done that" concepts and putting them on a very personal "what if?" level. Not many writer/directors have that ability. I'm sure that this next film will be very impressive and well-crafted.
 
I'm a huge Night fan, and i'm looking forward to his latest work. He has a definite style and little nuances he uses in all his films (like the use of reflections, which could explain the symbolism of water). I think he's one of those love him or hate him types.

ps: I even liked Signs. :)
 
kai said:
I'm a huge Night fan, and i'm looking forward to his latest work. He has a definite style and little nuances he uses in all his films (like the use of reflections, which could explain the symbolism of water). I think he's one of those love him or hate him types.

ps: I even liked Signs. :)
Click to expand...
You and me both.
I think the fact that he has developed an actual style makes him something of a throwback to directors of the past. Maybe this also acts as a handicap for him in a sense. I think many film-goers today have Cinematic ADD.
Ah, the curse of MTV...
 
i spent the last two weeks cutting a behind the scenes promo for Night's latest film (from footage shot on the DVX, btw!). got a personal email from him thanking me for capturing a magical quality he wants this film to have.

I think people will soon realize that there is something different about Lady in the Water. this is not a departure for him, but more like a natural evolution of his storytelling. as we all know, he is often compared to spielberg, so consider this his E.T. it's based on a story he improvised at bedtime to his own children. expect a PG rating.

also, an interesting factoid i learned was that he has the most financially successful consecutive string of original films ever. not too shabby.
 
cygnet74 said:
also, an interesting factoid i learned was that he has the most financially successful consecutive string of original films ever. not too shabby.
Click to expand...

I find that really hard to believe. Signs and 6th Sense did well, but Unbreakable did not do well at the B.O. and I think the Village was a mediocored performer. So what is this based on?
 
Ought2bCommitted said:
I find that really hard to believe. Signs and 6th Sense did well, but Unbreakable did not do well at the B.O. and I think the Village was a mediocored performer. So what is this based on?
Click to expand...
worldwide gross. this was coming from warner bros. i haven't checked their facts but can't think of another filmmaker who has made over 1.5 billion with four consecutive original stories -- the qualifier is that he directed his own original screenplays.
 
John_Hudson said:
Those people must be wrong
Click to expand...
like i said, i haven't done the research. but those numbers you pulled up are the same they gave me to work into the piece i cut (box office mojo?). i still can't think of anyone more successful that's directed their own scripts consecutively.
 
I'd be curious to hear how it plays out.
Click to expand...

Alright. So I watched Signs again last night. I have to admit that I liked it more than when I originally saw it.

I think Hudson is right about the water not really being water at all, but something else that is not handed to us in the explanation in the film. Why else would the little girl be so insistent that it's "contaminated"? It seems that M. Night is going for a metaphor more than a galactic oversight by the aliens.

Also, the non-linear aspect of the story didn't bother me as much this time. I still wouldn't have placed a flashback in the middle of the alien encounter at the end, but oh well.

Some of the dialog is a little contrived and over-explanative. Esspecially at the beginning. I hadn't recalled that from my initial viewing.

A lot of this thread has kind of become a comparison of Signs to War of the Worlds. Similar films in some respects, but it seems to me that Signs deals more with Faith and War of the Worlds deals more with Family.

Overall I'd probably have to change my opinion and say that Signs is one of M. Night's strongest films, but it's still not a terrific film in my eyes. I think I will add it to the Shelf-O-DVDs and maybe I'll watch it again in five years and like it even more. :thumbsup:

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top