list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Unbreakable on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Unbreakable/165555/default.aspx Title: Unbreakable
Year: 2000
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Plot: Actor Bruce Willis and writer/director M. Night Shyamalan reunite after the surprise success of The Sixth Sense for this supernatural thriller. David Dunne (Willis) is taking a train from New York City back home to Philadelphia after a job interview that didn't go well when his car jumps the tracks and collides with an oncoming engine, with David the only survivor among the 131 passengers on board. Astoundingly, David is not only alive, he hardly seems to have been touched. As David wonders what has happened to him and why he was able to walk away, he encounters a mysterious stranger, Elijah Prince (Samuel L. Jackson), who explains to David that there are a certain number of people who are "unbreakable" -- they have remarkable endurance and courage, a predisposition toward dangerous behavior, and feel invincible but also have strange premonitions of terrible events. Is David "unbreakable"? And if he is, what are the physical and psychological ramifications of this knowledge? Unbreakable also stars Robin Wright-Penn as Audrey, David's wife; the supporting cast includes Spencer Treat Clark and Joey Perillo. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 34
Number of Lists: 76
Number of blog posts: 7
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 14 May 2009 23:31:17 GMTUnbreakable2000M. Night ShyamalanActor <a href="/players/P____76618/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bruce Willis</a> and writer/director M. Night Shyamalan reunite after the surprise success of <a href=/films/134478/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Sixth Sense</a> for this supernatural thriller. David Dunne (Willis) is taking a train from New York City back home to Philadelphia after a job interview that didn't go well when his car jumps the tracks and collides with an oncoming engine, with David the only survivor among the 131 passengers on board. Astoundingly, David is not only alive, he hardly seems to have been touched. As David wonders what has happened to him and why he was able to walk away, he encounters a mysterious stranger, Elijah Prince (Samuel L. Jackson), who explains to David that there are a certain number of people who are "unbreakable" -- they have remarkable endurance and courage, a predisposition toward dangerous behavior, and feel invincible but also have strange premonitions of terrible events. Is David "unbreakable"? And if he is, what are the physical and psychological ramifications of this knowledge? Unbreakable also stars Robin Wright-Penn as Audrey, David's wife; the supporting cast includes Spencer Treat Clark and Joey Perillo. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide34Tag Target (>10)76743http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t1110376zk6.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Unbreakable/165555/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40839.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 10:00:20 AM
Body: Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 10:00:20 AMMany smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/6/37036.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/6/2008 5:01:07 PM
Body: While watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:01:07 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/6/2008 5:01:07 PMWhile watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/M_Night_Shyamalan_Relevant_Talent_or_Played_Out/222/37021/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Phantasma-gore-ia
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 11/6/2008 12:37:36 PM
Body: After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shyamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture?
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:37:36 GMTPhantasma-gore-iaHORROR MOVIES 10111/6/2008 12:37:36 PMAfter The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shyamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_M_Night_Shayamalan_Relevant_Talent_or_Played/222/36999/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 11/5/2008 3:07:09 PM
Body: It's been so hit and miss with him, mostly misses lately. I thought Lady in the Water was atrocious but my best friend who likes a lot of those magical etheral movies just loved it. Now in the Happening I couldn't believe how HORRIBLE the acting was, which I have to blame on the direction - you know, let's be wide eyed and disbelieving and talk really slow throughout the movie...BUT I have to say that I liked a lot of individual scenes in the movie. There were parts of it that were really cool, the ending was a bit cheesey but I thought overall it wasn't too bad. I am going to be the optimist here and say that he has a couple more really good films left in him but I am hoping he will surprise us again with something different. So we will see. I think they are letting him still do what he wants because even when the movies are "bad" they still bring in quite a bit of money. June [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? [/quote]
