That's harsh. He's made more then a few good movies. His last few have been crap.
Another load of Shyamalan
- Thread starter Grinner
- Start date
Rubbish,
Unbreakable, The Sixth Sense and Signs are all decent or more than decent. The Village could probably qualify for decent as well(but not more than that).
Its what he's done after these movies (Lady in the Water, The Happening and TLAB) that has led him to be ridiculed on such a large scale.
Ridiculed my most, hailed as an "works of art" by internet gobbledegook-believing weirdos.
I thought Signs was only slightly less terrible than the Happening, but each to their own.
How many of his films have ended with a twist?
They don't have to be works of art though do they? I mean, 95% of all movies released worldwide aren't works of art. A "The Thin Red Line" was a work of art, but how many people have you met who think that? How many people have actually even seen it?
I wouldn't say any of Nights films are works of art, not even Sixth sense. It's clear he's heavily influenced by hitchcock and tries to use a lot of his techniques. That makes it difficult to appreciate him as anything more then an immitator. But with the exception of Lady in the Water, and perhaps The Happening, none of his other movies have bombed.
Even Last Airbender which was heavily panned made some 250-300 million, so it'll break even (with DVD sales and rentals).
A few too many. That's been his problem. He overused that gimmick once too often after sixth sense. There is also the problem of him taking too much creative control over his projects. As a director I think he actually gets decent performances out of his actors. If he managed to delegate and collaborate on some of his scripts i'm sure he'd be a lot more successful.
Like that Billy Walsh character from Entourage he seems obsessive about having control over his projects and that has ended up hurting the final product.
Of course, it's been fashionable to beat up on him like he's some sort of hack. Sorta like it was fashionable to beat up on Berba...truth is, he's not the worst director out there, and he's certainly not the genius his hardcore fans would have us believe. He's somewhere in the middle.
Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't consider ANY of his films a "work of art"
The Last Airbender is a summer movie, for kids, based off of a cartoon. Of course it made money.
Box office is fairly meaningless when it comes to judging the quality of a film anyway.
Quite proud of that. Not easy to discuss Shymalan movies without using the word shit in every post. No idea what you're on about with "fart" though. What a weird thing to say.
Not your first weird contribution to this thread, mind you, with my personal favourite being the bit where you called The Happening a "work of art". Priceless
Not your first weird contribution to this thread, mind you, with my personal favourite being the bit where you called The Happening a "work of art". Priceless
More like "work of fart", amiright?
Shart
Quite proud of that. Not easy to discuss Shymalan movies without using the word shit in every post. No idea what you're on about with "fart" though. What a weird thing to say.
Not your first weird contribution to this thread, mind you, with my personal favourite being the bit where you called The Happening a "work of art". Priceless
So, first of all I say the movie is very good and explain why, you then post some meaningless 'as I was saying' crap, to which I eventually respond, sarcastically, that the movie is a work of art. And you believed that? Ok.
Yeah, but so is calling a movie a piece of art. That's even more subjective. At least the box office offers a metric by which to judge movies. An important one at that. If movies are primarily an entartainment commodity, then how much they make is far more important then its actual artistic merit.
Not saying a box office hit = quality movie, but it does tell us people are willing to go and watch it which in turn tells studios that the director, the crew and the cast aren't as crap as some pretentious farts are making them out to be.
That last sentence makes no sense.
Are you trying to claim that a movie which makes a lot of money is, by definition, a good film or not?
If you are, then do you really need me to start listing the dozens of dreadful films that have made a lot of money.
If you're not using box office as a proxy for quality, then why even mention it? Implying that someone is a "pretentious fart" for pointing out that a movie which makes big money might still be a crap film is one of the most stupid comments in this thread (fighting off stiff competion)
Actually, the easiest way of making my point is by asking you a simple question. Do you think it's possible for a crap movie to do well in the box office?
Rubbish,
Unbreakable, utter shit The Sixth Sense Good if you don't know the twist and Signs So bad you
Its what he's done after these movies (Lady in the Water, The Happening and TLAB) that has led him to be ridiculed on such a large scale.
