M. Night Shyamalan is fucking annoying.

luck

I didn't mind "The 6th Sense." I consciously ignored the hype and backlash and liked it alright for what it was. "Unbreakable," lumbering, unfulfilled structure and all, was shite. I haven't seen another film of his since, because I've seen the trailers by accident. In the meantime, I also happened upon a positively nauseating network newsmag segment about M., in which the director vainly tried playing off "You ARE the next Hitch" statements like that wasn't the obvious promotional dagger he and his handlers had meant to thrust all along.Now, this new movie comes along.Jesus. No director should relegate themselves to a solitary theme, id est: "The Director Who Throws a Twist In at The End, Murdering What Little Suspense That Wasn't Wholly CGI-Dependent."Everything about this guy says: "I am great. I am a fucking bloody genius."Dude: get over yourself. Rod Serling, dead in his grave, eats you with white wine mustard in a pita pocket. Pffft.

SoulOnIce

I didn't read this post* but I agree whole-heartedly with the title.



*not actually true

m_dejean

YES! "The 6th Sense" and "Signs" was enough for me. I am never going to watch another movie by this hack again.

33thirdcom

man I agree completely. SO over-rated. I saw that half assed attempt at a thriller/scary movie called The Village... not because he did it, but because some friends said it was good, or maybe they said decent... i can't remember. In any event I had the movie figured out 1/3 the way through. I watched it through the end to see A. how close I actually was to figuring it out, and B. just to see how bad the movie would get.

DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. Complete waste.

dude needs his ego checked... And dudes need to stop green-lighting his "brilliant ideas"

DrJoel

Kill me, hatt, whatever...

i thoroughly enjoyed The Village.

The problem with his movies (lately moreso) is that they are marketed completely wrong, but in a very filmic way. They are made to look like these horror flicks with all kinds of creepy stuff going on and people feel like they've got an elbow in their ass when they only get spooked once. The (generic) attitude in Hollwood is that all the audience has to do is get there. Same with any other product of mass production. For example, (shitty example, but basic, bare bones) "Brittany Spears wants to be in a movie? Ok make it." Who is gonna write it? Who is gonna direct it? "Who cares, we'll get $xx million the first weekend."

i know a lot of people weren't feeling The Village and that was put out as super suspense/scary monster etc. Same can be said for signs, which in my opinion is probably the weakest of his films. i don't know if the new one will do as well or even if it is any good but i am going to check it out. There are a lot of people who felt tricked last time and are probably still sore.

Where you're coming from on the surprise ending thing is pretty on point. Its a given that its going to happen. There's a ton of different ways to watch a movie, hell there are theories on the subject, but if you go into a movie thinking, "I hated that interview that i saw of the guy who made this," or spend the whole hour and a half trying to figure out how he is going to surprise you then you aren't really going to have much left for the movie itself.

One theory, don't recall the name, basically states: Sit down, watch it, and be in the moment until its over. That's the only important part. Sure its debatable but at least it allows you to judge a movie strictly as a movie. Not as a thousand things you're bringing with you.

Sorry for the length, i've had this discussion a bunch of times with my friends because a bunch of them aren't feeling him.

On that note, the sci-fi channel special on him before The Village was pretty bad.

Dustbuster

The only reason I sat through that piece of shit movie "The Village" was to see how he would put himself in it. SO original, by the way. Does nothing to further comparisons to Hitchcock.

Junior

I still enjoy Unbreakable though that might have a lot to do with the fact that I don't find the twist at the end that important to the enjoyment of the rest of the film.

Sixth Sense was ok.

Signs was a piece of terd.

The Village I can't really comment on as I've tried to watch it three times and always fallen asleep before the halfway mark. Make of that what you will.

kitchenknight

Thread titles like this make me love this place. Man, I hate this directerd.

Diamante_D

Part of the enjoyment gleaned from any whodunnit type of films - be it murder mysteries, slasher pics, whatever - is the ability to say you guessed it before the end. It makes you feel better about yourself because you think that it makes you x amount more intelligent than the people who are surprised by the twist. Whereas in actuality, that makes you x amount stupider, because you have done precisely what the director intended you to do in the first place, but subsequently sat through something that you're not even enjoying, purely to flatter yourself.

