M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

What do you rate Shamalama's latest, Not Happenin'?

10 - This is only here for aesthetic purposes
2
7%
9
0
No votes
8
1
4%
7
1
4%
6
3
11%
5
2
7%
4
1
4%
3
1
4%
2
0
No votes
1
3
11%
0 - Zilch - Zero - Nil - Nada
1
4%
Not gonna watch this
8
29%
Waiting for DVD
5
18%
 
Total votes : 28

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby Peven on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:31 pm

but, but, if the trees were cannibals they would just eat.......other trees
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14445
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby tapehead on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:45 pm

I agree with MW -
MasterWhedon wrote:Err... so, I finally saw this over the weekend, expecting it to be the worst damn movie ever... and I actually kinda enjoyed it. :? Like, in a 6/10, fatally-flawed, not-actually-all-that-scary-but-still-more-effective-than-anything-in-Indy-4 kinda way.

There are a handful of incredibly tense moments that are very, very skillfully directed, that in and of themselves made me like the movie. [/i].

Lady in the Water was an incoherent mess, whereas this one is just messy. There are some great parts in that the don't add up to much, but I enjoyed those moments for what they were.


It's kind of depressing, but ‘The Happening’ isn't the most vacuous or stupid movie that you might see in a cinema over the last few years, and parts of it are actually quite good. It seemed to me that M Night quite obviously set out to make a film like Hitchcock's 'The Birds', and in striving for that rarefied atmosphere of well-mannered, uncanny horror, but failing, the film almost won me over to liking it. I also think M Night has had a few Larry Cohen movie nights around at his place; from the over-hyped violin vamping, to the attempts at building, slow-burning hysteria, the influence seems pretty obvious.

The Happening repeats a lot of the story elements and moments of ‘The Birds’ (arguably, Hitchcock’s weakest movie), but without an Evil that you can look in the eye or even see, a story like this seems destined to fail in a visual medium (might have made a good short story, indeed the basic premise has, many times before). There’s no mistaking that it does fail, but I can’t help but give it a little begrudging respect for trying. It fails in what it sets out to do, and there are moments of incompetent staging and direction, but it didn’t actually fail to keep me engaged for it’s running time – it didn’t commit the cardinal sin of boring me. It also didn't annoy me anywhere near to the extent that 'Lady in the Water' or 'Signs' did.

John-Locke wrote:I'm a Wahlberg fan, in some films he's got a nice everyman quality that I like but here I found his attempts to play a Science teacher who is kind of an Idiot savant hilarious, no matter what was going on or had happened elsewhere he seemed to be removed from that reality to an extent, in some weird state of shock that was totally unreal, clearly he was being given direction to behave in this manner.

So yeah it's one of those rare films that actually is so bad that it's good (well not good but fun) and intentional or not it did feel like a cheesy B movie.

Exactly how I felt too - The opening twenty minutes or so are enjoyable, and at first the fearful tone of weird, unimaginable horror seems like it might stay, but despite the unsettling scenes in Central park and the building site, with a few brief, fun moments of gore, it’s dissipated by the time we’ve seen Zooey Deschanel avoid a few phone calls and Wahlberg and Leguizamo share a couple of odd scenes talking about Wahlberg’s character’s marriage, which we in the audience don’t care about, because we’ve been given so little to go on.
It’s strange, Wahlberg isn’t ‘bad’ in this, and John Leguizamo doesn't embarras himself (I could even buy into his final scene with the penny puzzle, which finished with him doing himself in with some broken glass from the car crash), but ultimately it’s starting to seem as though perhaps M Night has relied heavily on talented leads like Bruce Willis and Toni Collette in previous films to really put across and sell his stories (perhaps loosing his production team from his other features has taken it’s toll as well). Like Ribbons says, imagine Willis in this – it wouldn't be enough to have transformed the film into an unqualified success, but on the other hand an actor of his charisma and big screen skills might have been able to rally the conviction to make some of that horribly clunky dialogue work. Or not. Wahlberg is occasionally really good (Boogie Nights, The Departed, and I like him in I Heart Huckabee), so I'm actually quite content to put the blame for the uneven and awkward screen time we see here upon the director. M Night's frequent reliance on face to camera mid-shots doesn't help, but I suppose it means we get lots of Zooey Deschanel's baby blue peepers.

