Another load of Shyamalan

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Agreed. Movie studios actively dumb down scripts to sell to a mass audience, they dilute artistic endeavor to make the final product more palatable.

I do think that's a little disingenuous. Granted the movie industry has shifted and changed, but it has done so only in a similar way to the football industry (I thought it was about time I mad a football related post somewhere on this forum!)

The industry is far more about money and instant gratification than it used to be, regardless of what the stereotypes may tell you of cigar-chewing Jewish studio magnates in the 50s. 10, 20 years ago a producer could have a string of failed movies under his belt, but he'd still keep working. Now you can have one failed movie and you may never work again. I'm not talking about the big name producers we all know and love/hate. I'm talking about the guys lower down the pecking order, whose job it is to actually find the projects that get made, to discover the new talent, to cherry-pick the best scripts and pitches. If they want to ensure they keep on working, they need to make sure they find movies that make money. The simplest way to do that is to completely avoid any form of risk. It's the very reason you see so many sequels and remakes - there's little or no risk involved.

It's why even someone like Soderbergh struggled to get Che picked up for distribution. It was considered too high-risk and it was only thanks to the response at festival that it ever saw the light of day (and even then it was only one of the lesser, more leftfield distributors that took the chance). Having said that, it's another example of a film that was well-received by both audiences and critics alike - but has bombed in terms of box office. It's very likely that someone, somewhere, will never work in Hollywood again as a result of that.

Conversely, The Happening did relatively well. So MNS will continue to be considered a worthwhile risk.

 

[Devilton]

I do think that's a little disingenuous. Granted the movie industry has shifted and changed, but it has done so only in a similar way to the football industry (I thought it was about time I mad a football related post somewhere on this forum!)

The industry is far more about money and instant gratification than it used to be, regardless of what the stereotypes may tell you of cigar-chewing Jewish studio magnates in the 50s. 10, 20 years ago a producer could have a string of failed movies under his belt, but he'd still keep working. Now you can have one failed movie and you may never work again. I'm not talking about the big name producers we all know and love/hate. I'm talking about the guys lower down the pecking order, whose job it is to actually find the projects that get made, to discover the new talent, to cherry-pick the best scripts and pitches. If they want to ensure they keep on working, they need to make sure they find movies that make money. The simplest way to do that is to completely avoid any form of risk. It's the very reason you see so many sequels and remakes - there's little or no risk involved.

It's why even someone like Soderbergh struggled to get Che picked up for distribution. It was considered too high-risk and it was only thanks to the response at festival that it ever saw the light of day (and even then it was only one of the lesser, more leftfield distributors that took the chance). Having said that, it's another example of a film that was well-received by both audiences and critics alike - but has bombed in terms of box office. It's very likely that someone, somewhere, will never work in Hollywood again as a result of that.

Conversely, The Happening did relatively well. So MNS will continue to be considered a worthwhile risk.

Vanity projects and prestige directors get a free hand, so yes, i was generalizing when I said Hollywood execs dumb down movies. Clint Eastwood apparently has a standing budget of 100million to make any type of movie he wants, and quite a few of the Big studios will own or have a stake in smaller, independent distributors which make the art films. There is always the hope that a cross over film will emerge every year that cost a few million to make and end up grossing 80-100 million. Your Big fat Greek wedding, Little Miss Shineshine, Juno etc.

I was surprised to read that Soderbergh did find it hard to sell Che (given his A list status). Having watched it, I can only imagine the run time might have been an issue. It was incredibly long (and it felt long)...while the subject matter itself is rich, I was left feeling very blah about it which is odd because Motorcycle diaries and the revolutionary life of Che has always seemed like a veritable gold mine for the big screen. I guess, I expected it to be more 'epic' and it just wasn't. Still, it was an interesting film. Not sure where I rank it among his other work though. Better then full frontal, not as accomplished as Traffic?

 

[Devilton]

Being influenced by someone else doesn't mean he has to be awful.

Never said he was awful. Just that he would come 2nd if he tried to imitate Hitchcock. Most directors would though, so that's hardly a damning statement. I have always felt he had talent, especially when it comes to cinematography. His shot framing in his early movies in particular really added the atmosphere he looks to generate in his movies.

