![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosmolinguistI read the news these days, so I know everything. For instance, M. Night Shyamalan has a new movie. Figures--it's been a couple years since the last one, so it's now time to brace myself for hearing about the new one.
I have never liked this guy. I watched The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable without realizing they were both written and directed by him, though I should've guessed because he has a very distinctive style. Those movies share the same annoying trait I just read about in a review of his new film, The Village: 'The expected Shyamalan twist is actually a cinch to intuit; but most viewers will, as I did, reject that intuition as both too obvious and too far-fetched.'
This was especially annoying with The Sixth Sense because so many people seemed to love that movie. I was all right with it the first time I saw it, becaus Bruce WIllis was forbidden to act too much and Haley Joel Osment really is good (I can't think of anyone else I like as much who's been in so many spectacularly bad movies--Forrest Gump, The Sixth Sense, A.I., Pay It Forward ... and don't ask me why I've seen all those). But once I knew the Surprise Twist Ending was something I'd already taken for granted throughout the movie, it wasn't fun any more. I've watched a few minutes of it on TV since then, and it just bored me. I'd given Shyamalan his chance to entertain me, and he'd blown it.
The same was true of Unbreakable, though that was a bit better because no one else liked it either, so I didn't hear anyone exclaiming, 'And did you notice Bruce Willis never touches anything? Yeah, that's because he can't.'
I was not fooled by the trailer for Signs, which tried to make it look like a horror movie, but even I wasn't expecting anything a movie featuring Mel Gibson crying and the dumbest aliens in the universe. (Water kills them, so they invade a planet whose surface is three-quarters water?)
I don't have a point to make here, I just want to tell M. Might Shyamalan to go away.
I have never liked this guy. I watched The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable without realizing they were both written and directed by him, though I should've guessed because he has a very distinctive style. Those movies share the same annoying trait I just read about in a review of his new film, The Village: 'The expected Shyamalan twist is actually a cinch to intuit; but most viewers will, as I did, reject that intuition as both too obvious and too far-fetched.'
This was especially annoying with The Sixth Sense because so many people seemed to love that movie. I was all right with it the first time I saw it, becaus Bruce WIllis was forbidden to act too much and Haley Joel Osment really is good (I can't think of anyone else I like as much who's been in so many spectacularly bad movies--Forrest Gump, The Sixth Sense, A.I., Pay It Forward ... and don't ask me why I've seen all those). But once I knew the Surprise Twist Ending was something I'd already taken for granted throughout the movie, it wasn't fun any more. I've watched a few minutes of it on TV since then, and it just bored me. I'd given Shyamalan his chance to entertain me, and he'd blown it.
The same was true of Unbreakable, though that was a bit better because no one else liked it either, so I didn't hear anyone exclaiming, 'And did you notice Bruce Willis never touches anything? Yeah, that's because he can't.'
I was not fooled by the trailer for Signs, which tried to make it look like a horror movie, but even I wasn't expecting anything a movie featuring Mel Gibson crying and the dumbest aliens in the universe. (Water kills them, so they invade a planet whose surface is three-quarters water?)
I don't have a point to make here, I just want to tell M. Might Shyamalan to go away.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 05:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 07:23 am (UTC)I meant 'cowered'; it's still early.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 07:40 am (UTC)I can understand that perspective, but personally, I just thought that 'a real-life superhero'--once I get over the idea of that being an oxymoron--is a good enough idea that it had the potential to be done really well, so I'm annoyed that M. Night's peed on it--wrecking it but also making sure no one else can have it either (which is the same gripe I have with A.I., actually, except that's almost worse because I sometimes like those two directors).
And I realize that any premise that gets aliens to Earth is silly (especially because, if they're belligerent aliens, you know the puny little humans have to have some Fatal Flaw that can be discovered and exploited at the end of the movie). But the reason I have watched Independence Day repeatedly without minding too much and yet could never say that about Signs is that the latter had aspirations to be A Film With Something Important To Say that the former never did--it was just a Hollywood summer blockbuster. It succeeded at what it wanted to do, and Signs didn't.
