Posted on 08/02/2004 6:04:08 AM PDT by BluegrassScholar
Wow, this critic really dislikes Shyamalan.
I read two critiques from slate on this movie. Without giving away too much, both critics seemed to wonder why certain things were done (as in, why didn't they just do this ___, wouldn't that have been easier?).
Both critics overlooked the notion that perhaps the path of least resistance is not necessarily the right path to follow. Truth, justice, honor, and faith are not just slogans. To many people even today, honoring a vow, though it may cost them everything, still holds meaning. And for me, that is a large part of what this movie was about. But again (as noted in another post), I'm still on meds so what do I know. : )
Goodness! The guy lives in the...horror of horrors... suburbs, and makes movies about finding your faith. Well, no wonder the left hates him. He should move to flyover territory.
However, I must say that "The Signs" looked low budget. Like it was filmed for $25,000 in my back yard.
Stir of echoes was good too.
Another you may want to check out, if you haven't already, is The Mothman Prophecies. Yes, I know, it stars Richard Gere. Still, it is an intriguing movie.
I saw "The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable" (extremely underrated IMHO) and "Signs". There is some a comfort in with familiarty with a locaation, I grew up and live in South Cental Jersey which left more of a Pennsylvania imprint rather than a New York imprimt. That familiarity also provides the likelihood factor, the "it can happen here" neck hair raising response.
This entire screed is more about Knight's religion/politics than his directing.
forgot my original thought, one of the best quotes I've read was from Diamonnd David Lee Roth, "The reason so many rock critics like Elvis Costello is because so many rock critics LOOK like Elvis Costello!"
Amen. There is no substitute for an average IQ, even when attending a movie. I've been reading stuff in this thread that's just plain nuts. The acting was bad? Are you kidding?
Just because something didn't eat somebodies brain, half of the people commenting find it a dull movie. To this group I say, good luck in getting anything out of life.
The Village was horrible. Since others have posted spoilers already, I will do the same...
1) Ivy was um... BLIND, yet she ran through the brambles and woods like a deer. Heck, after several hours in the forest, her cloak was only muddy at the feet, not the knees, so yes, dear viewer, a BLIND girl didn't fall down ONCE on her sightless bushwhacking trek.
2) How in the world did the retarded guy make those gutteral sounds in the suit? (Ok, maybe that was meant to be in Ivy's head, I'll give this one a pass... bUt how did he a) run thru the Village to the woods undetected with the suit, b) find Ivy, c) Not have the presence of mind to take off the stupid mask, etc.
3) Why pay high priced actors (Brody, Hurt, Weaver) for this movie? No skills were required.
4) In 2004, no way this place stays secret.
5) If men created this secret world, and pardon my crassness, why would they bundle the women up in frontier clothes? Bikinis all around (on the younger women.)
6) Why would you, ever, send a blind girl off on an adventure in the woods, with poor directions, to a place she knows nothing about and can't possibly understand. What is a "town" to her anyway?
7) What happened to the two wimps who left her alone in the woods?
9) Where did all the kids in the Village come from? Way too many for the small number of adults there.
10) On adn on and on and on.
Terrible movie. I had really hoped for more, and it could have been. I thought it was going to be a good social comment on American puritanism, or even religious symbolism gone awry. That is, ok, they decided to make the color red "bad," much like some religions think dancing or the number 7 is bad or some other arbitrary thing, and the lesson would be that hey, "red ain't so bad, see, we live fine with red in our lives." But no, not this movie. This movie gave us nothing intelligent or even much to think about-- and what kills me is that is should have! Even with this tired old Twilight Zone plot that is evident in the first 3 sleep inducing minutes!
Also saw Bourne Supremacy which was cool. Kind of like Spiderman meets Bond, but in a good way.
If you have Signs and watch the "Making of..." extras, M. Night and the cast and crew have an impromptu memorial service for the victims of 9/11, as it occurs during the filming of Signs. The guy has a heart and he didn't rant about "chickens coming home to roost," like the rest of Hollywood.
I cannot tolerate digital mega-special effects anymore, it annoys and repulses me. The power of M. Night Shyamalan's movies are that they are subdued and intropective, yet amazingly creative.
Strikes me as being a decent human being. No wonder he wants to stay clear of Hollywood.