Conversely, The Happening did relatively well. So MNS will continue to be considered a worthwhile risk.

Apparently Last Airbender is going to recover its money as well (there are even talks of a sequel *gasps of shock and horror from the peanut gallery*). I have yet to watch it (someone i trust told me it's quiet poor, and I trust her enough to wait till it comes out on rental). But I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

Never said he was awful. Just that he would come 2nd if he tried to imitate Hitchcock. Most directors would though, so that's hardly a damning statement. I have always felt he had talent, especially when it comes to cinematography. His shot framing in his early movies in particular really added the atmosphere he looks to generate in his movies.




Apparently Last Airbender is going to recover its money as well (there are even talks of a sequel *gasps of shock and horror from the peanut gallery*). I have yet to watch it (someone i trust told me it's quiet poor, and I trust her enough to wait till it comes out on rental). But I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.

I'm saying that he's awful. Mostly. His cinematography is good I'll agree, but he's not very good at directing actors at all, and his screenwriting is definitely awful.

As for The Last Airbender, as I said already, its an adaptation of a very popular kids tv show, and it came out during the summer, its not exactly a surprise that it made money and will get a sequel. Its still really, really shit though.

 

[Devilton]

I'm saying that he's awful. Mostly. His cinematography is good I'll agree, but he's not very good at directing actors at all, and his screenwriting is definitely awful.

As for The Last Airbender, as I said already, its an adaptation of a very popular kids tv show, and it came out during the summer, its not exactly a surprise that it made money and will get a sequel. Its still really, really shit though.

You're entitled to that opinion, even though I don't share it, and I take your word on Last Air Bender (along with those I trust). I'll still give it a watch though just to satisfy my own perverse curiosity. Then again, I watched Caligula, Cannibal Holocaust, and Gigli so...that should tell you I'm fairly game when it comes to watching 'crap' movies.

 

[peterstorey]

I was surprised to read that Soderbergh did find it hard to sell Che (given his A list status). Having watched it, I can only imagine the run time might have been an issue. It was incredibly long (and it felt long)...while the subject matter itself is rich, I was left feeling very blah about it which is odd because Motorcycle diaries and the revolutionary life of Che has always seemed like a veritable gold mine for the big screen. ?

Soderbergh managed the very difficult feat of making Che's life crushing dull for the most part livened by stupid shoot ups in others - it was remarkably a largely depoliticised film devoid of context.

 

[Devilton]

Soderbergh managed the very difficult feat of making Che's life crushing dull for the most part livened by stupid shoot ups in others - it was remarkably a largely depoliticised film devoid of context.

I take it you're not a fan of Cinema verite then?

 

[Mockney]

The aliens who are allergic to water may be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen in a film, ever. A close second may be Shyamalan casting himself as a Messianic writer in Lady in the Water. He's a gimp.

I've got more of a problem with the fact the twist and denoument rest on the revelation his wife left him a prophetic instruction from the future which required the Alien to be defeated entirely by hitting glasses of water with a baseball bat....

What a fecking ridiculously random and contrived piece of nonsense... why not just pick up the glasses of water and throw it at him?...or run a hose or something..why instruct him to smash lots of gasses all over the place that would a) reduce both the accuracy and quantity of the water considerably, and b) make a completely needless mess...one which leaves loads of shards of broken glass all over a house with 2 small children...eh?....what? That's the "sign"?...You pillow

 

[Mihajlovic]

Shyamalan undervalues the importance of health and safety regulations.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Shyamalan undervalues the importance of health and safety regulations.

He also undervalues the importance of a coherent plot.

Which is a bit less forgiveable.

 

[Redlambs]

Quite an interesting debate, shame it's over someone like Mns.

I do, however, find it amusing the concept his films have layers upon layers of depth which all come together to make the films that much more interesting. Although interesting interpretations have been put all over the net for films like The Happening and Signs, they just aren't that deep and in my opinion even if they are, they don't suddenly become interesting or well written.

He is a decent director, however trying to do all things at once and the hype that surrounds him is allowing his ego to take him down even more rubbish avenues.

 

[peterstorey]

I do, however, find it amusing the concept his films have layers upon layers of depth which all come together to make the films that much more interesting.