DJ_Enki

directerd.

DrJoel

Part of the enjoyment gleaned from any whodunnit type of films - be it murder mysteries, slasher pics, whatever - is the ability to say you guessed it before the end. It makes you feel better about yourself because you think that it makes you x amount more intelligent than the people who are surprised by the twist. Whereas in actuality, that makes you x amount stupider, because you have done precisely what the director intended you to do in the first place, but subsequently sat through something that you're not even enjoying, purely to flatter yourself.

Agreed. It really annoys me when people say, "I figured out the ending halfway through." Why?

People have to be smarter than the person who made the movie which annoys me to no end. Suspend your disbelief or your soft.

DjArcadian

I loved all his films. Maybe not Signs which had a lot to do with the casting. Even loved The Village. I think the guy is a major talent.

deej

Liked unbreakable, everything else is garbage.

funky16corners

Haven't seen the Village yet. Love Sixth Sense and Unbreakable (ought to be called Underrated...). Signs was so so....

CousinLarry

I loved all his films. Maybe not Signs which had a lot to do with the casting. Even loved The Village. I think the guy is a major talent.

The Village was weak. I mean did anyone else catch the scene where the boom mic drops down into the frame. TWICE. WTF?

edith head

i completely agree with everything you said.

have you seen the american express ad with him where all this stupid spooky shit happens in the restaurant and it's supposed to be his brilliant imagination or some crap. then his brilliant daydreaming is interrupted by a sycophantic waitress who tells him how he's her favorite director?? and then he shoots this self-satisfied smile looking off into his private mind garden.



why wont he just go away

DjArcadian

I loved all his films. Maybe not Signs which had a lot to do with the casting. Even loved The Village. I think the guy is a major talent.

The Village was weak. I mean did anyone else catch the scene where the boom mic drops down into the frame. TWICE. WTF?

[filmgeekmode]
Did you see it in widescreen or fullscreen? I say that because some films are filmed in Super35mm which is a process that films in a 3:4 ratio (TV size) but crops it down to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 for projecting at theaters. However, when they display it in fullscreen on television sets the cropped out part is revealed. Sometimes that cropped area has mics visible because they know it won't be seen in theaters. Still, I agree. Any modern filmmaker should know that it will show up on TV screens.
[/filmgeekmode]

CousinLarry

I loved all his films. Maybe not Signs which had a lot to do with the casting. Even loved The Village. I think the guy is a major talent.

The Village was weak. I mean did anyone else catch the scene where the boom mic drops down into the frame. TWICE. WTF?

[filmgeekmode]
Did you see it in widescreen or fullscreen? I say that because some films are filmed in Super35mm which is a process that films in a 3:4 ratio (TV size) but crops it down to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 for projecting at theaters. However, when they display it in fullscreen on television sets the cropped out part is revealed. Sometimes that cropped area has mics visible because they know it won't be seen in theaters. Still, I agree. Any modern filmmaker should know that it will show up on TV screens.
[/filmgeekmode]

No I saw it in the theater and I want my fucking money back.

DrJoel

i completely agree with everything you said.

have you seen the american express ad with him where all this stupid spooky shit happens in the restaurant and it's supposed to be his brilliant imagination or some crap. then his brilliant daydreaming is interrupted by a sycophantic waitress who tells him how he's her favorite director?? and then he shoots this self-satisfied smile looking off into his private mind garden.



why wont he just go away

And if this is what you are thinking about when you are judging one of his movies then you are cheating yourself.

i don't like a lot of the Rolling Stones music, they have some great songs that i really enjoy, but i don't let the fact that Mick Jagger has always been a creepy big mouth who seems to move like he has no bones in his body inform my decision of what songs of theirs i like and don't like.

