Shyamalan's next has been revealed. I don't know how popular he is around here since I'm new. I like him along with all of the other favorites here like Kubrick, PTA, Tarantino. Here is the story (http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=1725)
Sigourney Weaver Joins Shyamalan's The Woods
Source: The Hollywood Reporter Sunday, July 13, 2003
Sigourney Weaver has joined the cast of director M. Night Shyamalan's upcoming thriller The Woods, from Walt Disney Pictures. Weaver, joins Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard and William Hurt.
Set in 1897, the film revolves around a close-knit community that lives with the frightening knowledge that a mythical race of creatures resides in the woods around them.
Shyamalan also wrote the script for the project.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:shock: wait. this is me trying to figure out how they went from ashton kutcher and kirsten dunst to bryce dallas howard and sigourney weaver?
Quote from: themodernage02
Set in 1897
I read it wrong, at first I thought it was 1987.... not enough movies about the late 80's are getting greenlighted these days.
The plot twist is that it's about the Blair Witch
So, this one better be good, or my wife won't let me see his movies anymore.
She still won't forgive me for making her sit through Signs. I must admit, I've enjoyed his movies so far. Is there some kind of 12 step program I can join? I want to help myself get better...
Quote from: themodernage02Weaver, joins Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard and William Hurt.
Shyamalan also wrote the script for the project.
Of course he has to reuse actors like PTA does... and he writes the script himself! Good for him.
Nick
Adrien Brody Ventures into Shyamalan's Woods
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Oscar winner Adrien brody will star in writer/director M. Night Shyamalan's upcoming thriller The Woods.
The Pianist star joins Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard, William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver in the Walt Disney Pictures ensemble film.
Set in 1897, "Woods" revolves around a close-knit community that lives with the frightening knowledge that a mythical race of creatures resides in the woods around them.
Who is Bryce Dallas Howard?
He's Ron Howard's son.
Check this site (http://www.imdb.com) next time.
Quote from: Ghoulardi GoonWho is Bryce Dallas Howard?
Quote from: Pawbloe He's Ron Howard's son.
In Goon's world, there are only two people: Paul Thomas Anderson, and Not Paul Thomas Anderson.
Quote from: markums2kIn Goon's world, there are only two people: Paul Thomas Anderson, and Not Paul Thomas Anderson.
That's funny you mention that, because in my world there's only two people: Paul Thomas Anderson and Clint Howard...
aw
ps-someone go type www.clinthoward.com into your browser and let me know what you get.
Quote from: Ghoulardi GoonWho is Bryce Dallas Howard?
Quote from: PawbloeHe's Ron Howard's son.
Actually, check this (http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=201&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45) site next time. Ninth post down.
Quote from: jokerspath
That's funny you mention that, because in my world there's only two people: Paul Thomas Anderson and Clint Howard...
Sounds like a very scary place.
Quote from: PawbloeHe's Ron Howard's son.
Whoops. I meant daughter.
Quote from: PawbloeQuote from: PawbloeHe's Ron Howard's son.
Whoops. I meant daughter.
No, Bryce is a boy's name. And a very bad boy's name, at that. Therefore... Bryce = has penis. No matter what Ron says.
yeah and she's butt ugly.
sheeit, the one time Shyamalan loses his little boy fetish and he can't get a good chick replacement.
or kept his original deal Dunst.
she's got a great facial quality to her. not flawless like scarlett but still very appealing.
no way what are u a dentist?
as long as they're not poking holes through her mouth and they're clean. Jewel is in a similar situation. it's part of the nice late-nite hot vampire thing.
Quote from: markums2kQuote from: Ghoulardi GoonWho is Bryce Dallas Howard?
Quote from: Pawbloe He's Ron Howard's son.
In Goon's world, there are only two people: Paul Thomas Anderson, and Not Paul Thomas Anderson.
How about you stick around this board a bit longer before telling
me who's in my world.
:roll:
Quote from: Ghoulardi GoonHow about you stick around this board a bit longer before telling me who's in my world. :roll:
How could I resist? :roll:
Quote from: mogwaiQuote from: Ghoulardi GoonHow about you stick around this board a bit longer before telling me who's in my world.
:roll:
Oh, let me guess! PTA & FA?
Keep going punk.
Quote from: markums2kQuote from: Ghoulardi GoonHow about you stick around this board a bit longer before telling me who's in my world. :roll:
How could I resist? :roll:
Why don't we all try to talk about something else besides judging people's av's....k? :wink:
Quote from: Ghoulardi GoonQuote from: markums2kQuote from: Ghoulardi GoonHow about you stick around this board a bit longer before telling me who's in my world. :roll:
How could I resist? :roll:
Why don't we all try to talk about something else besides judging people's av's....k? :wink:
Nice Walken pic. Do you want more cowbell now? :-D
Quote from: jokerspathQuote from: markums2kIn Goon's world, there are only two people: Paul Thomas Anderson, and Not Paul Thomas Anderson.
That's funny you mention that, because in my world there's only two people: Paul Thomas Anderson and Clint Howard...
aw
ps-someone go type www.clinthoward.com into your browser and let me know what you get.
i got an ad for the time machine dvd
Don't fear the reaper..... :)
Quote from: ewardQuote from: jokerspathps-someone go type www.clinthoward.com into your browser and let me know what you get.
i got an ad for the time machine dvd
Good, so did I, for whatever reason...
aw
Quote from: jokerspathQuote from: ewardQuote from: jokerspathps-someone go type www.clinthoward.com into your browser and let me know what you get.
i got an ad for the time machine dvd
Good, so did I, for whatever reason...
aw
I get the Clint Howard Variety Show's main site... but I guess Clint Howard in a tuxedo does look like the Time Machine DVD.
The Woods To Change Its Title
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
It seems M. Night Shyamalan's The Woods will be changing its title soon.
Blue Car star Agnes Bruckner will team with Patricia Clarkson to star in The Woods, a second film with the same title for United Artists and director Lucky McKee ("May"). Shooting is scheduled to start September 15 in Montreal.
McKee's project will likely get to keep its name. Disney said Wednesday that the title for Shyamalan's film was just a working one.
Has anyone else read the many script reviews for 'The Woods' that have been popping up all over the 'net? They're all pretty negative (though I've read all of M. Night's scripts and what's on the page and what he makes out of it on screen are 2 different things-- I'm still holding out hope). But what's really got my curiousity is all the talk of the movie's supposed 'twist'. Swipe to highlight the hidden super-spoilers.....
So we've all read that the story takes place in 1897 in an isolated community. *Apparently* the speculation is that it's not really 1897, but the reveal is that it's much, much later-- maybe even present day. The 'crazy white people' as they've been called, have pulled away from the world, but 'the real world' is supposedly closing in on them. I don't know how this is gonna play, but I must say it could be interesting... or the corniest thing ever.
Maybe we should start a second thread for "The Woods" and label it the HEAVY SPOILERS version. In that new thread, those who are interested would be free to discuss the apparent "twist" freely. I'm interested in what Weak2ndAct said, but don't want all of us to start a white-text debate.
This original thread could remain spoiler-free, for those who don't want to know anything about the script.
Normally, we wouldn't have two threads for the same movie, but I think this could be considered an allowable exception.
If anyone else agrees, and the admins don't mind, somebody can go ahead and start the spoiler thread.
will now be called "The Village"
The Village: Well the man responsible for "Sixth Sense" and "Signs" has begun filming on his next film and 'Casey' is on-set for a quite interesting report on where they're shooting: "Shooting did indeed begin on M. Night Shaymalan's "The Village" in a very remote location within Delaware County in Pennsylvania, which is about 30 minutes from Philadelphia proper - close to the border with Delaware. What I can tell you is that the village is made up of about 7 or 8 buildings that are made to look as if they were built in the early part of the 19th century. A good part of the filming that took place on Friday occured around a community supper amongst large brown tables outside of the schoolhouse and meeting house - scenes which included William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, and Adrien Brody. The action in the scene, which included about 100 other actors, is interrupted by a horribly disturbing noise coming from the surrounding woods.
Speaking of the woods, the village is in the center of acres of grassy and slightly hilly land. The perimiter of the land is surrounded by a thick forest, of which an eye is kept, for the protection of the village, by two large lookout towers at opposite ends of the property, and old-style lantern light poles with long, yellow flags line perimiter as well. In one spot lies a small cemetary on a hill near the border. The village is very cut off from others, making the fact that, in the 1800's, villages are far and few between and has troubles of its own, is believable. Try that idea NOW in 2003, where town properties overlap each other. You couldn't find this set if you wanted to, as it is very tucked away and the crew is carted in from a separate location".
Interesting. ... I spent part of my youth in Delaware County, Pa. ... I wonder where they are....
Quote from: MacGuffin
"This proves how much of a perfectionist he is," the site's source advised them.
..oh gee.. totally i agree look at signs.... :roll:
his best film was easliy the 6 sense.
but I personally luike unnbreakable more....(its has a better replay value)
signs was just plain stupid.....
its like nnow eveyone knows what his film sare like....3/4 's of straigh nnarrative then ..BAM!!!!.... the obligatory twist.....
and it seems that each film he does the twist become gimmicky.....
i disagree.
I beleive that the story through out each movies stands alone from the twist. Its hard to explain but like Unbreakable has some amazing stuff in it and is a great movie regardless of the twist. The twist though, if not seeing it, really makes it a great ending.
The script reviews have been bogus.
The story is still kept fairly secret.
I actually gave a few movie websites a scoop a while back, which kind of rendered the script reviews null in void.
Quote from: themodernage02interrupted by a horribly disturbing noise coming from the surrounding woods.
Dammit, I know I'm going to have to see this, I keep thinking I don't care but I just know I'll be there opening night, that sounds too cool.
Yea, I'm just not the biggest Shyamalan fan - Signs is like the only one that really entertained me. Mel Gibson was laughable, Rory Culkin was a little prick, all the little girl did was act cute and the writing was mostly horrible but even with all that, I still have to respect it a little for the direction and also Joaquin Phoenix who was fucking funny and great the whole way through. Night is just a bad bad bad writer though, he's proven he CAN be a good directors SOMETIMES but I don't know how many more movies he's written I can see, seriously. I will check out this one though.
Quote from: ebeamanRory Culkin was a little prick
ahahaha
Quote from: ewardQuote from: ebeamanRory Culkin was a little prick
ahahaha
He was, seriously! I don't know if I was the only that noticed but he definitely was, he had absolutely no sense of humor in the movie, all he had was that blank stare, no emotion whatsoever, no emotion. I didn't like his sarcastic, arrogant delivery either, like how everything was pronounced. I mean, I could understand a kid who's mom just died (not a spoiler) might be a little angry or whatever but I don't know, I think it was taken a little too far, I couldn't even sympathize with him. And don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Rory Culkin, I thought he was great in You Can Count On Me with Mark Ruffalo, they were a great team.
yeah i agree, i just thought you calling him a lil prick was fuckin hilarious lol
Quote from: ebeamanall he had was that blank stare, no emotion whatsoever, no emotion.
..you would think that he would learn something from his older brother....:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00000K3CL.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=b7fe8155df5082cbb412c31d74ab53ebe7aaa3cd)
Location for Shyamalan Is a Philadelphia Story
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The meteoric career rise of director M. Night Shyamalan has probably earned its loudest applause in the Greater Philadelphia Film Office, located in the filmmaker's hometown.
That's because Shyamalan remains committed to filming in and around Philly, which has served as the location for such hits as "The Sixth Sense" and "Signs" as well as his currently in-production Walt Disney Co. thriller "The Village." And Shyamalan's rise has been echoed in the city's revitalization as a top location for film and television productions.
"I started here in January of 1992 and met Night for the first time in March of that year," says Sharon Pinkenson, executive director of the Philadelphia Film Office. "This was way before 'The Sixth Sense,' and he was actually working with the Film Office to set up a benefit screening of his first film, 'Praying with Anger."'
Little did Pinkenson realize at the time that the fledgling filmmaker would ultimately become the best production emissary the region has ever had.
"My goal when I took office was to develop our own Barry Levinson," explains Pinkenson, in reference to the successful director who has shot a majority of his productions in his native Baltimore area. "Night has definitely become that for us and it's turned out better than I could have imagined."
While it is difficult to measure the impact that Shyamalan alone has had on production in the region, Pinkenson says she believes he has "absolutely been a major factor" in driving Philadelphia-area production figures to new highs.
