M.Night Shyamalan

[ShogunRua]

Firstly, he does not treat him like a "complete idiot". Rather, he honestly assumes that Cole is making things up, as children often do. Now you can argue whether that's "malicious" or not, but his OWN MOTHER reacts the same way later on in the film when he tells her what he sees.

Willis and Collette treat him with more respect either because they love him or try to give the illusion of that. Inwardly, they still think he's nuts/lying/disturbed for a good part of the film, and are often as obvious about it as you claim Stanley was. (No he wasn't)

Unbelievable. You really can't see the reactions of the teacher and Cole's mother are COMPLETELY different. For Stanley Cole is just another kid, Tony Collette cries when she finally understands what troubles his son.

Yes, AFTER the fact. This doesn't change the fact that patronizing glances are a part of life for weird, precocious little kids, which makes Cole's freak-out in that situation very poorly motivated.

There are specific lines of dialogue between them, which concern this: Cole - "You think I am a freak", Collette - "Cole, look at me! I would never, NEVER think that about you".

So if Cole thought she took him for a freak, why didn't he freak out on her?

Now what? You'll tell me that the central theme of the movie - the relationships between the kid and his mother are also fake? Without actually getting to that pivotal scene? And if you say a good psychologist would think even for a moment that his patient is nuts/lying, especially a patient like Cole, then you know nothing about psychology.

Where did I EVER say a word about "Unbreakable"? Are you getting confused?

Are you really having problem understanding what I am saying to you with the Unbreakable example? Sure, you missed Unbreakable, but you have said this:

I still don't understand what the fuck "Unbreakable" has to do with any part of this discussion.

You have said that MANY Shyamalan movies are worse than Transformers. When you have actually watched one and a half of them (which is not MANY) and you have no idea whether you'll like or dislike Signs, The Village, The Happening, TLA, Wide Awake or Unbreakable.

You admitted YOURSELF that TLA sucks. I don't have to see it, when the person I'm arguing with already conceded that it was garbage. And I never said "worse than Transformers", but "every bit as crappy". There's a difference.

By the way, there were a lot of things you didn't respond to in your last post, among them this;

"HAHAHA. Wow, he got picked to play King Arthur in the school play when he was an outcast, a freak, and routinely bullied by all his classmates? What bullshit! Maybe it was a good thing I left the theater 30 minutes before the end of the movie, huh?"

No one argued in favor of "compromising one's vision". (although I would argue this isn't ALWAYS a bad thing either, even if in most cases it is) Rather, the discussion was about whether to take certain critical comments in mind, instead of blindly ignoring all of them, as you suggested.

You can not argue the bold part. It is just logically impossible. Even if you can show me a great movie done under the influence of the studio, that doesn't prove that without this influence the movie would be worse. Of course, cinema is a complex art and requires input from professionals in different areas (cinematography, music, sound design...), but the director ultimately is the one who decides what cinematography, music and sound design wants for his movie. And when Bruckheimer goes to Verbinski and says - "Look, let's fire Alan Silvestri, because I want the Pirates franchise to sound like Armageddon" this is a compromise which ruins everything.

Again, the part in brackets wasn't what I was strictly arguing, but if you want an example of "compromising one's vision" being a GOOD thing, the classic example is Michael Cimino.

When he had free reign, he made a monstrously overpriced, overly long failure like "Heaven's Gate". With the yolk of studio control, he made "The Deer Hunter", "Magnum Force", and "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot".

Not everyone benefits from unlimited control. Perhaps most directors do, but there are exceptions.

As for the second part - the critical comments... In this particular case - with Shyamalan's hexalogy - the best part is exactly that he never listen to the critical comments and made his six movies as he would like them, without giving a shit who will be pissed that "omfgroflmao the aliens which are scared of water go to a planed full of water!!!!!".

Uh yeah, I would say that last point is quite significant.

Also, tuning out any criticism is completely different than making a typical studio-produced piece like TLA. In fact, I would argue the former is a major problem for a director; once he considers himself God and believes he can do no wrong, his movies suffer as a result.

[Silver]

Yes, AFTER the fact. This doesn't change the fact that patronizing glances are a part of life for weird, precocious little kids, which makes Cole's freak-out in that situation very poorly motivated.

I have repeated 10 times: Cole is treated as an idiot ONLY by Stanley. That's why you get this completely fair reaction ONLY towards him.

So if Cole thought she took him for a freak, why didn't he freak out on her?

Because she is his mother. And because she never treated him as an idiot. Do you have a problem understanding the difference between freak and idiot?

I still don't understand what the fuck "Unbreakable" has to do with any part of this discussion.

I give up. Lets hope others can understand.

You admitted YOURSELF that TLA sucks. I don't have to see it, when the person I'm arguing with already conceded that it was garbage. And I never said "worse than Transformers", but "every bit as crappy". There's a difference.

That's just laughable. The fact I find problems with TLA doesn't mean anything when we speak about YOUR OWN opinion. Why you accept I am right only when my opinion is convenient for you? That's childish.