As I said 1 decent film and the rest utter rubbish.
The sentence makes perfect sense. You said the box office isn't a meaningful way to determine the quality of the movie. I disagree. I think it is. It's not the only way, but it's certainly one way to do it. I go on to argue that quality is a subjective term. What constitutes quality for you, might not be quality to a 15 year old emo chick who loves pale faced vampires and highschool romance sagas. So, it's rather arrogant to use the word quality and bring it under one umbrella as if one person, or one group decides what is, or isn't quality.
I don't doubt you can list a dozen movies that have been dreadful and made money, and I bet I can point you to a thousand people who have watched those dreadful movies and enjoyed them (some might even say they were quality). So, what exactly have you proven? Nothing..
Which is why, the box office is a more accurate test. It's an economic metric, it quantifies the popularity of the product and gives a fair reading on what the market wants. The pretentious farts as I label them are sample groups which while vocal aren't always indicative or in touch with the views held by the entire market. They're views while influential aren't therefore always right.
No, it's not. It's a reasonable a point to make to someone claiming that the box office is a meaningless way to measure quality. And yes, it's the very definition of pretentious to suggest that one persons opinion (which is essential free) should be taken over the millions, and billions of dollars spend by a vast number of people.
Again, i'm not saying the old farts are wrong in slating a movie for being poor, or that the lemmings are always right. But when it comes to stupid...both share blame if they think they are 100% right. The box office sales give a good indication of what the market as a whole is trending towards, and the critics and influencers certainly have a sway in determining how well a particular movie does. But to say one is more important then the other is arrogance at best, and stupidity at worst.
By calling the profitability of a movie a meaningless figure when considering its quality you fall into the latter category.
Absolutely. It's not only possible, but in my opinion more then a few really crap movies have done well at the box office. By the same token, more then a few 'real pieces of art' have failed miserably at the box office. All that tells me is that sometimes i'm not part of the general movie going crowd, and what I consider quality isn't necessarily what is accepted by the wider movie going public.
I thought Passions of the Christ was a crap movie. But it made a LOT of money. A Lot of people went to see it, and it was a box office hit. So, am I right that it was a crap movie (me, being the pretentious fart who saw it as 2 hours of torturefest), or are the millions of people who shelled out hard cash to enjoy it right? They call it a piece of art, I think it's crap...so, who's right?
What I consider a crap movie, to the studios who made it was a blockbuster. In my infinite arrogance I like to believe they were wrong, but I doubt they see it that way. If they could figure out a way to kill Christ in the sequel, i'm sure they'd do it.
Quite proud of that. Not easy to discuss Shymalan movies without using the word shit in every post. No idea what you're on about with "fart" though. What a weird thing to say.
Not your first weird contribution to this thread, mind you, with my personal favourite being the bit where you called The Happening a "work of art". Priceless
It must be a WUM at work.
Since you asked me a simple question. Let me return the favor.
If Box office is meaningless when it comes to judging the quality of a film, then what do you suggest as an alternative?
You are right. All these made money and were utter shit
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
New Moon
The Da Vinci Code
Superman Returns
The Golden Compass
Spiderman 3
X Men: Last Stand
Alexander
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
Poseidon
Rush Hour 3
Waterworld
Many would also include
Van Helsing
Transformers 2
Wolverine
Sahara (just broke even I think or nearly so)
Titanic
Terminator Salvation (Terminator 3 was worse if it made money which I doubt)
Right. I agree with almost all of those. But...
just cause you and me think they were shit doesn't mean anything.
Transformers 3 will be out in a couple of years. It's probably already being shot as we speak. So while we might pan it as being crap, obviously someone in a suit thinks it's not. And to be honest, there's probably a 14 year old kid who's just as entitled to his opinion who thinks all those really pointless action scenes and no semblance of a plot line or character development made for a 'qwality' movie as well.
I guess my point is, the word quality, or crap, or anything else we use to describe a film changes depending on who you ask. The suit looks at it as profitable. The fanboi sees it as quality, and we look at it as crap.
