[Manhunter71]

Originally Posted by Sly Boots

I like movies with meaning, movies which get stuck to your mind long after you've watched them that aren't really arthouse movies. That's why I like Fight Club or American Beauty.

No offense to you, as you have made some intelligent comments, but it really annoys me when people get really snobby about movies and say they only watch those that have some meaning.

I'm not dumb, I like movies that have a story to portray or some meaning to get across, but I also like good old-fashioned entertaining action movies

I absolutely love the Die Hard series, Jean Claude Van Damme movies, Dude Where's My Car, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure........

It's a pretty endless list

What I'm trying to say is that I think movies are made to entertain and should be regarded as such, wether they are comedy, action, horror or serious drama

It just annoys me when people critisize movies for having no depth or storyline - all that matters is the emotional response triggered when you watch a certain movie - I can laugh at a dumb comedy, get scared during a horror movie, cry at a romance, enjoy an action movie and also become totally immersed in the storyline of a serious drama

[Glenn Epic]

Originally Posted by Stinger

There must be SOMEONE here who likes Shyamalan as much as I do.

I hear ya brother. I love Shyamalan. Personally, however, Signs is my least favorite of his films. Sixth sense and Unbreakable are my faves, followed by The Village and then Signs.

[100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja]

I have made plenty remarks of Shyamalan's filmography. Here is my top list:
1. Signs
2. The Village
3. The Sixth Sense
4. Unbreakable

Why? for starters I found all of his films to long, and a bit tedious, especially during the middle. It seems to me that he intentionally dulls you with every minute of the movie, so he could emphasize the "shocking" and unpredictable ending. And I got the opinion that he thinks his movies are very smart and intelectual. If he really does, I have to say I disagree completely. They are all very similar movies, and he always uses the same trick: the thin plot that keeps going and going, and the ending that makes you say:"WOW, where did that come from!?" I have to say that I didn't like them especially because I figured out the endings very early, and was basically just bored (and my #3 and #4 were most predictable). I enjoyed the "less-brainy feel of Signs and The Village, and find that the pseudo intelligent plot of the first two movies doesn't work for me. I'll repeat myself: He surely thinks he made intelligent movies, but I strongly disagree. I understand how people can like Shyamalan, but I hope you understand my point, just watching those movies knowing what will happen at the end basically leaves you nothing to be excited or thrilled about.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

i only just discovered this thread, but ive been wondering a very long time about this... is the dude in the truck at the preserve dead because he looks very lifeless.

Dude in the truck???

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

No offense to you, as you have made some intelligent comments, but it really annoys me when people get really snobby about movies and say they only watch those that have some meaning.

Given that in his post Sly Boots was crticizing some arthouse fans for their narcissism, it's quite ironic you accuse him of being a snob.

Originally Posted by 100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja

And I got the opinion that he thinks his movies are very smart and intelectual. If he really does, I have to say I disagree completely. They are all very similar movies, and he always uses the same trick: the thin plot that keeps going and going, and the ending that makes you say:"WOW, where did that come from!?" I have to say that I didn't like them especially because I figured out the endings very early, and was basically just bored (and my #3 and #4 were most predictable).(...) I understand how people can like Shyamalan, but I hope you understand my point, just watching those movies knowing what will happen at the end basically leaves you nothing to be excited or thrilled about.

I do understand your point, I have to ask though: Do you enjoy only movies plot of which you can't predict? Also, there are loads of directors, from Bergman to Allen, who could be quite deservedly described as making very similar movies throughout their career. That alone doesn't make them unworthy - in fact, a few of them are almost unanimously considered to be great filmmakers.

EDIT: The last remark was stupid, I'm sorry; now I see you didn't imply that Shyamalan is bad because his films are simlar to one another, but because of the nature of this similarity.

[Once A Villain]

Shyamalan is horrible... If you want to see the work of a good filmmaker from India, see the work of Satyajit Ray. The Apu Trilogy, The Music Room, Charulata, etc. Cinematic bliss I tell you.

[BenjaminBunny]

I thought it was pretty good. *shrugs*. Don't see why people feel the need to persecute it. It isn't overtly offensive in anyway, it's just a movie, and a pretty good one imho.
I bought the soundtrack for it 'cause I think the score rocks.

[DustCropper]

I really enjoyed the first half of the film.

The second half,

Spoiler:

from the point where they send the blind girl out into the woods and onwards,

I thought the movie got to be a bit lame. Still, I loooved the music and atmosphere throughout, so on the whole I liked it.

[Zygomaticus]

Yeah, the music and the atmosphere really did it for me. I really enjoyed The Village.

Both Phoenix and Bryce Howard did excellent jobs, I thought.

And I thought this was Shyamalan's most impressive cameo yet, the one he had in this movie.

[omloflump]

Shyamalan is horrible... If you want to see the work of a good filmmaker from India, see the work of Satyajit Ray. The Apu Trilogy, The Music Room, Charulata, etc. Cinematic bliss I tell you

I wouldn't lump Shyamalan in with Indian filmmakers, he's American through and through – he has nothing to do with the film industry in India. It's not like you say: "I don't like Scorsese, if you want to see really good Italian directors you should check out Fellini..."

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by omloflump

I wouldn't lump Shyamalan in with Indian filmmakers, he's American through and through – he has nothing to do with the film industry in India. It's not like you say: "I don't like Scorsese, if you want to see really good Italian directors you should check out Fellini..."