The Village is certainly operating at three levels. There's the conventional plot, then a commentary on current American isolationism, plus a look at the classic American texts like Walden. Whether that works is another matter but it was certainly a brave attempt to make a blockbuster with an intelligent subtext.

 

[peterstorey]

I take it you're not a fan of Cinema verite then?

I always think of cinema verite as a term applied to documentary. I wouldn't class Che as cinema verite even in an expanded sense. I thought it was overlong, unfocused and critically lacking in politics.

 

[Devilton]

I always think of cinema verite as a term applied to documentary. I wouldn't class Che as cinema verite even in an expanded sense. I thought it was overlong, unfocused and critically lacking in politics.

It was Cinema verite though, there is definitely a documentary aspect to it. Soderbergh painfully researched everything that Che did during those time. I seem to recall the film begins with like a 2 minute map being displayed. It was odd, usually you see some sort of lead in to explain where the story will pick up, but here you had this map of Cuba, with cities and locations slowly fading in, no text to explain it. I remember I had a feeling we were going to be given a real history lesson in just how Che had lived during those 14-15 years that the film spans. It definitely set the tone that this was a biopic that wasn't going to romanticize who this revolutionary figure was. It had a very precise, military feel to it.

While I don't think the movie was unfocused, I do think it suffered from having Soderberg remain a passive observer to Che's life (and here again, I think the documentary aspect was reinforced). I felt very little connection between the auteur and the subject and as I result I think it isolated the audience a little as well. Soderberg presented the critical and the mundane aspects of Ches life in pretty much chronological order and we were left to understand why Che did the things he did purely through Che's actions and interactions. Soderberg wasn't going to influence or help out in any way. Personally, I feel this disconnect had a negative impact on the movie.

Technically too, there were some issues with the film. On the one hand I enjoyed the slow, deliberate pace that Soderberg took when Che was in the jungles in part 1. The locations, people and sense of revolution came to life because of the subtlety with which Soderberg presented the scenes. I know Terrence Malik (a director I greatly admire) was supposed to direct part 1, and there were moments in the jungle where I felt Soderberg pay homage to Malik with the slow, deliberate setup of painterly like frames. But by part 2, the pace really took its toll.

Part 2 for me was frankly difficult to get through. I had to stop for almost a weeks break before I completed the movie. As such, it felt disjointed and I didn't get any real sense that I'd gone through the life of a modern day icon. I expected a life on Che to be 'epic' in scope, and to have given me insight into a deeply complicated, and highly ideologically committed individual. The man obviously lived a great life, but I just didn't feel that was the case with Soderbergs presentation of him.

It's hard to put my finger on it, because I couldn't slate the film, but neither could I tell anyone I'd seen it and they should as well.

 

[Devilton]

The one thing I will say though is that Benicio del Toro was terrific in a role he was born to play. Not for one second of the 4 hour marathon did I doubt that was Che. The last time I was so impressed by an actors commitment to playing a real life person was Forrest Whitaker in his stand out performance as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland.

 

[Prophet_of_Doom]

The Village is certainly operating at three levels. There's the conventional plot, then a commentary on current American isolationism, plus a look at the classic American texts like Walden. Whether that works is another matter but it was certainly a brave attempt to make a blockbuster with an intelligent subtext.

I think you're giving him a little too much credit there. It's nothing that any third year film student isn't doing with their scripts. Every screenplay should work on various thematic levels, even if it's some trashy Chuck Norris kick-fest. The very core of a script is its theme(s) and writers are taught from day one that this is the beating heart of any screenplay, from which everything else stems, whatever the genre.

So it shouldn't really be considered a brave attempt because it's something that every writer should be doing. Conversely, I'd suggest that it's a failure because it's almost impossible to watch it without feeling that one is being beaten over the head with its message/themes. Granted, that's only my opinion.

 

[Prophet_of_Doom]

It's hard to put my finger on it, because I couldn't slate the film, but neither could I tell anyone I'd seen it and they should as well.

I think my wife perfectly summed up its failures (she's rather good that).

