RiffTrax Forum

RiffTrax Discussion => Suggest-a-Trax => Topic started by: Hazzah on April 14, 2007, 05:23:13 PM

Title: Shyamalan
Post by: Hazzah on April 14, 2007, 05:23:13 PM
Evening, everyone.  Long time reader, second time poster...

I would like to see ANY M. Night Shamalamadingdong movie riffed.

Sixth Sense has a wide open possiblity,

Unbreakable (or Unbearable as it's known in my family)

Signs (the entire climax is comedic enough)

The Village!  (I need not say more.)

I haven't witnessed "Lady in the Water" yet, but I'll just assume the worst.

Oh and, I've always imagined "A Few Good Men" as a Rifftrax...unsure why.  :-",
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: BobEvil on April 14, 2007, 05:28:39 PM
I can picture M. Night now: My movie is a rifftrax? WHAT A TWIST!"
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: MisterRiffley on April 14, 2007, 05:38:00 PM
i liked sixth sense. i found signs so ridiculously stupid and feeble that i stopped watching his damn movies after that.

i think "signs" would be an interesting choice, i'd totally be into that. and not least because mr. m. night shammalammadingdong has this, like, obsession with critics and how they're undermining his wonderful, beauteous vision of cinematic perfection, if he hears one of his movies got riffed he might pull a joe don or a sandy. which would be damn fun in its own right.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: ScottotD on April 14, 2007, 06:18:57 PM
Unbreakable is an awesome movie.  I'm a fan of his.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: AmandaGal on April 14, 2007, 07:28:01 PM
I hate all of his movies.  I don't know, he just seems so pretentious to me.  I hate the way he's all "See what I did. I'm so clever!" blah blah. Your movie was dumb.  I figured out the amusing twist from the first 15 minutes.  The symbolism was a little bit trying to hard and you're not as great as you think you are.  Thank you.

That being said, I think Sixth Sense has been made fun of so much already that it'd be hard to do in a new way but I'd watch it anyway.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 14, 2007, 08:21:39 PM
I hate all of his movies.  I don't know, he just seems so pretentious to me.  I hate the way he's all "See what I did. I'm so clever!" blah blah. Your movie was dumb.  I figured out the amusing twist from the first 15 minutes.  The symbolism was a little bit trying to hard and you're not as great as you think you are.  Thank you.

100% agree. I think Signs would work better because it's cornier, though. It's got aliens for chrissake, very lame aliens. The problem is that Signs has a thorny combination of pathetic attempts at humor and long, drawn-out empty scenes. It makes fun of itself in a way, and I think movies that end up doing that steal a bit of the thunder of anyone trying to riff them.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: ScottotD on April 14, 2007, 08:27:19 PM
I hate all of his movies.  I don't know, he just seems so pretentious to me.  I hate the way he's all "See what I did. I'm so clever!" blah blah. Your movie was dumb

I suppose I can see that, I feel the same way about Wes Anderson.  The 'twist' in The Village was pretty clear even from the previews and I think Signs needs a few viewings to get but it amazes me how people have just completely turned on him.

That said, I'll never understand why Unbreakable didn't get the same explosion in popularity on DVD that Shawshank did though, it's genius if you ask me.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 14, 2007, 08:45:01 PM
Quote
it amazes me how people have just completely turned on him.
me too seriously

i would pick lady in the water
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Mightyhog on April 14, 2007, 08:49:55 PM
I've only seen a couple Shyamalan films, of course Sixth Sense being one of them, which to be honest I couldn't imagine making all that good a riff. Some of those scenes were genuinely creepy!

Signs sounds like a better choice, the only part in that movie that made me jump was when...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Mel Gibson seems like a prime target for riffing as well!
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 14, 2007, 08:52:41 PM
it amazes me how people have just completely turned on him.

I for one wanted to find him and do all kinds of unspeakably brutal things to him after seeing The Village.

@Mightyhog
That part scared me too, but if you go back, slow down the scene and look closely you can see how cheap the alien really looks.  :D
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: ScottotD on April 14, 2007, 08:54:21 PM
"move children"

Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 14, 2007, 08:57:11 PM
"Vamanos!" is a genuinely funny part of the movie.  :D
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: ScottotD on April 14, 2007, 09:12:03 PM
Both those characters are just so odd, it's really interesting to re-watch it.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Hazzah on April 15, 2007, 02:42:08 AM

Quote
I for one wanted to find him and do all kinds of unspeakably brutal things to him after seeing The Village.


