|
Post by Derrick on May 8, 2010 8:54:04 GMT -5
That would be THE BURIED SECRET OF M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN, Tom. And you're right. That three hour mockumentary was far scarier and stranger than any of Shyamalan's movies. Far as I know, it was only shown once on the Sci-Fi Channel in conjunction with the hype for THE VILLAGE and was never aired again.
And since I have your attention:
I honestly cannot believe that anybody who spent any significant amount of time watching "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits" was surprised by the 'surprise endings' of THE SIXTH SENSE and THE VILLAGE. THE SIXTH SENSE is one of the most overrated and overhyped movies of all time.
LADY IN THE WATER=terrible
I'm interested in THE LAST AIRBENDER as it seems as if Shyamalan is following in the footsteps of Spike Lee and Kevin Smith. Like those two, Shyamalan has been a filmmaker known for writing and directing his own scripts and making movies in his own highly individualistic manner. I was looking forward to seeing if he could do a "work-for-hire" project but I'm disturbed by articles I've read that the original material THE LAST AIRBENDER is based on featured an all-Asian cast that has been replaced by white actors in the movie version. If that's the case, I won't be seeing this film.
SIGNS and UNBREAKABLE are for me, Shyamalan's best movies. SIGNS is the most unusual alien invasion movie I've ever seen with remarkable acting from Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix. And this is a Shymalan movie that has a surprise ending that actually is a surprise. UNBREAKABLE is for me, one of the Ten Best Superhero Movies Ever Made. And again, it has a surprise ending that actually is a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on May 8, 2010 9:39:10 GMT -5
I agree with much of what you say about Shymalan. UNBREAKABLE ("They called me MR. Glass!") was truly a fantastic and underappreciated film that told a real world comic book story as well as any film that I've seen. THE SIXTH SENSE was an amusing little film that does not hold up to multiple viewings, his other films are total shit (actually, I stopped after THE VILLAGE).
And, since you bring up Kevin Smith again, I have to get this out. I went for a run yesterday and, as is my habit of late, picked one of your past episodes to listen to as I did so. It was the one where you review __________ MAKE A PORNO (can't remmeber the principle characters' names), by Smith. Now, I am used to you guys being much more fanboy friendly than I am, and that you guys are much more forgiving critics than I could ever be. I understand that you two are coming from a different place, but when I heard, "Kevin Smith is the Orson Welles of our time." I almost dropped dead and shit my ass at the same time! Sure CLERKS was a funny little passable and quirky film, but only when viewed from the perspective that you are watching a student filmmaker trying to find his footing. The performances are mostly stiff and stale, and the direction is amatuer. Their is no flow to any conversation, characters deliver their lines, while their co-stars awkwardly wait their turn to respond in kind. Charming, for what it was. But the motherfucker never got any better! I gave up after the second CLERKS film, but Smith never showed anymore comfort or dexterity behind the lens than he did in that first outing. CHASING AMY is the only other of his films, that I have seen, that is even acceptable to watch, and though the acting in that one is superior to the forerunners, it has the same uncomfortable pacing and ten cent cinematography. I really believe that "The Geek Culture" as you refer to it, reveres this asshole simply because they are excited to see one of their own make it big. I could not rank him anywhere near my "top 100 director's list", or anything of the sort. Orson Welles is clearly, by any measure, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. CITIZEN KANE (his first) is one of a handful of films that set the language for the artform and is probably my third favorite movie, period (and I'm hardly alone). Welle's had already revolutionized radio before being given his big screen shot by RKO at a young age. It is true that after KANE and THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS the studios fucked with him (almost entirely for political reasons), but though his output was sporadic, he continued to make superb films, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE STRANGER, THE LADY FROM SHANGHI, his Shakespeare adaptions, all beautifully written, shot and acted. He would not repeat himself and he was consistantly a trailblazer. If you get away from fanboy culture, Smith gets only slightly more positive praise than I have given him by the established critics and ,again, it is usually a "good job" little boy for CLERKS and decent praise for CHASING AMY, everything else was panned and forgotten. I watch a lot of film and can discuss movies from just about any country, going all the way back to the 1890s (admittedly, my knowledge wanes when it comes to the last couple of decades due to lack of interest and constant disappointment and studio head fuckery) in depth, but I can enjoy cheap, rough films (LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, EL MARIACHI). I understand what Kevin Smith is trying to do, but he barely registers. Orson Welles was a master.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on May 8, 2010 9:52:09 GMT -5
I didn't see that mock-doc, but remember it was pretty cannily hyped as unauthorized and that he was trying to stop it being shown.
