I saw this last night. It is quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater. I wish Shyamalan would have lisened to the Disney execs who told him his movie was a piece of shit.
It seriously seemed like the movie was being made up as it went along. None of the characters were drawn well at all. I hated how all of these other characters just accepted Cleveland's explanations for things without a second thought.
The only good part was when Bob Balaban's character got mauled by the scrunt.
I beg of you, please save your money. Do NOT go see this movie.
Agreed on all counts. It's a disturbingly egotistical mess, designed as both an attack on Night's critics and an exaltation of his talent. All it does is provide fresh material to rip into him with. Such a shame that Paul Giamatti's first truly big-time role has been wasted in this piece of shit.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
I was so turned off by "The Village" that I don't know if I'll even bother with a Netflix rental when this is released on DVD. I had the twist for "Sixth Sense" ruined for me beforehand, and without the shock of that one moment of realization towards the end, I felt like it was a good but not great movie. I really liked "Unbreakable," moreso than a lot of people I know, and consider that my favorite of the films he's done. I liked "Signs" but found myself having to really shut my mind off during the Third Act, which unfortunately isn't what he was going for.
A big part of the problem is that the "twist" ending became a cliche, and he (albeit not fairly since a lot of writers/directors in both film and literature have been getting away with it for years) gets credited with exposing it as a pretty amateurish device. I understand his frustration, but he also didn't do himself any favors with "The Village," which enforced that stigma.
That being said, I still think he has great promise as a director, and really want to see if he can direct something he didn't write and make it work.
I just saw it a few hours ago and as soon as it ended, someone behind me blurted out, "That f--king sucked!", which got more of a reaction than most of the movie.
To be honest, I liked it. I really enjoy the pacing and the camera work of M. Night's movies. It will be interesting to see if Bryce Dallas Howard can pull off a completely different character in Spiderman 3.
Originally posted by Deputy MarshallI really liked "Unbreakable," moreso than a lot of people I know, and consider that my favorite of the films he's done.
One of the best shocking twist endings ever.
Maybe it's because I grew up on comic books, but I saw that ending coming 20 minutes into the film, and I'm a fairly dense individual when it comes to movies. Wasn't there a sequel planned? I thought I heard rumours of that.
The original plan for "Unbreakable" was actually going to be a trilogy but the idea was scrapped when it tanked at the box office. I think it's slowly developed enough of a following since DVD that it would work if they decided to go back to it.
"That's my problem - I'm too frank. That's why my mother shoved me down the stairs. But then she is fat."
Worldwide, sure. Domestically it made less than $100 million, which (while I wouldn't go so far as to say is tanking, exactly) was well behind The Sixth Sense, which made $293 million in the U.S. ($50 million more than Unbreakable did in the entire world) and $672 billion overall.
I liked Unbreakable better, though. And thanks for the link!
Ladies and gentlemen, the following public service message is brought to you by your friends from D-Generation X, who would like to remind each and every one of you that if you're not down with that, we've got two words for you... Man, the early respondants to this thread couldn't have missed the point more if they tried.
That's not your fault, though, since M. Night is still being dragged down by the problem that's plagued him since Signs was released: The studios have erroneously typecasted him as a "thriller" and a "twist" director, and have tried to advertise both The Village and now this film as such, when neither was even remotely close to being such. It's like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
It has a grass dog, evil monkeys, sea nymphs, magic blue mud and a guy convincing a group of people some mystical force is living in their pool?
Sure. Because it's a bedtime story. I was so psyched when the early advertisements trumpted this film as such; it gave me a (false) hope that Warner Bros. wouldn't fall into the same trap Disney did (as I described above).
Didn't your parents tell you bedtime stories as a kid? Mine did, and the stuff that they come up with was even less logical and believeable than what I saw watching this film. And you love it anyway, because you're a kid and you want to believe in the mystical, the magical and the unbelieveable - you want to believe that this world isn't as mundane as it actually is. That's the point - to sit down in the cushy, comfortable chair at the theater and treat it as a bed, to suspend your disbelief for two hours and just enjoy the story you're told, and to witness something that's completely atypical for whatever popcorn fodder you normally get at the movies.
That, at the end of the day, is what I appreciate more about M. Night more than anything else - he treats cinema as the art that it's supposed to be, rather than the commercialized money-making machine it's become. This article by Ross Douthat (slate.com) sums it up better than I ever could.
And that's why through all the stumbles and the criticism, I'll continue to see and enjoy his films no matter what.
smark/net attack Advisory System Status is: Elevated (Holds; June 18, 2006) While the switch from Cena to RVD should alleviate some complaints, the inevitability of the belt's return to Cena (note where Summerslam is this year) and the poor initial showing by the new ECW are enough to keep the indicator where it is for now. The pieces are in place, though, especially on RAW, for improvements to be made to the IWC's psyche in the near future.
Bedtime stories and hollywood movies are two different things. Even if you DID consider it a bedtime story, WTF is it doing on the big screen? It made no sense whatsoeer and was boring to watch. While your parents may have been a bit more imaginative than mine while telling tales, somehow I dont think it should make a difference. This movie blew dog, no matter what type of story you try to label it.
That it's supposed to be a "bedtime story" doesn't change the fact that Night essentially uses the movie's runtime to point out a)how great and life-changing a film-maker he is, and b)how critics are just too jaded and stupid to see the wonders of his works. On a metaphysical level that's ALL the movie is about. Night plays the young writer who will one day inspire world change, so everyone must learn to believe in him and accept the fantastical story, weirdness and all, because it's HIS vision that of most import. And then there's the needless critic character, an absolute waste of Bob Balaban, which just seems to exist so Night can take a cheapshot at movie critics themselves. So his excuse for it being nonsensical is a bedtime story? Come on. "Hey, it doesn't HAVE to make sense-it's all made-up anyhow!". What an easy out for any knocks the film might take.
The whole thing is like an angry, childish rebuttal to the criticisms he faced after THE VILLAGE.
Side note, not aimed at Texas Kelly: I'm getting monumentally fed-up of the arrogance of Night's rapidly diminishing fanbase. It seems as though no-one can critique one of his movies without being told they don't get it, or are too stupid to understand the genius that is M. Night. Here's the thing: He makes genre films,. Ghost story, superhero movie, alien invasion, fairytale. He doesn't even class himself as an "artist", at least not publically. And yet his film so often fail on such basic storytelling, structural and logical levels that he even fails at that. If he wants to make art film, fine. Just stop trying to cram them into a genre framework, because it doesn't work in the slightest.
(edited by oldschoolhero on 29.7.06 0047) To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
I appreciate his attempts at metafiction as well as Paul Giamatti, but this movie is really not very good. It's his poorest directing job since he's been in the big leagues, and it's honestly a fucking terrible screenplay.
This movie annoyed the living hell out of me just off the commercials. I do hope no one tries to go the whispering girl route for the narrator in commercials, because it singlehandedly helped turn me off from this film, aside from the reviews which made the plot look like a nonsensical, incomprehensible mess.
(This concludes another post made by someone who has not, and will not, see the film, and therefore might be completely off-base. Good thing all the complaints have to do with promotion and reviews, and not actual content, huh?)
http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/warner-bros-sets-diane-lane-for-supermans-mom/ Diane Lane? She's a fine actress and all.... but she seems a little young to be playing a teenage Clark Kent's mother.