In 1992, the economic impact from production in the region was measured at $22 million; a decade later that figure has climbed to an average of a $100 million a year.
While Shyamalan's work in the region has clearly benefited the city, the filmmaker also has reaped the rewards of the relationship.
"The reason we have chosen to shoot in this area is because of the community itself," says Sam Mercer, a producer who has worked with Shyamalan on all of his films since "The Sixth Sense." "It's a real cross-section of America and a family-oriented community that we believe just energizes our films. Plus, there is a wonderful talent pool and crew base that we've been able to work with here."
Shooting in the region is so important to Shyamalan and his team, Mercer adds, that they have pushed hard to ensure that each of their films would set up shop near Philadelphia -- flying in the face of recent industry runaway production trends.
"Economics are important in putting together any movie and you always have to keep an eye on the bottom line no matter how much success you've had," Mercer observes. "But we work pretty efficiently and feel strongly about the importance of shooting here, so we've fought to do it."
The fact that Shyamalan and his crew have not only won those battles but also turned the resulting films into blockbuster hits has made the job of the Philadelphia film office that much easier.
"Having a filmmaker like Night based here gives us instant credibility with other filmmakers," Pinkenson says. "And we have absolutely seen an increase in new filmmakers coming to shoot here after each successful Shyamalan film."
If that's the case, Pinkenson can look forward to another spike next August, when Shyamalan's "The Village" is scheduled to hit theaters.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthevillage.movies.go.com%2Fimages%2Fah_01.jpg&hash=6a182f0fc4d788203004f2d05883b6f7934d37c8)
Quicktime Trailer:
Hi-Res (http://bvim-qt.vitalstream.com/TheVillage/TheVillage_Trailer1_1500.mov)
Med-Res (http://bvim-qt.vitalstream.com/TheVillage/TheVillage_Trailer1_0750.mov)
Lo-Res (http://bvim-qt.vitalstream.com/TheVillage/TheVillage_Trailer1_0300.mov)
wow. that looks tremendous... who's the DP?
reminds me of days of heaven, one of my favorite movies cinematography wise
Quote from: Pedro the Wombatwho's the DP?
Coen Bros. regular, Roger Deakins.
wow, i didnt expect to see a trailer for that for a long time. i thought they were still filming. july 30th huh? looks pretty neat. the sound design had me a little freaked just sitting here at the computer.
this looks really cool
without watching the trailer/tool-of-the-devil, i just know this will be GRASSY.
yeah i was impressed with the trailer. Night will deliver
Yeah... trailer looks okay
hopefully Shyamalon has grown enough as a film-maker to not ruin the whole movie with a Crap ending.
(if he follows his pattern, this movie will be exactly like Signs, but with whatever the monsters in the woods are instead of aliens)
SPOILERS....kind of.
A buddy of mine read the script and told me the ending. if its executed the right way it will work, if executed wrong it will be terrible.
the links to those trailers aren't working for me.
Quote from: ©bradthe links to those trailers aren't working for me.
..... :roll: even the trailers have a "twist".....
this film willl suck.....
I thought the trailer was really good looking and wonderfully suspenseful... but... they didn't really deliver anything to make the suspense worthwhile. I mean, usually they have something popping out to scare you at the end or some shit like that, but there wasn't really anything here... same problem with Signs, I think... he built up suspense for 75 minutes and then in the last 1/2 an hour there were some knocking on wood sound effects and a cheesy looking alien.
Quote from: Jake_82I thought the trailer was really good looking and wonderfully suspenseful... but... they didn't really deliver anything to make the suspense worthwhile. I mean, usually they have something popping out to scare you at the end or some shit like that, but there wasn't really anything here... same problem with Signs, I think... he built up suspense for 75 minutes and then in the last 1/2 an hour there were some knocking on wood sound effects and a cheesy looking alien.
ill agree with you here .he needs a better climax for this one.
Unbreakable is still his best.
Quote
A buddy of mine read the script and told me the ending. if its executed the right way it will work, if executed wrong it will be terrible.
I can't remember where I read it, but the ending got spoiled for me too. I guess it could work, but it's just another in a long line of twists, and I'm glad he's moving onto new territory with his next movie. The trailer looks okay, but nothing too exciting (it lacks the amazing score that made the Signs trailers so great).
******WARNING-MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS****************
******READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!******************************
The twist ending, from what I read, is that the people in the village are actually living in modern times, not 1897. The red marks on their doors are from construction workers. They put them there to let the villagers know they're going to be putting a mall up where they live. The creatures are actually construction equipment. The film ends with a black construction working getting into a truck and saying, "crazy fucking white people."
I don't know how true that is. They say the script was riddled with spelling errors and piss poor grammer. That does not sound like the work of M Night Shamalamdildo. Also, there is a scene in the movie where the villagers find all of their livestock skin and hung from trees. I didn't know construction workers did that :roll:
Also, I just don't think M Night is dumb enough to do that. That would be a huge blunder and possibly destroy his carreer.
Someone said if it was executed right that it would be good. Not in my opinion. If the year was 1973 and we were watching a half hour episode the twighlight zone, then yes, it would be alright.
*********END SPOILERS*************************************
i really hope to God or whoever is out there that mr. shyamalan would not do something like that......i really don't think he would but, my God, if he does - I just don't see how that would work. I DO NOT SEE HOW IT WOULD WORK.
EDIT - Wait, what next film? he has another one after the village? or do you mean the village?
Quote from: ©bradthe links to those trailers aren't working for me.
Looks like they took them down, but you can 'View Preview' at the official site:
http://thevillage.movies.go.com/main.html
Quote from: ewardEDIT - Wait, what next film? he has another one after the village? or do you mean the village?
Near the bottom:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=201&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
Quote from: Pedro the Wombat
Unbreakable is still his best.
.....
you are correct....
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: ewardEDIT - Wait, what next film? he has another one after the village? or do you mean the village?
Near the bottom:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=201&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
oh i remember now. thanks mac. i actually just finished life of pi, i liked it. shyamalan, hmmm....interesting......
This looks cool. I'll definitely see this. I gotta say, I was more intrigued by it before I saw the trailer but I am still excited for it. I'm not even the biggest fan of Shyamalan but I'm always keeping an eye out for his new stuff....I did like Signs....I didn't like the other two very much at all. I liked the opening monologue of the trailer...very compelling and creepy...it reminded me of what I like about Shyamalan. Made me want to see it.
I'm paying absolutely no mind to the movie actually ending like the spoiler suggests, that's completely ridiculous. I'll fucking eat my shoe if it ends like that. As I said, I'm not the guy's biggest fan but I know Shyamalan's not STUPID, he's a good filmmaker, a great director anyway, he'll never sink that low. If, by some longshot of a chance, he actially did, I'll probably never see one of his films again...that's going too far, that's just too much.
This is going on my must see list.
TRAILER'S UP AT APPLE...
http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/the_village.html
Quote from: themodernage02TRAILER'S UP AT APPLE...
http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/the_village.html
It seems to be shot well. I hope the movie is as good as the cinematography.
Quote from: Leatherface******WARNING-MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS*******************
i really really really wish i hadn't read that. i dont think i've ever spoiled a movie for myself that badly. i was just trying to scroll down the page! the explanation makes total sense, and i cant see any other explanation. if anyones movies you dont want ruined, that HINGE on the very notknowingness of the twist!?!?
Way I see it is, that twist is so lame that if it's actually what ends up happening, then I won't be too disappointed. I suppose execution is everything, but it still sounds really bad.
I saw this preview, and I must say, it looks pretty cool.
I've avoided the spoilers above. So far, I think MNS is a hack-fest kinda guy, but I wanna see this. But riddle me this, is the ending gonna be some $6 monster jumping out of the bushes? Cos this could be great if it was werewolves or something in those woods, something that looked like it meant business.
Anyway, I'm gonna give this one a chance. Unless those who know more already (as above) will warn me off...
I hope this one doesn't disappoint me. I wasn't really impressed with Signs and Unbreakable I thought was only pretty good compared to The Sixth Sense.
Trailer looks really cool... One of the movies Im looking forward to see this year
I maintain that Unbreakable is his finest work.
Everytime I see joaquin I always think of Link from Legend of Zelda.
New Trailer here. (http://bvim-qt.vitalstream.com/TheVillage/Village_Trail3r1_55519_1500.mov)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ropeofsilicon.com%2FImages%2FMoviePics%2Fv%2Fthevillage.jpg&hash=c6bc72700bcc970bc1c709c987d525bb950eaab6)
M. Night Shyamalan Shoots New Village Ending?
Source: Philadelphia Daily News
The Philadelphia Daily News reports that M. Night Shyamalan and crew quietly set up shop in Chadds Ford, Chester County, this week to shoot additional footage for The Village.
Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Joaquin Phoenix, and Bryce Howard were present for a three-day shoot, which, several crewmembers say, was the filming of a new ending.
The Gladwyne-based director's sixth film is scheduled for a July 30 release and had filmed in Chadds Ford last year, from October through December.
A studio spokesperson said the shooting did not involve a new ending, but since the ending has been leaked online already there's always a possibility that this is indeed the case.
Quote from: MacGuffinbut since the ending has been leaked online already
there's always a possibility that this is indeed the case.
in which case, the new ending is..
I love that new trailer, and I really, really hope that a.) the ending that got leaked is handled a lot better than it sounds or b.) that the plan all along was to leak a fake ending and actually shoot it, all to disguise the REAL ending, which they're shooting now.
New poster (sorry about the small size):
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ropeofsilicon.com%2FImages%2FMoviePics%2Fv%2Fvillage.jpg&hash=388349ae2d358f5451c9ed480d9206a044bf1d44)
that new trailer's pretty badass.
Quote from: Pedrothat new trailer's pretty badass.
if by that you mean the ass of that new trailer is pretty bad, then i agree.
...m.night. shamalangadingdong's films are unique in that people only care about the ending.....he is the embodiement of a cliched twist ending.....
Quote from: NEON MERCURY...m.night. shamalangadingdong's films are unique in that people only care about the ending.....he is the embodiement of a cliched twist ending.....
i dont think so. theres a lot of cool stuff going on in his movies, before thte ending. just watch his camera placement.
Quote from: GhostboyI love that new trailer, and I really, really hope that a.) the ending that got leaked is handled a lot better than it sounds or b.) that the plan all along was to leak a fake ending and actually shoot it, all to disguise the REAL ending, which they're shooting now.
please god, i hope you're right because i think i accidentally spoiled it for myself on this site. extreme spoilers of THIS kind should always be 'swipe to read'.
Quote from: themodernage02just watch his camera placement.
iiii find it to be mostly textbook.
Quote from: picolasQuote from: themodernage02just watch his camera placement.
iiii find it to be mostly textbook.
'mostly' being the operative word.. his shots are like his stories, uninteresting after a couple of viewings. and in the case of Signs, uninteresting before the end of one.
M. Knight will hopefully be FORCED to make a great film someday.
His formula and ego are killing him right now. He'll start to be laughed at soon. But he has potential.
Villiage will probably be exactly like Signs. He'll be following the tradition he's set up. After he does the Villiage, he'll do a 5th movie that changes the formula just enough to not be the same thing three times in a row. Then he'll do a 6th that's exactly like the 5th. AABBCC... once he gets to the D movies, people will get tired enough of it that he'll have to change. At this point, he will hopefully matured enough to give us something great.
Quote from: picolasQuote from: themodernage02just watch his camera placement.
iiii find it to be mostly textbook.
well, as long as the textbook is HOW TO SHOOT A COOL LOOKING MOVIE.
Quote from: RegularKarateM. Knight will hopefully be FORCED to make a great film someday. His formula and ego are killing him right now. He'll start to be laughed at soon. But he has potential.
yeah i agree. i couldnt stand him for a long time after the sixth sense, which at the time i thought was okay, got huge and so did his ego. he just sounded like such a dick in every interview, and when it was nominated for best picture i was just like 'okay, done with him'. but after unbreakable underperformed (for him) i was able to put aside my bias and just enjoy his films for what they are.