]]>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:07:09 GMTdivinemsjunebugHORROR MOVIES 10111/5/2008 3:07:09 PMIt's been so hit and miss with him, mostly misses lately. I thought Lady in the Water was atrocious but my best friend who likes a lot of those magical etheral movies just loved it. Now in the Happening I couldn't believe how HORRIBLE the acting was, which I have to blame on the direction - you know, let's be wide eyed and disbelieving and talk really slow throughout the movie...BUT I have to say that I liked a lot of individual scenes in the movie. There were parts of it that were really cool, the ending was a bit cheesey but I thought overall it wasn't too bad. I am going to be the optimist here and say that he has a couple more really good films left in him but I am hoping he will surprise us again with something different. So we will see. I think they are letting him still do what he wants because even when the movies are "bad" they still bring in quite a bit of money. June [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_M_Night_Shayamalan_Relevant_Talent_or_Played/222/36984/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 11/5/2008 11:17:22 AM
Body: I feel like Shammy has been living in the wake of popularity generated by The Sixth Sense, which was a legitimately good film. Signs was well greeted, but I've been noticing that there has been a lot of fallout since it was initially released, with a lot of spoofing and derision of the film's many plot flaw, which were initially glossed over. Unbreakable was pretty good, at least a B- effort, so I feel like that helped keep up the Sixth Sense hype factor as well. I recently saw Lady in the Water and I have to say, it was awful. The storyline was terrible, the acting was terrible, there was no development and it was one of the cheesiest 'thriller/suspense' films I have ever seen--apologies to anyone who may have liked it, but it sucked. Shammy should never, ever be allowed to be in one of his own films again. Shammy's films have become very formulaic, with some big reveal/twist that you KNOW is coming. Once you get the Shammy formula down, you sit anticipating the big plot twist, and its no longer fun. I will confess to having not seen his latest, and The Village, but having seen the rest of his films--I don't feel like I really need to. [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? [/quote]
]]>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:17:22 GMTseelyHORROR MOVIES 10111/5/2008 11:17:22 AMI feel like Shammy has been living in the wake of popularity generated by The Sixth Sense, which was a legitimately good film. Signs was well greeted, but I've been noticing that there has been a lot of fallout since it was initially released, with a lot of spoofing and derision of the film's many plot flaw, which were initially glossed over. Unbreakable was pretty good, at least a B- effort, so I feel like that helped keep up the Sixth Sense hype factor as well. I recently saw Lady in the Water and I have to say, it was awful. The storyline was terrible, the acting was terrible, there was no development and it was one of the cheesiest 'thriller/suspense' films I have ever seen--apologies to anyone who may have liked it, but it sucked. Shammy should never, ever be allowed to be in one of his own films again. Shammy's films have become very formulaic, with some big reveal/twist that you KNOW is coming. Once you get the Shammy formula down, you sit anticipating the big plot twist, and its no longer fun. I will confess to having not seen his latest, and The Village, but having seen the rest of his films--I don't feel like I really need to. [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/M_Night_Shyamalan_Relevant_Talent_or_Played_Out/222/36975/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Phantasma-gore-ia
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 11/4/2008 8:40:15 PM
Body: After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shyamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shyamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he an antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture?
]]>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:40:15 GMTPhantasma-gore-iaHORROR MOVIES 10111/4/2008 8:40:15 PMAfter The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shyamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shyamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he an antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/1/31952.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM
Body: Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:00:51 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/6/15/31258.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 9:29:19 PM
Body: M. Night Shyamalan, coming back from a critical and commercial pummeling for his fairy tale “Lady in the Water” that was nightmarish for all the wrong reasons, has attempted to trumpet his return to tension in a new film called...hmmm...what was that title again? Perhaps I should look at some of the dialogue to help me remember: “There is an event happening.” “...whenever this is happening.” “Whatever is happening is happening in smaller and smaller populations.” “Why is this happening?” “Nothing's happening yet.” “There's something happening in a few states.” Oh well, maybe it will come to me later. Touting its R rating like a badge, the film promises to be a darker Night than we are accustomed to, but a few bloody deaths aside (most are shot at a distance), the proceedings are structurally similar to his 2002 outing “Signs.” The film begins so