More importantly...is that John Mayer in your avatar? That picture is hilarious.

speakmumbles

the people that dont like his movies are probably the same people that love hollywood remakes or "family classics" like johnson family terdation. by the way rent the movie london with jessica biel and chris evans, shit was good.

33thirdcom

Part of the enjoyment gleaned from any whodunnit type of films - be it murder mysteries, slasher pics, whatever - is the ability to say you guessed it before the end. It makes you feel better about yourself because you think that it makes you x amount more intelligent than the people who are surprised by the twist. Whereas in actuality, that makes you x amount stupider, because you have done precisely what the director intended you to do in the first place, but subsequently sat through something that you're not even enjoying, purely to flatter yourself.

I guess, but a good Who Dunnit will actually have me trying to figure out the ending all the way through and usually i second guess myself. This movie was no whodunnit, it was obvious, and just plain bad.

Usual Suspects was a good who dunnit.

Hell Clue was a better whodunnit.

After the 6th Sense he just tries too hard IMO.

kitchenknight

Part of the enjoyment gleaned from any whodunnit type of films - be it murder mysteries, slasher pics, whatever - is the ability to say you guessed it before the end. It makes you feel better about yourself because you think that it makes you x amount more intelligent than the people who are surprised by the twist. Whereas in actuality, that makes you x amount stupider, because you have done precisely what the director intended you to do in the first place, but subsequently sat through something that you're not even enjoying, purely to flatter yourself.

I guess, but a good Who Dunnit will actually have me trying to figure out the ending all the way through and usually i second guess myself. This movie was no whodunnit, it was obvious, and just plain bad.

Usual Suspects was a good who dunnit.

Hell Clue was a better whodunnit.

After the 6th Sense he just tries too hard IMO.

A good Whodunit SHOULD get the audience trying to guess. If your defense of his movies is to say, "You shouldn't try to figure it out...Just enjoy it," you are asking the audience to be a passive element, which I would think, given M. Night Shamylan's pretensions, he would HATE. He would want the audience to try to figure it out, and always be one step ahead. The problem is, he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

edith head

More importantly...is that John Mayer in your avatar? That picture is hilarious.

yeah....ladyday posted it in the solo face thread. not only is that a face john mayer makes when soloing but he is wearing not one but TWO polo shirts with the collar popped. that is some next level douchebaggery

DJ_Enki

Hell Clue was a better whodunnit.

Clue was also way more entertaining.

SoulOnIce

the people that dont like his movies are probably the same people that love hollywood remakes or "family classics" like johnson family terdation.

------------------------


As stated above, I'm an M.N.S. hatter ... but I find it interesting
that the only film of his found watchable/somewhat enjoyable was
"Signs," which all the M.N.S. supporters in this thread cite as
their LEAST favorite. Hmmm...


ps "Unbreakable" is the worst!!! It was like 1/3 of a movie stretched into
2 hours...in fact, after saying that myself after watching it, "wow, they
took 'act 1' of any movie and made it acts 1, 2 & 3," I saw part of the
director commentary and he admitted this was his intention!! Why?!
He thinks he is sooooo clever, but he's really just kind of a hack.

DOR

DrJoel

A good Whodunit SHOULD get the audience trying to guess. If your defense of his movies is to say, "You shouldn't try to figure it out...Just enjoy it," you are asking the audience to be a passive element, which I would think, given M. Night Shamylan's pretensions, he would HATE. He would want the audience to try to figure it out, and always be one step ahead. The problem is, he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

i am saying just sit and watch it. My point is this...in The Village the story is moving you along with the character interplay and each small sub plot within, the red, and eventually the girl's 'journey'. If you are sitting there thinking...man he is a bad filmmaker because he thinks he's so cool and he sure isnt the next Hitchcock like they thought he was in that interview your are missing out. If you are predicting the future you are missing out.

The adults were trying to preserve something that was far gone in the outside world to provide something that they thought was safe, sacred, and the right thing for their future generations (no amish). If you're too busy saying those screws in the coffin couldn't have possibly been from the time period they are supposed to be resembling then you are not being an attentive element, you are scrutinizing what has nothing to do with the story, emotional effect he is trying to get out of the audience, or the point he was trying to make.