His shots, by themselves, may indeed be textbook (I'd point to some of the long reveal shots in Signs as evidence to the contrary, but I digress); but the way he uses them to move the narrative along is fantastic -- a model of economic storytelling. I'm in the minority, I guess, when I say that Signs is a brilliantly directed film (moreso than the others), the nadir of the style he developed with the previous two. Hopefully, The Village won't be too much of a retread -- and after that, he's doing Life Of Pi (or so I hear), which from what I understand is about as different from his previous films as he can get.
unbreakable's still the best, bitches
Quote from: Pedrounbreakable's still the best, bitches
..i agree with you bitch........... 8)
..six sense get old and the 'i see dead people' sh*t got old real fast.........then i gots tired of hearing 'the twist" , "oh my gosh, the twist"..........lil haley is annoying to look at ..he has not aged gracefully like fred savage has.............i really hates 6 since.......but i like unbreakable it got mad replay value solid acting ............it appeals to comic geeks, it appeals to people who like mystery/thrillers, it appeals to people who like twist emdings....., it got the best music /score for a m. night shamalang film and its got the best cinematography.........
sings was rather stupid and ....in fact if youi can actually force yourself to watch this trash agian you will notice the cheese factor is high...but the ending will blow you aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah. signs definitely loses something on video. i was blown away in theaters and had to turn it off at home i was so underwhelmed (an utter waste of $10). yes, m night should lose his standard twist ending or it will start to cheapen his movies.
http://www.davisdvd.com/news/tv.html
The Sci Fi Channel was thrilled last fall when filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan ("The Sixth Sense") agreed to open his latest project, "The Village," to a documentary crew. But then it all went sour. Shyamalan quit on-screen and an expected benign profile has become the three-hour expose The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan, scheduled to air on the cable station on July 18th. While Shyamalan said last December that he hoped the project would "demystify some of the mysteries of the filmmaking experience," documentary filmmakers Nathaniel Kahn and Callum Greene instead focused their attentions on the filmmaker himself. According to Greene, he began to go off the "suggested" list of friends to speak to and contacted others in Shyamalan's life. The filmmaker was angered by the personal nature of what they were asking and slowly his cooperation dried up, Greene said. "We saw that as a challenge and just didn't let go." The tension reached the point where Shyamalan walked away during an interview and hasn't done any others for them. According to Greene, the documentary has captured "unguarded moments" that reveal what Shyamalan really was like, though neither he nor the Sci Fi Channel go into specifics. "We feel completely confident that we are on solid ground in getting this on the air, in a legal way," Sci Fi spokesman David Westover said. "If the project reveals more than Night was comfortable with, that was an inherent gamble that he was aware of long before this was started."
Yet there may be an element of hardball at play. Going public with an air date and title "is part of a strategy to apply some pressure to help us with what we need to accomplish," Westover said. "The program's contents aren't completely locked and things could change if Shyamalan sat down for another interview." However, added Westover, "we probably won't be working with Night in the near future on any creative projects. I can probably guarantee you that." As for filmmaker Greene, things are a bit more uncomfortable as he shares an agent with Shyamalan. "I'm not cocky enough or egotistical enough not to be worried," he said. (thanks to the AP)
I know what the secret is. He has O. Henry's corpse in his basement and gets story ideas from it in exchange for the blood of virgins! Either that or he's going to have a sex change, Larry (Linda) Wachowski style and his new name will be M. Dawn Shyamalan.
Honestly, this sounds like a put-on to me. Buzz is not so good on The Village and I'm sure this "buried secret" is very related to the movie.
I still absolutely love Unbreakable.
Quote from: hacksparrowHonestly, this sounds like a put-on to me.
And it is!
Television network admits it lied about unauthorized biographySaturday, July 17, 2004 Posted: 12:37 AM EDT (0437 GMT)
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Sci Fi Channel admitted that it lied last month in claiming it was at odds with filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan and was making an unauthorized biography about his "buried secret."
The hoax was part of a "guerilla marketing campaign" that went too far, network president Bonnie Hammer said Friday.
The network announced in December that the reclusive Shyamalan, maker of "The Sixth Sense" and "Signs," had agreed to participate in a documentary about his life to run in connection with this summer's release of his new movie, "The Village."
Sci Fi said last month, however, that Shyamalan had soured on the documentary when the questions got too personal. Documentarians Nathaniel Kahn and Callum Greene pressed on and made a three-hour film, "The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan," without his cooperation, the network said.
The Associated Press wrote about the documentary last month, and other media also ran accounts. In an interview, Greene described how Shyamalan's "cooperation dried up." A network spokesman told the AP that Sci Fi was confident it had legal grounds to air the film and would probably never work with Shyamalan again.
In a news release, Sci Fi said Shyamalan had attempted to shut down production of the "disturbing expose."
It was all a lie, and there is no buried secret, Hammer said Friday.
The documentary, scheduled to air Sunday, says a mysterious drowning of a child in a lake near Shyamalan's boyhood home in the Philadelphia area had profoundly affected his life and fueled his interest in the supernatural. That's not true either, Hammer said.
"We created a fictional special that was part-fact and part-fiction, and Night was part of the creation from the beginning," the network chief said.
Moviegoers walk away from Shyamalan's films not knowing what was real or not, and "we wanted to do the same thing in a special about his life," she said.
Sci Fi did not send a complete copy of the film to television critics, but sent a half-hour tape of highlights this week that, in some spots, hinted it might be a mockumentary.
Actor Adrien Brody, a star of "The Village," is interviewed in the documentary saying that he was sworn to secrecy about everything in the movie. Asked if he had short or long hair in the film, he refused to answer.
"Perhaps we might have taken the guerrilla campaign one step too far," Hammer said. "We thought it would create controversy and it probably went one step too far."
Hammer said she had been in on the hoax from the beginning and took responsibility for duping the public. Sci Fi, which is available in some 83 million homes, has recently been taken over by corporate parent NBC Universal.
"This marketing strategy is not consistent with our policy at NBC," said Rebecca Marks, NBC entertainment spokeswoman. "We would never intend to offend the public or the press and value our relationship with both."
Greene, a producer of "Lost in Translation," shares an agent with Shyamalan.
isn't it traditional to tell people it was a hoax AFTER the fact? who's going to watch the special now?
Where are the test screening reviews? This movie is like 10 days away from national release. I want to know the ending now.
Quote from: StefenWhere are the test screening reviews? This movie is like 10 days away from national release. I want to know the ending now.
spoiler..............................
spoiler..............
well, if you must know and since you asked nicely [i see no exclaimation marks, thank you] i will give you the answer.....what happens is that you find out that joaquin phoenix is actaully dead and is a ghost and his character and adriens character were actaully married back in the days and they were also arch enemy comic book characters too but phoenixs character dies in a car crash but not before he utters his last cryptic words which appears to have no meaning until the end of the film when it starts to rain and that saves the woods from being burned down...........
then end...
Quote from: NEON MERCURYQuote from: StefenWhere are the test screening reviews? This movie is like 10 days away from national release. I want to know the ending now.
spoiler..............................spoiler..............
well, if you must know and since you asked nicely [i see no exclaimation marks, thank you] i will give you the answer.....what happens is that you find out that joaquin phoenix is actaully dead and is a ghost and his character and adriens character were actaully married back in the days and they were also arch enemy comic book characters too but phoenixs character dies in a car crash but not before he utters his last cryptic words which appears to have no meaning until the end of the film when it starts to rain and that saves the woods from being burned down...........
then end...
Wow. It's like, for the first time ever, my eyes are truly open...
It's just so beautiful! :cry:
I remember reading an article shortly after the success of 6th, where MNS claimed to have discovered the secret to fail-proof screenwriting. I wonder how is batting average is holding up?
Dark prince
M. Night Shyamalan has reshaped the horror genre. How does the director run his unusual empire? With obsessive attention to detail -- and pure instinct. Source: Los Angeles Times
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2004-07%2F13537770.jpg&hash=05b0d963e65d496e2f5032507a7caee16e733abd)
“This is definitely the most personal of (last) four movies,” he says.
Chadds Ford, Pa — In a field in rural Pennsylvania, the director M. Night Shyamalan is surveying the remnants of his handiwork, a collection of worn wood and stone houses, forlorn outposts of humanity, reminders of an era of when daily life was hard. The houses intentionally echo the lonely isolation of the paintings of Andrew Wyeth, who lives but 20 minutes from here. In prepping for his new film, "The Village," Shyamalan spent a long time flying around in a helicopter looking for the perfect field, surrounded by dense woods, that he'd seen in his head.
He'd imagined an expanse "more regimented, more rectangular" than the lolling hills at his feet. "There is no such thing in this area like that," he says with a laugh. "You have to go to the other side of the country. I don't mind letting go of those kind of details as long as it's exchanged for other details."
He points to the trees that stagger along the perimeter — they're an essential character in "The Village," the cold, stark lair of malevolent red creatures. "It's nice when my crew, even actors, come in and mess up my very pristine, perfect impression of things. But even when you see the movie, it still comes through a lot — my very stringent aesthetics."
"Pristine," "perfect," "precise," "controlled," these are all words that 33-year-old Shyamalan tends to use repeatedly, mostly in reference to his minimalist aesthetic, and mostly with a slightly self-mocking spin to take off the edge of self-importance. But it's clear he's serious.
Despite the muddy ground, the overcast sky, the director himself is rather pristine in a stark white shirt and jeans. Around his throat and neck is sleek silver and black jewelry — much of it bearing Sanskrit blessings for health and happiness.
In his cameos in his films, the 6-foot-tall Shyamalan has an awkward, long-necked geekiness, none of which is apparent today. What might have been presumed as arrogance several years ago has mellowed into the jaunty assurance of a young prince who's assumed his birthright.
Shyamalan's mantle includes "The Sixth Sense" ($673 million worldwide), "Signs" ($408 million worldwide), and the disappointing (for him) "Unbreakable" ("only" $249 million worldwide).
He's Hollywood's poet laureate of dread, the purveyor of his distinctive brand of melancholy-drenched paranoia. He's tapped into the pervasive modern anxiety that something unfathomably bad is just around the corner. Yet his films also offer a respite from the helter-skelter speed of modern living. Shyamalan's world moves slowly, decisively. There are few special effects, no swooping, spinning camera moves, just a series of fluidly turning master shots as he exquisitely controls the climate of fear, systematically raising it degree by degree. Shining through the shroud of foreboding are also glimmers of faith — religion without the treacle — a sentiment that certainly has its following in a God-fearing America. The films also end with his signature surprise epiphany, less a plot twist than a revealing of the underlying premise of the film.
He's one of the last original voices in mainstream Hollywood, a writer-director who's working for the masses and not just the art house elite.
Much about Shyamalan is a contradiction. He reportedly earns close to $20 million per picture (along with 20% of the back end) and yet he offers to carry this reporter's bag. He's firmly ensconced on the Hollywood A-list but acts like a newly minted suburban dad, preferring to live in the countryside outside of Philadelphia, close to his parents and where he grew up. He rigidly and meticulously orchestrates every frame that bears his name and yet believes almost mystically in intuition, which he describes as a kind of peace that settles over him when he knows he's on the right path. He's tremendously confident and yet fastidious about examining his weaknesses, like a minister constantly searching himself for sin.
"He's a gigantically hard worker and he has an almost religious attitude towards the thing he's trying to achieve," says "The Village" producer Scott Rudin. "It's of tremendous importance to him. He also understands that that's not all there is in life. He's very committed to his family."
The sense of family imbues all his films, and "The Village," which debuts Friday, plays on the distinct post-Sept. 11 theme of how far a parent would go to protect his family. The story is then refracted through the kaleidoscope of the 19th century novel, much like Emily Brontë's "Wuthering Heights," which Shyamalan was offered to direct but declined to do this, his own take on the genre.
The film tells the tale, more suspenseful than pungently scary, of a utopian 19th century community, founded by refugees fleeing the violence and evils of the city to live in pastoral isolation. Their serenity is threatened only by the evil creatures ("those whose names we dare not speak") who lurk in the surrounding woods. As the film opens, a romantic triangle is burgeoning and the demon beasts have begun to encroach; it will fall to the town's most vulnerable — the blind girl played by 23-year-old newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard — to sally forth into the forest. The characters in the film speak with an old-fashioned simplicity, a lack of irony, which Shyamalan knows might be jarring to modern ears but which he likes.
He was inspired by the view from his period farmhouse window — of woods, a pond, and geese, a serene spot where, as he says, "nothing bad could happen."
"This is definitely the most personal of the four movies," he says. "The idea of me desperately, desperately trying to hold on to my own innocence. I came at it from protecting my own innocence, the value of simplicity, the value of an ethic, a standard. There's something in the walking out to go get the butter, walking out to get the milk — we've forgotten the lessons in that, the character-building in that. I don't want the decisions that I've made to affect my ability to stay or be innocent. I don't want to be 40 years from now and not be able to smile for the right reasons."
