[EmC]

Has anyone else seen this. I for one have been waiting for this for months, and come to find out it is craptastic. M. Night seems to have dropped the ball on this one. It could have been so much better

The movie dragged on so slowly that it was impossible to have a twist. At best he pulled off a slow 's' shaped curve that anyone with half a brain could have leaned hard to the left and seen what was coming. I swear to dog that both people I went to see this with both leaned over, independently, and said, "Insert what was later revealed to be the twist."

This could have been a great thriller....or maybe I was just too hyped up for it. Signs and The Sixth Sense rocked. I know I left the theater pissed.

Anybody else feel this way?

[Ebby]

I walked into a pizza store a few days ago and there were hand written notes ALL OVER the store warning everyone to stay away from that movie. Someone there sure hated it. Someone with that much passion you just have to believe.

[spiff]

I love all of Shyamalan's movies, but you're right, this one wasn't nearly as good. I didn't think it was horrible though. I think people like to say that they predicted the end of movies when they really didn't, though this one was a little on the predictable side. I'm not one to talk, I claim to have predicted the end of the Sixth Sense but no one believes me.

Definitely a little on the boring side, kind of like unbreakable. I think that it was over hyped quite a bit and ruined the movie for a lot of people. It was made out to be a scary thriller when it was simply never intended to be and attracted an audience who was bound for disappointment. Shyamalan's such a great director and writer though that I stay interested anyway.

Pretty silly plot all around and needed a slightly longer ending indicating that everything was happy and all. Good acting and everything you'd expect from a Shyamalan film, which is the only thing that saved it.

[ast3r3x]

I actually didn't think it looked that good. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. So unbreakable wasn't good? I thought that might be, I was thinking about renting it and watching it.

[Eugene]

The Sixth Sense was creepy.
Unbreakable made you go hmm.
Signs made you go "Better luck next time, Shyamalan."
The Village made you go "You should have quit while you were ahead."

[Moogs]

Good way to put it, though I liked signs better than Unbreakable. Even though Signs became somewhat anti-climactic towards the end, there were a lot of humorous dialogs and short scenes. The only person who wasn't funny of course was Gibson, ever the "sensitive tough guy" that he must be in his movies.

[psmith2.0]

Never pass up a chance to take a swipe at Gibson...after all, he made that Jesus movie.

As for "The Village", is Sigourney Weaver naked at any part? That's really all I care about, seeing as how I think M. Night Shamalamadingdong is the latest Tarantino: a young guy with promising talent who makes a KILLER first movie ("Pulp Fiction" and "Sixth Sense" both blew me away), and apparently shot whatever wad they might've had on said first movie.



I'll take "Braveheart", "Lethal Weapon 4" and, yes, even "The Passion" over any of the "Sixth Sense" follow-ups.



And if all I've heard about "The Village" is true, then I'm even more sure.

[ast3r3x]

Braveheart!

One of the greatest movies ever! Well maybe not top 10, but top 20 probably.

[psmith2.0]

Shhh! Not so loud...you're not supposed to like that one. Gibson, remember?

[murbot]

Damn, I have to find this online review of Signs that had me laughing my ass off... he changed Shymamalian's name every time he mentioned it... pscates' post reminded me of it.

I won't see it, because I'll sit there all through the movie trying to figure out how the HELL you pronounce Joquain.

Joe-kwain?

Yo-kwain?

Yo-kwan?

Joe-kwin?

Oh, I know. River's Brother.

[psmith2.0]

I say "wah-keen", but I might be off.

[murbot]

Ah, forgot that one.

I never bothered to figure it out... if he were up here, the boys would just call him Pheonix. None of that sissy wahkeen shit.

[Windswept]

Yep, I think it's "wah-KEEN" too.

99.9999% sure.

[EmC]

Originally Posted by murbot I won't see it, because I'll sit there all through the movie trying to figure out how the HELL you pronounce Joquain.

While we were standing in line my friend kept talking about "joe-a-kin" over and over. joe-a-kin this, and joe-a-kin that. I finally had to ask who the hell he was talking about? He pointed to the banner with joe-a-kin's picture.

Of course I had to correct him loudly in front of this hot girl he never had any chance with. She was laughing at him so hard she almost peed her pants.

I too think it is "wha-KEEN"

[Moogs]

Paul I'm not entirely sure if you're poking fun at Gibson or being serious, but I was only pointing out that his roles have become quite predictable. And I for one had no problem with him making the movie about Christ. I went and saw it and even went so far as to argue against the Gibson-bashers in the old forum when people were spewing all the rhetoric about anti-semitism. But that's another issue, as he wasn't in that movie.