Plus, you can't tell me that scene where Adrian Brody figures out that the bad color is inside of all of them after he stabs Johnny Cash isn't good. It says tons about what the 2nd generation villagers were being taught and the holes that were created because these people tried to create a world that was outside of one that was natural.

Two polos and Mayer blues = pure baggery.

The_Hook_Up

the people that dont like his movies are probably the same people that love moviemaking and storytelling that pays off and doesnt insult the audience with style over substance.[/b]

kitchenknight

A good Whodunit SHOULD get the audience trying to guess. If your defense of his movies is to say, "You shouldn't try to figure it out...Just enjoy it," you are asking the audience to be a passive element, which I would think, given M. Night Shamylan's pretensions, he would HATE. He would want the audience to try to figure it out, and always be one step ahead. The problem is, he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

i am saying just sit and watch it. My point is this...in The Village the story is moving you along with the character interplay and each small sub plot within, the red, and eventually the girl's 'journey'. If you are sitting there thinking...man he is a bad filmmaker because he thinks he's so cool and he sure isnt the next Hitchcock like they thought he was in that interview your are missing out. If you are predicting the future you are missing out.

The adults were trying to preserve something that was far gone in the outside world to provide something that they thought was safe, sacred, and the right thing for their future generations (no amish). If you're too busy saying those screws in the coffin couldn't have possibly been from the time period they are supposed to be resembling then you are not being an attentive element, you are scrutinizing what has nothing to do with the story, emotional effect he is trying to get out of the audience, or the point he was trying to make.

Plus, you can't tell me that scene where Adrian Brody figures out that the bad color is inside of all of them after he stabs Johnny Cash isn't good. It says tons about what the 2nd generation villagers were being taught and the holes that were created because these people tried to create a world that was outside of one that was natural.

Two polos and Mayer blues = pure baggery.

I'm not going to argue specifics on the Village, because I didn't see it. But, the reason I didn't see it is because I figured out the gimick from the preview, and by that time, I had seen all his previous films and thought them terdly.

All that aside...I think your 'just sit and watch it,' is wrong. I'll leave it at that. Hitchcock, who Shamylan is shamelessly apeing, wanted you to try and guess; he wanted to make the movie playful and interactive. And, he wanted to serve up a good surprise in the end. To tell the audience, "Wait...don't think too hard, just trust that I have some trick up my sleeve," is the WORST sort of gimickery, and it treats the audience as if they are stupid. Fuck that, I am not interested.

It is John Mayer-esque movie wankery.

EDIT: I guess I didn't just, 'leave it at that'.

DrJoel

A good Whodunit SHOULD get the audience trying to guess. If your defense of his movies is to say, "You shouldn't try to figure it out...Just enjoy it," you are asking the audience to be a passive element, which I would think, given M. Night Shamylan's pretensions, he would HATE. He would want the audience to try to figure it out, and always be one step ahead. The problem is, he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

i am saying just sit and watch it. My point is this...in The Village the story is moving you along with the character interplay and each small sub plot within, the red, and eventually the girl's 'journey'. If you are sitting there thinking...man he is a bad filmmaker because he thinks he's so cool and he sure isnt the next Hitchcock like they thought he was in that interview your are missing out. If you are predicting the future you are missing out.

The adults were trying to preserve something that was far gone in the outside world to provide something that they thought was safe, sacred, and the right thing for their future generations (no amish). If you're too busy saying those screws in the coffin couldn't have possibly been from the time period they are supposed to be resembling then you are not being an attentive element, you are scrutinizing what has nothing to do with the story, emotional effect he is trying to get out of the audience, or the point he was trying to make.

Plus, you can't tell me that scene where Adrian Brody figures out that the bad color is inside of all of them after he stabs Johnny Cash isn't good. It says tons about what the 2nd generation villagers were being taught and the holes that were created because these people tried to create a world that was outside of one that was natural.