By his own admission, Shyamalan is veritably obsessed with purity, though it doesn't simply mean the simple life, the traditional values of love, honor and work. It also refers to the artist uncorrupted by ego concerns, by the lure of success, and adulation, all of which he cheerfully admits is "internally intoxicating." It's also a metaphor for the original voice, that endangered species in an industry increasingly filled with sequels and comic book franchises.
If Shyamalan is something of an idealist, he's also a minister who wants a flock. He likes what he sees as his covenant with the audience and sees his originality as "the only weapon I have" in the marketplace. "That's what they're selling — originality. That will be our strength and our weakness."
Shyamalan will soon transform into a full-fledged brand — the film equivalent of that other master of the supernatural, Stephen King. "The Village," which costs $72 million (about a third of the cost of "Spider-Man 2"), boasts no certified box-office draws. The studio, which has been suffering through a recent box-office drought, is selling the film primarily on the Shyamalan name. Its ABC wing has already replayed his greatest hits, with Shyamalan acting as emcee much as Walt Disney used to do. "Primetime Live" did a segment on him, and thousands of fans showed up at Regal movie theaters in towns across America for a satellite-feed town meeting with Shyamalan.
Since "Signs," Shyamalan has become tremendously involved in the marketing of his films, suggesting footage for the trailers and ideas for the campaign. (One bit of marketing he disavows was the Sci Fi Channel's promotion of an "unauthorized biography" of him that was in fact a "Blair Witch"-style hoax.)
"It's a real advantage to be able to identify a film as an M. Night Shyamalan film," says Disney Studios Chairman Richard Cook, whose company has tested the concept with filmgoers. "For him, it's really gutsy to be out there like he is in front of it."
"It definitely puts more pressure on him," says Buena Vista Motion Picture Group president Nina Jacobson.
With a laugh, Shyamalan explains that he called the studio to make his name smaller and to get his actors' names (Oscar winners William Hurt and Adrien Brody and nominee Sigourney Weaver) on the poster, but he was told "this is the one that's working."
Still, it's clear that the filmmaker is pleased to be the marquee name. "It's almost taking responsibility. I hated me when I was this little kid in high school that hated when people looked at me. Who wants to be that kid?" he says. "I believe that because of the specificity of the process of my movie, there's an opportunity for people to have a relationship with me. I'm the author. I write them completely. They get made directly from my screenplay. It becomes as much like a book or novel as possible. This is about following in the footsteps of the writer. It's a writer-dominated mentality."
Very careful, very risky
A little while later, Shyamalan is eating crab cakes in a kitschy colonial-style restaurant off the interstate. He's the only face of color surrounded by chunky suburbanites and Andrew Wyeth prints. He's been talking about his film but gets distracted by the waitress and begins to riff as if she's a character who has walked into his film. "She's interesting, with the dyed hair and the smoker's voice. I just love trying to analyze people and where they come from." He guesses about the waitress, "From a girl who's trapped in a town and then rebels who may end up being one of those overweight women in the car who pulls up next to you at a traffic light." He sighs. He pointedly lives away from the media centers, from the worlds where the stars never have to interact with the hoi polloi. "How did that happen? Just the constant numbing of life."
As Shyamalan describes the woman, she somehow seems more alive, as if the deeply internal struggles could rise to the poignancy of art, instead of simply women's magazines and self-help books. His is a writer's gift, and he plays the game with other better-known figures, like the stars of his film. Of William Hurt, he says "an extremely intelligent man who has unbending ethics and values that the world is continually failing to achieve. You're in the presence of a man who's teaching you." Of Sigourney Weaver, he adds, "She has a majesty about her. She's never going to be dragged down into the mud."
Shyamalan writes his scripts with actors in mind and spends a long time on the conception of the film, jotting down notes in beautiful leather-bound notebooks and then writing draft after draft of the screenplay. Unlike almost any other director working today, he also storyboards for six months, working with a storyboard artist who meticulously draws pictures of every scene in the movie. "It's tedious, and everybody fights you on it from beginning to end," he says. "It's at once a very, very controlling thing to do and at once a complete act of faith."
"That's very intimidating for an actor who thinks he has a contribution to make," Hurt recalls. "I had a moment of anxiety about that, but I realized very soon it wasn't about that at all. It wasn't about restriction. It was about having a structure with a guideline that we could meet or change. He had one criterion: If we came up with an idea, try to be succinct, which is terrific for an actor. To be on the set with Night and Roger Deakins (the cinematographer), it's like being inside a crystal. It's very, very clean and precise but gentle. You know there are 10 million details coming together."
"I think one of the surprises for us was that he did every scene — if he could — in one shot," Weaver says. "One of the reasons big movies aren't as much fun is that they have the budget to do masters and three-shots and two-shots and angles and close-ups. Usually it's on the low-budget films you're flying by the seat of your pants. Some of the scenes of the elders [the village leaders, of whom Weaver is one] were [focused] always on our backs even when we thought our reactions were important. Actually, backs are articulate, and it was a daring thing to do and in keeping in the austerity of 'The Village.' All the slow pans across people's backs and then looking at one face or two."
Shyamalan shoots no coverage, the customary practice of filming a scene from a multiplicity of angles and reassembling it in the editing room. There are consequently almost no cuts.
"It's very risky," Shyamalan allows, "but risk keeps everyone at the edge of their talent. That's why I hired theater-trained actors, who could go two, three, four minutes and go with that energy flow." He also required the actors to attend three weeks of rehearsal, including a week staying in tents for a kind of boot camp in 19th century practices.
"It was a lot of unself-conscious time together with people who spend a lot of time being watched, and aren't watched for a change," Hurt says. "Studying basket weaving and how to make fires. You have to really commit to making fire with a stick, especially when the matches are right down on the floor and you're freezing your butt off."
"It took us a whole day to make a meal for the group," recalls Weaver, laughing. "The butter was like soup, and the cheese was tasteless. Whatever the French know, we needed some of that."
The director is a great believer in intuition, of just knowing things. Sometimes the instincts seem random. As a kid, he became convinced that a girls school would play a part in his life; it's now where he sends his kids. "Most of my decisions — and it drives my wife crazy — I gut completely. That's it. That's the way to do it."
The director counts casting unknown Bryce Howard as the lead of his film as his latest example of instinct.
The director had been talking to Kirsten Dunst about playing the lead in the film, and wrangling over her schedule, and her inability to come early to prepare. Rudin had suggested Howard, the daughter of director Ron Howard, for a smaller part and the director, who doesn't usually go to the theater, came to see her in a New York production of "As You Like It."
He later called Rudin and told him, "Bryce, she's the one. She should be in the movie," Shyamalan says. "Don't you want to audition her? No. Why? It's not out of anything other than I felt magic and magic is a very, very rare thing to feel. It's a kind of peace about it."
From basketball to Bond
As a 7-year-old, Shyamalan was obsessed with getting into the Guinness Book of World Records. "I was going to bounce a basketball for 1,800 hours," he says. When he got a little older, the desire generalized … a little. "I wanted to be great at something. I spent 1,000 hours with the Rubik's Cube." He chortles. "That wasn't going to be it."
Perhaps, he admits, it was just the immigrant mentality. The director, born Manoj Shyamalan, is the son of a pair of Indian doctors who raised him Hindu but sent him to Catholic school. (He considers himself spiritual but not particularly drawn to organized religion.) As a kid, he was tiny, and social, and, as he says, "buoyant." "Very entertaining, and I could entertain myself. My parents were doctors, so they weren't home a lot. I was making up games, shooting movies."
At age 10, he was making James Bond films with a Super-8 camera that he'd plug into a VCR. He went on to make 44 other homages, including many new chapters of "Friday the 13th." "They were so awful. They were all copies. It was all kind of trying on the clothes of this person, that person."
Around 16, he began thinking about his own identity. That's when he adopted "Night" as his middle name, drawing it from a book about the Lakota he was reading. "I feel very close to American Indian culture," he says now. "It's very much about getting back to the land and simplicity. It's a connection to nature." He begins to riff, pointing out along the way that much of how he feels about the name comes from now, 2004. "In that word is the unknown, lack of information, so there is potential. You're kind of nervous about it but … it's just because it's unknown."
Despite coming from a clan of doctors, Shyamalan opted for NYU film school, where he met his wife, Bhavna, and proposed with a fortune cookie.
In 1992, he scrapped together $750,000 mostly from family members and shot and starred in his first film, "Praying with Anger," about an American finding his roots in India. It grossed $7,000. His next film, "Wide Awake," is a sentimental fable about a Catholic schoolboy searching for God. The film is earnest and dull and earned Shyamalan ritual humiliation at the hands of Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, who according to several accounts recut the film and treated the director brutally.
Years and much success later, Shyamalan blames himself for what happened but finds value in such failure.
"I don't think you can be the best at what you do or be the best person with who you are unless you have that incredibly cathartic, difficult thing that says: 'The world is not going to help you at all. What do you have left?'
"What's left? After everything that's gone, all your desires, all your aspirations, all your pride, everything has been crushed, there's nothing left. What's left? And all that was left was telling stories. I just like telling stories that were not intended for anything.
"It turns out the way I spoke was very accessible to people, but it never would have happened if 'Praying with Anger' or 'Wide Awake' were moderately successful. There were all these silly, silly things I was considering at the time, of doing writing and directing, and if I had any success at all — any — I would've done the wrong thing.
"In a way, the greatest moment for me is almost failure. Then everything washes away, and all that's left is that thing, intuition, which is there, and says, 'Get up and do this.' "
The rest of the Shyamalan narrative takes on a wonderful Horatio Alger glow. Undaunted, Shyamalan holed up in his home outside of Philadelphia and wrote "The Sixth Sense." He flew to Los Angeles, checked into the swank Four Seasons hotel, gave it to his agents on a Saturday, and told them to auction it on Monday. The minimum bid was $1 million, and he'd have to be guaranteed to direct. Disney bought the film for $3 million, beginning what has been a multiyear relationship.
It's strange, driving around the back hills of Pennsylvania with Shyamalan: He's much less interested in talking about his startling successes than analyzing his missteps. He returns the topic repeatedly to "Unbreakable" (which he regards as a child that no one loves except himself) and dissects his need for emotional restraint, which sometimes thwarts the audience's desire for emotional closure. For someone who operates from his gut, he operates in a constant state of rigorous self-examination. He seems to be constantly reminding himself to stay, as he says, "pure."
When he sat Hurt, Weaver, Brody, Howard and Joaquin Phoenix down for the first read-through, he didn't want anyone mumbling their way through, as actors are wont to do. "I'm going to assume the movie's a failure," he told them. "I want to look back at this moment at this table and say I sat with the world's best actors."
He exhorted them to make the moment count, and he would do the same. "That's all that we have is this right here," he told them.
Many months later, the director, sounding intensely vulnerable as his film is about to enter the public arena, says again: "If the movie's a failure, I have all of that. It was built on the right thing."
I WANT TO SEE THIS!
Oh..
I want to see this.
Sorry about that.
watching this tonight @ 6:55pm ...ill be sure to post my thoughts (fwiw) as soon as i get back :)
minor spoilers
This was basically short film material... I'm thinking 30 minutes. You can really tell where it was stretched, too... false starts, obnoxious clichés, and subplot formulettes fill in the gaps. Once the whole thing is in perspective, though, I really have to admire the whole idea. Expect more plot satisfaction than thriller satisfication. More Sixth Sense than Signs, even though the set-up and the atmosphere (however sporradic it may be) are Signs-esque. But it's still surprisingly gentle. I miss his aggressive Sixth Sense style... he doesn't have the nuance and subtlety yet to handle all this gentleness.
I have to say i cant be fair to the movie after last night's viewing. It was hands down the WORST theater experience ive ever had. It totally killed the movie for me not being able to "get into it" or rather "disconnect" from reality... :evil:
Ebert gave this one star.
Quote from: nixEbert gave this one star.
yes, it was one of his better recent reviews. consistent with my theory that he writes best about what he hates. here's the end of the Village review.. (don't worry, there are no spoilers in it)
Eventually the secret of Those, etc., is revealed. To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore.
And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we're back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theater and go down the up escalator and watch the money spring from the cash register into our pockets.
how has he felt about the other Shyamalan flicks?
after thinking back on the film i have to say the "twist" was the weakest part of the story, but the themes underlined within it are much stronger than the plot device, IMO.
still its a love/hate movie.