I agree with the "Village" and the consequences M Night should have paid for such a tragedy against nature.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Bob on April 15, 2007, 04:10:16 AM
The Lady in the Water was not that bad, although that is maybe only because I really like Paul Giamati (sp) so much.   The whole fairy tale thing was a bit much and every bedtime story for your kids do not need to be filmed.

The Villiage was pretty bad and predictible. 

Signs would be PERFECT rifftrax fodder.

I really liked Unbreakable a lot, great acting in it.

Never say The sixth sense.

Wide Awake was a cute film that probably no one saw.

Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: ScottotD on April 15, 2007, 04:36:11 AM
I saw it, it is cute.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Petey Wheatstraw on April 15, 2007, 04:53:59 AM
It's interesting to me that Shyamalan is the most well-known Indian director in America...I just wish that his movies didn't suck as much as they do.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: PlayMSTie on April 15, 2007, 08:38:27 AM
Love, love, LOVE M. Night. I don't care about his flaws, he writes great characters and interesting stories (twist or no twist), and I love him shamelessly.  ;D
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: gbeenie on April 15, 2007, 01:04:28 PM
Unbreakable is an awesome movie.  I'm a fan of his.

I second this. Although I didn't see The Village, and Signs was kind of eh.

But MAN do I love Unbreakable.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Hazzah on April 15, 2007, 01:32:19 PM
Unbreakable is an awesome movie.  I'm a fan of his.

I second this. Although I didn't see The Village, and Signs was kind of eh.

But MAN do I love Unbreakable.

Seems as though I'm one of the very few who despise the movie.  Perhaps I should watch it once more.  But alas, I firmly believe the movie itself takes itself way too seriously.

Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 15, 2007, 08:46:26 PM
so im the only one who liked signs?
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Hobbit on April 15, 2007, 09:18:17 PM
so im the only one who liked signs?

I also liked Signs, but more for the deeper meaning than the aliens.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 15, 2007, 11:28:20 PM
well yeah me too
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Sharktopus on April 15, 2007, 11:35:14 PM
I quite enjoyed The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and yes, even Lady In The Water. The Village was just kind of meh. But Signs is easily the worst of Night's major films, for a number of reasons, and would make perfect Riff fodder. Although you have to give Night a little credit for giving himself the role of "guy who accidentally killed Mel Gibson's wife."
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 15, 2007, 11:37:59 PM
why did you think it was so bad?

Quote
Although you have to give Night a little credit for giving himself the role of "guy who accidentally killed Mel Gibson's wife."

yeah there is also the water thing.  when gibson tells his son about them not liking water the kid replys "it sounds made up"  and they promptly ignore it because it was made up, only it was made up by the script writer so its technically true. 

well i thought it was funny anyways. 
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Sharktopus on April 15, 2007, 11:50:38 PM
Why was Signs bad, despite the monster truck-sized plot holes and nonsensical premise? You said you like the pro-faith message, right? Well, on the surface, that's fine, but have you really thought about it? What exactly, restored Mel's character's faith? That the aliens invading Earth were so unbelievably stupid that you can kill them by spraying them with a garden hose, or that something his wife said while dying reminded him that maybe Joaquin Phoenix should hit the alien with that baseball bat that's sitting right there.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 16, 2007, 12:22:23 AM
well i admit fully the premise is retarded.  once again hollywoods weak ass people who make movies who in real life are so scared of anything violent that they faint out at the site of american football forgets the entire planet is loaded with guns, and if a bat could kill them then so could bullets.  however there are several things other than just the wifes last words.  there was that, plus the kids asthema plus the other kids ridiculous habit of leaving half full water glasses around, plus the fact that pheonix played baseball in the first place (had he played football it wouldnt have been there).  Dont get me wrong i realize i am GOING to be the minority here, my dad and brother who i thought would have enjoyed the pro faith message as well couldnt get past the fact that mel and them didnt defend themselves. 