She knew absolutely nothing about Che before the film other than the penchant of foreign students to wear him on their chests. Thus she went into it with some expectation (great casting, great director) and excitement, hoping for an in-depth biopic at the very least. However, she came away feeling that she knew little more about the man than she had done to begin with. In that, it was a failure. It seemed targeted at a very narrow audience and only served to alienate those who didn't know something of his life, beliefs etc.

 

[peterstorey]

Every screenplay should work on various thematic levels, even if it's some trashy Chuck Norris kick-fest. .

Yeah they might say that in film school but that's not what they do - most modern Hollywood films are painfully one dimensional.

 

[Wibble]

This is almost as predictable as the movies you hate...

What a gip...

Well great films do tend to be included on people's list of great films. Just as shit films tend to be thought of a shit.

I could list loads more very good and above movies but ti wouldn't make The Happening, Unbreakable or Signs good films.

 

[Wibble]

And all of that is so simply because you say it is. Or maybe because most critics also said it's shit? But then again you said most critics are idiots so it again comes down to 'the movie is shit because I say it's shit'. And that's all you're saying here really. It's not as if the movie can speak for itself but it has to be interpreted, analysed, criticised, etc. While people may respect your personal opinion on the movie I hope you do realise that the position you're taking here is that of a stubborn child. Or a confused middle/aged man, for that matter.

No. I'm taking the position that these are rubbish films. The Happening is pure unadulterated shit. Nobody with a brain could sit through it without thinking that it was incredibly stupid. Trees do not spontaneously gain poisonous gas appendages, they do not attack large groups of people and then learn to attack smaller groups and then individuals (before forgetting how for a while). Just as laugable as the water is acid silliness of Signs. If he hadn't fluked one film with a twist as his first feature he would never have made another. His plots are the sort of thing that 6th form art students would come up with.

 

[Wibble]

He's heavily influenced by Hitchcock...and as such, he's doomed to come off second best.

That is like saying Kylie is influenced by Radiohead.

 

[Prophet_of_Doom]

The Happening is pure unadulterated shit. Nobody with a brain could sit through it without thinking that it was incredibly stupid.

The vast majority agreed with this, but there were a good few respected film critics who gave it the thumbs up. I'm not saying that I agree with them (I'm with you in that I thought it was laughable nonsense) I'm merely stating that it's not cut and dried.

That is like saying Kylie is influenced by Radiohead.

Not to go off topic, but I'd pay good money to see that collaboration!

 

[Wibble]

I always think of cinema verite as a term applied to documentary.

It is

I wouldn't class Che as cinema verite even in an expanded sense. I thought it was overlong, unfocused and critically lacking in politics.

Neither did I and so did I. In that order.

Some fictional films are made in a vaguely verite style but I wouldn't have included Che in that list.

 

[Wibble]

The Village is certainly operating at three levels. There's the conventional plot, then a commentary on current American isolationism, plus a look at the classic American texts like Walden. Whether that works is another matter but it was certainly a brave attempt to make a blockbuster with an intelligent subtext.

I find the Walden level a huge stretch. And the conventional plot was merely a plot device for his "point" which was the isolationist bit which was laid on with a trowl from the opening scene. To be this pretentious you need to be actually good as well. That said it is the only one of his films since The 6th Sense that I could actually sit through comfortably.

 

[Wibble]

Devilton: Why did you delete that post about him simply "needing to find his voice"?

Pretentious? Moi?

 

[Devilton]

Well great films do tend to be included on people's list of great films. Just as shit films tend to be thought of a shit.

Ok. Show me a list where Unbreakable, Signs and The Village are listed as shit. I never said they were great films. I have always maintained they were flawed, but all have redeemable qualities. If I use your one word evaluation scale I would rate them as GOOD to DECENT. Very few films are great (even some on your list I would argue are far from great).

I could list loads more very good and above movies but ti wouldn't make The Happening, Unbreakable or Signs good films.

That really makes no sense. Listing a bunch of good movies doesn't change the merits and quality of another completely different set of movies.
This form of logic isn't uncommon either, I've come across more then a few people who are more worried about ranking current movies with the list of great movies they are carrying around in their head, then letting each movie stand on its own.

Accepting 'Unbreakable' as a decent movie, doesn't make 'Apocalypse Now' any less of a great movie. ( I know it's stating the obvious but sometimes i wonder if people really understand it. For X to be great, apparently a whole bunch of Y's have to be shit).

