Danny
14-Jun-2010, 01:21 AM
So i watched signs earlier, just watched the happening and i think im gonna watch the lady in the water next. Now this guy gets a bad rep for 3 major things:
1:putting himself in his movies, even making himself the hero of one
2:"Tweest's"
3:haters gonna hate.
I think the happening was his nail in the coffin in terms of disliking him, mostly becuase people thought it was preachy and "running from the wind", what about you?
I for one really dig his films, the happenning has grown on me, mostly because i was in blockbuster the day i got my blu ray player and it was the only blu ray i could afford on some spare change and i wanted to "experience blu-ray". Its not his best film, but also not his worst for me- that monikor falls to the village which is a very poorely made film.
In the making of shamylan says he wanted to make a b movie and thats what he did, the protagonists are kind of bland but the premise was interesting and the pacing was dead on. BUT!- i can get why people dont like it.
What surprises me about shamylans films is that lady in the water is universally slammed and people love the village.
now heres my take. lady in the water is a dark fairy tale set in contemporary times, paul giamatti was riveting as this depressed caretaker who finds himself in the middle of a fairy tail come to life.
People dislike it for two reasons 1:shamylan cast himself as a key figure and 2: there was no 'tweest' just a straight narrative for once and to be honest that was why i enjoyed it. i think this was the point in his career where people whent just for the twist and were probably holding on to the end that the narf in the pool was the evil one all along.
Then you have the village which was terribly paced, when it finally picked up it ended shortly after and felt like one long act, a minutes long middle and then an end. plus it had a numbe rof possiblities for decent twists, are they all robots that have gone mad westworld style? are they living in a nature preserve as an example of a near extinct species? there was a dozen better ways than "they pretended it was the 1800's".
Now the village gets a better rep than lady in the water and regardless of taste this seems mad to me, the acting was terrible, the story was plain stupid and i havent seen a worse paced film this side of the millenium.
Overall i like his stuff, i think he's a filmmaker whos become cool to hate. and whilst i certainly hated the happening its grown on me a lot, and signs, unbreakable and the 6th sense are some of my favourite movies.
I know some folks said to me the happening was bad because of its in your face commentary, like a countryside shot with a power station in the background, but how is it any different than survivals subtext on modern media? which i found way more in my face.
This aint a thread to defend the happening though, to each his own. just whats your take on him? what about his films?
i know signs is a truly dividing one. ive seen people call it an anti athiest film, a film with a sinister pro christian agenda, a plot whole filled mess, a tightly knit story about loss, one of gibsons best performances, one of his worst. it goes on and on.
personally i was it in the cinema when i was 14 with my brother and we both loved it, 8 years later i catch it on bbc1 and i loved it still.
In my opinion shamylan is one of the last remaining b movie filmmakers, who tries to make something eerie and stand alone like long twilight zone episodes - in a similar way to guilliermo del toro almost, instead of making low budget shit and called it "expoiltation" or "grindhouse" and he goes the distance in terms of production when he really doesnt have to.
This can be hit or miss but i havent written him off like a lot of people have and to be honest he's still one of the names like george romero, kevin smith or takeshi miike whos name will get me to check out something there associated with every time.
now rage away.:D
1:putting himself in his movies, even making himself the hero of one
2:"Tweest's"
3:haters gonna hate.
I think the happening was his nail in the coffin in terms of disliking him, mostly becuase people thought it was preachy and "running from the wind", what about you?
I for one really dig his films, the happenning has grown on me, mostly because i was in blockbuster the day i got my blu ray player and it was the only blu ray i could afford on some spare change and i wanted to "experience blu-ray". Its not his best film, but also not his worst for me- that monikor falls to the village which is a very poorely made film.
In the making of shamylan says he wanted to make a b movie and thats what he did, the protagonists are kind of bland but the premise was interesting and the pacing was dead on. BUT!- i can get why people dont like it.
What surprises me about shamylans films is that lady in the water is universally slammed and people love the village.
now heres my take. lady in the water is a dark fairy tale set in contemporary times, paul giamatti was riveting as this depressed caretaker who finds himself in the middle of a fairy tail come to life.
People dislike it for two reasons 1:shamylan cast himself as a key figure and 2: there was no 'tweest' just a straight narrative for once and to be honest that was why i enjoyed it. i think this was the point in his career where people whent just for the twist and were probably holding on to the end that the narf in the pool was the evil one all along.
Then you have the village which was terribly paced, when it finally picked up it ended shortly after and felt like one long act, a minutes long middle and then an end. plus it had a numbe rof possiblities for decent twists, are they all robots that have gone mad westworld style? are they living in a nature preserve as an example of a near extinct species? there was a dozen better ways than "they pretended it was the 1800's".
Now the village gets a better rep than lady in the water and regardless of taste this seems mad to me, the acting was terrible, the story was plain stupid and i havent seen a worse paced film this side of the millenium.
Overall i like his stuff, i think he's a filmmaker whos become cool to hate. and whilst i certainly hated the happening its grown on me a lot, and signs, unbreakable and the 6th sense are some of my favourite movies.
I know some folks said to me the happening was bad because of its in your face commentary, like a countryside shot with a power station in the background, but how is it any different than survivals subtext on modern media? which i found way more in my face.
This aint a thread to defend the happening though, to each his own. just whats your take on him? what about his films?
i know signs is a truly dividing one. ive seen people call it an anti athiest film, a film with a sinister pro christian agenda, a plot whole filled mess, a tightly knit story about loss, one of gibsons best performances, one of his worst. it goes on and on.
personally i was it in the cinema when i was 14 with my brother and we both loved it, 8 years later i catch it on bbc1 and i loved it still.
In my opinion shamylan is one of the last remaining b movie filmmakers, who tries to make something eerie and stand alone like long twilight zone episodes - in a similar way to guilliermo del toro almost, instead of making low budget shit and called it "expoiltation" or "grindhouse" and he goes the distance in terms of production when he really doesnt have to.
This can be hit or miss but i havent written him off like a lot of people have and to be honest he's still one of the names like george romero, kevin smith or takeshi miike whos name will get me to check out something there associated with every time.
now rage away.:D