But let's take a look:

All the Lethal Weapons movies he was: semi-crazy, hard-guy cop who had the "on the brink of crying" look every time something bad happened to him or his friend's family. Major stunt is dislocating his shoulder at will in order to inflict massive pain / get out of a tough situation.

The Patriot: a farmer-turned-warrior who teeters on the edge of emotional breakdown when various ills befall his family and friends, almost bites the dust as he is badly wounded in final battle, then stabs his enemy dead.

What Women Want: big city bad boy exec who overcomes his womanizing and cheavanistic ways and once again finds himself on the edge of tears at various points when his daughter / coworker / love are in a bad way.

Signs: strong minded priest guy who... oh you get the idea.

He plays a variation of the same character in every movie he stars in....

[psmith2.0]

Hmmm...

Kinda a younger, better-looking Jack Nicholson, huh?

[Mr Beardsley]

If you want to see Mel in a different role go rent Million Dollar hotel. Whether you'll like it, or him is another matter.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Hmmm... Kinda a younger, better-looking Jack Nicholson, huh?

Uh... yah. That description fits in the sense that until recently Nicolson always played the same kind of roll. I think the movie he made with Helen Hunt was the beginning of the end for the "old Jack". I will say he showed some decent range in the one where he was the retired insurance agent. The chic flick with Diane Keaton (?) was kind of humorous in spots but a pretty fluffy movie.

[LudwigVan]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 As for "The Village", is Sigourney Weaver naked at any part? That's really all I care about...

Uh, no.

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 ...seeing as how I think M. Night Shamalamadingdong is the latest Tarantino: a young guy with promising talent who makes a KILLER first movie ("Pulp Fiction" and "Sixth Sense" both blew me away), and apparently shot whatever wad they might've had on said first movie.

Tarantino's first (significant) film was actually "Reservoir Dogs," which I haven't seen.

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 And if all I've heard about "The Village" is true, then I'm even more sure.

Yeah, I don't think you'll care for it.

And it is true that this film was marketed wrong - it's more of a character(s) piece with subtext and all than a thrills-and-chills movie.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by LudwigVan Tarantino's first (significant) film was actually "Reservoir Dogs," which I haven't seen.

Yeah, it was significant, but not widely seen or didn't catapult him to the "next big thing" stratosphere. I still consider "Pulp Fiction" the one that did that. All I remember is living in Orange County, CA at the time and leading up to Pulp Fiction's release, you couldn't find a magazine without Travolta or Willis on the cover, talking about this upcoming movie that was going to be "THE movie to see in 1994". Then after the release, when it took off, it seemed like every magazine and every episode of "Access Hollywood" or whatever had a bit on Travolta, Thurman, Willis, Jackson, etc. and Tarantino himself. That spaz came on to more talk shows and ran his mouth at 200mph during that year.



"Reservoir Dogs" simply didn't cause that type of stir, even though it was a pretty neat movie (like many, I didn't see it until AFTER "Fiction", renting it one evening to see what all the buzz was about).

The downside of the whole "Pulp Fiction" thing is that it inspired a whole boatload of cheesy crapfest knock-offs for the remainder of the 90's: violent crime sagas with forced, snappy pop-culture-laced patter amongst the leads, blood and mayhem, interweaving stories, stunt casting to the nth degree, surly guys all trying to do the Michael Madsen forehead wrinkle while talking tough, etc.



Just a lot of crap like "City of Industry" and tons of others, trying to out pulp "Pulp Fiction".

[Argento]

I will fornicate myself with an iron rod before I go see the VIllage again.

By the way Braveheart is the number one film ever.

[eventhorizon]

Bah. I hate people who can't just sit back and enjoy movies. Don't try to figure things out in the middle of it. Enjoy the ride. I loved it.

[naren]

Originally Posted by eventhorizon Bah. I hate people who can't just sit back and enjoy movies. Don't try to figure things out in the middle of it. Enjoy the ride. I loved it.

Wow, that's exactly what I wanted to say, thanx. :smokey:

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by eventhorizon Bah. I hate people who can't just sit back and enjoy movies. Don't try to figure things out in the middle of it. Enjoy the ride. I loved it.

You probably enjoyed SWAT didn't you? I'm sure it didn't bother you they gave away within like the first 10 min, who the trader was? Yeah real neat. So what to do while the rest of the movie plays? Twiddle my thumbs maybe?