Quote from: ProgWRXhow has he felt about the other Shyamalan flicks?
3 stars to Sixth Sense and Unbreakble. 4 stars to Signs.
So far it has garnered only 45% positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.
blah. jeremy's review is spot on. shyamalan gets on my nerves for many reasons, mainly b/c of his ego which rivals tarantino's. sixth sense was good, the rest: B-L-A-H. they really should throw up a title card before the opening credits of all his movies -"MAY CAUSE EXTREME BORDEM AND DROWSINESS"
You know, the morning after, this movie is ten times more intriguing to me than it was last night. I somehow wish all the absurdity was intentional.
I still hold that Unbreakable was his finest film.
I started worrying about this film when the only reviewers' quotes in the TV ads were from the likes of "CBS-TV."
this movie bored me. it was genuinely boring.
SPOILER!!!
My thoughts is that the idea for the movie was good, but it didn't work as a whole. There was too much that wasn't explained (as with "Unbreakable"). The fact that it takes place in modern times and that the townspeople were isolating themselves was a really good one. But I think it could've been more than what it was.
saw Unbreakable on the tv to see if he went bad during or before Signs. i'd say it was it was 15 minutes into Unbreakable. from there its all the same thing over and over.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: Leatherface******WARNING-MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS*******************
i really really really wish i hadn't read that. i dont think i've ever spoiled a movie for myself that badly. i was just trying to scroll down the page! the explanation makes total sense, and i cant see any other explanation. if anyones movies you dont want ruined, that HINGE on the very notknowingness of the twist!?!?
oh leatherface, why oh why did i read your spoilers oh so many months ago and ruin the experience for myself.
I did enjoy this movie.
Like most others (if not ALL), I wish the ending wasn't quite what it was, and it was disappointing (especially since I had accidently read the spoiler months ago =/), but I still liked the movie.
And I wasn't at all surprised to hear nearly everyone in the theater say, "that sucked!" or "That was the biggest waste of time ever!"
Despite them, and despite the ending (let's just pretend it didn't happen), I thought this may have been Shyamalan's strongest effort since the Sixth Sense (and, in some ways, I enjoyed this more). I wish he'd get as far away as he can from his gimmick-twist-endings. They just feel tacked on to me. I personally think he's a great film maker, but that his tricks are holding him back from being something even better than he is now.
Maybe he'll come to his senses with his next one??
Oh well, I'm seeing it again on Sunday with a different group since I told them I would (can't back out of it!), so I'll see if my thoughts on this one stand up to the second viewing.
It's highly intriguing, somewhat admirable, and mostly a complete failure. JB's comment about the gentleness is right on. He seems so strongly to want to tell an emotional story (that he got the inspiration for this while working on Wuthering Heights is obvious), but he also felt the need to retain that 'one great idea' that he always talks about. In the end, no one wins.
His direction seemed off, too. Everything about 'Signs' and 'Unbreakable' (especially 'Signs') felt perfect...every shot had a purpose, everything built towards the climax. Here, he does a couple of cool stylistic things, but none of it gels.
Unlike the movie, Bryce Dallas Howard is phenomenal.
SPOILER
Did anyone else think that the creature costume looked a lot like Mum-Ra from Thundercats? That's all I could think of when it was running after her in the woods -- probably the worst scene in the movie, by the way.
I was going to give Shyamalan points for now showing his face in this one -- until that reflection shot. He's always had an ego problem, but this time he doesn't have a good film to back him up.
END SPOILER
Quote from: ProgWRXI have to say i cant be fair to the movie after last night's viewing. It was hands down the WORST theater experience ive ever had.
I have to agree with you. I had four middle school girls sitting next to me giggling the entire time. People were laughing throughout. It was horrible. (Just covering my ass)
*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT* If that wasn't frickin enough, their is the part where Ivy is slapping Noah for what he has done to Luscious. (I also had no idea that the ending was going to be what it was. I was totally shocked.)
*END SPOILER* This kid that works there was jumping up and down in the doorway acting like an asshole and laughing. I wanted to jump up out of my seat and throw his pigmented ass againts the wall.
With the exception of all of this....I enjoyed the film. I wish, however, I hadn't seen Ebert on Leno the night before. He totally trashed the movie and said the "twist ending" was obvious. I am now taking Ebert with a grain of salt. I totally disagreed with him for, as long as I can remember , the first time. Roeper liked it, and he doesn't like anything.
I was just so engrossed in the film the entire time, I had to block out all of the distractions. The film was shot beautifully. Did Roger Deakins do Night's other films? I was surprised to see his name up there. He did an awesome job. Another thing that bugged me is Night's cameo. The cameo itself did not bug me, it was the people in the theater saying how "stupid" and "gay" it was. Um....obviously they have never seen an Alfred Hitchcock film. Granted he never gave himself an actual part to my knowledge, but just the same. I don't mind it. The cast was amazing. William Hurt is one of the most underrated actors out there. I cannot say enought about Bryce Dallas Howard. It was as if she has been in a hundred movies. She was so good in this. I look forward to her future work.
Half the theater laughed off the film. I went in with such high expectations, because I love his other three films.
Signs just blew me away. So after this I feel like I should be laughing too, but I didn't get the joke. I really did like this film as much as maybe I probably shouldn't. I don't care. M. Night has my vote.
The Village :yabbse-thumbup: :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: GhostboyIt's highly intriguing, somewhat admirable, and mostly a complete failure. JB's comment about the gentleness is right on. He seems so strongly to want to tell an emotional story (that he got the inspiration for this while working on Wuthering Heights is obvious), but he also felt the need to retain that 'one great idea' that he always talks about. In the end, no one wins.
His direction seemed off, too. Everything about 'Signs' and 'Unbreakable' (especially 'Signs') felt perfect...every shot had a purpose, everything built towards the climax. Here, he does a couple of cool stylistic things, but none of it gels.
Unlike the movie, Bryce Dallas Howard is phenomenal.
yep, exactly. i really liked his last 3 films, but this was just a misfire.
but such a beautiful misfire, isnt it?
the more i think about it and discuss it in retrospect, the more i realize good things about it, and makes me want to watch again in another context/situation...
To me the movie is frustrating. Like In the Cut, it has some many beautiful elements to it but some many problems as well. The cinematography, score and some unforgettable shots makes it a beautiful failure. But that's what it is ultimately - a failure.
i feel exactly the same way although im not inclined to call this a failure yet
(at least a failure to me, because it clearly has been a failure to about half the people who have seen it or more)
<robot> need...another...viewing... </robot>
----Possible Spoilers, too lazy to pinpoint them.----
ADMIN EDIT:
LOTS OF BIG FAT SWEATY SLOPPY ODOROUS SPOILERS
Ok, so my friend said it was amazing. It moved her, and she felt the message was lost on most of the audience. I was already sort of excited about the movie, so this pumped me up. If the movie wasn't directed or acted well, at least the "message" she touted would hit me.
Directing: Mediocre, not Night's best.
Acting: I rather enjoyed the acting in this movie.
Twist: Almost pissed me off. I wanted the monsters to be real. I didn't want them to be some sort of scheme to keep people trapped inside. It's too obvious. At first, it came to mind. The monsters are forces to keep people innocent and obedient. I tried to ignore that thought and hoped the monsters were real. That's why I got so excited when Ivy ran into the monster in the forest. I hoped that it was redeeming itself. Night's ability always misses the bullseye for me. Everytime I see his movies there's a quality that I want to like, but too much "predict the unpredicted" that isn't executed properly to me. He just has thing essence about him and his films that I want to like, but I just can't.
Quote from: filmboy70I wanted to jump up out of my seat and throw his pigmented ass againts the wall.
:?:
i was waiting for someone to catch that...
and thats all i have to say about that... </forrest gump>
Boy did this movie suck overall. The story and the twist were so uninspired, predictable and dull. The twist I didn't like the way the characters spoke, it got really annoying after a while (except for the Howard girl, her i liked).
I did like some of the music and some of the shots were cool, and the Howard girl.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: filmboy70I wanted to jump up out of my seat and throw his pigmented ass againts the wall.
:?:
Perhaps the boy had some sort of offensive skin disease?
He was black.
Ugh, what a waste of time. I had the 'twist' guessed before seeing it, though I didn't forsee the monsters true 'role'. The directing was totally lacklustre and the acting was uninspired. these types of films walk a very fine line between being moody and atmospheric and being totally ridiculous. this one descended into silliness.
I just thought the dialog was awful, plain terrible. It sounded like some back historical reinactor talk. but then i got to thinking... wouldn't it make sense for these people to have bad reinactor dialog? I mean, in the frame of what they are trying to accomplish, the type of speech wouldn't be natural to them. They'd have to train themselves to speak in that way and to me it makes sense that they could be so self concious about their attempt to modify their speech that it could sound wooden. So i am not sure whether to bash Shamalanadingdong for his poor writing or to praise him for his depth of character study.
but at any rate i didn't like it. It was a cool premise, a good twist, but I would have enjoyed it more from the perspective of the elders trying to hold it together than from Toby N. Tucker's Lucious jibber jabber. Besides the best character in the film was Tommy Gnosis from Hedwig!
I got this from the AICN web forum on Harry's The Village review (which he loved).
nazismasher
Subject: Ebert giving Shyamalan the George Lucas treatment?
Comment: Seems like Roger Ebert has once again switched brains lambasting a director's latest project with the very logic he had previously used to praise his other films. Hey, maybe SIGNS had two or three or certainly less than a half-dozen "issues" with its plot but that's just small potatoes so let's just give this young, "Next Big Man" director a break, right! Guess a media hyped reputation only gets you 1 free pass at the Chicago Sun-Times because the Star Wars prequels similarly slid from being visual feasts for the imagination to fx-bloated wormwood with seemingly little change from film to film. Hey! I can understand if Ebert feels the need to change his outlook, but consistancy is also a great virtue with readers. The man writes terrific essays on film, but his judgment on current releases has left me spinning every which way from Sunday the last couple of years. "So, which Ebert is going to write the review today?" I sometimes ask myself - the champion of independent films, classics, animation and science-fiction... or the guy that endorsed XXX, FAST AND THE FURIOUS and the TOMB RAIDER movies?
And lets not forget he gave Garfield: The Movie *** :lol:
I liked the movie. I came in with lowered expectations from these sour posts as well as some relatives' comments, so what I saw was much better than I expected.
Luckily I didn't have "pigmented" boys and giggling girls to influence my impression of the movie, I just took it in for what it was. I did drop my cell phone halfway through the movie, but that didn't drastically taint my viewing experience.
Some stuff was a bit cheesy, but that's what M. Night serves best. I mean, Sam Jackson as a purple clad Mr. Glass?
Loved Adrien Brody! Reminded me of Leo's Gilbert Grape, in a good way.
Good movie. :yabbse-thumbup: :yabbse-thumbup:
I gotta say, I thought this was his worst film up until the ending, which made me re-think everything that came before in a good way. I think now this might be his best, certainly will hold up to repeat viewings unlike The Sixth Sense. Bryce Howard is a star in the making.
Well that's certainly the first time I've heard a comment like that on this movie. A girl I talked to said it was the worst movie she's ever seen. But most people I talked to about these things don't have a brain in their head anyway. They can go screw themselves.
I still think this is the best thing I've heard about this film yet.
"This won't end his career. Far from it. I'm sure it's going to open huge. But this is definitely a defining moment for him. Whatever he does next, he's going to have to treat his audience with more respect. It's one thing to want to make a movie about lies. It's another thing to make a movie that is a lie. Understanding that difference and being able to illustrate it is something that seems to have simply escaped him this time out."
I have to admit that, while I still think the film is a complete mess, it's definitely stuck with me the past two days -- the fact that there's those several moments of excellence mixed in to the overall mess makes it, in a way, more fascinating than his other films.
Aw, this was SO CLOSE to being good. One word review: awkward.
Ghostboy..
I felt the same way about Signs as well.
I hate that fucking movie but I gotta admit there were some moments of brilliance where I felt like Shyamalan was on top of his game. The next few days that film stuck with me as well. I simply don't understand what he does wrong. We all agree Signs was a stinker, but damnit, it didn't have to be. Both that movie and The Village feel like a stretch of an idea that started with the Sixth Sense. People flock to his movies to be surprised at the end. The problem is, somewhere along the way Shyamalan has gotten lazy on us all. Don't show us the fucking monsters. Make us afraid of them! Fingers under a door is enough..