promisingly creepy, with people committing random acts of suicide in rather horrific ways. Is it a terrorist attack using some strange nerve gas? Is it some cosmic thinning of the herd? Is it pissed-off plants? You won't find the answers in this column (though I long to reveal it to save you the agony). We are only informed of its broader effects though news reports, as we are sequestered with a small group of survivors – high school science teacher Elliott Moore (played by Mark Wahlberg); his estranged wife Alma (played by Zooey Descheanel), whose range spans from lost to befuddled (or, in a small triumph of her limited abilities – both); and Elliott's fellow teach Julian (played by John Leguizamo) with his little girl in tow. But even though they have names, walk, talk and furrow their brow, they are not characters. They are plot expositions and descriptions of characters. They are there to merely read the rather stoic, turgid prose penned by Shyamalan. To wit, before Alma is handed a ticket for a train ride out of town, she proclaims “I'm going to get on the train.” And if you did not pick up that Julian was a math teacher, fear not, for he states “I'll give them percentages, people are comforted by percentages,” and tries to divert everyone's attention as the dead bodies start piling up by giving them equations to solve (given the choice, I say, “Death, where is thy sting?”). Throughout their journey, the group meets up with various loonies reacting to impending doom with the poise and reserve of Chicken Little. One spoiler that I will provide (that is in no way consequential to the film's machinations) is that Alma is repeatedly interrupted by phone calls from a male friend eager to fan the flames of a one-time lunch date. The voice on the other end of the phone? Director/writer/producer Shyamalan, possibly trying to relay stage directions to her -- “Emote! Emote, dammit!” Sadly, Deschanel never got the message. But there is one particular scene in which Wahlberg attempts to earnestly converse with an inanimate object ( no, not Deschanel) that is the not only the film's true low point, but a career one for all involved. Shyamalan has been branded with many a moniker in his short ten years as a director – a one-trick pony, a misunderstood genius, an egoist of the highest order. It may be possible that is is guilty on all accounts. I believe it is long overdue that Shyamalan the director fire Shyamalan the writer and begin to focus his gifts. For he has an obvious affection and understanding of the language of film, and while his films (with the exception of “Lady in the Water”) can be slapped with countless derogatory adjectives, they cannot be faulted for their staging and cinematography. But like his leaden-handed efforts such as “The Village,” “Unbreakable” and “Signs,” his showmanship gets crushed by woefully inept storytelling. And for all its pretty pictures, “The Happening,” his attempt at an environmental thriller, is nothing more than an inconvenient goof.
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:29:19 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog6/15/2008 9:29:19 PM M. Night Shyamalan, coming back from a critical and commercial pummeling for his fairy tale &ldquo;Lady in the Water&rdquo; that was nightmarish for all the wrong reasons, has attempted to trumpet his return to tension in a new film called...hmmm...what was that title again? Perhaps I should look at some of the dialogue to help me remember: &ldquo;There is an event happening.&rdquo; &ldquo;...whenever this is happening.&rdquo; &ldquo;Whatever is happening is happening in smaller and smaller populations.&rdquo; &ldquo;Why is this happening?&rdquo; &ldquo;Nothing's happening yet.&rdquo; &ldquo;There's something happening in a few states.&rdquo; Oh well, maybe it will come to me later. Touting its R rating like a badge, the film promises to be a darker Night than we are accustomed to, but a few bloody deaths aside (most are shot at a distance), the proceedings are structurally similar to his 2002 outing &ldquo;Signs.&rdquo; The film begins so promisingly creepy, with people committing random acts of suicide in rather horrific ways. Is it a terrorist attack using some strange nerve gas? Is it some cosmic thinning of the herd? Is it pissed-off plants? You won't find the answers in this column (though I long to reveal it to save you the agony). We are only informed of its broader effects though news reports, as we are sequestered with a small group of survivors &ndash; high school science teacher Elliott Moore (played by Mark Wahlberg); his estranged wife Alma (played by Zooey Descheanel), whose range spans from lost to befuddled (or, in a small triumph of her limited abilities &ndash; both); and Elliott's fellow teach Julian (played by John Leguizamo) with his little girl in tow. But even though they have names, walk, talk and furrow their brow, they are not characters. They are plot expositions and descriptions of characters. They are there to merely read the rather stoic, turgid prose penned by Shyamalan. To wit, before Alma is handed a ticket for a train ride out of town, she proclaims &ldquo;I'm going to get on the train.&rdquo; And if you did not pick up that Julian was a math teacher, fear not, for he states &ldquo;I'll give them percentages, people are comforted by percentages,&rdquo; and tries to divert everyone's attention as the dead bodies start piling up by giving them equations to solve (given the choice, I say, &ldquo;Death, where is thy sting?