Latest from M. Night

6th Sense was great... Unbreakable was good...Signs was OK...The Village was below average... Let's hope this breaks the trend....
 
AshG said:
6th Sense was great... Unbreakable was good...Signs was OK...The Village was below average... Let's hope this breaks the trend....
ash =o)
Click to expand...

Richie White said:
The Sixth Sense was awesome. Unbreakable was good. Signs was O.K. The Village was bad. Do we see a trend here? Let's hope this new one proves me wrong.
Click to expand...

Damn Ash, you couldn't make it past page 2 of this thread?
:thumbsup:

No wonder you don't have the patience for an M. Night film:laugh:
(just kidding)
 
cygnet74 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lucas made more with the 3 SW prequels...

And that's a bad requisite becuase not tons of directors write and direct their own material. It kind of...shall we say... limits the competition. If we're talking a director whose last three or four films alone grossed that much world wide... He had a lot of competition... Peter Jackson? Chris Columbus with the first two HP...

But if you add that they had to write an original not adapted screenplay as well as direct...well yeah, that limits it severely and makes Night look like a genius. LOL.

:beer:

The only director in history with no legs or index fingers whose last two movies which had to be written while standing on your head in a field of razor blades is....

LOL
 
I don't think anyone said M Night is the claim to that fame holder of finanical records.....

Peter Jackson? Yes. I think M Night falls into this upper echelon. Is Chris Columbus the great director? No. He got lucky and Directed the first two Hp's; an instant childrens classic.

"The only director in history with no legs or index fingers whose last two movies which had to be written while standing on your head in a field of razor blades is...."

???

It is'nt that big a deal is it? Writing and Directing? Tarantino, Coppolla (Off Puzo), Coen Brothers, Frank Darabont..........................

The competition is higher than you paint
 
John_Hudson said:
I don't think anyone said M Night is the claim to that fame holder of finanical records.....

Peter Jackson? Yes. I think M Night falls into this upper echelon. Is Chris Columbus the great director? No. He got lucky and Directed the first two Hp's; an instant childrens classic.

"The only director in history with no legs or index fingers whose last two movies which had to be written while standing on your head in a field of razor blades is...."

???

It is'nt that big a deal is it? Writing and Directing? Tarantino, Coppolla (Off Puzo), Coen Brothers, Frank Darabont..........................

The competition is higher than you paint
Click to expand...

Not for directing and writing an original piece I believe was/is the criteria here...

Coppolla like you said had Puzo. Darabount had King.

The Cohen Bros and Taratntino would be the only ones you mentioned to be in the same category.

I'm not saying there aren't others, of course there are...just not as many...

No Columbus ain't a great director...he did get lucky directing HP 1 & 2, but I don't think Night is that great either.
 
spidey said:
really my box for gremlins say pg.
Click to expand...

You know, its funny because when it came out over here there was a huge ass stick about the whole PG-13 thing... maybe Speilberg pushed for a PG-13 or something... I just remember the two buxum twins that lived across the street from he couldn't see it because of the PG-13 thing... shame...we would have had fun. :evil:
 
I havnt seen it....and judging from what i've heard...i never will.

P.S. (you're at post 666....you evil bastard!...haha)
 
Weston said:
I havnt seen it....and judging from what i've heard...i never will.

P.S. (your at post 666 you evil bastard!...haha)
Click to expand...

****, wish I had noticed!!!! damn it!!!! wish i could have stayed there longer!!!!

Rent is worth seeing on video when you can fast forward to the parts worth seeing. Unfortunately when you see it on stage, you're stuck in your seat. LOL.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I read up to about page 10 of the replies but had to skip and just reply... I know this is an old post, but I'm a big fan of M. Night Shyamalan. Signs is one of my favorites... While the Sixth Sense is a great film too, I have always enjoyed Signs more.

First, as to pacing ... that is quite subjective. I LOVE his pacing. In Signs the pacing had a specific purpose... to take you into the life of this family. The fact trauma was a "secret" is to bring that exact feeling to you, the viewer... that it is something Graham cannot talk about... hasn't coped with well (who would?)... and has effected him very deeply (duh).

The Flashbacks aren't at all "random" but an intentional part of the story, and how it's being told. The moments when they occur have purpose... and this is how flashbacks tend to occur in real-life. You don't have a flashback when the idea of an event is in your face (you are then conscious enough to block it out)... but when you are caught off guard.

As for the whole water thing being stupid...

We are told this story from a very small perspective... inside the home of one small rural religious family. We are never told exactly how the aliens are defeated. Graham's family doesn't kill the alien at the end with water alone... and the being they kill is by itself, not with an army of other aliens or technolog. We know little about it, or it's state.... other than it's apparently pissed off about having it's fingers cut off.

Would aliens travel light years to a dangerous terrain? Don't humans? We go into space where there is no air... the same argument could be made. Why would we travels hundreds of thousands of miles to a place with no air, which is so essential to our survival? Why we would travel thousands of miles to explore Antartica where it's too cold to live? Hypothetically, if your own planet it destroyed, you're options for the best environment may be pretty limited and you'll take what you can get. Maybe the planet they really wanted was infested with something far more dangerous than water? Maybe it was inhabited by smarter, stronger aliens and they thought humans would be easy to beat? We (the U.S) went into Vietnam and thought we would win... oops. And don't kid yourself, if we found oil on Mars we'd be setting up shop there in a heartbeat, dangerous atmosphere aside.

I'm not at all trying to convince you to like a movie you didn't like... I just don't think the water thing is simply that stupid, or an immediate flub in the story. And regardless, the STORY for me was much more about Graham and his family, and the rediscovery of faith. It wasn't a sci-fi movie with dramatic elements. It was a drama with a sci-fi subplot.

By the way, anyone here ever see Wide Awake (1998)?
 
Just for the record I did watch it again, and didn't hate it ... as much. :evil:

Seriously though, EditPhish, did you read far enough in the thread where you saw my thoughts after my second viewing? I relented on most of the points you made. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top