posted
Maybe those bad notices came from the critics who were aware that Midnight was deliberately skewering them.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I liked Lady in the Water...
I liked the film as well. Let me rephrase that statement. I liked Paul Giamatti in the film. Without him the film would not have been nearly as good.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, imdb and rotten tomatoes, really, are meaningless as meters of quality. Quality is subjective.
You can't really count My Best Friend's Birthday and Praying With Anger as parts of their respective careers. Neither were actually released in the theaters. They've been dug up as biographical curiosities. They were no-budget affairs that served the purpose of familiarizing the directors with directing. These were weekend my-uncle-is-the-star type movies.
I haven't heard anyone mention that they've actually seen Four Rooms. I have -- and Tarantino's section was good, if a little overwrought. (Robert Rodiguez's section was GREAT.) (The other two stank.)
Tarantino did direct part of Sin City -- but this is a for-fun factoid, rather than something that should be counted against him, or for him, as a director. It was a single scene. If I recall correctly, it was the scene in which Clive Owen is driving with the corpse in the car.
Finally, I think it's pretty apologist to suggest, as some have begun doing, that one could only find Shyamalan's last few movies bad because A) of their own wrong-headed expectations; or B) because of the influence of critics; who C) have an unfair axe to grind against Shyamalan.
These are all false in ways that are so obvious no explanation, other than a simple pointing-out of their falseness, should be required. They are not logical points.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly I thought Tarantino's scene sucked, but that might have just been the writing, not the directing.
At the very least, one of the most common comments I hear about Shyamalan's movies is that the plot was weak (for the later ones) but the acting was excellent. If anything, it means he's a bad writer, but an excellent director and is great at casting. He gets great performances out of well chosen actors, even if the material isn't always stellar (even though I generally think it's fairly decent, even lately).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:These are all false in ways that are so obvious no explanation, other than a simple pointing-out of their falseness, should be required. They are not logical points.
I don't think one can ONLY find Shyamalan's movies bad for those reasons, but I DO think it is accurate to say that many (not necessarily most) people who didn't like them were influenced by certain factors. All of his movies are advertised as if they were the Sixth Sense, when none of his movies except for Sixth Sense were remotely like Sixth Sense. And I do think there is a certain tendency to jump on the bandwagon for hating on him because you've heard a lot of people talking about his huge ego. (I think the criticisms of his ego are somewhat true, but are coloring people's perceptions of his movies beyond what they really should).
There are still plenty of reasons to dislike his movies - they are all very slow paced, and I completely disagreed with the message of Signs. I'll trust the people who say the Happening was just terrible. But when I hear so many people say "OMG the Village and/or Lady in the Water was the worst movie experience EVER" (and I've heard quite a few people say that), I gotta say "Seriously? I've seen plenty of movies that were way worse than that." This includes both movies that were "supposed" to be good (Star Wars III), and had no illusions of grandeur but were nonetheless abysmal (Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, etc).
Given how terrible movies can get, and the frequency with which I see Shyamalan movies get declared as utterly horrible, I have to believe there are some factors at work beyond just not liking the movie for its own sake.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though the show of petulance probably didn't help. Did he think anyone was going to go, "Oh, now I've seen the error of my ways"?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I for one couldn't be less interested in his ego. I'm not sure I've heard any attackers actually say they don't like his movies because of his ego. I have heard his defenders say "His attackers don't like his movies because of his ego." This, again -- this is apologist nonsense. He's made some movies that a lot of people -- possibly most people who saw them -- hated. Genuinely strongly disliked. I doubt they paid their 10 bucks at the box office hoping to find an excuse to dislike these movies and settling on "ego." (or any of the various other possibilities). The dislike for the movies is genuine. Can we just agree on that, if we agree on nothing else today?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Shamaylan is just making progressively more and more terrible movies and becoming more and more a victim of his own ego, while Tarantino is not experiencing the same decline.
quote:His purported ego: I haven't read his book; I don't know tons about his personal life. But it does seem from what I have heard that he's a tad full of himself, and that doesn't sound too implausible to me (and casting himself in that martyr role in Lady in the Water doesn't help, especially since he's limited in his acting ability, anyways).
A quick google search for "Shyamalan Ego"
quote:Ego Consumes M. Night Shyamalan in Latest, Not-So-Twist Ending
quote:For anyone who can't see Shyamalan's ego check out 'Lady in the Water' where he casts himself as a visionary writer whose work will change
quote:'Lady in the Water' Drowns in Shyamalan Ego - OhmyNews International
quote:Can M. Night Shyamalan Recover from his own Ego and a Box Office ...
quote:Shyamalan's massive EGO, and his last few films, piss a lot of movie fans off.
quote:I'm not sure I've heard any attackers actually say they don't like his movies because of his ego. I have heard his defenders say "His attackers don't like his movies because of his ego." This, again -- this is apologist nonsense.