Despite all this quibbling, it didn't seem to me a movie that liked people very much, and it's not going to reverse the trend of trashing M Night's movies for fun, nor, I imagine, win him any new fans or allies in his industry.

I'd give this a five.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby TheBaxter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:23 pm

i finally saw this movie last night. my zod, what a mess. i kinda sat there with my jaw dropped the first half of the film at just how bad EVERYTHING was: the writing, the acting, even the directing which is usually solid in a shyamalan film whether the rest is good or not. by the middle, i just gave in and started laughing at how ridiculous this film was. what i can't figure out is how much was intentional. i know shyamalan said he wanted to make the "best B movie ever" but i don't think he was trying to emulate plan 9 from outer space to achieve that. this isn't plan 9 bad, but it's close. i think he actually thought he was making a GOOD movie about a B movie premise... but he didn't. he made a very silly and strange film.

first, the acting. how did the guy who got such a good performance out of a kid in sixth sense, fail so horribly with actual adult actors? was haley joel osment really carrying shyamalan in that film? i heard all the stuff about wahlberg, but he was actually not even close to the worst. the worst was zooey deschanel, who looked like she was on ecstasy or something the whole time. her performance was just loopy, and the fact that her eyes were bugged out in practically every scene didn't help. my gf pointed out that she had incredibly tiny pupils, and after that i made a game of searching for her pupils in any close up shot of her. also, the girl who played lequizamo's daughter was horrible, even by kid actor standards. as for wahlberg, i think mostly he was miscast, but after seeing this i now know where SNL got the idea for "mark wahlberg talks to animals" because he reads every line in this film like the guy in that skit. that, and he talks to plants.

the writing was full of clunkers. first, people talking about ridiculous shit that you waouldn't even care about in the middle of the world coming to an end. and then just the way they talked... "the world event must have ended before we went outside!" etc. people don't talk like that!

and the directing, it was like shymalan was trying SO HARD to make things scary and dramatic that just arent... like the wind. the over the top music didn't help either. and neither did cheesy tricks like marky mark jumping IN SLOW MOTION to try to save a kid from a shotgun blast.

just a really really bad movie. this would be prime material for MST3K or something. or better yet, get drunk or high or whatever and watch it with a bunch of friends and laugh at how unbelievably ridiculous it is.

that's 2 stinkers in a row for shyamalan. it's like he's losing talents one at a time. first he lost the ability to write a decent plot, but could still direct and come up with good dialogue. then the lost the ability to write dialogue, but at least he could stage a scene effectively and get good performances. now he's lost those abilities too, and really he doesn't have anything left. the tank is empty. wow, how does that even happen?
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18877
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby geekgrrl on Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:56 pm

I finally had the misfortune of watching what could only be called a complete waste of time. What could have been a truly great suspense movie ended up being a truly horrible comedy. Is it right that the only part of the movie that shocked me was when the kid (ironically from the Disney movie The Kid) took a shotgun blast to the chest? Now I am all for making things less bloody because I come from the school of thought that believes less can usually be more, but in the case of this movie I was praying for more. More anything. And I have a special request for M. Night Shyamalan; Please for the sake of everything good about movies please pick a child actor who can actually act. I know they are out there. I have seen them. Did anyone else feel like they were watching Mark Wahlberg's performance from that Danny Devito movie Renisance Man?
http://lostinreviews.com/ For those of us who live outside of normal
User avatar
geekgrrl
TOMBOY BEANPOLE
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 12:14 am
Location: miles from normal

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby coolnews018 on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:33 pm

Shymalan is a Great Director..Wld rate him7 on 10.