Or at least I would argue that it didn't, because even though I know people who like it, they don't seem to like it for the reasons Shyamalan would want them to. He doesn't seem to see imperfections that all but the most dense, most rabid fans would. His stories seem, to me, the cinematic equivalent of certain adolescent pretentiousness--not the aggressive sort that makes me want to slap someone, but the gentler sort that's convinced it's original and universal but is in fact so boring that I only shake my head and wander off to find some actual entertainment.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 09:15 am (UTC)Despite it apparently not being cool any more, I still love Steven Spielberg. And since we're talking about alien movies ... E.T. is one of my favorite movies, period. It caught me when I was still young and impressionable, but when I bought the 20th anniversary edition DVD I realized, to my surprise, that it was at least as good as I remembered. And I just got Close Encounters of the Third Kind last week--it's one of those movies that I always know I like but never get around to actually buying. I don't think that's a bad depiction either--sure maybe the aliens won't take over people's minds and tell them to go out in the desert ... but maybe they will! (I don't see it as totally unrealistic, anyway, as I can point to things like the inclusion of bureaucratic intervention and its clever way to get around the language barrier.) And anyway, it does show that this stuff isn't all fun and games, even if there are no firefights. It strikes me as rather subtle, for an alien movie, and I like that about it.
It is, I think, precisely that boyishness you speak of that keeps E.T. from descending into the sappy drivel it's so close to being ... yet there's a sense of things like adventure, wonder, adaptability and defiance, all of which seem more evident in kids than adults, that makes the movie work. M. Night Shyamalan has never achieved that sort of ... I hesitate to say humanity, because that sounds as pretentious as he does, but that's the only word I can think of at the moment ... whatever it is, I know it's missing and I know that's why I can't forgive him his faults as I can with someone like Spielberg.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 09:04 am (UTC)And I’m not sure if the plot twists in The Village are meant to be surprising, the way the ones in The Sixth Sense were meant to be (those were spoiled by the movie’s marketing, but what can you do?).
(I also own Unbreakable, by the way.)
M. Night's 9/11
Date: 2004-08-05 10:02 am (UTC)Re: M. Night's 9/11
Date: 2004-08-05 10:13 am (UTC)My mistake
Date: 2004-08-05 08:43 pm (UTC)Still, the shooting script is very pre-9/11. I mean, where do the aliens get killed by water first? In the fricking Holy Land! Heh.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 10:01 am (UTC)Reading all the comments, I find myself quite amused. I happen to love 'Forrest Gump,' it's one of my favorites ever, and thought that 'Unbreakable' was a great origins story for a comic book character... and I think the origins stories are usually the best part of a good superhero. (Also why I'm looking forward to the new Batman flick with Christian Bale.) I even liked 'Signs,' and mostly liked how it was not about what all the ads and marketing types tried to tell us it was about. And 'E.T.'? Never really liked that one.
So, again, comedy... I see eye-to-eye with you frequently, but am amused at how vastly different we are with movies.
Side note: The DVD of 'Stargate' has a couple of added scenes that I think make the movie make a lot more sense... or at least give some of the motivations behind certain characters more weight and credibility.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-09 11:22 pm (UTC)Take that back!
Date: 2004-08-05 10:07 am (UTC)Oh, Holly, don't make 1.2 billion Chinese mad at you ;-)
Speaking of Osment, did you see his spectacularly bad Secondhand Lions? If so, what did you think?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 10:41 am (UTC)I had no such luck
Date: 2004-08-05 08:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 11:49 am (UTC)That said, I still enjoyed the movie (despite its flaws). Joachin Phoenix and Adrien Brody are really good in it, especially. Phoenix will win an Oscar someday for Best Actor.....he's great.....