His defenders are not saying "his attackers don't like his movies because of his ego" because they are nonsensical apologists. They are saying it because it is true, and a 10 second google search reveals that to be so.
[ September 02, 2009, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think a 10 second Google search can reveal anything.
And I think splitting movie viewers into Shyamalan defenders and attackers is simplistic. I loved his earlier movies, didn't like the Village. Loved 'Lady in the Water' because it was original and a risk, and didn't think twice about his ego. I hated 'the Happening' because it started off so good and just trailed off into disappointment.
I'm not defending him, I'm not attacking him. I'm looking forward to his movies because they have been original and exiting and hard to figure out.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There exist some substantive analysis of shymalan's perceived ego issues. A lot of the people who saw him at work on Lady and Happening said that his behavior on set for those films was starkly contrasted against his behavior as an earlier filmmaker and that he just sort of seems like a victim of his own success and that his filmmaking has degraded because of it.
A google of the issue won't touch on that. It's just a google.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I don't think a 10 second Google search can reveal anything.
And I think splitting movie viewers into Shyamalan defenders and attackers is simplistic. I loved his earlier movies, didn't like the Village. Loved 'Lady in the Water' because it was original and a risk, and didn't think twice about his ego. I hated 'the Happening' because it started off so good and just trailed off into disappointment.
I'm not defending him, I'm not attacking him. I'm looking forward to his movies because they have been original and exiting and hard to figure out.
I am not saying all people hate Shyamalan for all the same reasons. I've gone over a number of reasons people might dislike it, and reasons I dislike some movies myself. My point here is only that TL said the only people who were talking about his ego were the people defending him, and yes, a 10 second google search certainly reveals that to be a false statement.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought both the Village and Lady in the Water were pretty good. If you showed, for instance, Lady in the Water and Death Proof to an audience and didn't tell them who the directors were, I have a very hard time imagining many would pick Death Proof as the better movie.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a fairly good book about the making of Lady in the Water and the troubles Shyamalan faced, the gigantic risk he took, his role as the writer, and many other things that make me appreciate the movie more.
It's not particularly good for the image, if you hate his ego, but I don't mind it any many of the really great movies come from directors with ginormous egos (Hitchcock, Kubrick, Tarantino, Herzog (more sheer awesomeness than ego), to name a few). But it shows how he did risk his career, risked alienation of his producers and of his audience, risked a lot financially and personally, but managed to put together IMHO a brilliantly original and good film.
quote:My point here is only that TL said the only people who were talking about his ego were the people defending him, and yes, a 10 second google search certainly reveals that to be a false statement.
Well, anyway. That's not what I said.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I thought both the Village and Lady in the Water were pretty good. If you showed, for instance, Lady in the Water and Death Proof to an audience and didn't tell them who the directors were, I have a very hard time imagining many would pick Death Proof as the better movie.
The A.V. Club is to movies what Robert Parker is to wine. They consistently nail an appropriate cinematic metascore and they aren't swayed by names. They're about (if not the) fairest review you can get. Who directed what is irrelevant to them.
The av/metascore from Grindhouse is 83/77 overall and the av/metascore from Lady in the Water is 42/36 overall.
Grindhouse is just a better movie. Absolutely. Shlock ain't even my thing and I have to admit that only one of these movies features good direction, pacing, and performances. That one is Grindhouse, while Lady in the Water was just bad.
fyi here's the razzies nominations for that year.
quote:The Razzies Worst Picture – BloodRayne, Lady in the Water, Wicker Man Worst Actor – Nicholas Cage, Wicker Man Worst Actress – Kristanna Loken, BloodRayne Worst Supporting Actor – Ben Kingsley, BloodRayne; M. Night Shyamalan, Lady in the Water; David Thewliss, The Omen Worst Supporting Actress – Kate Bosworth, Superman Returns; Michelle Rodriguez, BloodRayne Worst Screen Couple – Nicolas Cage & His Bear Suit, Wicker Man Worst Remake – Wicker Man Worst Director – BloodRayne, Lady in the Water Worst Screenplay – BloodRayne, Lady in the Water
quote:"Night was trying to write this ambitious, crazy, inspired screenplay, and a lot of the time he had no idea what he was doing."
quote:I love Shyamalan's films, but I cannot lie - this book is a big blight on his image. It portrays him as a very unpleasant personality - the type who won't stand for less than constant adulation, takes everything, inculding professional talk, personally, and makes a ton of nasty personal remarks in retaliation.
quote:M. Night Shyamalan can be whatever you want him to be here... a genius idealist, a brilliant filmmaker, or more likely, a man whose inflated ego and desperate attempt to do something important cause him to make a terrible career move and a terrible movie.
quote:I'm not sure I've heard any attackers actually say they don't like his movies because of his ego. I have heard his defenders say "His attackers don't like his movies because of his ego." This, again -- this is apologist nonsense.