Image Got a webcam. Create a Videopoke Now!
coolnews018
GLIB
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:00 pm

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby The Vicar on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:46 pm

:shock: :shock: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, really.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby Spandau Belly on Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:05 am

I finally saw this have been struggling to get my head around it. I haven't seen a movie like this since THE WICKER CAGE where every single element is just so off to the point that it feels like each person involved in the film got seperate instructions translated by babelfish.

There's even conflict within each actor. The actors' voices and body motions never match what they are saying and none of the human interactions resembled anything I've ever witnessed in life or in other movies. They'll nod when they say no. They'll stare blankly at somebody asking them a pretty simple straightforward question such as "Do you like hot dogs?". They show absolutely no gratitude for any acts of kindness during a catastrophe. None of the characters have even the most remote ability to detect danger. There's one scene where Walhberg and his group come upon a house that's boarded up and the people inside just scream at them to get off their property and Walhberg's answer is start singing. They also get shelter from a clearly insane hermit woman yet never seem to be fearful of her.

The movie is about a toxin that makes people go mad, but the film has too many people who are just crazy to start with for us to really appreciate the horror of mass madness. Walhberg says his wife, Zooey Deschanel, has been "acting funny" lately and the movie offers us the explanation that she's just not adjusting to married life so well, but she seems like she's freaking out on crack the whole film. Her eyes bugging out of her head, random spasms, twitching and cringing, blurting out her lines with panicked intensity and other times remaining completely silent even when people are trying to talk to her. The only thing that makes her seem like a normal woman is that while on the run during the catastrophe she finds time to re-apply lipstick and change outfits regularly.

Walhberg and Deschanel spend the climax of the film in the home of a crazy paranoid hermit lady who sleeps with a lifesized doll, admits to having no contact with outside world for years, and blurts out random paranoid accusations and slaps the kid. So during the climax, two of the four characters present are crazy before the evil toxin even shows up.

Walhberg's performance is uncharacteristically upbeat, speaking in a really high voice and acting incredibly passive. Every now and then he slips up and his usual pissed-off facial expression shines through, there's a part where he's running towards his wife to hug her but the look on his face makes it seem like he's going to pull a pistol on her. But I think the scene where he begs for mercy from a plastic plant has given me a new appreciation for him as an actor. I think he at least filmed the scene with the plastic plant in the room unlike most of the other performances that seem like the actors weren't even on the set together, they were just edited together later. But it's hard to tell, they're all given such unnatural scenes and dialogue that I don't know how you'd even try to play this material credibly.

The film just has too many wacky scenes, crazy performances, and completely insane moments to count. I had a really good time watching this film and give it my full endorsement.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

M. Night Shyamalan's: AFTER EARTH 2

Postby TheButcher on Sat May 11, 2013 6:32 am

Virgin Signs Deal with Overbrook to Option After Earth Sequel
M. Night Shyamalan's a virgin :lol:


M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's: AFTER EARTH 2

Postby TheBaxter on Mon May 13, 2013 10:58 am

TheButcher wrote:M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?



i remember that show. it was quite a shock in the 3rd season finale when they revealed that Rerun was a ghost the whole time. that was a real gamechanger. but over the years it got kind of silly, finally jumping the shark in the episode where Raj discovers that their entire neighborhood is part of a nature preserve created by some rich guy who wanted to recreate a more innocent time from history, and kept all the residents unaware of it.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18877
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's: What's Happening Now!!

Postby TheButcher on Tue May 28, 2013 6:00 am

TheBaxter wrote:i remember that show. it was quite a shock in the 3rd season finale when they revealed that Rerun was a ghost the whole time. that was a real gamechanger. but over the years it got kind of silly, finally jumping the shark in the episode where Raj discovers that their entire neighborhood is part of a nature preserve created by some rich guy who wanted to recreate a more innocent time from history, and kept all the residents unaware of it.

SPOILERS
What's Happening Now!!

Where M. Night Shyamalan Went Wrong: Unbreakable
Eric Eisenberg wrote:
After Earth, the new movie from director M. Night Shyamalan arrives in theaters this weekend…but you wouldn’t know it’s one of his films by watching the trailer. The filmmaker’s name is almost completely absent from the trailers and advertisements, and all this week we here at Cinema Blend are trying to figure out where it all went wrong. First up we have Eric, who explains how 2000’s Unbreakable was the movie that set Shyamalan on the wrong path.