this is about your hair
Date: 2004-08-05 02:27 pm (UTC)secondly, we'll take the shyamalan movies in order. The sixth sense was very good for a movie with a surprise ending. Most movies like that REALLY suck. Take gothika or anything of that caliber and compare. Most movies are terrible like that. Plus you gotta give Shyamalan some props for his film making skills. Although the comparison is shoddy at best, shyamalan is mimicking hitchcock, and occaisionally he succeeds in some fairly interesting tension building scenes. He did this in The sixth sense. And in signs, which I thought had some really good scenes with the alien in the closet, and when the alien or whatever was on the roof. These are shock value scenes but I thought they were directed very well.
that skipped ahead, because I missed unbreakable. which I thought was a rather slow-moving movie about something that is usually fast paced. Super-hero movies are supposed to be full of action, danger, super-villians etc. This one gave you none of that. Quite the interesting choice, except that it was rather boring. I would challenge any of the people who own this movie to ask them how many times they've watched this movie since they've bought it. I would sincerely doubt it was any great number of times. Again interesting film-making though, with some of the most original shots of any of his films.
Signs again, because why not? again good scenes, but the ending really messes up this movie. Why did they show the alien? And how come this movie makes no logical sense? Why would aliens come to a planet to take it over that is over two thirds water if they could be killed by water? No goddamn sense in that one.
I haven't seen the village yet, but I suspect that it suffers from similar problems. And all these problems can be easily solved by... Mr. Shyamalan getting over this whole directed AND written by bullshit. He needs to stop writing his own movies. He did okay in sixth sense, but I equate that to the first album rule....
the first album rule: you ever notice how the first album of a lot of music groups is usually pretty damn good. Primus, Pearl jam, etc. you know why that is: It's because when you get your first album you've usually been writing a whole bunch of songs, some that you kept and some that sucked. so you threw away all the sucky ones, and put the good ones on the album. therefore, good first album, but after that you're pressured to come out with another album, so you write a bunch of songs that don't get tested by time,, but you still think they're good enough to put on the album, so you do the deed and come out with a less-than spectacular second album!
anyways, those are my rules. and those are my opinions feel free to destroy my arguments one by one.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:07 am (UTC)Eyes Wide Shut had no redeeming qualities that I could see. I don't even remember if I watched the whole thing or not. The Shining had decent direction, I suppose, but I never liked the story (I know that's not his fault; I'd read the book before I saw the movie--well, part of the book, and I'm not usually one to leave books unfinished). Once it lost the shock value it had when it was made, Lolita is unimpressive. 2001 strikes me as a dreadfully boring version of the story that was presented much better in Arthur C. Clarke's novel. Spartacus is all right but not something I'd watch for fun. Same goes for A Clockwork Orange (though it's also been a while since I watched that, and I don't remember it well).
Fans of Kubrick talk about how his style of directing is the great thing that holds his movies together, and I've just never thought that. I often find them disjointed, unpleasant things to watch, where I'm left wondering at the end why I bothered watching the thing at all.
It's a bit like the problems I have with Shyamalan, now that I think about it. I do appreciate good filmmaking, but unusual camera angles alone are not enough to hold my attention. In Shyamalan's case, the attempts to behave like A Great Director are transparent enough that I can't help but notice how he's trying to be someone like Hitchcock (a comparison I've heard often, though I've also read that he's attempting to emulate Quentin Tarantino and silly people like that).
In fact I'd say that the trait The Sixth Sense has in common with first albums (I could be nitpicky and point out that The Sixth Sense actually wasn't his first film but, I think, his third--the first two were tiny low-budget things that no one liked, though, and anyway Sense was his first big studio-backed production, so your point is still well-made) isn't that it's the result of a lifetime of effort and culling bad stuff, but becuase it was obviously derivative, as many first albums are. Led Zeppelin's first album was old blues, Oasis tried to sound just like the Beatles (well, Oasis still tries to sound just like the Beatles, but that's because they're deplorable as artists) ... It's not unusual for the first album to be one where the band haven't really figured themselves out yet, haven't found their 'style.'