I mean Christ, the opening sequence of the Sixth Sense always gives me goosebumps. Fucking brilliant. I think like the Wachowski brothers did with 2 & 3 of their trilogy, Shyamalan has taken his success and started taking less risks. Like I said in that quote above, he needs to start respecting his audience. The guy has plenty of success. The fact that his shitty movies open at 50 million proves that. Why does he continue to churn out turds? Make something that challenges your audience. Who cares if the people who flock to Will Smith summer blockbusters hate it. His name alone will prompt people to go anyway.
I wanna make one more point before I finish. There is a magic trick my grandfather taught me when I was little. The trick works like this..
***
You approach somebody with a deck of cards in your hand. As you get closer to the person you will show the trick to, you carefully peel back two cards off the top and hold them precisely together. You flip up both cards and ask the person,
"What card is this?"
The person will go ahead and tell you. Then, you put both cards back on top and reveal the card on top, which of course is different. Now, I know this sounds stupid.
The people I show this trick to always do one of two things:
A. "Whoa! Do that again!"
B. "I know how you did that.."
See, Shyamalan's films are the same way. Except, the audience who flock to his films from crowd "A" are starting to get tired of the card trick. My grandfather told me after teaching me this little trick as a youngster,
"Never show anybody the trick twice."
We all appreciated The Sixth Sense. Even if most of us film nuts from crowd "B" figured it out from the very beginning of the film, we still appreciated the execution of the trick. The problem is, Shyamalan is showing us the same trick over and over again with crappier execution.
My full review. (//www.road-dog-productions.com/village.html) Spoiler free.
I suppose it's nothing new, but this movie blew.
SPOILERS (not really though)
M Knight is predictable to the tee... he always makes movies that have a predictable twist... but this is his worst yet.
The entire movie revolved around a bad, predicatable twist... there really isn't much more to this movie. This is an Outer Limits or an Alfred Hitchcock presents... MAYBE
I gave half a shit about most of the characters and once I figured out the entire ending (pretty quickly), the whole "what's going on" thing was lost and the movie had nothing left to carry itself on.
not only is the twist unclever and predictable, it tries so hard to be intriguing that it takes away from any substance it would have if you were to strip away the "twist"
this film's grade: Boo minus
Everytime I find myself explaining the story to people, I do pick up on things that I connected together later on that I didn't think of. So, there's a possibility that I made flash judgments and the movie was better than I give it credit for.
...or maybe I was right, but you can't get everything from a movie the first time.
Either or.
Quote from: MyxomatosisBut this is definitely a defining moment for him. Whatever he does next, he's going to have to treat his audience with more respect. It's one thing to want to make a movie about lies. It's another thing to make a movie that is a lie. Understanding that difference and being able to illustrate it is something that seems to have simply escaped him this time out."
I couldn't possibly agree more with this.
I really wish Shyamalan would've done Wuthering Heights instead.
It seems like so many of the reviews are reviewing M. Night and not really The Village as a movie itself.
Well, the movie didn't spontaneously write and direct itself.
;)
Quote from: MyxomatosisWell, the movie didn't spontaneously write and direct itself.
;)
...and produce.
SPOILERS
I think something to keep in mind is that he actually stayed away from making a supernatural film this time, and the predictable twist wasn't exactly the end of the movie as it had been in 6th and Unbreakable (I don't count Signs as a twist)
AIGHJT
Spoy Spoy
I don't think putting it seven minutes before credits instead of just three really counts as breaking the formula.
and you're right... Signs just wanted to have a twist... it wasn't an actual twist.
If those things were supposed to be "the one's we don't speak of" then why did they speak of them every two minutes?
spoilers
he found one of the suits of the monsters that we hid underneath the boards in the floor of the room that we happened to put him in.
I hate crap like this in movies.
Quote from: poser(isms)spoilers
he found one of the suits of the monsters that we hid underneath the boards in the floor of the room that we happened to put him in.
I hate crap like this in movies.
SpoilersI'm assuming that room was part of their home. He lived his entire life with access to that room, but never found the suit.
It's his worst movie..
But really though, who likes movies anyway.
I like movies fool!!
Quote from: nixIf those things were supposed to be "the one's we don't speak of" then why did they speak of them every two minutes?
I thought about that, too.
The fact they have the term "Those We Don't Speak Of," you'd think they'd speak of them. So shorten it up.
I think the movie would've been 40 minutes shorter if they would've shortened their names.
...And cut out the twist.It would all be for the better.
Shyamalan's twists aren't twist endings for the fun of having a twist ending. They're the vine which the story grows from, like grapes on a grapevine. Without it, the movie would just be a creature fright film. I guess that's what some audiences wanted though.
Quote from: meatballQuote from: poser(isms)spoilers
he found one of the suits of the monsters that we hid underneath the boards in the floor of the room that we happened to put him in.
I hate crap like this in movies.
Spoilers
I'm assuming that room was part of their home. He lived his entire life with access to that room, but never found the suit.
as i saw it, he broke thru the floor trying to escape, there he found the suit.
also, he seemed to *know* , even in his retardness or whatever, he wasnt completely innocent...
Quote from: ProgWRXalso, he seemed to *know* , even in his retardness or whatever, he wasnt completely innocent...
Retards can't have a sense of right and wrong?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrarc.org%2Fcontent%2Fphotos%2Fpeople%2Fgold_coral%2Fgoldencorral_2.jpg&hash=8baf9a808cc36b0ba342f95f15145041e3648430)
I Know Not What I Do!!!
Quote from: ranemaka13Quote from: ProgWRXalso, he seemed to *know* , even in his retardness or whatever, he wasnt completely innocent...
Retards can't have a sense of right and wrong?
i meant innocent in the way the young people in the village were... (of the fraud)
OK...after reading lots of reviews and comments from lots of people, here's my final thoughts...
I went back to watch this movie again this afternoon. Going into it I had lots of questions that I still wanted answers to. I knew what the ending was now and maybe I could get some closure on them.
The movie was better the second time around. I still didn't have all my questions answered and there were still a couple things I didn't like about it. But I don't think we're suppose to understand everything about it. It plays like an episode of The Twilight Zone (in a good way). I think this guy's trying to make a social commentary on the way we approach fear and faith. If you take it on that level, the message still gets through regardless of some things you didn't like or understand.
Of course it's beautifully shot and there's a wonderful score by JNH. Those factors don't exactly hurt either. I think it might have been too intellegent for some people (which the audience doesn't like). So many people have called it awful but I think they missed a lot of what the movie is really about and the careful way it's executed.
after all the negative reviews, i was expecting it to be really bad, but i liked it.
several of you are saying that you guessed the ending early on.........what gave it away? i think i was helped because i glanced at a post with "spoiler" on it and i thought it said that J. Phoenix was actually a ghost, so they helped keep me off base.
the cameo was very Hitchcock.
i just read something today that said Night was inspired to write Sixth Sense after seeing an episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark?
i wish they would release that on DVD
SPOILERS!!!!
To start off, Those That We Do Not Speak Of are discussed; not shown what they can do and are capable of, which kills any sort of set up of suspense when the Villagers come in contact with them. An opening 'scare' as is standard for horror movies to set the tone about the creatures/killer would have served the movie better.
I guessed the ending early on because the film seemed to play like the reality show, "Colonial House," where people are forced to live like they did back then. I was also reminded on Chuck Palahnuik's "Choke" and the theme park. Once I got that, there really left no sense of surprise or suspense. But even without knowing that, Hurt's explanation to Howard and the photograph reveal were tipped way too early. When Howard is in the woods, we already know the monster is a fake, thus tension for her encounter with it is lost.
The film worked better as a love story/triangle, with Howard and Phoenix playing a believable couple. Those moments of watching their affections and feelings for one another blossom, as well as their acting, were the film's strength.
Quote from: MacGuffinThose moments of watching their affections and feelings for one another blossom, as well as their acting, were the film's strength.
Another strength in the film was the credits... the only criticism is that they should've come much sooner.
*spoilers*
hey mac,
when Ivy is in the woods, the whole monster thing is still left in the open...........he said that there were tales of monsters in the woods in the textbook he taught from.....i believe that's where his idea stemmed from to create the monsters in the first place.
here are the things i had questions about:
1. was sigourney weaver willing to let her son die in order to keep the farce?
2. it makes no sense that the villagers talk the way they do because all of the children were born in that environment.....other than to trick the audience.............but my friend offered up the idea that maybe the colony wanted to speak using actual English instead of the slang of modern day.
3. how could the Adrien Brody character make the sound of an actual animal/pig when he's in the woods with Ivy?.....it's obviously an actual one.............shouldn't it have sounded like a human trying to make that sound?
*SPOILERS*Quote from: bigideas*spoilers*
hey mac,
when Ivy is in the woods, the whole monster thing is still left in the open...........he said that there were tales of monsters in the woods in the textbook he taught from.....i believe that's where his idea stemmed from to create the monsters in the first place.
But it doesn't work because we already saw the suit in the shed. An exact one. So that one bit of V.O. is supposed to give us doubts about it? Weak. You can't play the audience like that to have it both ways.
Quote from: MacGuffin*SPOILERS*
Quote from: bigideas*spoilers*
hey mac,
when Ivy is in the woods, the whole monster thing is still left in the open...........he said that there were tales of monsters in the woods in the textbook he taught from.....i believe that's where his idea stemmed from to create the monsters in the first place.
But it doesn't work because we already saw the suit in the shed. An exact one. So that one bit of V.O. is supposed to give us doubts about it? Weak. You can't play the audience like that to have it both ways.
Yeah, I was wondering why in the hell Shyamalan did that. Seems like a bad call to me, but it still got a gasping reaction from most of the audience, both times I saw it.
*spoilers*
ok, i can't remember how the timeline was edited.
still though..........someone is trying to get Ivy and we don't know who it is........they don't reveal the suit missing from the floorboard until after he falls in the hole, right?
so the supspense changes from: is Ivy going to be gotten by a monster to; someone is in the monster suit trying to get Ivy........who is it? and will they get her?
p.s. i did actually jump in my seat when Ivy fell in the hole.
*SPOILERS*
Quote from: bigideas*spoilers*
ok, i can't remember how the timeline was edited.
still though..........someone is trying to get Ivy and we don't know who it is........they don't reveal the suit missing from the floorboard until after he falls in the hole, right?
so the supspense changes from: is Ivy going to be gotten by a monster to; someone is in the monster suit trying to get Ivy........who is it? and will they get her?
Exactly. The suspense changes from the monster, that we heard all about for the course of the film, is going to get her to who is in the suit. I'm saying that the reveal of the suit to Howard's character before she even encounters the monster in the woods makes one say, 'She's not really in danger. It's a guy in a suit.' It doesn't matter that a suit was revealed in the floorboards afterwards. We could assume the elders had more than one made, and did. If you're okay with that change in suspense, then fine. That's what you got from it. But, for me, all tension for a 'monster'/horror film had been lost by then.
PS: Her dropping in the hole is not suspense; that's surprise, accompanied by the 'stinger' on the soundtrack.
*spoilers*
the mention of the hole was not with the talk of suspense.
i think i see what you're getting at. are you saying, "Why is Ivy afraid if she knows there are no monsters?"
i guess her fear is from the fact that she's blind and in an unfamiliar place and hearing odd sounds..............but then i guess someone could ask, "Why wouldn't her father go with her?"......and that question kinda goes along with the one about Sigourney Weaver keeping the farce even to sacrifice her own son's life. The people of the village are willing to sacrifice their own kids to keep their seclusion from society I guess.
A few people have said that it's like a feature length Twilight Zone, and I agree. But I like the Twilight Zone and I like this movie despite it's gaping holes (nice pun).
anyone know what the last minute reshoot was?
I think all the stuff in the village after Ivy returns was reshot. You never see Joaquin's face in the very last scene...I'll bet he wasn't available.