M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable is a very good movie. The story is subtle and the script has a great pace and structure. The performances, particularly those by stars Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, are engaging and thought-provoking. The direction is stylish and full of daring and attention-grabbing camerawork that adds to every scene. It’s an even more interesting to look back on now, as it was released in the earliest years of the 21st century superhero boom. It showed great promise from a filmmaker that knocked everybody’s socks off with his first feature…that is, until the final few minutes.

While it was the killer twist at the end of The Sixth Sense that first made both critics and audiences fall in love with Shyamalan, it was the cheap knock-off twist at the end of Unbreakable that was the definitive warning shot that should have told audiences to be wary of overpraising the newcomer writer/director.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's MORE UNBREAKABLE?

Postby TheButcher on Thu May 30, 2013 9:32 pm

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's Forrest Gump

Postby TheButcher on Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:29 am

Berlin: ‘Sixth Sense’s M. Night Shyamalan, Bruce Willis Re-Team For ‘Labor Of Love’
MIKE FLEMING JR wrote:EXCLUSIVE:
M. Night Shyamalan is in talks to re-team with Bruce Willis in Labor Of Love, based on one of the very first scripts Shyamalan sold in his career. The project will be financed by Emmett/Furla/Oasis, which is coming off the twice Oscar-nominated hit Lone Survivor and is prepping the Martin Scorsese-directed Silence. The plan is to start production mid-September in Philadelphia. IM Global’s Stuart Ford is making a deal to sell the picture in Berlin. Randall Emmett and George Furla are producing with Blinding Edge’s Shyamalan and Ashwin Rajan.

Shyamalan and Willis made The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, which are my two favorite films by the director. This project goes back even further, as it was one of the very first screenplays that Shyamalan sold. This one went to Fox in 1993, but it didn’t get made back then because Shyamalan was fighting to get into the director’s chair and the studio wasn’t biting. The script came into play several years ago when Denzel Washington was eyeing it.

It’s a lot closer to Shyamalan’s first script Praying With Anger than the supernatural stuff he did later. In Labor Of Love, Willis will play a Philadelphia book store owner who loses the love of his life in a tragic accident. Never big on words, he becomes haunted by the notion that he never properly told his wife how much he loved her. Since she once asked if he would walk across the country for her, he decides to show her posthumously just how much he did love her. That trek starts from Philadelphia to Pacifica, CA, which was her favorite place. Fox controls the script, but I’m told this is being worked out and should be all sorted by next month when it becomes a hot title in Berlin.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's Forrest Gump

Postby TheBaxter on Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:26 am

TheButcher wrote:This project goes back even further, as it was one of the very first screenplays that Shyamalan sold.


aka desperation move by a writer/director who hasn't been able to produce a quality film in over a decade.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18877
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby TheButcher on Wed May 28, 2014 6:30 pm

A Comic Show – Warren Ellis Warns Trees Are Bad!
Hannah Means Shannon wrote:Warren Ellis‘ Trees #1 is a speculative fiction post apocalyptic story set ten years from now after we were invaded by tree-like structures that don’t even view us as intelligent life. And in the wake of these invasive tree terrorists it appears that many people lost their minds anyway.

C.O.W.L. by Kyle Higgins is about organized crime fighters in Chicago. It’s like if organized labor had powers to fight organized crime, and is told with a wide scope and cast much like The Wire. Oh, and I highly recommend it.

Jason Aaron’s Southern Bastards #2 is here (along with a new printing of #1), and I’m loving the southern fried small town crime noir.

Remender’s Black Science volume one is $9.99 for six issues of story! It’s like science as a dirty guilty pleasure, except anarchist scientists don’t feel guilt.