So yeah ill admit there are many problems, and the movie would lend itself to riffing without much difficulty.  but shamalan did make interesting people and does well with mood, and atmosphere even if he needs a remedial class on plot. 
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Hazzah on April 16, 2007, 01:22:39 AM
Why was Signs bad, despite the monster truck-sized plot holes and nonsensical premise? You said you like the pro-faith message, right? Well, on the surface, that's fine, but have you really thought about it? What exactly, restored Mel's character's faith? That the aliens invading Earth were so unbelievably stupid that you can kill them by spraying them with a garden hose, or that something his wife said while dying reminded him that maybe Joaquin Phoenix should hit the alien with that baseball bat that's sitting right there.

I always had trouble with the water plot since the aliens came to a planet made mostly of water.  Did they not know they were allergic to the water before they landed?
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 16, 2007, 01:31:46 AM
same dealie with war of the worlds
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: mrbasehart on April 16, 2007, 01:35:54 AM
I always had trouble with the water plot since the aliens came to a planet made mostly of water.  Did they not know they were allergic to the water before they landed?

See, I never really saw that as a problem.  I always thought it seemed to make the aliens more desperate for something on Earth. 
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 16, 2007, 01:38:29 AM
Especially that if you pay attention, it's mentioned that the tactic of spraying water on the aliens was "discovered" somewhere in the Middle East - one of the drier parts of the planet.  ::) The aliens somehow avoided being rained on, stepping in a puddle or spilling one water-based fluid on themselves for the entire course of the invasion so far, but someone in an arid climate thinks of throwing water on them.

See, I never really saw that as a problem.  I always thought it seemed to make the aliens more desperate for something on Earth. 

You actually thought about it? These hyperadvanced aliens travel through the infathomable depths of space and they're so desperate for something on a planet that's toxic to them that they leave their Hazmat equipment behind? It's just a stupid, inexcusable plot hole that never had any reason behind it except to make the "have faith" message of the movie work.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: mrbasehart on April 16, 2007, 01:40:18 AM
You actually thought about it? These hyperadvanced aliens travel through the infathomable depths of space and they're so desperate for something on a planet that's toxic to them that they leave their Hazmat equipment behind?

Maybe it was the only planet they could find? I think it's hard to ascribe human motives to aliens, anyways.  Maybe they've never heard of common sense?  ;D
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 16, 2007, 01:42:44 AM
I think it's safer to imagine the aliens as being a race of Gilligans and Curlys. "Moe! Help me! I'm locked in a pantry! A-woo-woo-woo-woo!"
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 16, 2007, 01:45:14 AM
Quote
Especially that if you pay attention, it's mentioned that the tactic of spraying water on the aliens was "discovered" somewhere in the Middle East

your forgetting m nights ego.  it was discovered there because thats where he is from.  ( i think)



the real question is why did the aliens insist on hand to hand combat to gather the humans?
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 16, 2007, 01:50:33 AM
It's explained as being so that we don't overreact to the invasion and use nukes, spoiling the planet. This of course makes about as much logical sense as using your teeth to unscrew a lightbulb or removing a hornet nest with your bare hands while shirtless and covered in molasses.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: AmazingThor on April 16, 2007, 04:06:14 AM
If there so advanced, why would they choose a planet whose surface is 75% water? And it rains frequently?
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 16, 2007, 04:51:27 AM
advanced does not equal smart.  anymore than the average politcian knows how to build a HD Tv
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: SmilinJackRoss on April 16, 2007, 05:20:00 AM
OK, I am a HUGE Signs fan, not only is it my favorite M Night movie, it's one of my favorite  movies of all time.  And it is not because of the supposed pro-faith message...the film itself is ambivelent about faith.  Just listen to Mel's speech to his brother about faith and coincidence.  That sums up the whole movie, and one could argue that the movie's events were just that....coincidence.  It's not like GOD came down and stopped the alien at the house that morning.  An athiest could argue his point that the series of events leading up to the climax are only a series of coincidences.  I mean, think about the radio broadcast where the announcer said there were catastrophic losses of life.  Where was God for all those people?

As far as the aliens coming to earth even though they are clearly adverse to water, well, like Mr basehart said, how can we pretend to know what their agenda is?  Maybe they are desperate?  The movie states that the aliens came to harvest humans, not to take over the planet.  So it was a kind of pit-stop for them, they weren't going to set up shop on Earth.  I never had a problem with that part of it.  Obviously they thought that it was worth the risk to go down and give the invasion a shot, despite the risks.  Other people have wondered why they didn't wear protective suits or something, but they have chameleon skin, and it was their best weapon during an invasion, to blend in.  Obviously they underestimated the human race and their invasion was a failure, but I don't see why that makes the plot improbable.  People are so indoctrinated by other sci-fi films and books that aliens would be so far advanced that there is no way that they could be defeated, but I don't see why not.