&rdquo;). Throughout their journey, the group meets up with various loonies reacting to impending doom with the poise and reserve of Chicken Little. One spoiler that I will provide (that is in no way consequential to the film's machinations) is that Alma is repeatedly interrupted by phone calls from a male friend eager to fan the flames of a one-time lunch date. The voice on the other end of the phone? Director/writer/producer Shyamalan, possibly trying to relay stage directions to her -- &ldquo;Emote! Emote, dammit!&rdquo; Sadly, Deschanel never got the message. But there is one particular scene in which Wahlberg attempts to earnestly converse with an inanimate object ( no, not Deschanel) that is the not only the film's true low point, but a career one for all involved. Shyamalan has been branded with many a moniker in his short ten years as a director &ndash; a one-trick pony, a misunderstood genius, an egoist of the highest order. It may be possible that is is guilty on all accounts. I believe it is long overdue that Shyamalan the director fire Shyamalan the writer and begin to focus his gifts. For he has an obvious affection and understanding of the language of film, and while his films (with the exception of &ldquo;Lady in the Water&rdquo;) can be slapped with countless derogatory adjectives, they cannot be faulted for their staging and cinematography. But like his leaden-handed efforts such as &ldquo;The Village,&rdquo; &ldquo;Unbreakable&rdquo; and &ldquo;Signs,&rdquo; his showmanship gets crushed by woefully inept storytelling. And for all its pretty pictures, &ldquo;The Happening,&rdquo; his attempt at an environmental thriller, is nothing more than an inconvenient goof. http://www.spout.com/blogs/tenenbaums/archive/2008/5/20/29620.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Tenenbaums Blog
Post Date: 5/20/2008 11:20:55 PM
Body: M. Night Shyamalan's career is coming to a halt. But before the film community sends the Philadelphia writer/directer off, let's take a look at his works."The Sixth Sense" is masterful; "Unbreakable" is an underrated comic book gem; "Signs" is frustratingly dumb, then kills any chance of lingering suspense by doing the anti-"Jaws" and showing the wimpy water-allergic aliens; and "The Village" is an intriguing experiment that is far deeper that its apparently simple conclusion.Then there's "Lady in the Water." Possibly attempting to switch up his style or be exceedingly philosophical, Shyamalan's latest released film was critically panned and made little money. Disney, who had financed the director's previous four films, passed on the script, and with good reason. Seeing an opportunity to profit off of Shyamalan's name (perhaps despite the quality of the material), Warner Bros. bankrolled the project and attracted an impressive cast.As with any director of great works, it's clear why big-name players were drawn to Shyamalan. Still, it's surprising that so many talented actors were lured by the filmmaker's mystique into lending their chops for such an awful movie with writing that already bears the mark of Cain."The Wendell Baker Story" was the last feature to receive such poor reception in these pages. While buddy, family, and blackmail statuses explained Luke Wilson's cast, only Shyamalan's (quickly-fading) "next Hitchcock" status rationalizes the participation of Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Wright, and Bob Balaban reciting the writer/director's empty dialogue. "Lady in the Water" elicits the same feelings as "Baker" of witnessing quality actors embarrass themselves. There is nothing else like it. The movie is so bad that it warrants the question, "Do directors intentionally make bad films?" The assemblage of talent combined with the horrible end result suggests that the audience must have missed out on a giant inside joke on overly-critical moviegoers and especially film critics, as hyperbolized in Balaban's loathsome character. Surely there's some deeper meaning that we're missing that goes beyond creatures with names that sound like dialogue from "Pinky and the Brain." This is some kind of metaphysical understanding that comes from an Indian background, growing up in Philly, and making millions of dollars all while "keeping it real." And if audiences don't get it, it's because they're incapable of believing in other worlds and will never be able to recapture the joy of bedtime stories. Yes, that's it exactly.But if it's so deep, why do all of the pieces fall together so easily for Giamatti's Cleveland Heep? Why are an assemblage of apartment tenants who all seem to wish for isolation from one another so willing to unite for a common, fairy tale cause? And if the bad guys are so bent on destroying their enemy, why don't they follow through when they have clear opportunities. These questions are regrettably non-specific, but to attempt to explain and dissect the movie's plot and meaning would only further tarnish what's left of Shyamalan's gift and he should at least be allowed to make home videos of his kids.Worst of all, there is the absence of the kind of twist ending that has defined Shyamalan's career. Though the expectation of such a cinematic device has been heavily criticized, perhaps Shyamalan needs his twist endings. In his past films, when the story appears to drag, the anticipation of the looming "gotcha" keeps the audience guessing