I think one of the reasons 6TH SENSE worked for me (and-- apologies to Rod Serling -- I was surprised by the ending, loved it) was exactly that it wasn't hyped that much at first. It was a late summer release whose audience just grew. There wasn't much fanfare at the start (possible because at the time Bruce Willis had recently done another troubled child thriller called MERCURY RISING that didn't do well.)
I did like UNBREAKABLE, shitloads better than HANCOCK. But, what I HATED was where the film ended with a tense confrontation between Willis and SLJ, and Bruce walks away. We're then given a placard onscreen that says -- oh, don't worry he went and called the cops and they came and busted the bad guy -- exactly like some episode of Dragnet. WTF? Seriously? What suit imposed that idiotic buzz-kill on the picture.
I guessed the ending of THE VILLAGE in the first 3 minutes and was then appalled when it played out. So a bunch of rich white people create this enclave where they can abuse their children with lies, just so they can keep them away from petty street criminals? (And free thought, world history and culture, not to mention modern medicine and dentistry.) And any diversity whatsoever. Very odd coming from a filmmaker of color. Of course, if they had included Samuel L. Jackson as one of the villagers, it may have seemed to viewers like an anachronism and tipped them off that something was afoot. These considerations may also have tipped off Shaymalan that the whole enterprise was a bad idea.
LADY IN THE WATER, just a train wreck, but kind of fascinating to watch.
Agreed, he should try and work with other people's material to get the pressure off himself coming up with these gimmicky "surprise endings". Another cue from Spike -- stop acting in your own movies as well! His performances in SIGNS and LADY IN THE WATER (where he plays a visionary world-changing writer-prophet !?!?) are simply not good.
|
|
|
Post by james on May 8, 2010 20:17:57 GMT -5
it wasn't hyped that much at first. It was a late summer release whose audience just grew. There wasn't much fanfare at the start (possible because at the time Bruce Willis had recently done another troubled child thriller called MERCURY RISING that didn't do well.) This is definitely true. I went to see it sometime in the first week of release, and there was no hype around the film (yet). I went to see Stir of Echoes its first week of release, which was around the same time, and Echoes also didn't have much hype behind it. I remember thinking the latter was a much better movie, though. I've re-watched both and haven't changed my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on May 8, 2010 22:21:19 GMT -5
it wasn't hyped that much at first. It was a late summer release whose audience just grew. There wasn't much fanfare at the start (possible because at the time Bruce Willis had recently done another troubled child thriller called MERCURY RISING that didn't do well.) This is definitely true. I went to see it sometime in the first week of release, and there was no hype around the film (yet). I went to see Stir of Echoes its first week of release, which was around the same time, and Echoes also didn't have much hype behind it. I remember thinking the latter was a much better movie, though. I've re-watched both and haven't changed my opinion. You get no argument from me at all! STIR OF ECHOES is a vastly superior movie that had the misfortune of following "The Sixth Sense" and suffering from people thinking this was just a quickie attempt to jump on that movie's popularity. STIR OF ECHOES still gives me the creeps after watching it five times to date.
|
|
|
Post by lexlobo on Oct 25, 2010 8:18:42 GMT -5
Ideas: Tim Burton Bryan Singer
I want to know what you two think about the latter's more recent stuff and I've never been a big fan of the latter's films as a whole and want to know the appeal of them
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Oct 25, 2010 13:58:31 GMT -5
Me, I've been a major Tim Burton fan since BEETLEJUICE. He's made so many good movies that I'm willing to forgive him for MARS ATTACKS! PLANET OF THE APES and CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. And he directed the best Hammer horror film never made by Hammer: SLEEPY HOLLOW.