Yes, American through and through...that's precisely the problem. But he was born in India so I decided to mention a filmmaker that actually had talent from the country where he originated. Don't get me wrong, I love America. I'm American as well. But when it comes to creativity in the film industry, the last place one should look is Hollywood. And Shyamalan is HOLLYWOOD through and through...

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

But when it comes to creativity in the film industry, the last place one should look is Hollywood.

As opposed to Bollywood, right?

Seriously, this is rather silly generalization from your side.

[omloflump]

As opposed to Bollywood, right?

Very good point. Bollywood is the same as Hollywood but worse – at least to Western taste. Satyajit Ray isn't representitive of Indian filmmaking overall; he distinctly went against the Bollywood conventions by making a film shorter then three hours without the musical numbers etc. (I think). And also Hollywood isn't the only film institution in America. America has produced numerous great directors and great films over the years. I believe that India has a comparatively smaller independant circuit (correct my If I'm wrong) so to even imply India as being better film-wise then America is absurd. Do you really want Shyamalan to be BOLLYWOOD through and through?

[Terabin]

Even though Bollywood is probably worse than Hollywood even, the point remains that there isn't much innovative film work coming out of Hollywood. And...Shyamalan is "Hollywood through and through". That doesnt' mean he isn't entertaining. It just means that he isn't doing anything that hasn't been done better by directors that furthered the suspense/thriller genre in the past. IE: Hitchcock.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by omloflump

Do you really want Shyamalan to be BOLLYWOOD through and through?

YES! Imagine Sixth Sense's finale as a colourful dancing scene!

Spoiler:

They could re-use That's Death! song from Discworld 2 for that!

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Terabin

Even though Bollywood is probably worse than Hollywood even, the point remains that there isn't much innovative film work coming out of Hollywood. And...Shyamalan is "Hollywood through and through". That doesnt' mean he isn't entertaining. It just means that he isn't doing anything that hasn't been done better by directors that furthered the suspense/thriller genre in the past. IE: Hitchcock.

Firstly, seeing an American movie, it being Hollywood or not is not the first characteristic I notice, so maybe you're right - maybe this particular LA quarter attracts people with bad taste. I'll still say that I loved lots of American films I've seen, so as Once A Villain seemed to assume America=Hollywood, my point remains as well.

On a side note, what directors you consider to have furthered the thriller genre. Apart from obvious example of Hitchcock, I can come up with several names (Polanski, Welles, Lang...), but most of them would apply to singular movies, not a lifeful of works.

[Once A Villain]

First of all, I'm not against Hollywood as it used to be. America has a rich film history, and indeed a ton of great filmmakers (mostly dead). However, today there is just NOTHING original coming from Hollywood. Look at all the remakes! Every day I hear about another film coming out that I've already seen in its original version. Japan, for instance, has become the latest fat, meaty leg that Hollywood has attached its "fresh idea leech" to, and it's sucking everything right out. The Ring, Dark Water, Shall We Dance, The Grudge, etc. All of these are just remakes and it's driving me mad. Where is the creativity?

That's my problem with Hollywood these days. They are only interested in the color green, not in making quality films. And to make money they steal ideas from other places and put an American star in the leading role... I'm no fan of Bollywood either, but as has been mentioned...Satyajit Ray didn't make films of the type associated with the mainstream Indian film industry. M. Night Shyamalan, on the other hand, does make very Hollywood style films, at least in my view.

And to whoever implied that I somehow think Bollywood is better than Hollywood...don't worry...I don't. Bollywood never had Citizen Kane, Casablanca, All About Eve, etc. Hollywood just isn't what it used to be, that's all I'm saying.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

On a side note, what directors you consider to have furthered the thriller genre. Apart from obvious example of Hitchcock, I can come up with several names (Polanski, Welles, Lang)

Ahhhh...I like you already.

[100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Dude in the truck???

Given that in his post Sly Boots was crticizing some arthouse fans for their narcissism, it's quite ironic you accuse him of being a snob.

I do understand your point, I have to ask though: Do you enjoy only movies plot of which you can't predict?

Of course not, but the ending is basically the wole movie, the rest is forgettable, and I already stated that the plot is way too thin to make such long movies. That's why I liked Village the most. It's not pretencious, it's really a simple fairytale with nice story and atmosphere. Not the greatest movie of all the time, but surely enjoyable. And Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were praised too much, just because they are not the Hollywood stereotype movies. Which doesn't automatically make them great at all. Overhyped is the word that comes to mind.

BTW I'm not really a fan of Bergman or Allen either.

[PCgamefan]

The first Shyamalan movie I saw was Sixth Sense - not bad but I guessed the "trick" ending after the first 10 minutes of the film.

My second Shyamalan movie, Signs, was a huge letdown. Was it a heart-wrenching tragedy, an absurd comedy, a suspense film? I thought it failed at all those things.

After Signs, I've been very reluctant to try another Shyamalan film, but my wife and daughter urged me to see the Village. I had very low expectations, and the film started really slow. But after a while, I started getting involved in the story and characters and by the end of film I realized that I liked it very much.

I'm looking forward to his next film.

[DustCropper]

I didn't like Signs at all either. I really laughed out loud during the wife's death sequence. I've recently seen Scary Movie 3 (I think that's the one) and I thought it was funny how, when they made fun of that scene, they didn't have to make any real changes to it -- the original sequence was so laughable on its own!

I like his other movies though. The Sixth Sense would be my favorite, closely followed by Unbreakable. Quick trivia: at the funeral scene of Unbreakable, when the guy is reading out the names of the people who died in the train crash, he says my brother's exact name.