And there’s that brilliantly executed Chew/Revival crossover one-shot (that I forget to review until the end of the video).
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's: AFTER EARTH

Postby TheButcher on Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:55 pm

Will Smith Calls ‘After Earth’ the ‘Most Painful Failure’ of His Career
Will Smith has opened up about his son Jaden Smith, calling it the “most painful failure” of his career.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby Peven on Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:42 am

but he also talked about how it was good for him, since it made him realize that he will be ok even if a movie he is in doesn't succeed. a big psychological breakthrough for him in how he handles his success. the headline for this article is a prime example of the bullshit baiting that goes on now in the press, just to get a click. which is also why people should read articles before posting them so they aren't just passing along the same misleading headline like a carrier passes a virus.....
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14445
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby so sorry on Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:41 pm

Peven wrote:but he also talked about how it was good for him, since it made him realize that he will be ok even if a movie he is in doesn't succeed. a big psychological breakthrough for him in how he handles his success. the headline for this article is a prime example of the bullshit baiting that goes on now in the press, just to get a click. which is also why people should read articles before posting them so they aren't just passing along the same misleading headline like a carrier passes a virus.....


He also talked about his epiphany happening after a 90 minute treadmill session, so maybe this link belongs in the "Losing Weight" Thread.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15401
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby minstrel on Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:26 pm

Wow, he sounds like a shallow guy. His attitude was that no woman would leave him if he were more successful than anybody else? Sheesh. He has to wait until his kids are teenagers before he realizes that it's about love? Sheesh.

I'm glad I don't live in his head.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's ‘Spit’

Postby TheButcher on Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:04 pm

Collider:
January Box Office Predictions: Can ‘Spit’ Continue M. Night Shyamalan’s Comeback?
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's ‘Spit’

Postby TheBaxter on Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:20 pm

TheButcher wrote:Collider:
January Box Office Predictions: Can ‘Spit’ Continue M. Night Shyamalan’s Comeback?


i think you mean 'Split', but M. Night Shyamalan's 'Spit' sounds like a much more interesting film.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18877
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby Peven on Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:01 pm

blech
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14445
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby Ribbons on Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:27 pm

M. Night Shyamalan's last movie was about a couple of murderous schizophrenics who escaped from an insane asylum and tried to eat a pair of children. His new movie is about a murderous man with dissociative identity disorder who kidnaps young girls and pretends that he's a monster. So basically, M. Night Shyamalan hates crazy people.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13765
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: The 2017 Movie Journal

Postby Ribbons on Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:50 pm

I also saw Split. Your mileage may vary with this, but the portrayal of someone with a mental illness as 1) evil and 2) magic really bothered me. This is the kind of shit that Hollywood pulls all the time, especially with multiple personality disorder (or dissociative identity disorder as it's now called), a condition that's exceedingly rare in real life but that filmmakers seem endlessly fascinated by, and usually in a way that makes the people who suffer from it seem like serial killers.

If you can look past that though, it's a decent movie. Shyamalan's most restrained in years, a suspense film that's actually suspenseful, with a couple of great lead performances from James McAvoy (as the 23(!)-personalitied Kevin) and Anya Taylor-Joy.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13765
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: The 2017 Movie Journal

Postby TheBaxter on Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:31 pm

it's kind of like serial killers, there are lots more serial killers in movies than in real life, and real-life serial killers don't generally make a habit of playing cat-and-mouse games with the police. and most serial killers also have severe mental illness or abuse at the root of their condition. things like serial killers and multiple personality disorder are good fodder for fiction because they are at the extremes of human experience, and therefore a good source of drama. just like how there are more tv shows about cops and doctors and lawyers than there are about plumbers and fast-food workers. and just like cop/doctor/lawyer shows, the fictional versions rarely resemble the real-life versions. if everything in entertainment resembled the way things are in real life, then it wouldn't be entertainment, it would be 95% boring stuff.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18877
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: The 2017 Movie Journal

Postby Peven on Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:43 pm

you think that John Wayne Gasey wasn't evil? do you think he was sane? how about Jeffrey Dahmer? do you think a sane person can be evil? and actually, Kevin isn't portrayed as evil, and out of the 24 personalities that he has within him none are actually portrayed as evil, and most are portrayed as "good". also, there is absolutely no magic in the movie, so I think Ribbons needs to rewatch it since there was obviously something missed the first time around.


