Author Topic: Shyamalan  (Read 6350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sarcasm_made_Easy

  • Compsognathus
  • *****
  • Posts: 10320
  • Liked: 15
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #60 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.


Offline Bob

  • Afraid of the Wind
  • Posts: 21333
  • Liked: 2405
  • Complete waste of time at www.robertpreed.com
    • My Stunning Home Page
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #61 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.


Offline Hazzah

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1550
  • Liked: 2
  • D'oh
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #62 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!
Hi-Keeba!


Offline MisterRiffley

  • Schnappi Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 0
    • Mister Riffley
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #63 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.


Offline Hazzah

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1550
  • Liked: 2
  • D'oh
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #64 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!?!
Hi-Keeba!


Offline trilation

  • Blue Beer Drinker
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 0
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #65 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.
why would anyone want to do THAT with michell, joel?!


Offline MisterRiffley

  • Schnappi Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 0
    • Mister Riffley
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #66 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."


Offline MisterRiffley

  • Schnappi Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 0
    • Mister Riffley
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #67 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.


Offline Hazzah

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1550
  • Liked: 2
  • D'oh
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #68 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. 
Hi-Keeba!


Offline MisterRiffley

  • Schnappi Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 0
    • Mister Riffley
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #69 on: May 10, 2007, 08:02:54 PM »
I remember the JFK reference. 
but THEY want you to forget. :o


Offline Hazzah

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1550
  • Liked: 2
  • D'oh
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #70 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?!
Hi-Keeba!


Offline Wild Eep

  • Blue Beer Drinker
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 0
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #71 on: June 24, 2007, 01:06:54 PM »
I agree... the village definitely has what it takes to produce some quality riffing.


Offline Goshzilla

  • Schnappi Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 0
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #72 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.


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #73 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.


Offline Fuzzy Necromancer

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 17
Re: Shyamalan
« Reply #74 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.
Love doesn't hurt. It kills.

"Where there's smoke, there's a smoke-making machine."