I think I expected a scary movie...like signs or sixth sense. We went on my wedding anniversary and had dinner at a Mexican Restaurant. We had saved for the occasion as we are on a tight budget. My husband and I love horror movies. They don't make many lately so we were looing forward to this movie. The movie makes you think, but it is not a horror flick. I expected a different kind of movie and was prepared for it. I wanted fun, entertainment, a few chills, but it's not that kind of movie. It is not a bad movie. Some of the acting was superb. If I had been in a different frame of mind, I would have liked it more.
Ironically (for me personally) the most hypnotic physical feature of Bryce Howard is her eyes.
That is what usually does it for me too. It helps that she is a redhead too (I have a soft spot for redheaded women).
Me too. Unfortunately they often have a temper to match.
"Boy this guy really must not like M Night personally. this is one personal hit piece."
Apparently the 'crime' here is that he won't 'move to L.A.' and 'play ball'. Group-think and herd mentality are required. Any originality is a source of fear and discomfort.
We are supposed to care about all this / this affects how one judges his movies, because...? Oh, sorry, I see this was published in Slate. This type of discussion here probably makes sense to its hundreds of readers.
Wasting no time, Shyamalan graduated NYU early.
Sure he didn't graduate FROM NYU?
He next wrote and directed a movie called Wide Awake (1998) for Miramax. It was the story of a sports-loving nun, played by Rosie O' Donnell, who helps a boy find God after his grandfather dies. The rough cut was too treacly even for Harvey Weinstein (a soft-touch for little kid movies, especially foreign ones), who unleashed a legendary speaker-phone tirade that humiliated Shyamalan and made O'Donnell cry.
I enjoyed Wide Awake. I wonder if the author has actually seen it.
The discussion of the writing of The Sixth Sense is strange, because I think the author thinks it should make us admire Shyamalan less, but it does just the opposite for me.
...what does M. Night do with his newfound power? He stays put in Philadelphia, refusing to move to L.A. and play ball. He creates a local film industry around his productions.
Won't move to Hollywood? The selfish bastard! ;-)
M. Night could not control the audience, however, and he was unhappy with the poor performance of his sophomore thriller, Unbreakable (2000).
Unbreakable, by the way, is my favorite Shyamalan movie.
The result was Signs (2002) and a teary Mel Gibson. It became a modest hit, but only after it was adopted by Christians as movie [sic] about the power of faith.
This is a little like saying Animal House was a hit, but only after being adopted by comedy-loving young people as a hilarious send-up of fraternity exploits. Um, news flash: the power of faith IS what Signs was about. It was about that and nothing else! What the hell is the author's point? (And where the hell is his editor BTW?) The mind boggles here.
M. Night was making fragile, sealed-off movies that fell apart when exposed to outside logic.
I don't know what the hell this is supposed to mean.
Viewed from the theatre lobby, the twists in both Signs and Unbreakable seem like rejected Twilight Zone episodes. Think about it: [..]
So the author has a problem with "the twists". The twists should be cleverer (or something). Whatever.
Think about it: A fragile comic book collector (Samuel L. Jackson) believes that his mission in life is to discover a real superhero, so he starts killing huge batches of people in airplane crashes and train wrecks in the hope that there will be a miraculous survivor?
Yes - that was the basic concept of Unbreakable. Your problem with that, Mr. Agger? Notice that his "criticism" here has absolutely no content.
Signs is even flimsier: An intelligent alien species that is killed when doused with H20 decides to invade a planet that is two-thirds water?
I'm tempted to just point out that for all we all, the Signs aliens had no choice but to invade Earth because it was the only planet they could get to which could support them. But to criticize Signs for the plausibility of its science fiction is to so miss the point of the entire movie. Yes, let's have a conversation about whether those aliens would or would not invade earth, that's so the point of Signs! I'm beginning to think this writer is just kinda dumb.
Without a believable plot, Shyamalan was exposed as a high-class purveyor of old-fashioned movie scares.
Look, Signs used "aliens" as a plot device. Given that, it's going to have a non-believable plot! There's no such thing as a movie about "aliens" which, simultaneously, has a "believeable plot". This is a facile criticism. Did Star Wars have a "believable plot"?
As for his own acting appearances, Slate's David Edelstein has said that Shyamalan's Signs cameo was so creaky the director should have fired himself.
I thought he was good in the role. I guess I have to defer to the expert, Slate's David Edelstein, however.
No one likes to be a cynic, to be the one laughing when Mel Gibson, as an ex-minister in Signs, has a lugubrious conversation with his wife as she lies dying in a car accident.
Except you (apparently).
My guess is that when he writes these wrenching scenes of father and daughter, or husband and wife, Shyamalan is striving for some universal and lucrative language of cinema
"universal"? Gee what a crime for a filmmaker to attempt to make films containing universal human emotions.