I have defended this movie endlessly on messageboards before, and I realize I'm not going to change anybody's mind on this movie...But I think it's an absolutely brilliant, stunning work of art.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: dignan on April 16, 2007, 05:51:01 AM
Of all of M. Night's movies, the only one I don't hate is Signs.  I think he's actually a pretty decent director, and I'd like to see him direct something he didn't write.  In fact, I'd like to ban him from writing any screenplays ever again.

Unbreakable would be my vote for a Rifftrack.  Two hours of a mopey Bruce Willis and his equally mopey son crying because dad's a superhero.  Then it just stops, like they ran out of money and had to tack on a Dragnet ending. 
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: torgosPizza on April 16, 2007, 09:54:36 AM
The best part of SIGNS was when they parodied it in Scary Movie 3. The aliens walking REALLY fast behind horses taking a dump had me laughing like an idiot.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: gbeenie on April 16, 2007, 10:05:11 AM
Quote
Especially that if you pay attention, it's mentioned that the tactic of spraying water on the aliens was "discovered" somewhere in the Middle East

your forgetting m nights ego.  it was discovered there because thats where he is from.  ( i think)


Shyamalan's an American, sarc.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Bob on April 16, 2007, 01:09:55 PM
I guess the Aliens getting killed by water is no worse than the aliens from "Alien Nation" that decided to settle down on a planet that is mostly salt water and water is like acid to them.    Which made me wonder, if they had soup with too much salt in it, would it kill them?    "Damn, this soup sure is salty..... ARRRRRRRGGGGH".

Suspension of disbelieve bar being set really high.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: ScottotD on April 16, 2007, 01:20:28 PM
Quote
Especially that if you pay attention, it's mentioned that the tactic of spraying water on the aliens was "discovered" somewhere in the Middle East

your forgetting m nights ego.  it was discovered there because thats where he is from.  ( i think)


Shyamalan's an American, sarc.

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c241/Goblin42/yarmulke.gif)
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Hazzah on April 16, 2007, 02:14:56 PM
I guess the Aliens getting killed by water is no worse than the aliens from "Alien Nation" that decided to settle down on a planet that is mostly salt water and water is like acid to them.    Which made me wonder, if they had soup with too much salt in it, would it kill them?    "Damn, this soup sure is salty..... ARRRRRRRGGGGH".

Suspension of disbelieve bar being set really high.

In a rare, highly secretive edited scene from Alien Nation, a scene showing some of the first aliens landing and going 'for a swim in that "Atlantic" ocean they heard so much about.'

Tragedy ensued.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Sharktopus on April 16, 2007, 04:45:06 PM
Okay, here's the thing - not only is about 3/5 of the Earth covered with water, not only does water fall from the sky on a regular basis, but water is part of our atmosphere. Yet the aliens are walking around naked! When they were passing through clouds on their way from space to the ground, didn't any of them wonder, "Hey what are those fluffy things? And why's the windshield covered with droplets of a colorless liquid?" And furthermore, the aliens were running around in cornfields, right? Ever been near corn? It collects dew. Lots and lots of dew, which I'll remind you, is, you guessed it - water. I like you, Night, I really do, but please get a screenwriting partner. Don't go all George Lucas on us.

And, for the record, Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan was born in Pondicherry India, but raised outside of Philadelphia, which is why all his films are set in Pennsylvania. It's not that hard to look this stuff up, people.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 16, 2007, 08:11:35 PM
Quote
It's not that hard to look this stuff up, people.

but its even LESS hard to make you do it for me ;)
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Sharktopus on April 16, 2007, 08:46:41 PM
Quote
It's not that hard to look this stuff up, people.

but its even LESS hard to make you do it for me ;)

And which one of us comes off as a dipstick?  ;)
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 16, 2007, 08:55:04 PM
we can only appear to be what we are (i am a dipstick but i am content in my apathy)
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Sharktopus on April 16, 2007, 09:08:26 PM
we can only appear to be what we are (i am a dipstick but i am content in my apathy)

I can't argue with that logic.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: ScottotD on April 17, 2007, 12:10:55 AM
makes you look like a racist dipstick.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 17, 2007, 12:20:51 AM
(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e276/diamondback88/racism.jpg)
PANIC! AAAAAGH!