Two polos and Mayer blues = pure baggery.

I'm not going to argue specifics on the Village, because I didn't see it. But, the reason I didn't see it is because I figured out the gimick from the preview, and by that time, I had seen all his previous films and thought them terdly.

All that aside...I think your 'just sit and watch it,' is wrong. I'll leave it at that. Hitchcock, who Shamylan is shamelessly apeing, wanted you to try and guess; he wanted to make the movie playful and interactive. And, he wanted to serve up a good surprise in the end. To tell the audience, "Wait...don't think too hard, just trust that I have some trick up my sleeve," is the WORST sort of gimickery, and it treats the audience as if they are stupid. Fuck that, I am not interested.

It is John Mayer-esque movie wankery.

EDIT: I guess I didn't just, 'leave it at that'.

i'm not saying 'Don't think too hard' i am saying if you're sitting there trying to figure out whats coming an hour or so later you are missing out on what else is happening. i am defending The Village because i enjoyed it. The fact that you figured out the ending from the trailer and didnt even need to see any of the good scenes or hear the violin stuff earns you my undying respect. i am 'leaving it at that' too because i am rolling out of work in a little bit. i feel where you people are coming from, hopefully you at least consider where i'm coming from.

kitchenknight

A good Whodunit SHOULD get the audience trying to guess. If your defense of his movies is to say, "You shouldn't try to figure it out...Just enjoy it," you are asking the audience to be a passive element, which I would think, given M. Night Shamylan's pretensions, he would HATE. He would want the audience to try to figure it out, and always be one step ahead. The problem is, he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

i am saying just sit and watch it. My point is this...in The Village the story is moving you along with the character interplay and each small sub plot within, the red, and eventually the girl's 'journey'. If you are sitting there thinking...man he is a bad filmmaker because he thinks he's so cool and he sure isnt the next Hitchcock like they thought he was in that interview your are missing out. If you are predicting the future you are missing out.

The adults were trying to preserve something that was far gone in the outside world to provide something that they thought was safe, sacred, and the right thing for their future generations (no amish). If you're too busy saying those screws in the coffin couldn't have possibly been from the time period they are supposed to be resembling then you are not being an attentive element, you are scrutinizing what has nothing to do with the story, emotional effect he is trying to get out of the audience, or the point he was trying to make.

Plus, you can't tell me that scene where Adrian Brody figures out that the bad color is inside of all of them after he stabs Johnny Cash isn't good. It says tons about what the 2nd generation villagers were being taught and the holes that were created because these people tried to create a world that was outside of one that was natural.

Two polos and Mayer blues = pure baggery.

I'm not going to argue specifics on the Village, because I didn't see it. But, the reason I didn't see it is because I figured out the gimick from the preview, and by that time, I had seen all his previous films and thought them terdly.

All that aside...I think your 'just sit and watch it,' is wrong. I'll leave it at that. Hitchcock, who Shamylan is shamelessly apeing, wanted you to try and guess; he wanted to make the movie playful and interactive. And, he wanted to serve up a good surprise in the end. To tell the audience, "Wait...don't think too hard, just trust that I have some trick up my sleeve," is the WORST sort of gimickery, and it treats the audience as if they are stupid. Fuck that, I am not interested.

It is John Mayer-esque movie wankery.

EDIT: I guess I didn't just, 'leave it at that'.

i'm not saying 'Don't think too hard' i am saying if you're sitting there trying to figure out whats coming an hour or so later you are missing out on what else is happening. i am defending The Village because i enjoyed it. The fact that you figured out the ending from the trailer and didnt even need to see any of the good scenes or hear the violin stuff earns you my undying respect. i am 'leaving it at that' too because i am rolling out of work in a little bit. i feel where you people are coming from, hopefully you at least consider where i'm coming from.

Hey man, if you like then like it. No sweat off my balls; I really only took exception with the 'just sit and watch' part.

And, while it may ruin some of that undying respect, I did see his first three movies, which had a LARGE part in why I didn't go see his fourth, nor will I see his fifth.