all the while, forming an enticing mystery. Though the twist's existence is predictable, without one in "Lady in the Water," he leaves nothing to look forward to except the end credits. What's especially disheartening with this sloppy effort is that at no point does a twist even seem possible, making the release's mysterious intention (the only true mystery) a colossal failure.While Shyamalan's June film "The Happening" has the potential to be environmentally preachy (which could make viewers either increasingly pro or anti-"green"), it thankfully appears to be a return to the who/what-dun-its he does best. However, Mark Wahlberg's comically raised eyebrows show yet another actor "Syamalanized" by the filmmaker's aura and the half-assed delivery of the trailer's wannabe sincere dialogue recalls the writer's greatest consistent weakness. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but it seems that Shyamalan is going to ride out his early earnings into a continuing career of pretentious films until every fan of "Sixth Sense" figures him out and the only actor who will work with him is M. Night himself. Once you've seen "Lady in the Water," in which he gives himself an unprecedented major supporting role of staggeringly self-indulgent proportions, you'll understand why that's a likely outcome
]]>Wed, 21 May 2008 03:20:55 GMTTenenbaumsTenenbaums Blog5/20/2008 11:20:55 PMM. Night Shyamalan's career is coming to a halt. But before the film community sends the Philadelphia writer/directer off, let's take a look at his works."The Sixth Sense" is masterful; "Unbreakable" is an underrated comic book gem; "Signs" is frustratingly dumb, then kills any chance of lingering suspense by doing the anti-"Jaws" and showing the wimpy water-allergic aliens; and "The Village" is an intriguing experiment that is far deeper that its apparently simple conclusion.Then there's "Lady in the Water." Possibly attempting to switch up his style or be exceedingly philosophical, Shyamalan's latest released film was critically panned and made little money. Disney, who had financed the director's previous four films, passed on the script, and with good reason. Seeing an opportunity to profit off of Shyamalan's name (perhaps despite the quality of the material), Warner Bros. bankrolled the project and attracted an impressive cast.As with any director of great works, it's clear why big-name players were drawn to Shyamalan. Still, it's surprising that so many talented actors were lured by the filmmaker's mystique into lending their chops for such an awful movie with writing that already bears the mark of Cain."The Wendell Baker Story" was the last feature to receive such poor reception in these pages. While buddy, family, and blackmail statuses explained Luke Wilson's cast, only Shyamalan's (quickly-fading) "next Hitchcock" status rationalizes the participation of Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Wright, and Bob Balaban reciting the writer/director's empty dialogue. "Lady in the Water" elicits the same feelings as "Baker" of witnessing quality actors embarrass themselves. There is nothing else like it. The movie is so bad that it warrants the question, "Do directors intentionally make bad films?" The assemblage of talent combined with the horrible end result suggests that the audience must have missed out on a giant inside joke on overly-critical moviegoers and especially film critics, as hyperbolized in Balaban's loathsome character. Surely there's some deeper meaning that we're missing that goes beyond creatures with names that sound like dialogue from "Pinky and the Brain." This is some kind of metaphysical understanding that comes from an Indian background, growing up in Philly, and making millions of dollars all while "keeping it real." And if audiences don't get it, it's because they're incapable of believing in other worlds and will never be able to recapture the joy of bedtime stories. Yes, that's it exactly.But if it's so deep, why do all of the pieces fall together so easily for Giamatti's Cleveland Heep? Why are an assemblage of apartment tenants who all seem to wish for isolation from one another so willing to unite for a common, fairy tale cause? And if the bad guys are so bent on destroying their enemy, why don't they follow through when they have clear opportunities. These questions are regrettably non-specific, but to attempt to explain and dissect the movie's plot and meaning would only further tarnish what's left of Shyamalan's gift and he should at least be allowed to make home videos of his kids.Worst of all, there is the absence of the kind of twist ending that has defined Shyamalan's career. Though the expectation of such a cinematic device has been heavily criticized, perhaps Shyamalan needs his twist endings. In his past films, when the story appears to drag, the anticipation of the looming "gotcha" keeps the audience guessing all the while, forming an enticing mystery. Though the twist's existence is predictable, without one in "Lady in the Water," he leaves nothing to look forward to except the end credits. What's especially disheartening with this sloppy effort is that at no point does a twist even seem possible, making the release's mysterious intention (the only true mystery) a colossal failure.While Shyamalan's June film "The Happening" has the potential to be environmentally preachy (which could make viewers either increasingly pro or anti-"green"), it thankfully appears to be a return to the who/what-dun-its he does best. However, Mark Wahlberg's comically raised eyebrows show yet another actor "Syamalanized" by the filmmaker's aura and the half-assed delivery of the trailer's wannabe sincere dialogue recalls the writer's greatest consistent weakness. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but it seems that Shyamalan is going to ride out his early earnings into a continuing career of pretentious films until every fan of "Sixth Sense" figures him out and the only actor who will work with him is M. Night himself. Once you've seen "Lady in the Water," in which he gives himself an unprecedented major supporting role of staggeringly self-indulgent proportions, you'll understand why that's a likely outcome http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/15/29237.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/15/2008 3:01:22 PM
Body: I hate twist endings, especially those in the films of M. Night Shyamalan. Maybe it’s because I was told the twist of The Sixth Sense prior to seeing it and haven’t been able to appreciate the filmmaker ever since. It’s not so much that I believe films shouldn’t have twist endings, it’s that I believe films that have twist endings should be enjoyable even when you know the secret (Psycho is still great after a thousand viewings, for example). The only one of Shyamalan’s movies to hold up even with the spoilers revealed is Unbreakable. So, I had no problem reading about the big secret of Shyamalan’s latest, The Happening. An early review of a rough cut of the thriller has shown up on Collider, and in addition to claiming the thing is “a terrible, terrible movie,” and that, “Mark Wahlberg might very well give the worst performance I’ve ever seen in anything,” the critic includes a complete plot synopsis, including the big revelation of what is causing people to suddenly kill themselves (surely you’ve seen the trailer). I won’t write out the spoiler here (but here’s a hint: the film has something in common with both The Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter), but you’re welcome to head over to Collider (or Vulture blog) to ruin it for yourself. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 15 May 2008 19:01:22 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/15/2008 3:01:22 PMI hate twist endings, especially those in the films of M. Night Shyamalan. Maybe it’s because I was told the twist of The Sixth Sense prior to seeing it and haven’t been able to appreciate the filmmaker ever since. It’s not so much that I believe films shouldn’t have twist endings, it’s that I believe films that have twist endings should be enjoyable even when you know the secret (Psycho is still great after a thousand viewings, for example). The only one of Shyamalan’s movies to hold up even with the spoilers revealed is Unbreakable. So, I had no problem reading about the big secret of Shyamalan’s latest, The Happening. An early review of a rough cut of the thriller has shown up on Collider, and in addition to claiming the thing is “a terrible, terrible movie,” and that, “Mark Wahlberg might very well give the worst performance I’ve ever seen in anything,” the critic includes a complete plot synopsis, including the big revelation of what is causing people to suddenly kill themselves (surely you’ve seen the trailer). I won’t write out the spoiler here (but here’s a hint: the film has something in common with both The Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter), but you’re welcome to head over to Collider (or Vulture blog) to ruin it for yourself. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7162

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1004

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT71621691004Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thriller/MemberTagFilms.aspxthriller
Number of films tagged: 201

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 247

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT20174247Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crime/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrime
Number of films tagged: 401

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 303

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:32 GMT40170303Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Stupid/MemberTagFilms.aspxStupid
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 99

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:12:14 GMT837099Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/marriage/MemberTagFilms.aspxmarriage
Number of films tagged: 3471

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 267

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:11 GMT347167267Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awful/MemberTagFilms.aspxawful
Number of films tagged: 81

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 88

]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:48:37 GMT814188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pain/MemberTagFilms.aspxpain
Number of films tagged: 127

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 69

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:20 GMT1272869Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fate/MemberTagFilms.aspxfate
Number of films tagged: 207

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 32

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT2072332Tag