Devilton: Why did you delete that post about him simply "needing to find his voice"?

Pretentious? Moi?

Well, since you're chosen to quote words that I deleted (probably not moments after posting them), why not just quote and paste the entire post.
If you want me to defend something I clearly felt was a mistake the least you could do is provide the full context.

That said, I believe i deleted the post because it didn't read well and I felt i was repeating myself without adding to the discussion. How does that phrase sound pretentious? Shyamalan has mutiple roles on most of his projects (he is the creative force behind the movie) so it's essential that he has a clarity in his voice (the creative vision) otherwise you end up with movies that aren't very good.

That is like saying Kylie is influenced by Radiohead.

I don't follow enough pop culture music to completely understand that reference, but ok...I'm with you. That's a funny.

 

[Devilton]

No. I'm taking the position that these are rubbish films. The Happening is pure unadulterated shit. Nobody with a brain could sit through it without thinking that it was incredibly stupid. Trees do not spontaneously gain poisonous gas appendages, they do not attack large groups of people and then learn to attack smaller groups and then individuals (before forgetting how for a while). Just as laugable as the water is acid silliness of Signs. If he hadn't fluked one film with a twist as his first feature he would never have made another. His plots are the sort of thing that 6th form art students would come up with.

You keep attacking the Happening as being shit, but I actually don't see too many people here defending it. I think most people will agree it wasn't a strong film. So, while your single sentence encapsulation of its merits are mildly amusing, I fail to see who it's directed at.

As far as Signs. You're not the first person to bring up how silly it is that water could be the aliens weakness. This was brought up by many people who watched the movie at the time (and if you visit any movie board discussing the movie it's still a topic of discussion). How could aliens come to a primarily water based world and be allergic to water? Makes no sense...shit writing, massive plot hole. Stupid aliens. Fail fail fail.

The film which shows aliens, invading the earth, and it's the water being their Kyrptonite that's the unrealistic part...

 

[Mihajlovic]

Wibble, it seems you just cannot get over the 'aliens-water' and 'trees-poison gas' dilemma. If that is all you cared about or all you can see in those movies, than fine. But that didn't bother me as I saw something completely else in the movies. The aliens and the trees only provided the context for another, more complex and more interesting story.

It would be like not enjoying District 9 because of the fact that the alien space ship cannot possibly hover above the city. Or not being able to enjoy Back to the Future because it's impossible to generate enough energy from a few rotten bananas and apples found in the garbage can.

Apart from the fact that it is completely silly to discuss what the aliens from Signs could have/should have/would have done, as if they actually exist in reality, like as if we could really know how they would think and what decisions they would make, etc. If you start to think like this you would be able to find flaws in every single sci-fi movie.

 

[Redlambs]

Wibble, it seems you just cannot get over the 'aliens-water' and 'trees-poison gas' dilemma. If that is all you cared about or all you can see in those movies, than fine. But that didn't bother me as I saw something completely else in the movies. The aliens and the trees only provided the context for another, more complex and more interesting story.

It would be like not enjoying District 9 because of the fact that the alien space ship cannot possibly hover above the city. Or not being able to enjoy Back to the Future because it's impossible to generate enough energy from a few rotten bananas and apples found in the garbage can.

Apart from the fact that it is completely silly to discuss what the aliens from Signs could have/should have/would have done, as if they actually exist in reality, like as if we could really know how they would think and what decisions they would make, etc. If you start to think like this you would be able to find flaws in every single sci-fi movie.

Interesting point, although I disagree with the comparisons because both the aliens and the tree gas are main plot devices. I just don't think the 'depth' (of which i'm not convinced there is as much of as some want to think) is really enough to make these films interesting. If the point is to make people think, then he needs to be much more clever.

I think he is between the two. He wants to make hollywood films that are clever. However he continually falls somewhere in the middle, which I guess works for him since he can make money whilst at the same time claim to be an all doing genius. I've worked for someone very similar in the game/film industry.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Interesting point, although I disagree with the comparisons because both the aliens and the tree gas are main plot devices. I just don't think the 'depth' (of which i'm not convinced there is as much of as some want to think) is really enough to make these films interesting. If the point is to make people think, then he needs to be much more clever.