Bryan Singer is another story. Much as the fanboys love to claim him as a comic book geek, Singer actually knew nothing about The X-Men, which to me was a major plus as I thought the first two X-Men were a whole lot better than I thought they would be. There was some inspired casting there in Famke Janssen as Jean Gray and Sir Ian McKellan as Magneto. Some no-brainer casting with Patrick Stewart as Professor X and some plain ol' WTF Were They Thinking? with casting Halle Berry as Storm. Iman would have been perfect and Angela Bassett lobbied hard for the role but was turned down as being "too old".
I like THE USUAL SUSPECTS and APT PUPIL far better. APT PUPIL never get mentioned when people discuss movies based of Stephen King novels and it's a shame since APT PUPIL is probably the most faithful and downright frightening of any King adaptation. I've seen VALKYRIE and it's an okay movie but just that: okay.
I don't dump on Singer for SUPERMAN RETURNS as much as others do mainly because he so obviously loved the Richard Donner original "Superman". But it was that same love that got in the way of him putting his own personal vision on the movie as way too many scenes in the movie were Singer's versions of scenes from the Donner movie. It didn't help for me that he got a virtual clone of Christopher Reeve to play Superman/Clark Kent in looks but not in acting. Still, it's nowhere as bad as comic books fans would have you believe. And despite what those same fanboys claim, SUPERMAN RETURNS was both a critical and financial success. The ones who were really disappointed with the movie? Warner Bros. executives who have stated publicly that despite the movie having made $400 million worldwide they felt the movie's return was "disappointing" and that the movie failed.
|
|
|
Post by lexlobo on Jan 2, 2011 14:06:57 GMT -5
how about Woody Allen?
|
|
|
Post by peapotmaster on Jan 2, 2011 16:52:11 GMT -5
I hated M. Night's take on a popular Nickelodeon cartoon, and turn it into a two hour crapfest. I like Avatar as a cartoon without messing up the tale.
Singer did good on X-Men and X2, but when he did Superman Returns, it became a superhero screwjob. Ratner doing X3 was horrible, but the Beast is the only good thing of this film.
Tim Burton is an okay director, but screwing Planet of the Apes to the original novel broke that mold. The Simpsons did a better job with it than Burton.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jan 2, 2011 17:26:32 GMT -5
I hated M. Night's take on a popular Nickelodeon cartoon, and turn it into a two hour crapfest. I like Avatar as a cartoon without messing up the tale. Singer did good on X-Men and X2, but when he did Superman Returns, it became a superhero screwjob. Ratner doing X3 was horrible, but the Beast is the only good thing of this film. Tim Burton is an okay director, but screwing Planet of the Apes to the original novel broke that mold. The Simpsons did a better job with it than Burton. Kelsey Grammar as The Beast was such genius casting it still gobsmacks me. I'm no fan of Brett Ratner but I do give the guy his props for turning in the best movie he could. Two directors before him quit the project and Fox was on his ass to get the movie done. Couldn't have been easy to come on a troubled project like that. Patricia and I cut up so badly while watching Tim Burton's PLANET OF THE APES that we came thisclose to getting thrown out of a Florida theater.