I agree with the Twilight Zone comparison...but the great thing about the Twilight Zone is that each minute was 30-60 minutes long. Not as much room for vivible plot holes or lame scenes trying to stretch the suspense past the expiration point.
it almost sounds like i'm a big Night fan, but i'm not.
i didn't like Signs too much.
i do like Unbreakable except that the techno music just doesn't seem to fit in some places.
then there's the Sixth Sense........was this critically praised or panned like The Village?
i can never like this movie because there's no way a husband could live with his wife for a year(isn't there a year + between the death and the revelation?) and not realize they're not actually communicating.......there would have already been a divorce..........no one communicated with him but the boy......surely somewhere he would get the idea....he had a doctorate, right?............how did he open the cellar door if he was a ghost?
i just don't understand why people can overlook that in the Sixth Sense, but not overlook some things in The Village.
because the sixth sense still works as a film and this one doesnt. also because those things you mentioned are before the films timeline begins. from the point it begins till the end it tells a coherent story where the twist is allowed to work without the entire film hinging on it like a jenga piece that if removed the movie falls apart (like this one).
the more i think about it, the more this movie really bugs me. the best part was the thing about people who like each other not touching, thats nice. its not awful, but i expect better from him.
SPOILERS
I guess I'm the only one who had no problems with this movie. I saw a late showing so maybe I left my left brain at the door and my right brain was getting me all emotional. But I fell for everything in this movie. I'd like to think I'm not stupid for it. I just don't think about where a movie's going, just where it is. I guess I'm shortsighted, or just don't like ruining things for myself.
Anyhow, I was only pissed once, when they first say the monsters aren't real. I wanted them to be real (was I the only one who was really tense/scared when they came into the town and almost got Ivy? I thought that was well done, keeping them out of focus), I though Night ruined his movie by making them fake.
But then I let go of that and kept going, wondering what would happen in the woods. Then, he says the part "there are legends/stories of monsters in the woods" which made me think, 'hey maybe they are real after all, and the suit was a ruse to make Ivy not be scared?' so I was fucking nervous as hell when she encountered the one in the woods. but then realizing again that they weren't real I was disappointed, it actually made me wonder what all was going on, and it was really sad to see Brody in that hole.
When it turns out it's the present, I was really disturbed at thinking of how a group of traumatized people could do such a thing as create a commune, and the fact that they had done it (which no one can dispute how realistic this is, because the movie says it's so) was very disturbing to think about.
I think I'm the only person who liked this movie, no questions asked, after I saw it. If you did, please comfort me lol, I bought everything the movie gave me, but I"m not a sucker for Shyamalan, though I think Unbreakable is one of the best, if not the best, superhero movies ever made. I've grown to like the faith aspect of Signs, which I hated before because of that fucker Culkin.
SEEMS LIKE A SPOILER, BUT I READ IT WITHOUT HAVING SEEN THE FILM :evil:
admin edit:
yes, BIG FAT OILY GREASY SPOILERS
http://www.newindpress.com/news.asp?id=IEE20040811071327
Shyamalan's 'Village' might get sued for plagiarism
Wednesday August 11 2004 16:39 IST
ANI
WASHINGTON: He might have become eponymous in Hollywood for movies evoking mystery but acclaimed writer- director M. Night Shyamalan has now been accused of drawing his inspiration from children's books.
According to Eonline, his latest movie 'The Village' has come under the scanner after publishing giant Simon & Schuster indicated that it may file a lawsuit against him claiming that the movie is taken our of children's author Margaret Peterson Haddix's first book, Running Out of Time published in 1995.
"It was the fans that really pointed it out in the first place. The book is about a young tomboyish girl in a rural village in the 1800s who comes to learn that, in fact, it is a historical preserve in 1996 and that the adults have kept that secret from the children of the village. She finds that out when her mother sends her out to get medicine. But she learns it pretty early on in the book and then discovers all sorts of other intrigue," the report quoted a spokesman for the publishers as saying.
yah the day after the movie came out a friend of mine linked me to the amazon listing for that book... pretty remarkable indeed.
Hey Gamblor geht weg.,
i feel the same way about the film and pretty much the same way about Night, too.
hmmmm, it has been mentioned that the Sixth Sense was loosely taken from an episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark?
i wonder if Night has mentioned the book before? it is eerily alike.
Aww... and I thought that whole big idea was the movie's one redeeming quality...
This is from Ebert's website under his Q&A section of the website.
***SPOILERS***
Q. M. Night Shyamalan's affection for "The Twilight Zone" is well documented, so I can't help but wonder if the so-called surprise in "The Village" wasn't at least partially borrowed from "A Hundred Yards Over the Rim," a "Twilight Zone" episode written by Rod Serling that starred Cliff Robertson and originally aired on April 7, 1961.
The exact nature of the surprise, and the way it's presented (also prompted by a medical emergency, by the way), are nearly identical to what Shyamalan serves up so unconvincingly in "The Village." You could argue that there are no new ideas, only new ways of presenting them, and of course filmmakers borrow from their pop-cultural inspirations all the time.
But it seems rather sad that someone of Shyamalan's proven talent would borrow so obviously, and then turn a good idea (like Serling's) into -- let's face it -- a really bad one that collapses under scrutiny.
Jeff Shannon, Lynnwood, Wash.
A. "The Village" stirred up a lot of activity in the Answer Man's world, with 162 readers passionately defending or attacking it in about equal numbers. Some of its defenders argued that the "surprise ending" was beside the point.
Ben Angstadt of Irmo, S.C., wrote: "So did you totally miss the point that 'The Village' was about the politics of terror and George W. Bush, or did you just not care?"
And Erik Goodwyn of Cincinnati wrote -- spoiler warning: "What I mean is that even though the creatures aren't scary once their secret is revealed -- that's the point! Shyamalan is saying something very pointed about the peculiar nature of fear."
Several other readers saw the film as an allegory for terror used as an excuse for political repression. That didn't occur to me, but as a theory it doesn't make the film any more entertaining, in my opinion.
*SPOILERS*Quote from: MyxomatosisQ. M. Night Shyamalan's affection for "The Twilight Zone" is well documented, so I can't help but wonder if the so-called surprise in "The Village" wasn't at least partially borrowed from "A Hundred Yards Over the Rim," a "Twilight Zone" episode written by Rod Serling that starred Cliff Robertson and originally aired on April 7, 1961.
I thought about that episode, and it would certainly be the episode that is the closest to "The Village's" 'twist' (although "A Stop At Willoughby" has some similarities too), but it's really kind of a stretch since that "Zone" episode plays it more 'time travel', the reveal is early, the 'villagers' are settlers on a wagon train, and it plays it more on the 'modern day' peoples' POV. Actually, the story is more similar to "12 Monkeys".
so this finally opened last week here..
and so i finally saw it yesterday.
here are a few quotes i agree with.. prepare to gasp.
Quote from: SleuthI think something to keep in mind is that he actually stayed away from making a supernatural film this time, and the predictable twist wasn't exactly the end of the movie as it had been in 6th and Unbreakable (I don't count Signs as a twist)
Quote from: GhostboyBryce Dallas Howard is phenomenal.
Quote from: MacGuffin[The film worked better as a love story/triangle, with Howard and Phoenix playing a believable couple. Those moments of watching their affections and feelings for one another blossom, as well as their acting, were the film's strength.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanYou know, the morning after, this movie is ten times more intriguing to me than it was last night. I somehow wish all the absurdity was intentional.
the hardcore pubrick-philes would remember this opinion..
Quote from: Pubrick, a stupidiot, before seeing the movie, referring to Bryce Dallas Howardyeah and she's butt ugly.
i will now fight anyone who says she is.
the thing with ppl and this movie begins with their attitude towards M Night Shyamalan. he inhabits a bizarre realm of popularity, movie enthusiasts who want to sound like they "know what's up" list him as their favorite director working today. that's the first thing that's wrong with this movie.
but wait! here's my twist.. i liked it. oh u would already hav guessed that from reading the quotes above, but that's because i'm being overambitious with this post. i want to diss the twist-requisite style of MNS, and at the same time redeem the film/post through the grace of Bryce Dallas Howard.
so much like the film, i will let BDH carry this review, beyond its flaws.
i went in expecting a really bad ending that would make the rest of the movie unwatchable. i also expected Judy Greer to be the only thing keeping me from leaving if it got too bad. man, she SUCKED. i am no longer a fan of inverse-owl greer. BDH on the other hand, exceeded expectations. when she became the focus of the story, it was like another movie started.. i stopped caring about the shitty twists, and the OH SO LAME 'modern day' references to soldier deaths on the radio. at one point my waning urge to hate the movie took over in one last subconscious attempt to subvert what was turning out to be a pleasant movie experience, i associated certain angles of BDH as resembling Julia Roberts! i could not believe it, is THIS what sleuth meant by being 'so close' to being good? i wasn't going to stand for it, focussing on her fuller lips and flustered youth, feeding on my renewed inclination toward the redhead variety, i overcame my own self-destructive impulses. a lot of shots in the movie seem to hav been set up for the purpose of uselessly illustrating one or two lines, presumably these could be among the reshot things.. BDH running to [lucius'] side in the final shot was one of the few that worked.
seeing the film through the BDH character might enable a future repeat viewing, and that's ok with me, just like i would only watch the Sixth Sense again for the toni colette scenes. at least MNS got over his latent homo-pedophilia and moved onto more attractive pastures.
so.. yeah. i like bryce dallas howard in this. and the movie's not that bad.
wow, shyamalan finally made a decent movie. a shame so many people dont like it. its funny how i found myself so willingly, though unsuccessfully, trying to defend shyamalan, when two years ago i was doing the exact opposite with signs. and it was tough to not be able to take advantage of all the deprived, vulnerable night fans. overall, i didn't love the film, and i can acknowledge its flaws, but i just felt comfortable with where shyamalan was taking it. I agree with most of what P said.
this film is the most fascist piece of cinema i have seen in a long time. this is a movie for george w. supporters. I suspect m. knight doesn't know he created propaganda for the masses but the rhetoric at the end of the film should have suggested the final decision made by the elite "elders" was the wrong choice to make. i back this up with adrian brody's martyr like representation to turn their cause into a crusade.
m. knight. suggests that few people should make decisions for the majority of a society. that is not democracy. The best way to rule over people is to trick them into fear of the unknown, keep them complacent. shame on you mr. Shyamalan.
-sl-
Damn you, now I gotta see this after all.
No you really don't...
Quote from: socketlevelthis film is the most fascist piece of cinema i have seen in a long time. this is a movie for george w. supporters. I suspect m. knight doesn't know he created propaganda for the masses but the rhetoric at the end of the film should have suggested the final decision made by the elite "elders" was the wrong choice to make. i back this up with adrian brody's martyr like representation to turn their cause into a crusade.
m. knight. suggests that few people should make decisions for the majority of a society. that is not democracy. The best way to rule over people is to trick them into fear of the unknown, keep them complacent. shame on you mr. Shyamalan.
-sl-
um i think you got things BACKWARDS.
Quote from: CinephileNo you really don't...
Thanks, I needed to hear that.
Quote from: ProgWRXQuote from: socketlevelthis film is the most fascist piece of cinema i have seen in a long time. this is a movie for george w. supporters. I suspect m. knight doesn't know he created propaganda for the masses but the rhetoric at the end of the film should have suggested the final decision made by the elite "elders" was the wrong choice to make. i back this up with adrian brody's martyr like representation to turn their cause into a crusade.
m. knight. suggests that few people should make decisions for the majority of a society. that is not democracy. The best way to rule over people is to trick them into fear of the unknown, keep them complacent. shame on you mr. Shyamalan.
-sl-
um i think you got things BACKWARDS.
totally. if anything it's quite obvious that the elders made a stupid choice and they even say so themselves that death is gonna follow them anywhere they go.
what might be perceived as a redemption for the town is Dallas Howard coming back, but that was just for lucius, not for the town's ideals which lucius might reject when he comes to.
Quote from: socketlevelthis film is the most fascist piece of cinema i have seen in a long time. this is a movie for george w. supporters. I suspect m. knight doesn't know he created propaganda for the masses but the rhetoric at the end of the film should have suggested the final decision made by the elite "elders" was the wrong choice to make. i back this up with adrian brody's martyr like representation to turn their cause into a crusade.
m. knight. suggests that few people should make decisions for the majority of a society. that is not democracy. The best way to rule over people is to trick them into fear of the unknown, keep them complacent. shame on you mr. Shyamalan.