As for "lucrative", I think I'm starting to see where all this animosity is really coming from. Shyamalan has made lots of money. The author of this piece thinks that Shyamalan is trying to make money. What a no-no!
With the release of The Village, Shyamalan has more power at a younger age than any contemporary filmmaker, but it's unclear yet if he has anything to say.
At least not if you don't actually watch, or don't understand, his films, and spend most of your time obsessing on and jealous about Shyamalan's success, it's not.
Instead of making vibrant, relevant movies, he's created his Pennsylvania fiefdom and explored his own mind.
How dare he explore his own mind.
Dang, this writer is all over the map. Shyamalan's trying too hard to be universal, Shyamalan's insularly exploring his own mind. Which is it? Depends on the paragraph of the piece.
It's easy to understand why he's attracted to setting a movie in a period where people proclaimed their emotions in full and heartfelt sentences, or why he enjoys building a village that's impenetrable to the outside world. He's not making movies. He's making cocoons.
Where the hell is the "case against M. Night Shyamalan"?
All I really see here is a bunch of sour grapes. Let me guess, Michael Agger entertains notions of being a filmmaker/screenwriter in his spare time.....
Logic fault #1: Who would really send a blind girl into the woods with the instructions "Walk through the woods for a half a day until you find the hidden road, then follow it to the towns." What direction should she walk? Since she can't see, how does know which direction to go?
1) You send the blind girl precisely because she's blind, and won't be able to see "the towns" thus hopefully preserving the secret of The Village when she gets back.
2) Since "The Village" is situated in the middle of a wildlife preserve, presumably rectangular or other closed shape, it won't matter which direction she takes when she hits the road. Either one gets her to the boundary. (Like say if The Road cuts across the preserve.)
Another possibility is that it's common knowledge in The Village what general direction "the towns" are, and it would have been obvious that she should turn left. (For example, you live in the middle of California and ask someone how to get to the ocean, he says "go north [pointing] until you reach a highway, then follow it, it'll take you straight to the ocean." Exercise: do you really need him to tell you which way to turn?)
How does she stay on a straight path?
She can see vaguely (light/dark). She knows and can feel where the sun is. Also, it doesn't actually matter too much. (Again: they live on a set aside patch of land surrounded by a fence and a road.)
How does she find the hidden road?
You're pointed in a direction, told to walk in that direction, and that you'll hit a road perpendicular to your path.
Unless you get turned around completely, you're not going to miss the road. It's not geometrically possible.
Does a blind person walk as quickly as a non-person (so would it be a full day for a blind person)?
She seemed to walk at normal speed. But maybe she walks a bit slower so perhaps her dadd was wrong about that half-day thing. He said "half-day's walk", he was thinking about the average person, he didn't make the adjustment for her slower speed. Big deal. He should have said 6/10's day's walk I suppose?
What does she do when she gets to the towns?
She hands the piece of paper with the needed medicines on it to a person and hopes for the best. Her father decides this is better than the alternative of watching her watch Joaquin Phoenix slowly die, and suffering in agony because of it.
How does she retrace her footsteps?
The road takes her to "the towns". Hopefully she succeeds in "the towns". If so, maybe someone will point her back to the road. Which she follows for approximately the same length of time (or #footsteps?) she walked it the other direction. Then leaves the road, into the forest.
Also, remember she left her cloak on the road when she started following it. When her stick hits a cloak she knows she's at the right spot.
Yes, I understand why Hurt sends the blind girl, but in reality no one would REALLY send a blind person on such a journey.
In reality would anyone have agreed to co-found and live in The Village in the first place?
It's a movie.
The preserve is a restricted airspace. That is supposed to assure us as to why we never see any airplanes or helicopters. C'mon! You mean that none of the kids in the 1890's village ever saw jet trails at dusk or the twinkling lights of aircraft at night?
Yes. You see, it's a restricted airspace.
Any who did, BTW, would not have been able to comprehend what they were looking at. A "jet trail" would just be an especially strange, wormlike cloud.
Nobody saw a single hiker, a troup of Boy Scouts, people on dirt bikes, etc.?
No, because such people were prohibited from entering the Walker Wildlife Preserve, whose perimeter was regularly patrolled by a full-time staff.
For 20+ years?
Yes, there have been guards patrolling etc for 20+ years. Walker's father was a billionaire.
Jeez.
My thoughts exactly:
Jeez.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.