|
|
Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Post by Dino on Jan 2, 2011 20:02:21 GMT -5
Bryan Singer is another story. Much as the fanboys love to claim him as a comic book geek, Singer actually knew nothing about The X-Men, which to me was a major plus as I thought the first two X-Men were a whole lot better than I thought they would be. There was some inspired casting there in Famke Janssen as Jean Gray and Sir Ian McKellan as Magneto. Some no-brainer casting with Patrick Stewart as Professor X and some plain ol' WTF Were They Thinking? with casting Halle Berry as Storm. Iman would have been perfect and Angela Bassett lobbied hard for the role but was turned down as being "too old". I like THE USUAL SUSPECTS and APT PUPIL far better. APT PUPIL never get mentioned when people discuss movies based of Stephen King novels and it's a shame since APT PUPIL is probably the most faithful and downright frightening of any King adaptation. I've seen VALKYRIE and it's an okay movie but just that: okay. I don't dump on Singer for SUPERMAN RETURNS as much as others do mainly because he so obviously loved the Richard Donner original "Superman". But it was that same love that got in the way of him putting his own personal vision on the movie as way too many scenes in the movie were Singer's versions of scenes from the Donner movie. It didn't help for me that he got a virtual clone of Christopher Reeve to play Superman/Clark Kent in looks but not in acting. Still, it's nowhere as bad as comic books fans would have you believe. And despite what those same fanboys claim, SUPERMAN RETURNS was both a critical and financial success. The ones who were really disappointed with the movie? Warner Bros. executives who have stated publicly that despite the movie having made $400 million worldwide they felt the movie's return was "disappointing" and that the movie failed. I always laugh now when I see fanboys claim Singer is a comic geek (or at least they did before Superman Returns and now they treat him like trash). In the lead-up to X-Men's release, the Internet was in flames over the fact that Singer wasn't a comic fan until he got the job. And when he said he did a lot of preliminary research by watching the 90s animated series, fanboys flipped out. Then they saw the film and suddenly they're all saying, "Singer is one of us!" I think the first X-Men film could have been much better, but I blame that more on Fox's interference than Singer. The ending was supposed to be very different with Wolverine's adamantium providing fillament for Magneto's machine (similar to a light bulb) and Rogue wasn't a helpless damsel, but of course Wolverine has to save the day so this was changed. And then extra scenes which focused more on character development Fox forced Singer to cut because they wanted the film to be more action than characterization. Which erased some really good scenes where Marsden proved that he completely nailed Cyclops' character. The second film was great, despite the elevation of Halle Berry's role (and once again, Marsden gets the shaft despite being the far better actor). I like Superman Returns a lot. The only problem with it is that it's basically a sequel to Superman II, which causes some confusion because we don't know which Superman II it's a sequel to. Singer should have just done his own Superman reboot instead of trying to follow in Donner's footsteps. It was apparently a dream of his for years, though -- Kevin Spacey once said Singer would tell anyone who would listen about how he would have made Superman III. His best work is easily the non-comic work. The Usual Suspects is one of my all-time favorite movies and Apt Pupil is great. It's too bad he didn't end up directing the Wolverine film as I think he would have done it much better than what we got -- good beginning and middle and an absolutely terrible, nonsensical ending.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jan 18, 2011 11:58:06 GMT -5
How about Rob Zombie? Even though he's an inconsistent director he's one with a definite and unique vision/pov/voice and he's not just cranking out product to snag a big opening weekend. Yeah, most of his movies are more about his fascination with white trash culture than anything else but Rob Zombie himself is a guy who knows the horror genre inside out and he's always interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jan 18, 2011 11:59:20 GMT -5
Any specific Woody Allen movies?
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jan 18, 2011 21:12:21 GMT -5
Woody Allen would be interesting. He has produced a great body of work, and in doing so has put out some bad ones. I think that you should break his work down into phases (early wacky comidies, drama/comedies., dramas and the past 15 years) and pick the best and worst of each. My favorites : CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS (his best!), ANNIE HALL, MANHATTAN, HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, MATCH POINT, PLAY IT AGAIN SAM (writer only).
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jan 19, 2011 7:07:49 GMT -5
Woody Allen would be interesting. He has produced a great body of work, and in doing so has put out some bad ones. I think that you should break his work down into phases (early wacky comidies, drama/comedies., dramas and the past 15 years) and pick the best and worst of each. My favorites : CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS (his best!), ANNIE HALL, MANHATTAN, HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, MATCH POINT, PLAY IT AGAIN SAM (writer only). Another option would be to look at his movies made in the last 25 years and trace them back to the film / novel on which they are based / inspired / ripped off: SWEET AND LOWDOWN = LA STRADACELEBRITY = LA DOLCE VIDAANOTHER WOMAN = WILD STRAWBERRIESSCOOP = Scoop by Evelyn Waugh BULLETS OVER BROADWAY = BORN YESTERDAY + Star Struck by Noel Coward ALICE = JULIET OF THE SPIRITSDECONSTRUCTING HARRY = The work of Philip Roth MATCH POINT = CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORSSMALL TIME CROOKS = I can't remember the name, but it's an old Edward G. Robinson comedy. CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION = (______________) Insert Bob Hope Comedy Here
|
|