-sl-
i walked out the theatre thinking the exact opposite, as P and WRX already said. after all, the only transgression that occurs is done so by a villager, and while most of the elders were willing to let lucius die to keep the town's fear of the woods alive, william hurt's charatcer realises that they made a stupid choice and tells his daughter the truth. and when she finally discovers the real world, the first person she meets is more then willing to help her, contradicting all the bullshit the elders had taught them about how egotistical the outside world is. thats why she says that she's surprised to hear kindness in his voice, or whatever. so, yeah, i thought the film was infact quite anti-bush, which was one of its few redeeming qualities
edit:
Quote from: socketleveli back this up with adrian brody's martyr like representation to turn their cause into a crusade.
adrian brody nearly killed lucius and it seemed as if he was trying to kill BDH as well in the woods when he was chasing her and stuff. she killed him in self defence and we are not supposed to sympathize with the guy.... well, the fact that he's a retard and in love with her and looks like an albatross may induce a little, but still, i would hardly call it martyr. i think that scene was pretty much just to add some horror to the film, because it is an m. night shyamalan movie.
you all bring up interesting points, but i think your ideology and (possibly) love for the film maker are blinding you from the rhetoric. I would love nothing more to think m. knight was saying these things. dissect the film as far as acting and filmmaking and you'll see that this is not the case. he distracts us by investing so much stake in the protagonist character's illness. Also there is a whole sequence where the park ranger must sneak past his boss (played by m. knight) to get the medicine, who are you routing for in that scene? if he got caught then the whole society would collapse, ultimately a good thing. we want him to get away with it so he can come back to the girl. and even there we are assured that he won't tell anyone. when we should be happy that he might.
then at the end of the film, the only hesitation comes from brody's parents. the audience fears the disruption that might come from their disapproval, then they ultimately see the error in their ways and agree with the rest of the elders. it's more a comment on how contemporary society is violent and dangerous (even though i do get your point about how she says that she thought his voice would be more hostile), it is less about how horrible the notion of their community is. i think this is m. knights ignorance as a filmmaker, he didn't know what he was saying with the film's subtext. in turn for his careless decision making ability, he made a very dangerous movie.
i like what you guys are saying, but i think it's an ideal. the same script, regardless of dialog, can be depicted in a multitude of different ways. there is nothing in the rhetoric that suggests what you're saying, give it a second look.
-sl-
I agree with socketlevel, but I don't think Shyamalan made a fascist movie on purpose. I think the whole movie was just so muddled that he failed to present what he was trying to present clearly enough; he said the film was supposed to be an indictment of the horrible state of the world, and he ultimately comes out in favor of the community (which goes against everything I think he was trying to do with the creatures, which ties into why I think the film is unsuccesful as a whole).
And I don't think it is a dangerous film; people would have to love it for it to have any sort of power. Pretty much everyone has forgotten this already.
Quote from: GhostboyAnd I don't think it is a dangerous film; people would have to love it for it to have any sort of power. Pretty much everyone has forgotten this already.
good point, i guess i fear the day he does make a successful film with these same ideologies.
-sl-
Quote from: brocklywell, the fact that he's a retard and in love with her and looks like an albatross may induce a little
Please post a picture of an albatross. I'd like to see what you mean.
Quote from: socketlevelbut i think your ideology and (possibly) love for the film maker are blinding you from the rhetoric
Hardly.
Quote from: NimoyQuote from: brocklywell, the fact that he's a retard and in love with her and looks like an albatross may induce a little
Please post a picture of an albatross. I'd like to see what you mean.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nutmusic.com%2Falzo%2Fimages%2Fadrien_brody.jpg&hash=a336a9db385e5926c328f52b84b78922a32de2b3)
adrien brody
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wildlifewebsite.com%2Fgalapagos%2Falbatross-hood-island-82.jpg&hash=165dde866b12f76185d8c5393205f3c2a842adbb)
albatross
he does have a point there
R.I.P. - that joke.
anyway, i don't give a fuck about m night s., i hated signs, and i've lost interest in unbreakable and 6th. this film has sum powerful moments i think which outweigh his other films. his flaw may be that his films lack rewatchability.. he likes the idea of being popular too much.
Quote from: socketlevelbut i think your ideology and (possibly) love for the film maker are blinding you from the rhetoric
:roll: no, no its not.
anyway, you bring up some good points. i didnt like the film enough to go on defending it. i still think its m night's best.
Quote from: Pubrickanyway, i don't give a fuck about m night s., i hated signs, and i've lost interest in unbreakable and 6th. this film has sum powerful moments i think which outweigh his other films. his flaw may be that his films lack rewatchability.. he likes the idea of being popular too much.
exactly.. i loved unbreakable when i saw it in the theatre, but i was only 13-14 years old when it came out. saw it again recently on tv and didnt care for it at all. never liked 6th sense. this film at least had
some great moments, unlike his other movies.
Quote from: brocklythis film at least had some great moments, unlike his other movies.
I thought all his films have
some great moments, this one just seemed to have more (but I'm a sucker for period pieces).
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers4%2Fvillagevistadvd.jpg&hash=b24992e950f695edb21a62e2407d71ca77d7fb3a)
Miramax has officially announced the release of M. Night Shyamalan's The Village: Vista Series for 1/11/05 in full frame and anamorphic widescreen versions. Also on the way is The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan documentary (also 1/11/05).
unbreakable was my favorite of his.
i think shyamalan is a very talented director. he knows the importance of the understatement. but some of his writing is a little hoaky. his movies have a lot of creative scenes, but when you step back and look at the big picture, it's usually a mess.
the biggest surprise of the village for me was(SPOILERS) when pheonix gets stabbed. i groaned at the "other twist", but at least thought it was cool how they concluded it.
Great! Can't wait for the dvd and the documentary!
The dvd is blah, nothing terribly interesting on it, though the deleted scene 'pipes' should DEFINITELY have been left in the film. It certainly clears up a question I had.
I found the movie to be an interesting failure (like others I guess). Definitely suprised by BDH, I had written her off as fugly and only getting work b/c of her daddy. Cinematically, I found the weakest part of the film to be Ivy's trek/confrontation w/ the beast (complete w/ step-printing slo-mo, one of the biggest crimes of post). No surprise, the behind-the-scenes shows how they had no time to shoot the stuff. The 'twist' could have been worked better (I too, was thinking 'so what?' when Ivy was being chased), and I would have thought they could have been a better way to reveal what's in the mysterious black boxes (Hurt and his wife going through it in secret is not dramatically interesting, just horribly presentational). I thought the stabbing scene was brilliantly done, and kudos for the first 'invasion' scene, definitely well-done. It's a shame all the pieces don't quite mesh, b/c I do dig the message. Oh well.
Quote from: Weak2ndActThe dvd is blah, nothing terribly interesting on it, though the deleted scene 'pipes' should DEFINITELY have been left in the film. It certainly clears up a question I had.
What question was that?
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: Weak2ndActThe dvd is blah, nothing terribly interesting on it, though the deleted scene 'pipes' should DEFINITELY have been left in the film. It certainly clears up a question I had.
What question was that?
Buy the DVD and find out.
Quote from: WalrusQuote from: MacGuffinQuote from: Weak2ndActThe dvd is blah, nothing terribly interesting on it, though the deleted scene 'pipes' should DEFINITELY have been left in the film. It certainly clears up a question I had.
What question was that?
Buy the DVD and find out.
Ahem (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=170670#170670)
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: Weak2ndActThe dvd is blah, nothing terribly interesting on it, though the deleted scene 'pipes' should DEFINITELY have been left in the film. It certainly clears up a question I had.
What question was that?
Where the sounds in the forest were coming from.
Quote from: At wehateyouandyourhorrendoustasteineverything.com DrDetroitI think in regards to M. Night, he just makes terrible films with remarkably thin plots and the same formula over and over. That's not auteurism, that's autism.
Awful. I liked the 6th Sense, Unbreakable and the first 2/3 of Signs. I always felt that Mid Night Shamalamadingdong was a skilled director but not a very good writer. Now I'm convinced of that even more, although I think less of his direction after this.
I hate to say a movie is boring, it tends to reflect the attitude of the viewer more so than the movie, but this was boring. There were 2 moments (and I mean 3 second shots) that I liked. This was the 2nd and 3rd shots of the "creatures'. The first shot of the "creature" was good except for the cheap "insert loud sound here" technique.
I agree the twist is awful, but I could have lived with it had the characters been developed into something, but they weren't. When *Spoilers* Joaquin gets stabbed, I was happy he was dead (Dead Man Joaquin). \. The timeline of the reveals are all wrong with us knowing that they are fake when blindy is in the woods.
*end spoilers*
There are the obvious plot holes, but during the film I couldn't help but think that in this small village with the young generation being about 8 people strong, one was blind and another was retarded. Good genes.
Shamalama is wearing thin on me. I always admired him for his long takes and how he stays away from the close up but he took that a little too far in this movie. The distance kept us from really caring about the characters.
Truly forgetable film from a writer/director whose career will likely end with similiar results.
** out of 5 stars
What The Village Is Really About...
SPOILER WARNING!
All of the haters of this movie did not understand it, pure and simple. The main reason so many people were disappointed was because they wanted it to be scary. It's creepy at times, but not really scary. The whole movie is really a profound commentary on human nature and people isolating each other. I live in the south where these kinds of people are all over. Some bad things might have happened in their past causing them to be scared and not wanting the same thing to happen to their children. Thus they isolate them and keep them away from the outside world. The children are exposed to only a certain way of life with morals and values. People do this in the movie and people do this in real life. The "creatures" I believe is only a metaphor for the darkness that the adults experienced earlier in their life and it's a way to keep the community away from the outside world. They have good intentions, but what they're doing is obviously wrong. Critics were accusing Shyamalan of wanting to make just another movie with a twist ending. But the movie does a lot more than just that. It gives us insight into these kinds of people. What makes it truly shocking is the lengths people will go to to isolate others (by making it look like the 1800's when it's really 2004, etc...). I believe it's a brilliant puzzle that is profound, beautiful and quite shocking. I encourage everyone to give the movie another chance keeping all of this in mind. Some people have seen it again on DVD and liked much more the second time. But all of this is what makes The Village so good.
Agree.
I thought it was obviously a comment on Bush's America. In the sense that the authorities make their best to keep their citizens ignorant and afraid of a made up foreign threat in order to protect a would-be innocence of the community.
I think a lot of people dislike this film because they think it's just a thriller, it's not. It's a very intelligently scripted and beautifully shot depiction of current events. And I hope Shyamalan's career will end with similar results because the result is a brilliant film.
WAIT
YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THAT THE POINT WAS SUBTLE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!? PART OF WHY I DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE AS MUCH IS BECAUSE I WAS SUFFOCATING
so I see, this is like the horror version of Dogville, which was like the dog version of nashville.
I like Shyamalan's rhythm, in kind of the same way I like Tarantino's rhythm (post-Pulp Fiction).
Quote from: peteso I see, this is like the horror version of Dogville, which was like the dog version of nashville.
that made me laugh so hard.
Quote from: Sleuth
YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THAT THE POINT WAS SUBTLE?
not at all. the word I used was "obviously".
Quote from: rustinglassQuote from: Sleuth
YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THAT THE POINT WAS SUBTLE?
not at all. the word I used was "obviously".
That still doesn't explain why I'd rather have not understood it
This is the biggest piece of shit movie... It was weird that I didnt see it until today, but now I understand why...
i've read the last couple pages of posts and it's sad to see the point has been lost entirely over the last few months. whether the film is subtle or overt is not the issue. sure the isolation/bush allusions are there; but to what extent? one can not assume that just because the topic is covered in the film, it naturally must have a social progressive message. there exists also conservative reform rhetoric. the first step has been taken, and the majority see a message formulated in the film, now dissect the rhetoric (the way the message is treated) and you will see that it backs bush, backs fear, and does not wage any action against the contemporary anti-free thinking mindset.
-sl-
I didn't think it took the side of either.
I thought it was more of an observation that people would rather choose to hide, to be controlled, to be kept isolated from the outside world than to face the inevitable dangers that will touch them all. It is for the viewer to decide if this is right or wrong.
The radio broadcast of the war was just to give us a contemporary time frame; this is happening today, not 20 years before.
(I'm almost positive this point has been made before...)
This film was a bit disapointing, maybe because of the hype for it, but the end made me smile and it was quite disturbing and sad the way the characters felt about the world around them.
Quote from: SiliasRuby on May 10, 2006, 11:40:09 AM
This film was a bit disapointing, maybe because of the hype for it
what hype? what year are you living in? the general hype for this film is/was nothing but negative reviews and accounts of disappointment.
yea okay, so tell me again why we're talking about this movie?
Quote from: ©brad on May 10, 2006, 03:08:31 PM
yea okay, so tell me again why we're talking about this movie?
tell me about it... every time I see this thread's been updated, I think that they're finally releasing the Criterion. Let's hold off until we get some REAL news people!