"HAHAHA. Wow, he got picked to play King Arthur in the school play when he was an outcast, a freak, and routinely bullied by all his classmates? What bullshit! Maybe it was a good thing I left the theater 30 minutes before the end of the movie, huh?"

What do you expect me to comment on that? You even haven't seen the scene, for fuck sake.

Again, the part in brackets wasn't what I was strictly arguing, but if you want an example of "compromising one's vision" being a GOOD thing, the classic example is Michael Cimino.

When he had free reign, he made a monstrously overpriced, overly long failure like "Heaven's Gate". With the yolk of studio control, he made "The Deer Hunter", "Magnum Force", and "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot".

Not everyone benefits from unlimited control. Perhaps most directors do, but there are exceptions.

I would consider your argument as a valid point, but unfortunately, again you're speaking confidently about several movies you personally haven't seen. In before, I don't need another meandering from your side trying to justify this absurdity.

Also, tuning out any criticism is completely different than making a typical studio-produced piece like TLA. In fact, I would argue the former is a major problem for a director; once he considers himself God and believes he can do no wrong, his movies suffer as a result.

I think I have explained already - the failure of TLA is almost entirely Shyamalan's fault. And I think I have already responded to that with the last part of my previous post, just after your quote. I have nothing to add.

[ShogunRua]

Yes, AFTER the fact. This doesn't change the fact that patronizing glances are a part of life for weird, precocious little kids, which makes Cole's freak-out in that situation very poorly motivated.

I have repeated 10 times: Cole is treated as an idiot ONLY by Stanley. That's why you get this completely fair reaction ONLY towards him.

Once again.

1. He is not treated like an idiot. Rather, he is treated as a little kid spouting some rubbish. There is a difference.

2. Stanley merely gives him a slightly patronizing glance, the same stare that PRESUMABLY Cole's classmates do, and the same look his mother and the psychiatrist often give him. If we're to believe the movie that Cole is an outcast loner, he should be USED to this.

By the way, I loved how you ignored my main, larger point, once again;

"I have never seen anything remotely like that in real life; a masterful verbal browbeating that Cole (an 8 year-old!) delivered to a fully-grown, sane adult. It was sheer absurdity, and I can't believe you're still trying to justify it."

You admitted YOURSELF that TLA sucks. I don't have to see it, when the person I'm arguing with already conceded that it was garbage. And I never said "worse than Transformers", but "every bit as crappy". There's a difference.

That's just laughable. The fact I find problems with TLA doesn't mean anything when we speak about YOUR OWN opinion. Why you accept I am right only when my opinion is convenient for you? That's childish.

No, it isn't. If two people are arguing, and A thinks X is "bad", and B thinks X is "good", then when B admits that parts of X were in fact bad, why the fuck does A need to go over it again when they're in agreement?

I guess they don't teach elementary logic in Bulgaria, either?

"HAHAHA. Wow, he got picked to play King Arthur in the school play when he was an outcast, a freak, and routinely bullied by all his classmates? What bullshit! Maybe it was a good thing I left the theater 30 minutes before the end of the movie, huh?"

What do you expect me to comment on that? You even haven't seen the scene, for fuck sake.

It doesn't matter whether I have seen it or not. Simply being told that the most bullied, weirdest outcast in the entire school gets the lead role in the play is enough to know it was hilariously wrong and stupid.

Again, the part in brackets wasn't what I was strictly arguing, but if you want an example of "compromising one's vision" being a GOOD thing, the classic example is Michael Cimino.

When he had free reign, he made a monstrously overpriced, overly long failure like "Heaven's Gate". With the yolk of studio control, he made "The Deer Hunter", "Magnum Force", and "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot".

Not everyone benefits from unlimited control. Perhaps most directors do, but there are exceptions.

I would consider your argument as a valid point, but unfortunately, again you're speaking confidently about several movies you personally haven't seen. In before, I don't need another meandering from your side trying to justify this absurdity.

I have seen all 4 of those films. I only ranked "Magnum Force", but there are many, many movies that I have seen and have opinions about which I have yet to give a definitive rank, such as "Heaven's Gate", "The Deer Hunter", and "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot".

But even if it was in a roundabout way, at least you finally admitted you were wrong.

[Silver]

No, it isn't. If two people are arguing, and A thinks X is "bad", and B thinks X is "good", then when B admits that parts of X were in fact bad, why the fuck does A need to go over it again when they're in agreement?

I guess they don't teach elementary logic in Bulgaria, either?

What a load of bullshit!
You gave TLA as an example of Shyamalan's movie which is as bad as Transformers.
I've told you, you can't do that until you see it (so A, if sane person, can not think X is "bad").
I have never said TLA was good (so B never thought X is "good").
You can not use my opinion on TLA (which I think is better than Transformers) to support your thesis that MANY of Shyamalan's movies suck as hard as Transformers. If you use it - why you not use the other part: that all the rest of his movies are in my T9-10?
The bottom line is you have to shove your shiny logic you know where.