[MOD EDIT (yay!): I moved the conversation about Split back to a relevant thread...the Movie Journal Thread is more of a "Here's the movies I saw vs. discussing them in detail]
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14445
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The 2017 Movie Journal

Postby Ribbons on Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:28 pm

Peven wrote:also, there is absolutely no magic in the movie, so I think Ribbons needs to rewatch it since there was obviously something missed the first time around.


***SPOILERS***

I base the term magic on a few things: 1) Kevin's own doctor refers to D.I.D. as "the doorway to the supernatural;" 2) the post-credits tag with Bruce Willis explicitly states that Split exists in the same world as someone with actual superpowers; 3) several of the locations in the film were conspicuously recycled from The Sixth Sense, which means depending on how far they want to push this Shyamalan Cinematic Universe thing, there are other people out there who can see ghosts. It's all presented in a subdued, expository manner a la early Shyamalan, but let's not kid ourselves: a film about someone who has a split personality that makes him bigger, faster, stronger and impossible to kill is, if not "magic," then fantasy.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13765
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby so sorry on Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:57 pm

Was one of his 21 personalities a black man who's fragile as glass and speaks only in stiffly written dialogue?
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15401
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby Ribbons on Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:29 pm

No, but Mr. Glass does get a shoutout at the end
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13765
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby TheBaxter on Fri May 05, 2017 12:04 am

now that i've seen the film, i can weigh in a bit more on this "debate" and, unfortunately, i have to (mostly) agree with Peven.

i never got the impression that Kevin/Dennis/Hedwig/etc. were being portrayed as "evil". at least not until the very end, when the film veers off into superhero/supervillain territory at which point it seems silly to continue treating the film as a serious drama dealing with mental illness.

it's true that the vast majority of mentally ill people never harm anyone, but it's also true that some number of mentally ill people do have violent tendencies and commit violent acts. are those people "evil"? was the mentally ill kid who killed his mom and took an AR-15 rifle to an elementary school to kill a couple dozen children "evil"? or was it just an evil act committed by a sick person? i don't think this film is, or was intended to be, a serious or realistic portrayal of mental illness or D.I.D. any more than a James Bond movie is meant to be a serious portrayal of undercover intelligence agents. this film is probably as accurate in its portrayal of a mentally ill person as Denise Richards is playing a nuclear scientist. this film is more comparable to that kind of entertainment than it is to a serious drama that tries to portray its characters realistically. so it feels a bit silly criticizing the film for doing what pretty much all films in these genres do, which is present exaggerated, larger-than-life versions of people. maybe 99.99999% of mentally ill people are completely non-violent and lead mostly normal, boring lives, but who wants to see a film about a guy with mental illness who works as a janitor, goes grocery shopping, and is mostly able to handle his illness?

and while i can understand putting this in context of all the other films that only show mentally ill people as violent, i also give people enough credit, generally, to not see films like this and conclude that most mentally ill people are dangerous. i'm much more bothered by the way muslims are typically portrayed as terrorists, for example, because you can see the real-world effect those portrayals have in perpetuating a dangerous stereotype. they are similar situations, but the damage done by stereotypes of muslims is much more apparent, especially these days. i don't see as many people making the leap from things like this film, or Bates Motel, or other media portrayals of the mentally ill to real life, as you do with muslim stereotypes. if that were to happen, then i might feel differently.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18877
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby Peven on Fri May 05, 2017 8:53 am

admit it...you smiled when[SPOILER Bruce was revealed at the diner at the end][/SPOILER]
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14445
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: M. Night Shyamalan's WHAT'S HAPPENIN'?

Postby Al Shut on Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:44 am

Peven wrote:admit it...you smiled whenBruce was revealed at the diner at the end]


I thought, and almost yelled, 'Oh fuck you, movie!'

But with a smile.
Note to myself: Fix this image shit!
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6184
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Previous

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron