Signs's Recent Activity - Spout

Film:Signs

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:58:56 GMT

Title: Signs
Year: 2002
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Plot: Following the smash hit The Sixth Sense (1999) and the under-performing follow-up Unbreakable (2000), directing phenom M. Night Shyamalan returns to the summer box office landscape that served as the backdrop for his cinematic breakthrough. In Signs, another paranormal outing for the writer-director, Shyamalan explores the eerie implications of a 500-foot crop circle that mysteriously appears on the Bucks County, PA farm of reverend Graham Hess (Mel Gibson). As Hess and his family (Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, Abigail Breslin) try to take stock of what the sign means, and how its message incorporates into their faith, they start to get the feeling they are not alone in the fields behind their house. Shyamalan re-teams with producers Frank Marshall, Sam Mercer and Kathleen Kennedy, and produces the project in association with his Blinding Edge Pictures banner and Touchstone Pictures. ~ Derek Armstrong, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 67
Number of Lists: 67
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 3

Spout Post: Re:Weekly Theme for November 10: Whatchamacallit, a Deus Ex Machina!

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:49:13 GMT

Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/13/2008 3:49:13 PM
Body: [quote user="Dr_Gor"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="mercurial"] A well-known modern example of deus ex machinaoccurs in the Michael Crichton book The Andromeda Strain. The pathogen referred to in the title is suddenly rendered non-lethal by a random mutation which apparently affects every existing virus particle instantaneously. [/quote] Wasn't it also a virus that kills the aliens suddenly in The War of the Worlds? And the The Wizard of Oz has Dorothy suddenly finding out she could go home all along just by using her slippers. But since everything is kind of goofy in Oz and there isn't a lot of expectations or logic anyways, I don't know if this really counts. [/quote] Thank you, Rizzo. I was going to bring up The War of the Worlds but you guys beat me to it. The Wizard of OZ is another good one. Here is my rather lengthy question for you guys.. I can completely understand your definition of this "duche in the machine" thing and it makes perfect sense to me. Using a cheap plot device to rescue your main characters and your story? UNHEARD OF! I think that this exact thing exists in EVERY single story ever filmed or written or told! Isn't THAT what makes a good story? A series of highly unusual but possible events occuring at just the right time to make something extraordinary happen? So what is the difference between this and that "douche" thing?\ Secondly, I am (more or less) a writer. I have been working on the same novel-length story off and on for more than the past few years... My story is pretty much original but it borrows heavily from films such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Hills Have Eyes and Anthropaphagus as well as such novels as Jack Ketchum's "Off Season" (which I can't believe hasn't been made into a movie yet!) and "AMOK" by George Fox... Basically my story revolves around a string of VERY unlikely events all occurring at just the right time to create a "perfect storm", if you will... I think that basically ALL stories incorporate this to some extent! So I would really like you to explain to me just what is this "douche machine" of which you speak... < GOR > [/quote] I don't think the fact that a very unlikely event happens in the story is a bad thing or something to be critical of. The problem is when it is so blatantly obvious that the writer used this device for no other reason than because he has written himself into a corner. As is the case in Signs and the Andromeda Strain. It really contradicts the previous logic of the rest of the story. To contrast, if the story has contained a series of unlikely events, these events are much more acceptable to the audience because the story has set itself up in that way. Think of a movie with a seemingly simple crime plot in which everything that could have gone wrong does.(Elevator to the Gallows) I don't think that you would refer to that as dues ex machina because you can't really pinpoint one single event that just had to happen in order for the story to continue. I think another good example of DEM is when the mastermind criminal makes the stupidest mistake ever, like leaves his gun sitting somewhere that's easily accessible to the hero. This type of thing really attacks everything you've come to know about the characters from the rest of the story. I would also submit the "it was all just a dream" ending along the same lines. I think another example is something that you will sometimes see in bad horror sequels like I Still Know.... and Scream 3. These movies set themselves up a somewhat of a whodunit mystery. The only problem is that you are missing vital information about certain characters until the very end. 5 minutes before the final credits roll, you are exposed to the "OH, by the way..." info about one of the characters being related to someone somehow or whatever. This clearly shows lack of comprehensive writing skill and the screenwriters should be tied to a fence and flogged for it. I hope my bloviated and opinionated rantings have given some insight into this subject. I will say however that there can sometimes be a fine line. After all, why would we watch a movie in which only ordinary events take place.

Spout Post: Re:Weekly Theme for November 10: Whatchamacallit, a Deus Ex Machina!

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:45:28 GMT

Post By: rjsprague
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/12/2008 3:45:28 PM
Body: I recall the Hudsucker Proxy's amusing use of Deus Ex Machina. My contribution today would have to be Signs. The alien invasions is conveniently stopped when it is discovered that good old H20 is a corrosive acid for the invaders. (Why would you invade a planet that was 75% water if water can kill you?) I would potentially reference Independence Day as a film that also utilizes deus ex machina, but that might be slightly more subjective.

Spout Post: Re:M. Night Shyamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:28:16 GMT

Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 11/7/2008 7:28:16 PM
Body: I liked Signs a lot and The Sixth Sense wasn't that bad. The Village was pretty creepy but ENTIRELY predictable! I saw that ending coming from about 100 miles away! I have yet to see "Lady In The Water"... or "The Happenning" ...

Spout Post: 5 Directors, 5 Achilles Heels

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:01:07 GMT

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

Spout Post: The Eagle Eye Challenge: Rules and Winners

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:39:08 GMT

Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/22/2008 2:39:08 PM
Body: Eagle Eye Challenge & Giveaway Spout's giving away one more Eagle Eye swag package on Monday morning. The winner will get a flash drive that's also a pen, like James Bond spygear! (Sorry, Q screwed up -- the flash drive's still good, but no pen.) You'll also receive a zip-up sweatshirt and t-shirt (see pics at the bottom). How do you play? Each day, Monday through Friday, we'll post a list of ten movies. You must figure out how the movies are connected. For example, you'll see the "FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge" thread in the Filmgaming group. The challenge post will look something like this: Eagle Eye (2008) (1) Phone Booth (2003) (2) The Last King of Scotland (2006) (3) Braveheart (1995) (4) Signs (2002) (5) Alien (1979) (6) Ghostbusters (1984) (7) Space Jam (1996) (8) Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) (9) Chinatown (1974) Add your answers to the challenge post thread. Your list should look something like this: 1. Phones 2. Forest Whitaker 3. Scotland (or Scottish) 4. Mel Gibson 5. Aliens 6. Sigourney Weaver 7. Bill Murray 8. Cartoons (or people and cartoons) 9. Detective (or private detective) Your submissions will be accepted until 9:00 am EST on Monday morning. We'll post the winner 10:00 am. Thanks to everyone for playing! There will only be one winner, so if more than one person gets all the answers right, we decide the winner randomly. How do you know if you've won? The winner will be posted in this thread, so check back here to see if you've won. Just a friendly reminder that the contest isn't happening in this thread-- respond to the Friday thread with your Friday answers. Links FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge THURSDAY Eagle Eye Challenge WEDNESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge TUESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge MONDAY Eagle Eye Challenge All ages are welcome to play. An individual can only win once during the week. All residents of US and Canada are eligible. Our contest rules (see fine print below) apply unless otherwise noted in this post. Have fun, and good luck! 1. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPATION The Promotion will begin on a set date. Spout LLC ("Company") reserves the right to end the Promotion at any time. The Company will post notice at Spout.com when the Promotion has ended. HOW TO PARTICIPATE: If you are an existing member or become a new member, you are eligible to earn the Reward by following the rules of the contest or promotion. 2. REWARD Participant will receive a reward as was outlined in the contest or promotion instructions and rules. In order for participant to be eligible to receive the Reward, the participant must follow the rules and instructions of the contest or promotion. The participants receiving the Reward will be notified by the email address through which they are subscribed to Spout.com. Participants may waive their right to receive the Reward. In the event of such waiver or the disqualification of a participant, such participant will not be entitled to the Reward. Reward has no cash value. If multiple entries for the contest or promotion are received, only the first entry, as determined by Spout.com in its sole discretion, will receive evaluation or reward. 3. ELIGIBILITY AND LIMITATIONS Participants must be at least 18 years old, legal residents of one of the 50 United States or Washington D.C. and members of the Spout.com community. Individuals who use the contest or promotion webpage to enroll themselves in the contest or promotion multiple times using different email addresses will be disqualified. In case of dispute, the authorized account holder of the email address submitted to Spout.com will be considered the participant. The authorized email account subscriber is deemed to be the natural person who is assigned an email address by an Internet-access provider, an online-service provider or another organization that is responsible for assigning email addresses or the domain associated with the submitted email address. Employees of Company and members of the immediate family of any such persons are not eligible to participate and win. The term "immediate family" includes spouses, siblings, parents, children, grandparents, and grandchildren, whether as "in-laws," or by current or past marriage(s), remarriage(s), adoption, co-habitation or other family extension, and any other persons residing at the same household whether or not related. Eligibility regarding the satisfaction of meeting the Reward requirements shall be at the sole discretion of Spout.com. Management reserves the right to refuse a Reward to anyone at anytime. If you have questions regarding your eligibility, please contact us. Promotion is void where prohibited by law. 4. DISCLAIMER Company disclaims all liability for the inability of a participant to complete any information or to deliver the information due to equipment malfunction, busy lines, inadvertent disconnections, acts beyond Company's control, or otherwise. Company disclaims all liability for any delays, misdelivery, loss, or failure in the delivery of any item sent by mail, courier, express, electronic transmission, or other delivery method. 5. PUBLICITY By participating, all participants grant Company exclusive permission to use their names, characters, photographs, voices, and likenesses in connection with this Promotion, including without limitation publishing such information in the Spout.com newsletter, and waive any claims to royalty, right, or remuneration for such use. 6. GENERAL RELEASE By participating in the Promotion participants release Company and each of its respective affiliated companies, directors, officers, employees, representatives, partners and agents from any liability whatsoever for any claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the Promotion or with the acceptance or use of any Reward (including, without limitation, claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages related to personal injuries, death, damage to, loss or destruction of property, rights of publicity or privacy, defamation or portrayal in a false light). COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE PROMOTION AT ANY TIME IF THE WEBSITE IS INFECTED BY A VIRUS, THE WEBSITE IS HACKED OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROMOTION IS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY. 7. DECISIONS Company reserves the right to disqualify any participant and may refuse to give or revoke the Rewards to anyone who is ineligible, has violated any of these terms or conditions, gained or sought to gain unfair advantage in participating in the Promotion, or used fraudulent means to earn the Reward. Return of Reward notification as undeliverable may result in disqualification of the participant. Further, Company will resolve any disputes or ambiguities concerning these terms and conditions and Company's decisions concerning such disputes shall be final. All decisions will be made by Company and are final. Company reserves the right in its sole discretion to suspend, modify, or terminate the Promotion. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. As a condition to participating in this Promotion, each participant agrees that any and all disputes that cannot be resolved between the parties, and all causes of action arising out of or in connection with this Promotion shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court located in the State of Michigan having competent jurisdiction, which court shall apply the laws of the State of Michigan, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof. By entering the Promotion both parties hereby waive any and all right to trial by jury.

Spout Post: Re:The Happening - Yay or Nay?

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:28:41 GMT

Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 7/2/2008 7:28:41 AM
Body: Okay, I finally saw The Happening and I can agree with ALL of you here. I couldn't believe how bad some of the acting was especially when I have seen them all before in other things and thought they were pretty good, how strange. Any way, he must have given them the direction to act all wide eyed and innocent and whiney...hmmm, I'm not sure. BUT I do have to say that there were some parts I really did like. I thought the beginning was extremely creepy (not when Mark W. was teaching) but especially the construction workers. There were so many very cool scenes that I got a few chills from. The part with the old crazy lady made me jump a few times, good shock scenes. I do agree with Abby too that I thought it was strange how he had to explain some things making me think that he though only uneducated stupid people would be watching this movie...I just don't know. I did have to say that I figured it out instantly from the beginning, I thought I'm sure everyone figured that out early. I was hoping he wouldn't think we were shocked by that?? hmmmm. Anyway, I do have to say that I didn't HATE the film, it creeped me out in several places so that I felt I wasn't totally cheated. Most of his films I have enjoyed well except Lady in the water and The Village - I thought they were extremely mediocre but the other films were okay. My favorites of course are The Sixth Sense and Signs - I hope one day he will get back up there to that callibert again if they let him make another movie...

Spout Post: Very little Night music

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:29:19 GMT

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.

Spout Post: The Shyamalan Report Card

Wed, 21 May 2008 03:20:55 GMT

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

Spout Post: Re: Horror Movies Based on Real Events

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:40:03 GMT

Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 4/28/2007 1:40:03 AM
Body: Maybe even discuss movies that you hope to GOD are not based on true events but you could see it happening in real life. Identity could be based on a true story...Shadow of a Vampire could be real if an actor really thought they were a vampire. And if you believe in ExtraTerrestrials (I don't know if I spelled that correct) Signs could be true...I am probably just posting because I am very hyper right now. I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep for a while, I had way too much caffeine today plus watching the Descent... Anyway, if these sound really stupid, please ignore me... hee hee.

Spout Post: Re: Guess The Movie Quote

Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:29:29 GMT

Post By: Kami
Post To: Best movie quotes
Post Date: 8/25/2006 11:29:29 AM
Body: Signs!

Spout Tag:love

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT

love
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

Spout Tag:family

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT

family
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

Spout Tag:Loved-It

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT

Loved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

Spout Tag:friendship

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT

friendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

Spout Tag:death

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT

death
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

Spout Tag:dark

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT

dark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

Spout Tag:Boring

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT

Boring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

Spout Tag:scary

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:07 GMT

scary
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 104

Number of times used: 197

Spout Tag:Creepy

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT

Creepy
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 211

Spout Tag:escape

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT

escape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

Spout Tag:religion

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:31:00 GMT

religion
Number of films tagged: 1123

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 176

Spout Tag:lame

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:10:30 GMT

lame
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 162

Spout Tag:aliens

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:12:57 GMT

aliens
Number of films tagged: 74

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 111

Spout Tag:kids

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:49:19 GMT

kids
Number of films tagged: 96

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 112

Spout Tag:hero

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT

hero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141