The artistic merits of a movie are subjective at best, but the profitability isn't. Which is why even if don't agree with it, I do consider box office as a useful metric. I won't go and watch every blockbuster movie just cause it's made 500 million, but i am curious to know what it is about the movie that has made it so profitable. sometimes it's not the movie, it's the hype or the marketing, but as someone who is interested in looking at the market and how it shapes opinions I do think it's useful to look at things like box office, and ratings to see how such thing fluctuate and determine the relative successes of movies.
Right. I agree with almost all of those. But...
just cause you and me think they were shit doesn't mean anything.
Transformers 3 will be out in a couple of years. It's probably already being shot as we speak. So while we might pan it as being crap, obviously someone in a suit thinks it's not. And to be honest, there's probably a 14 year old kid who's just as entitled to his opinion who thinks all those really pointless action scenes and no semblance of a plot line or character development made for a 'qwality' movie as well.
I guess my point is, the word quality, or crap, or anything else we use to describe a film changes depending on who you ask. The suit looks at it as profitable. The fanboi sees it as quality, and we look at it as crap.
The artistic merits of a movie are subjective at best, but the profitability isn't. Which is why even if don't agree with it, I do consider box office as a useful metric. I won't go and watch every blockbuster movie just cause it's made 500 million, but i am curious to know what it is about the movie that has made it so profitable. sometimes it's not the movie, it's the hype or the marketing, but as someone who is interested in looking at the market and how it shapes opinions I do think it's useful to look at things like box office, and ratings to see how such thing fluctuate and determine the relative successes of movies.
Well I try not to argue about a medium like film thats completely open to interpretation and opinion by the viewer. However i'm pretty sure that if we lined up 10 decent movie critics and asked them to give an opinion on the two movies you just trashed, more of them would agree with me than they would with you.
Unbreakable and Signs are two well directed, well acted and well scripted movies. They are by no means spectacular but they do the basics well and on that basis deserve to be call good or better.
Once again you are entitled to your opinion but I think just as with your opinion on Fight Club (i think it was you who said the plot was rubbish which makes it a crap film) you are missing the point.
Unbreakable and Signs were complete and utter crap. Ludicrously stupid stories that took themselves laugably seriously. Signs also had the worst alien ever.
The plot of Fight Club was incredibly stupid and the film is loved for it's pseud quality but it can't be compared to the bits of dried excrement that are Signs and Unbreakable. They are as silly as Face/Off or Waterworld. Just because you can debate about the films in general doesn't mean that no films are utter shit - ever.
This bloke made one decent film almost by accidnet it would seem and has been churning shit out ever since. If it looks and smells like a turd you are pretty safe calling it as such as it swirls around the pan for the last time.
The plot of Fight Club was incredibly stupid and the film is loved for it's pseud quality but it can't be compared to the bits of dried excrement that are Signs and Unbreakable. They are as silly as Face/Off or Waterworld. Just because you can debate about the films in general doesn't mean that no films are utter shit - ever.
This bloke made one decent film almost by accidnet it would seem and has been churning shit out ever since. If it looks and smells like a turd you are pretty safe calling it as such as it swirls around the pan for the last time.
As I said before the large majority of film critics have disagreed with your opinion on both movies which still entitles you to your opinion but relegates it to a personal opinion and not one that actually stands up in the cold light of day in terms of assesing what makes a good or bad movie.
I did however want to ask a question. Have you ever watched a movie and at the end thought, well that doesn't work for me personally but its still a well made, well directed, and acted movie? I ask because Signs and Unbreakable fulfils these criterea.
Sometimes a movie doesn't work based on individual preference but you appear to think its is an either/or situation. Either a movie is great or a pile of crap. I don't think it should work that way, both Signs and Unbreakable are neither great movies or crap, they are simply good well made movies.
However this will probably be my last post on the subject in this thread as your opinion is yours to own.
I did however want to ask a question. Have you ever watched a movie and at the end thought, well that doesn't work for me personally but its still a well made, well directed, and acted movie? I ask because Signs and Unbreakable fulfils these criterea.