Better.  ;)
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: MisterRiffley on April 17, 2007, 01:59:01 AM
wow, this thread just took a turn toward the downright embarrassing.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Bob on April 17, 2007, 02:17:46 AM
wow, this thread just took a turn toward the downright embarrassing.

and it only took 4 pages....... not bad, not bad.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 17, 2007, 02:27:20 AM
This is the effect Shyamalan has on people. See, kids, say no to plot twists.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 17, 2007, 02:30:44 AM
Quote
makes you look like a racist dipstick.

hows it make me racist that i said i don't know what race shamalan is but i think he is from somewhere in the middle east.  Oops my bad for leaving my omniscience at home. 
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: mrbasehart on April 17, 2007, 02:33:37 AM
This is the effect Shyamalan has on people. See, kids, say no to plot twists.

The best plot twist I can think of for this thread is that Sarcy turns out to be Shyamalan.  And he's been dead and super-powered all along!  ;)
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Sharktopus on April 17, 2007, 03:45:39 AM
Quote
makes you look like a racist dipstick.

hows it make me racist that i said i don't know what race shamalan is but i think he is from somewhere in the middle east.  Oops my bad for leaving my omniscience at home. 

You're proving my gripe about people who are too lazy to look stuff up while they're already on the internet.

Is India considered the Middle East anyway? I've always assumed "Middle East" pretty much meant Muslim countries and Israel.

Can we agree on this? M. Night Shyamalan is at great risk of becoming the next George Lucas, and not in a good way?
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: ScottotD on April 17, 2007, 03:52:13 AM
How so?
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: SmilinJackRoss on April 17, 2007, 03:54:18 AM

Can we agree on this? M. Night Shyamalan is at great risk of becoming the next George Lucas, and not in a good way?

That's a stretch.  I've enjoyed all his movies so far, some more than others.  But I agree that I would like to see him spread his wings a little and direct someone elses material.  I think he has a great visual eye, and can build tension expertly.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Sharktopus on April 17, 2007, 04:05:53 AM

Can we agree on this? M. Night Shyamalan is at great risk of becoming the next George Lucas, and not in a good way?

That's a stretch.  I've enjoyed all his movies so far, some more than others.  But I agree that I would like to see him spread his wings a little and direct someone elses material.  I think he has a great visual eye, and can build tension expertly.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Right now Night's in that Return Of The Jedi zone where he's in danger of being consumed by asskissers. He needs to come out of his cave full of yes-men and let someone with half a brain read his screenplay before production. Somebody who might say, "Gee Night, this sounds like a great flick, but the aliens are defeated by water? Are you sure that's the best you can do?" Or "Do you really want to call her a Narf? Isn't that what Pinky says?" Just like somebody needed to sit Lucas down and say, "George, man, people really don't want a Star Wars movie to focus on trade disputes and congressional politics. And I'm sure you can direct the hell out of this podrace, but nobody's gonna give a crap because the entire audience knows the kid's gonna win."
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 17, 2007, 04:10:39 AM
Quote
You're proving my gripe about people who are too lazy to look stuff up while they're already on the internet.

Is India considered the Middle East anyway? I've always assumed "Middle East" pretty much meant Muslim countries and Israel.

Can we agree on this? M. Night Shyamalan is at great risk of becoming the next George Lucas, and not in a good way?

no i PROVED your point.  i am lazy and you have a valid complaint.  also i was just straight up wrong about his origins.  Thatll happen from time to time (probably more often than not).  But my mistake hardly makes me a racist. 

Yes i can totally agree about him being the next lucas.  He thinks he has got a great thing going with his "style"  its already pretty tiresome, and i like his stuff.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Bob on April 17, 2007, 01:30:50 PM
I guess his next film ("The Happening") will give us more clues which way his career is moving.

"A paranoid thriller about a family on the run from a natural crisis that presents a large-scale threat to humanity. "

P.S.   India is in Asia, not the Middle East.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Hazzah on April 17, 2007, 02:06:46 PM
I guess his next film ("The Happening") will give us more clues which way his career is moving.

"A paranoid thriller about a family on the run from a natural crisis that presents a large-scale threat to humanity. "

P.S.   India is in Asia, not the Middle East.

Is M Night like constantly on drugs? Why are all his films about paranoia? Maybe it's the drugs I AM taking talking...but it's freaking me out!  Shh! Duck!
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: MisterRiffley on April 17, 2007, 03:02:41 PM
I guess his next film ("The Happening") will give us more clues which way his career is moving.

"A paranoid thriller about a family on the run from a natural crisis that presents a large-scale threat to humanity. "

P.S.   India is in Asia, not the Middle East.

Is M Night like constantly on drugs? Why are all his films about paranoia? Maybe it's the drugs I AM taking talking...but it's freaking me out!  Shh! Duck!
i like paranoia. i sorta wanna see JFK again. back... and to the left.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Hazzah on April 17, 2007, 03:08:30 PM
To this day my father and I quote "Back and to the Left" thanks in part to Seinfeld as well..

What was that!?!
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: trilation on May 01, 2007, 08:21:34 PM
shyamalan is such a one trick pony - he needs his butt riffed bigtime.  the village was insultingly obvious and once you knew the trick the movie had nothing more to sustain it... its ultimately a story about a bunch of fanatically devoted anachronists who deceive their children into living in a world without medical care and when - shock - someone gets tragically ill they're so committed to their lies that they send a BLIND GIRL into the WOODS to wander about in the modern world in the hopes she'll be able to get her hands on some medicine and make it back alive to their little crucible town from hell.  shyamalan really should have been ridden out of hollywood on a rail after this one.  hopefully 'the narf in the pool' will have sunk him for awhile - or at least caused him to reconsider the whole 'i'm not really telling a story at all - i'm tricking people with narrative contrivance in order to create a momentary surprise in anyone who hasn't figured out my repetitive device' thing.  that said the sixth sense and unbreakable aren't totally heinous - even a mad trickster can do alright from time to time... but even those two films are very riffable.  there are no sacred cows - especially not from the shyamalan farm.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: MisterRiffley on May 10, 2007, 07:02:31 PM
To this day my father and I quote "Back and to the Left" thanks in part to Seinfeld as well..

What was that!?!
crow t. robot i remember gets a few choice back and to the left riffs in in some mst3k or another, i forget which.

and then there was, man, what was it, pod people? it's during one of those bogus venture international posterized title sequences. (true misties will know what i mean.) at one point there's a bunch of characters driving down the road in a car and crow sez, "now here you'll see the driver turn around and shoot kennedy."
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: MisterRiffley on May 10, 2007, 07:05:00 PM
shyamalan is such a one trick pony - he needs his butt riffed bigtime.  the village was insultingly obvious and once you knew the trick the movie had nothing more to sustain it... its ultimately a story about a bunch of fanatically devoted anachronists who deceive their children into living in a world without medical care and when - shock - someone gets tragically ill they're so committed to their lies that they send a BLIND GIRL into the WOODS to wander about in the modern world in the hopes she'll be able to get her hands on some medicine and make it back alive to their little crucible town from hell.  shyamalan really should have been ridden out of hollywood on a rail after this one.  hopefully 'the narf in the pool' will have sunk him for awhile - or at least caused him to reconsider the whole 'i'm not really telling a story at all - i'm tricking people with narrative contrivance in order to create a momentary surprise in anyone who hasn't figured out my repetitive device' thing.  that said the sixth sense and unbreakable aren't totally heinous - even a mad trickster can do alright from time to time... but even those two films are very riffable.  there are no sacred cows - especially not from the shyamalan farm.
dittoes! dittoes! i actually was tooling around a motel room in a strange town a couple weeks ago and "signs" came on cable and i decided to watch it again just to see if i was imagining my hatred of it. it had a couple of cool moments but mostly it was just preposterous and laughable. and those news broadcasts! omg. they look like some drunk junior high schooler's project in 8th grade AV class. and that's an insult to 8th graders. it made me realize M. Night's not only a "one-trick pony," as you say, he also lacks basic competence as a filmmaker.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Hazzah on May 10, 2007, 07:10:32 PM
To this day my father and I quote "Back and to the Left" thanks in part to Seinfeld as well..