I think he is between the two. He wants to make hollywood films that are clever. However he continually falls somewhere in the middle, which I guess works for him since he can make money whilst at the same time claim to be an all doing genius. I've worked for someone very similar in the game/film industry.

That's the bottom line.

He has some strengths as a director. He's good at creating suspense and atmosphere and can come up with some interesting shots, visually. This means when he makes a movie that has a decent narrative and a half-decent script (e.g. Sixth Sense, Unbreakable) then his movies are actually fairly good.

He's nowhere near creative or interesting enough to suddenly start making movies which rely on hidden layers and meanings at the expense of the basics of story-telling. He's no David Lynch or Guillermo Del Toro, when it comes to creating arresting visual imagery or a compelling alternate reality. He also seems to be incapable of getting really good performances out of anyone else other than Bruce Willis (and the kid in Sixth Sense) another reason why it's impossible not to get hung up on a shoddy plot in the other films he's made.

If he stuck to what he does best, he wouldn't have ended up the laughing stock he is today. His biggest problem seems to have been thinking of himself as some sort of auteur while in reality churning out fairly straightforward fantasy/sci-fi movies with holes in the plot you could drive a bus though and forgettable performances from all the lead actors. These sort of films live or die by the strength of their narrative and he hasn't written a decent narrative since Unbreakable (and even that film never offered anything like a satisfactory conclusion to the story - it was crying out for a sequel)

 

[Wibble]

It was crying out for a sequel because it was the first part (origins) of the traditional 3 part comic book plot.

I can't believe anyone is even debating him as a serious film maker.

I can see how you can have hugely diverging opinions about, say, Peter Greenaway's films, ranging from "genius" to "its arty shit init", even about the same film. But this joker? It is like debating the hidden depths of an episode of Thomas The Tank engine. Or watching a 1st year film students brainstorming exercise.

 

[Redlambs]

It was crying out for a sequal because it was the first part (origins) of the traditional 3 part comic book plot.

I can't believe anyone is even debating him as a serious film maker.

I can see how you can have hugely diverging opinions about, say, Peter Greenaway's films, ranging from "genius" to "its arty shit init", even about the same film. But this joker? It is like debating the hidden depths of an episode of Thomas The Tank engine. Or watching a 1st year film students brainstorming exercise.

I find it hard to disagree with any of this.

 

[Spoony]

To be fair, he's the worst director ever.

 

[Wibble]

Or Derek Jarman?

 

[Spoony]

Blue's greater than Godfather 1 & 2, though!

 

[Wibble]

Overshot there a tad methinks

 

[Wibble]

Which sounds like a line from a Jarman film.

If it had more punks, nude gay blokes and was translated into latin.

 

[Spoony]

Many people complained about the triteness or cliche nature of the device of using an all-blue screen for the seventy-some odd minutes of this film. I'd guess that most of these people never saw the film on the big screen.

If you did see this on a big screen, however, you were sure to notice the tricks your eyes played on you. Jarman, directing this film as he lost his eyesight (and what could be worse for a director?), last saw the color blue. As you watch the film, your eyes become saturated with the color blue, and begin to try and compensate for the overstimulation, shifting to oranges, showing illusionary shapes in the blank field of the screen, and ultimately betraying you. What better allegory for the loss of one's vision, especially when it means everything to you?

I agree. I doubt haters actually saw the film on the big screen! They missed all the colours your eyes over compensated for. Stupid people.

 

[Wibble]

Although to be fair Jarman without his pretensions would be like MNS without a poisonous tree. Or a plot twist so obvious that you could guess it during the pre-film adverts for Maltesers and popcorn.

 

[sincher]

Films, films
Are they good or are they bad
Ask your man Wibble, who's like your dad.
Don't ask Mihajlovic, he'll talk about God,
And don't ask Devilton, he's just a bit odd
You could ask Pogue, but he swears a lot
Or maybe petestorey, who sucks off Walcott,
But don't ask me, films I don't get to see -
Well, unless it's with my son, and it's Toy Story 3.
I quite liked Star Wars, that had that Mark Hammill in,
But never liked anything by M Night Shyamalan.