Sometimes a movie doesn't work based on individual preference but you appear to think its is an either/or situation. Either a movie is great or a pile of crap. I don't think it should work that way, both Signs and Unbreakable are neither great movies or crap, they are simply good well made movies.
However this will probably be my last post on the subject in this thread as your opinion is yours to own.
He achieved the impossible task of making a great series like the last airbender one of the worst movies I have ever watched. He could have literally taken 5 minutes out of each of the episodes in the first season and made a movie that is 100x better than the shower of shite he put out. Not paying money to watch any of his films again
Most critics are idiots. Or at least no more capable of assessing a good film than anyone else.
And of course I have watched films that don't work for me but aren't by definition utter crap. No Country for Old Men would be a good example.
Signs and unbreakable do not fall into this category. Not even close. They are a case of the "King's new clothes" because people were expecting more after the 6th Sense.
Both are poor films in that the direction and storyline is very poor indeed.
Unbreakbale is simply a poor comic book plot dressed up as art. The "twist" at the end is especially stupid. If this were submitted to Marvel as a prospective new comic it wouldn't be printed.
Signs is even worse. Aliens invade a rural corn field first and make funny patterns, communicate in a way that can only heard on a baby monitor but not by anything else, terrible special effects and alien bright enough to cross the universe in search of food (us) but dumb enough to invade a planet that it 70% water by surface area and where the food (us) is largely made up of water, when they are fatally poisoned by water. That is before you even get into the fact that, being a carbon based life form, they would be made up of mainly water themselves. This film made War Of The Worlds looks like Godfather 2.
And of course I have watched films that don't work for me but aren't by definition utter crap. No Country for Old Men would be a good example.
Signs and unbreakable do not fall into this category. Not even close. They are a case of the "King's new clothes" because people were expecting more after the 6th Sense.
Both are poor films in that the direction and storyline is very poor indeed.
Unbreakbale is simply a poor comic book plot dressed up as art. The "twist" at the end is especially stupid. If this were submitted to Marvel as a prospective new comic it wouldn't be printed.
Signs is even worse. Aliens invade a rural corn field first and make funny patterns, communicate in a way that can only heard on a baby monitor but not by anything else, terrible special effects and alien bright enough to cross the universe in search of food (us) but dumb enough to invade a planet that it 70% water by surface area and where the food (us) is largely made up of water, when they are fatally poisoned by water. That is before you even get into the fact that, being a carbon based life form, they would be made up of mainly water themselves. This film made War Of The Worlds looks like Godfather 2.
Who would? He is a poor director and an even worse scriptwriter.
No point arguing with Wibble. According to his opinion certain movies are shit because Wibble says they are shit. If you disagree then you might as well be shit because you like a movie that Wibble labels as being shit. Wibble as the universal standard which determines quality of movies.
It's like talking to a five year old.
It's like talking to a five year old.
Ok, so Wibble has his opinions on which movies are shit. But how about a list of movies you don't think are shit. How about a list of movies you think are excellent. Go on then Wibbles. Give it to us....
There's nothing remotely genius about Happening to be fair - it's not as bad as reviews suggest, at times it's watchable but it's still a very poor movie that wouldn't have made it to cinemas if it hadn't been for director's name. Some of the dialogues in the movie are so bad it's unbelievable and the plot basically makes no sense, even if it's supposed to send an important message to the audience it only ridicules the idea of saving the nature even more - honestly, no one's going to care about plants more after seeing that movie, they'll most likely laugh at it.
Same goes for Lady in the Water, I hoped it'd be good because his previous movies were at least decent but instead he's created a boring storyline and we got a boring one-and-half hour movie. I actually noticed there was something wrong with The Village which at times got boring too but at least it had a decent plot and was filmed well.
Same goes for Lady in the Water, I hoped it'd be good because his previous movies were at least decent but instead he's created a boring storyline and we got a boring one-and-half hour movie. I actually noticed there was something wrong with The Village which at times got boring too but at least it had a decent plot and was filmed well.