What was that!?!
crow t. robot i remember gets a few choice back and to the left riffs in in some mst3k or another, i forget which.

and then there was, man, what was it, pod people? it's during one of those bogus venture international posterized title sequences. (true misties will know what i mean.) at one point there's a bunch of characters driving down the road in a car and crow sez, "now here you'll see the driver turn around and shoot kennedy."

I remember the JFK reference. 
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: MisterRiffley on May 10, 2007, 08:02:54 PM
I remember the JFK reference. 
but THEY want you to forget. :o
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Hazzah on May 10, 2007, 08:06:43 PM
I remember the JFK reference. 
but THEY want you to forget. :o

Forget what?

OHHH The reference!


SNUH?!
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Wild Eep on June 24, 2007, 01:06:54 PM
I agree... the village definitely has what it takes to produce some quality riffing.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Goshzilla on June 24, 2007, 01:19:56 PM
Signs is a great movie, if we pretend God actually existed. Sign's premise hinges on superstition. I would love to get this guy into a casino for a few hours and see how much money he wastes.

His worst film has to be Lady in the Water. I could care less about the "deeper meanings" in the film. If he fails to make it good to watch, he has failed as a movie maker, it's the same kind of crieteria for any other artist, you either be good at your art, or just shut up and learn how to make good art. Life isn't fair and the unintended meaning in Lady in the Water is that mister Shyalman thinks we have to be more than greatful for his existence.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Sharktopus on June 24, 2007, 04:30:40 PM
I actually quite enjoyed Lady In The Water, but I can easily understand why people hated it. It's meant to be a fairy tale - you just have to go along with the shaky logic and goofy concept. Shyamalan was asking way too much from audiences.

Signs, on the other hand, is not a fairy tale, and the complete lack of logic is inexcusable.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Fuzzy Necromancer on June 25, 2007, 09:17:27 PM
I've seen Signs and Lady in the Water. Lady in the Water, I thought would work if it was just better put together, and if it was a little less self-indulgent. Casting yourself as the person who writes a world-shaking book is just immodest.

Signs, I consider worse.

Considered on a surface level, this film is weak. Aliens are incredibly vulnerable to water, yet the don't take any precautions to avoid it on a planet teeming with the stuff? They have interstellar travel but not ponchos? And they're going to harvest by hand creatures that spit water, and secrete water from their pores when they are frightened or angry?

Maybe other parts could carry the film, the characters, the message, but they don't. I think Lady in the Water is superior to Signs because it has a loveable, empathetic cast. In Signs, we have Mel Gibson, a stock character straw-man atheist with a full range of emotion and expression from disgruntled to stern. We have Uncle Whatever, a washed out sports player. We have some creepy, unlovable child actors to complete this apathy-inducing family.

The philosophical message of this film about faith is undercut by Mel Gibson playing such a cardboard cutout of an atheist. He's just another person who turns away from religion because he lost a loved one. We know that something will happen to make him recover his faith, and if there was really much internal struggle instead of him just shouting at the kids not to pray and saying that things are coincidences, maybe that would have an effect on me.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Sharktopus on June 26, 2007, 12:58:36 AM
Don't forget the fact that we see them running around, rustling cornfields. Corn that gets drenched by sprinklers if it's been dry, and collects buckets of dew when it's damp. You can't run through corn making elaborate symbols (For no apparent reason.) without wetting wet.

They have interstellar travel but not ponchos?

 :D
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Wild Eep on June 26, 2007, 07:05:32 AM
Corn fields are no match for a mighty warrior.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: Tripe on June 26, 2007, 07:35:59 AM
Perhaps that clicking the aliens do isn't actually communication but rather bronchial conjestion due to allergic reactions to water.

Actually I can still freak my wife out at night if I get out of bed and she wakes up by making that clicking sound.
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: CHF01 on June 18, 2008, 06:05:56 PM
With the recent announcement, I thought I would bump this thread up.

I'm curious how much the Suggest A Trax forum is reviewed by the powers that be at Legend, as I am not seeing many fans requesting The Sixth Sense.  :-\
Title: Re: Shyamalan
Post by: darthvedder81 on June 18, 2008, 07:55:43 PM
"Signs" is one of the best movies to come out of Hollywood in 20 years. In moved and frightened me at the same time and it's funny (not an easy combo to pull off). Mock it and riff it all you like but I'll go to my grave loving that movie!