Already did thatOriginally Posted by chu52
Already did that
Signature by rubah. I think.
I saw it last night - I thought it was scarier than anything else he's ever done (or maybe I just wasn't as scared while watching the rest of his films). Unfortunately, I also felt it was a little underdeveloped compared to the rest of his films - and his message doesn't come through as clearly in this film as it has before in his other films. That's the only beef I have with it; otherwise, I thought it to be well done. Just calling it bad is just calling yourself bad.
I do see where you're coming from. There seemed to be alot of confusion for a long while, but I think that's because he was trying to convey SO very much with the film. But maybe I'm just hopeful
Signature by rubah. I think.
I thought the story was good. But as for the meat and bones of it -the horror aspect, well let me put it this way:
The scariest part of my movie experience last night was a preview of a movie creating a story around the one dollar bill.
To hell with Battletoads and Double Dragon.
THIS is the ultimate team.
Haha, yeah. I agree, it wasn't scary, but was it really labeled as a "horror movie"?
I liked his other movies and I will watch it when it comes out on video most likely. Glad to see others liked it.
It's being marketed that way, because all of Shyamalon's other movies have that "suspense" quality to them.
And "National Treasure" does look pretty ridiculous
Signature by rubah. I think.
Overall radyk05, I think you just got burned, burn dude burn. Man, you just got burned. I think it looks good, and plan on seeing it... when I can.
>--Erased
How disgusting
Could someone spoil it for me? After watching signs I made a promise to myself I wouldn't watch another movie made by him. Then again, the commercial was pretty good, I think...
No, be strong fellow anti-shamlion! Let our voice be heard! don't break down now, go see a Quinton Tarintino movie instead!
Quinton Tarintino is overrated.
Foot-in-mouth disease.
Having seen it, i rescind my sarcastic comment earlier in the thread.
Shyamalan's trouble is that he's built his fame as a director only as good as the moment in his film when the rules change, when something happens that transcends the scope and structure of the film that leaves the audience dazed. While it's an impressive ability, it's by no means the only reason to appreciate his work, and i'm more disappointed by what i've seen to be the major response to the film than anything in the film itself.
No, he didn't pound us with a shocking twist. The movie did have a "Shyamalan Moment" in the vein of his others, but it climbed to it more naturally and clearly than usual. Perhaps even obviously or anticlimactically, if you insist, but to argue that it destroys the film is narrow-minded. It obviously wasn't *the* moment of the movie the way "The Moment" was in <i>The Sixth Sense</i>. What he's given us here is a concept sort of flick, an interesting open reflection on an idea with a decently clear message. He's still a master of suspense and has some of the most subtly unique presentation and framing of any director on the market these days. As already mentioned in this thread, he can certainly kick the stuffing out of Jerry Bruckheimer. To expect him to shock and astound with the same "massive twist" structure in every film is unreasonable.
And yes, Tarantino is overrated. i'll be as quick to say i enjoy his work as anyone else, but folks definitely need to back off on the absurd fellatio that is his fanbase.
(-o-)
-tie fighter
The Good:
*Great cast with standout performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard
*Visually stunning, just a beautifully shot movie
The Bad:
*DULL. I mean really, I was expecting something intense, something thrilling but gahhh, it was just so dull!
*The "twists" which half the audience I saw it with already figured out within the first 20 minutes of the movie.
*Flimsy storyline that unravels in a muddled clumsly sort of way.
The Ugly:
*Horrific, stilted dialogue.
*It felt like the only reason why the movie existed was for M. Night Shyamalan to show off the new "twist" he'd concocted but by the time you get to the twist, it's underwhelming and anti-climatic.
*The ending, good lord was it atrocious. I mean really really bad. :rolleyes2
As one reviewer said, "Every village needs an idiot -- and M. Night Shyamalan is hoping it's you."
I loved it. I absolutely loved it. The characters, the little love story, the twist and turns, the really cool ending twist, all of it. I didnt really see any of the flaws pointed out, perhaps because I enjoyed it so much, and I cant nitpick on things I enjoyed.
SPOILERS
The Good:
*Great cast with standout performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard Please please don't over look Adrien Brody. I thought he was quite possibly the best performance in the film, especially during (SPOILER)The stabbing scene.
*Visually stunning, just a beautifully shot movie Agreed
The Bad:
*DULL. I mean really, I was expecting something intense, something thrilling but gahhh, it was just so dull!
*The "twists" which half the audience I saw it with already figured out within the first 20 minutes of the movie.
*Flimsy storyline that unravels in a muddled clumsly sort of way. I understand where you're coming from here, but what needs to be understood is that this movie is being marketed all wrong. It's not meant to be nearly as "thrilling" as his other films. I expect you'll agree, all of Shyamalon's films have over reaching "points". In many of his other films, the "point" is demonstrated by the superior plot lines. But plot is one aspect of story telling. Another, equally important aspect is our connections with the characters, which is what this film focuses on most of all. I find this to be a very interesting new movement in Shyamalon's career as a writer and director.
The Ugly:
*Horrific, stilted dialogue.
*It felt like the only reason why the movie existed was for M. Night Shyamalan to show off the new "twist" he'd concocted but by the time you get to the twist, it's underwhelming and anti-climatic.
*The ending, good lord was it atrocious. I mean really really bad. While I do agree the dialogue was off, I vehemently disagree with your final two points. Shyamalon's "reason" for the film, as I see it anyway, was to tell a story with characters the audience could connect with on a very human level. Like I said before, this film isn't about "the twist". What was the "twist" in Signs, if you really think about it? I don't understand why one of Shyamalon's films HAS to have a complete reversal in order to be good. And the ending did anger me, a bit. I want to know if (SPOILER)The elders continued the village or told the truth to their children.
As one reviewer said, "Every village needs an idiot -- and M. Night Shyamalan is hoping it's you".
Last edited by fire_of_avalon; 08-02-2004 at 07:49 PM.
Signature by rubah. I think.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