The problem is I am tired of you. You can't comprehend basic things, you comment scenes and movies you have no idea about, you constantly accusing me of missing points, which I have addressed countless times already, you demonstrate reasoning of a first-grader (that last bit with A, B and X was priceless ) and at the same time you have the impudence to ask if they teach logic in Bulgaria? Really?
I regret every bit of time I spent trying to discuss with you in civilized manner. There is however a limit of bullshit I can take, so think whatever you want, I don't care.

[djross]

x

[ShogunRua]

Finally, the moment we have all been waiting for; "Silver" lashing out in petulant, childish anger because no one appreciates the misunderstood genius of his favorite director!

And of course, he completely ignores all the points about his films in the process.

No, it isn't. If two people are arguing, and A thinks X is "bad", and B thinks X is "good", then when B admits that parts of X were in fact bad, why the fuck does A need to go over it again when they're in agreement?

I guess they don't teach elementary logic in Bulgaria, either?

What a load of bullshit!

You gave TLA as an example of Shyamalan's movie which is as bad as Transformers.
I've told you, you can't do that until you see it (so A, if sane person, can not think X is "bad").
I have never said TLA was good (so B never thought X is "good").

Christ, you said yourself "The Last Avatar" was a shitty film, and I am taking your word for it. Rather than arguing about it, I am using your own statement to prove my point in the discussion. Is this really so difficult to comprehend?

You can not use my opinion on TLA (which I think is better than Transformers) to support your thesis that MANY of Shyamalan's movies suck as hard as Transformers. If you use it - why you not use the other part: that all the rest of his movies are in my T9-10?
The bottom line is you have to shove your shiny logic you know where.

Yes, damn my infernal logic, and reasonable way of looking at Shyamalan's films! Let's all just base our scores on wild emotion and shitty, 2nd-grade level insults!

The problem is I am tired of you. I can't comprehend basic things, I comment on scenes and movies I have no idea about,

Absolutely! Completely agree.

you constantly accusing me of missing points, which I have addressed countless times already,

Oh? How about these two, from my last post;

"I have never seen anything remotely like that in real life; a masterful verbal browbeating that Cole (an 8 year-old!) delivered to a fully-grown, sane adult. It was sheer absurdity, and I can't believe you're still trying to justify it."

"It doesn't matter whether I have seen it or not. Simply being told that the most bullied, weirdest outcast in the entire school gets the lead role in the play is enough to know it was hilariously wrong and stupid."

There is however a limit of bullshit I can take

Considering your blindness to gaping plot holes and love of Shyamalan's movies, I would say your limit is "astronomical"!

***

it concocts mechanisms for exorcising ghosts that work to make justice miraculously attainable. Score: 45.

Yes, that is also a good point.

[Silver]

ShogunRua, yeah, I've expected you to start shouting something like "You lose! I win! Bwahahahaha", but somehow you succeeded to fall even lower. If I was you, I would delete this last post - it is really embarrassing in every single word and I can't see how a reasonable person can take you seriously after this disaster. Now, pls, get off me and go play with the kids.

[ShogunRua]

With no arguments to respond to my posts with, Silver simply ignores them!

By the way, Silver, are you having a mental breakdown, and/or an identity crisis? Because speaking of "embarrassing" and "should be deleted", here is some of the whiny, juvenile nonsense you wrote in your last post;

The bottom line is you have to shove your shiny logic you know where.

What a load of bullshit!

I can't comprehend basic things, you comment scenes

Oh, the irony!

[Silver]

The Happening
Attempts to create and inhabit an unreal dream world, rather than convey any kind of "realism." The method is a cinematically unusual relation to space (extreme close-ups and long-distance shots), time (shorts jumps in time between scenes and even shots) and character. Unfortunately, it fizzles out rather than building to any dramatically satisfying conclusion. A misunderstood (but still only partially successful) experiment, pursuing a nightmare logic founded in various contemporary anxieties. Score: 45.

djross, thanks for sharing, but how do you find the metacommentary layer of The Happening? Do you think it is appropriate?

Btw, I would die to see a review in this style for Lady in the Water for example.

[djross]

djross, thanks for sharing, but how do you find the metacommentary layer of The Happening? Do you think it is appropriate?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Clearly the movie tries to tap into fears and anxieties about environmental destruction, about pandemics, and at perhaps a more intimate and effective level, about suicide. Beyond that, it is no doubt possible to argue that it contains a commentary on the loss of belief and trust. None of that is too difficult to figure out or especially new, and how far one takes such readings is a matter of personal inclination as much as anything else. For myself, the main reason the film was misunderstood was because, as critical audiences are wont to do, they took exception at implausibilities and absurdities in the narrative, thereby, however, and in my view, taking the film in the wrong way: as mentioned, it seemed to me that the movie is deliberately unrealistic, at both a narrative and stylistic level (where stylistic "realism" is really a matter of viewing conventions). This makes the movie a little more interesting than it is given credit for, but for me, despite the intention, the script was insufficiently worked out and the nightmare logic tended to dissipate in the final section in favor of the rather simplistic message the film clearly intended to espouse, leaving audiences dissatisfied and in the mood to pick at all the other "faults" of realism that could be ascribed.