[eventhorizon]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x You probably enjoyed SWAT didn't you? I'm sure it didn't bother you they gave away within like the first 10 min, who the trader was? Yeah real neat. So what to do while the rest of the movie plays? Twiddle my thumbs maybe?

Haven't seen SWAT but if I am going to spend two hours of my life watching a move i'm going to enjoy it dammit.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by naren Wow, that's exactly what I wanted to say, thanx. :smokey:

Hey, I can "sit back and enjoy" movies with the best of them. In fact, I enjoy nothing more. What I CAN'T "sit back and enjoy" is cheeseball, intelligence-insulting, stunt-casted, test-marketed-to-death, derivative, lame, predictable, formulaic horseshit.

Some movies are nothing BUT that, and deserve to get panned and reamed.

Others, however, are the exact opposite and I'll go out of my way to praise and recommend them, both here and in real life.

Problem IS, the crap outweighs the gold. That's just how it is.

It's easier to make a safe, predictable and glommed-on-happy-ending crapfest starring one of 12 "mega stars" (Cruise, Clooney, Roberts, etc.) than to not...especially when studios and those who run them make the bottom line the chief (and sometimes ONLY) concern.

For every "Bourne Supremacy", you'll get three "Catwoman", two "Thunderbirds" and something probably starring Ben Affleck acting all earnest and misty-eyed for two hours.



Just how it goes...

When I lay my money down at the box office, I WANT to be mesmerized, entertained, moved, excited, thrilled, provoked, etc. It's not MY fault so much crap out there doesn't do it for me. I didn't make the piece of shit.

[naren]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Hey, I can "sit back and enjoy" movies with the best of them. In fact, I enjoy nothing more. What I CAN'T "sit back and enjoy" is cheeseball, intelligence-insulting, stunt-casted, test-marketed-to-death, derivative, lame, predictable, formulaic horseshit. Some movies are nothing BUT that, and deserve to get panned and reamed. Problem IS, the crap outweighs the gold. That's just how it is.

I certainly won't dispute that! I totally agree that most film is crap, my favorite movie reviewers highest rating is "almost tolerable." It gets worse from there.

However, I feel an essential component of watching a film is "suspension of disbelief" Turning off your inner critique, I mean if you didn't want engaged escapism, why did you go to the movie?

That said I thought The Village was very well done and I haven't seen any criticism of it in here other than, A. I'm so clever I guessed the plot twist, or B. It was a slow movie. So far I'm unimpressed. When someone's only criticism of a film is that it was slow, I have to assume they have a limited attention span, have seen to-many movies made by a music video director or they're on too much ritalin .

[thegelding]

i personally like slow paced movies...so i have liked the pace of M.Night's movies...letting the camera linger a while on a scene...

i will agree that the 6th sense was his best so far...unbreakable was ok to good, signs about the same....haven't seen the village yet, i usually save going to the movies for more "important" movies...might catch it at the dollar movies, though i usually just wait for the dvd....

g

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by naren However, I feel an essential component of watching a film is "suspension of disbelief" Turning off your inner critique, I mean if you didn't want engaged escapism, why did you go to the movie?

Well, no kidding. Naren, we're talking about two very different things here. When I go into movies, I totally believe a man can fly, somebody might dress up like a bat to fight crime, there are swords made out of light beams, etc. I don't have a problem doing that.

A "suspension of disbelief" has nothing to do with encountering an unwatchable hunk of doo-doo. When all the basics and foundation are such f***ed up that you CAN'T get to the "belief suspension" part.

No amount of "sitting back and going with it" can save some of these turds, because they're written and acted in such a way that it's just impossible to "give in to the moment". Make sense?

I've got no problem "suspending" anything when I go to a movie...but it's gotta be worth it. I can't sit there, slapping my head and groaning to myself, and somehow improve it, you know?

Two different things. Suspension of disbelief doesn't - or can't - rescue or improve something that's a complete piece of crap to begin with.

Otherwise, I can sit there and believe ANYTHING, done right. I don't have a problem "letting go" and so forth. I LOVE movies. Good ones.

[BuonRotto]

Suspension of disbelief still means maintaining logic, creating and staying within the boundaries of fantasy you set up for the viewer. Shyamalan (I had to cut and paste that!) probably didn't do a very good job setting up expectations well or getting the viewer to sympathize with the apparently dense characters' point of view in the movie.