I think most people will agree that Shyamalan's best efforts happened early in his hollywood career. I can't defend any of his last few movies. They were quit poor (as far as i'm concerned anyway). I haven't watched Airbender, but i don't think it will change opinion.
But Signs and Unbreakable were decent movies. They work on many different levels, and i'm unconvinced they were 'crap' just because that's one persons opinion. Especially when it becomes clear that person only viewed the movie on the surface level and perhaps didn't appreciate that the movie was actually trying to delve deeper. There are a lot of aspects of both Signs and Unbreakable that didn't work for me, but on the whole I think they were well told stories. I can't take anyone serious if they just pan these movies because both have enough merit to be discussed properly.
I'm not disputing that at all. In fact I've enjoyed Signs the most of his movies for some reason, I saw Unbreakable long ago and haven't watched it since but from what I remember it was decent as well. I think up until he came up with the ridiculous Lady in the Water movie he was succeeding, since then he's been nothing but a failure (one that still brings revenue though so he keeps on making movies).
You still don't fool me. I know you can't like The Happening.
But here goes,
Godfather 2
3 Colours Blue
Blade Runner
Apocalypse Now
Pulp Fiction
Once Were Warriors
Trainspotting
Good Fellas
Taxi Driver
12 Angry Men
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
Alien
More recently really good stuff
A Prophet
Inglorious Basterds
In Bruges
Comedy (that miss being a great film due to the sketch based nature of the screenplay but are hilarious anyway).
Life of Brian
There Is Something About Mary
I'm sure I have forgotten loads.
Tell me again why The Happening is so good then. I need a laugh.
Could you also explain how not to laugh when it turns out that it is the (previously non poisonous) trees that have suddenly been equiped with chemical weapons. Which they then forget how to use before we all die.
Snigger.
Only watched "on the surface level"? Christ. Are you his mum or publicist? There is no depth to his movies. None whatsoever. It is like discussing the in depth meaning of Avatar - there is none. They are simple entertainment and live or die on that basis alone. In his case die.
The movie isn't a comic book plot dressed up as art, it's an exploration of how the archetypal comic book mythology translates to real life. It takes the duality that's set in black and white in comics and translates it to a wider range of grey to create more richer, thought provoking experience. I'm not saying the film works on all levels or that it's a modern classic, but there is a great deal to appreciate in Unbreakable. I can understand it if you didn't, but to me, that's really your loss and not the films failure.
Yes, the twist in the end was simplistic for some (i personally thought the film would have worked better without the gimmicky 'twist'), but if that's all you remember then you didn't watch or appreciate the other aspects of the movie. Most of Nights early films weren't just a puzzle the audience had to solve before the film finished and the answer was revealed. The movie also had some good performances (Willis was understated, Jackson wasn't screaming his lines). The atmosphere Night created was grim, and foreboding without being oppressive. It was a stylized movie that found a nice aesthetic balance to tell the story of essentially two men, diametrically opposed who had to find each other to discover something about themselves.
Quentin Tarantino a huge comic book and superman fan has unbreakable on his list as one of his favorites, and rightly so. It's an interesting take on the dual nature universe that form the basis of most classic comic books.
According to Tarantino the movie should have been described as "what if Superman existed, and didn't know he was Superman?!".
Again. I disagree. Signs to me was a better movie then Unbreakable.
If all that you took away from the movie was the Aliens and the plot twist then perhaps it's because you only look at movies skin deep. The movie itself touched upon some core themes that go beyond the aliens invading earth story that was used to hook in the base demographic. At the heart of the film was a man who had lost faith in God, and the actual themes of the movie to me were split between people who have blind faith, and those who need signs. It wasn't a movie about alien invasion, it was a story of a man rediscovering faith and revisiting a painful memory in his life which lead him to lose hope, and finding some way to move past it and heal.
Again, the movie suffers from its share of flaws. These aren't perfect movies, and Night isn't the greatest director in the world. But, to dismiss them as crap...as simple potboilers to me just proves that perhaps you aren't really giving the movies due consideration.