Most people don't begrudge new artists a bit of imitation, because that's how everyone learns music and writing and other arts. So I don't mind that Shyamalan wants to be Hitchcock--I understand the appeal; I love him too--but I do mind that he doesn't ever go beyond his influences to create anything unique--other than the hokey, forced effect his 'suprise endings' have, which is by far the most affecting part of his movies ... too bad the only thing it affects people with is annoyance.
I agree with you (and others) who say that this could be solved and he could be a good director if he just concentrated on that and let someone else write good stories for him. I'd rather have good writing than good directing anyway; I can forgive clumsiness in presentation a lot easier than I can forgive the lack of any substance in the movie.
I am not a film buff
Date: 2004-08-06 03:33 pm (UTC)Butt...
kubrick is the man. I wish "taste" could be translated via e-text messages, but unfortunately it cannot be. so I may never be able to convince you of anything using arguments. and like wise you may not be able to convince me of diddly squat.
that being said, here's my argument:
first of all: I agree that many people want to talk about things like style and atmosphere when they discuss Kubrick's films. and there's a lot to that point. The shining's opening credits is one of the most atmospheric sequences on film. and that film builds tension in very unique ways. there are many images and sounds in that film that seem to stick with me. like the sequence when danny is riding through the halls on his big-wheel and he runs into the twins.
again with 2001, the story moving slowly deliberatly. and while I think that film is intentionally a whole lot of things, it's the very intention that I think kubrick is able to convey in his films. A deliberate intention.
it's like when you read a story by kafka. you feel that every word and every phrase is the most important word or phrase in the book. that if you could somehow keep and understand all of these together, you would understand the greatness of the work. Now kafka, like kubrick, doesn't always choose or come up with the most original story, or even the most facinating/ fast-paced ideas, but it's the quality of the writing, (or in kubrick's case, the movie making) that gives it it's relevance.
now, that being said, that does not mean that everybody will (or should) get or understand kubrick or kafka. but there are things about kubrick's film making that are great, and I think they can be appreciated for what they are whether you actually recieve enjoyment from viewing these films or not.
and I think that's what I gather from your post. You want to recieve something from watching a film? You want to recieve enjoyment, but that is not the aim of all films. Kubrick's films, like any really great director's, want to challenge you. they want to challenge you to face something different, something unique, something not always easy to swallow.
best example of that is Eyes Wide Shut, which I believe to be one of his finest films. There are so many little things in that film that make it a unique vision. The sets in particular were astounding.
Kurosawa's Dreams was a little bit like that.
anyways... I've gotta go... but there's probably more...
here's a question though for you: What are your favorite films? Just curious to know.
-bill
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-07 12:53 pm (UTC)My favorite part of Signs was learning the aliens couldn't twist doorknobs & open doors. Locking them in the PANTRY? Hello? LMAO!
My husband is CONVINCED the aliens in that movie were trying to HELP everyone. Like, when the one alien was holding Mel's son & sprayed that gas in his face---STeve thinks the alien saved the kid's life and we can't assume the aliens were necessarily 'bad'.
I keep saying they were poised for hostile takeover, & he needs to let this other crap go, already.
As for The Village---it was just more lameness. God, what a waste of money.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-07 03:27 pm (UTC)(But I, Robot was atrocious, I really don't think I've seen a worse movie in a while. Though part of the problem isn't just that it's bad but that Asimov's name was tacked on this horrible piece of garbage. Even without my loyalty to him, though, I don't think I could've found anything good about it; it was a string of cliches and nothing more.)
Not that you needed to hear that! All I meamt was to relay the amusing anecdote of the first paragraph. :-D I'll stop now.
Oh, except I was going to say that at least one of my friends also tried to argue that the aliens were there for good and not for evil. But I don't think that can be it; because this is an M. Night Shyamalan movie, it would've been made much more obvious, painfully so, if that were the case.
Also, I like your icon.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-07 03:40 pm (UTC)As for the robot movie, even the trailers for that one look horrible. LOL! You poor dear. I'm sorry you had to see that.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-09 11:26 pm (UTC)