If you had stopped at the first sentence I think it would have been a perfectly fair statement. You haven't personally heard anyone say they dislike the movies because of his ego. Fine. You go on to say that people defending M Night who address the ego issue and how irrelevant it is to the movies are nonsensical apologists. I don't even really take issue with that - if you weren't familiar with the common ego criticisms it might seem that way.
Except that people in this very thread had already made such criticism, and the people responding to it were not saying "People only hate Shyamalan movies because of X strawman-ish-ly silly reasons," they were saying why they personally liked the movies and why thought some of the reasons people have given for disliking should not carry much weight.
And somehow now I'm the one mischaracterizing your argument.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not interested anymore in re-hashing the minutiae of what's already been said at Hatrack. That's one of the least interesting things here.
We can go in these circles and get all twisted up together -- but let's not. You responded to my statement as though it was an absolute. It wasn't. That's all.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I do think your misrepresentation of what I said was willful, and I'm a little annoyed by that. Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My initial listing of google results was intended to be a simple, snarky response to the "I don't recall hearing people complain about the ego" line, which I didn't expect to be a big deal (I assumed your response would be something along the lines of " "). I was genuinely confused by your followup "What was that supposed to prove?" when it seemed blatantly obvious which of your statements it was referring to and why it was relevant, and you didn't include a smiley so I assumed you weren't being similarly snarky at that point.
Yes, your statement was more of a vague musing than an absolute anything, but even as a vague musing, it seemed obviously (and provably) false enough to be worth spending 10 seconds to prove you wrong. (irrelevant though it may be to the greater schemes of life, I stand by this statement). It was not worth the additional 23 minutes I've spent and continue to spend arguing about it, and I apologize for dragging it out because it's really pretty silly, but I'm obsessive compulsive about this sort of thing, so... yeah...
[ September 03, 2009, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I mean... The statement that you proved false was not the statement I made. You're talking about nonsensical apologists, whereas I was talking about apologist nonsense. Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from Sixth Sense and the Village (and apparently Lady in the Water), everything else of his has sucked. Hopefully he'll apply the strategies he used to direct the first two movies I mentioned to the Last Airbender.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Signs is one of my most loved movies. Looking at the premise, I was sure I was going to hate it, but I had to watch it for a film class. I was pleasantly surprised, I think it was a well executed effort.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to politely disagree with the above poster. Signs was a poor effort at a sci-fi thriller. The costume of the "alien" alone revealed the inaptitude of the director, there was no sense of suspense whatsoever, it was so unscary it was laughable, and the only good thing about it was Gibson's acting.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pluta Demoske: I have to politely disagree with the above poster. Signs was a poor effort at a sci-fi thriller. The costume of the "alien" alone revealed the inaptitude of the director, there was no sense of suspense whatsoever, it was so unscary it was laughable, and the only good thing about it was Gibson's acting.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment that Signs is an attempt at being a sci-fi thriller.
I can't explain why you did not find it scary at all. We all find different things to be various levels of terrifying. For me, I found that Shamalayan did a great job building up the dread as contact with the aliens increased. Merry'l finding the axe and accidentally breaking the light bulb was very clever writing IMHO.
Signs to me was a touching look into how human beings deal with tragedy and seek to find meaning in it. The acting was a real treat, I felt Joaquin Phoenix and Mel Gibson had a very interesting chemistry, there was wonderful writing, and M. Night even managed to make a mundane line like "You'll lose the signal" and tinfoil hats funny.
*spoilers*
The setting was almost chaotic in that things we could normally turn to failed completely, like the military or police force, but out of left field sources in a strange way held keys, like the random science fiction book and the rumor that the aliens don't like water. /spoilers
I don't think the movie was suggesting that absolutely everything happens for a reason. Merryl's failed baseball career is never explained, the priest losing his faith served no purpose except to perhaps give him a perspective on what he'd lost in his grief, ditto for dogs going mad.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Signs. I also love Unbreakable and dislike The Village very much. Taste is subjective. But I'll say this: In the theater where I saw Signs, people were screaming, freaking out. The silhouette on the roof. The knife under the door. The hand in the coal chute. These were moments of panic of screaming and people grabbing each other and hyperventilating. No suspense? I saw suspense by the level ton.
The first half of the Village was similarly brilliant. But then it fell apart in the worst way.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lady in the Water was so bad - it told the story rather than showing it. Several times. It told the story several times and neglected all the other things (pacing, characterization, tension, an arc) that would make a good movie.
I thought it was slow paced, but that's different from bad pacing. As for "telling" rather showing, in this particular case I thought it was executed appropriately, since the whole point was to examine the process of storytelling.
posted
"oops?" I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me or saying something else totally random.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
"). I was genuinely confused by your followup "What was that supposed to prove?" when it seemed blatantly obvious which of your statements it was referring to and why it was relevant, and you didn't include a smiley so I assumed you weren't being similarly snarky at that point. 
