Mike
Su Pollard
"I want a chandelier. A motorised one."
Posts: 382
|
Post by Mike on Jun 18, 2008 10:00:33 GMT
I'm tempted not to use spoiler tags, to save anyone from wasting two hours of their life on this absolutely atrocious film, but I'll play nice: There really is NO POINT to this film. At all. The cause of people dying is never properly explained, other than something really vague about - wait for it - plants and trees. But of course!
Meanwhile, the dialogue and acting are straight out of Sunset Beach (Zooey Deschanel, in particular, seems limited to gazing blankly into space), and the final scene is inexcusably bad - if you've seen 28 Weeks Later, you'll be overwhelmed by a sense of deja vu, not to mention a sense of sheer annoyance that they couldn't be arsed to think of a proper ending.
I feel bad for the kicking Lady In The Water got, because it wasn't Shyamalan's worst film - and it certainly isn't now.
|
|
|
Post by Feral on Jun 18, 2008 13:32:19 GMT
So basically, it pretty continues the pattern of each M Night Shyamalan film being worse than the one before it? Which is quite an achievement really, given how bad the last couple have been.
|
|
The Moog
Su Pollard
I'm just a dog chasing cars.
Posts: 271
|
Post by The Moog on Jun 21, 2008 15:59:50 GMT
I watched this on Thursday night. Now, to start with, I like M Night Schmalawhatsit. I liked Signs, I liked the Village. I prefer them to The Sixth Sense (which was so predictable, I still to this day don't understand why people didn't see it coming) and I wasn't keen on Unbreakable or Lady In The Water. I'd heard bad things about The Happening, but paid no attention to them, for I had heard it before with The Village, and enjoyed that movie a lot. BUT This movie is fucking awful.
The acting was terrible, Zooey Deschanel sleepwalks through the film. I don't know if she was purposefully trying to make a point cos she didn't like the role, or she was just told to act "kooky", but her actions and emotions are just terrible.
Marky Mark isn't much better, and a tip to Mr Shyamalan - having an extreme close up of Wahlberg's face does not add any tension or suspense to he film. It just highlights Wahlberg's rather large nostrils.
The plot goes nowhere fast, and doesn't have anything fresh to say or do. People and pace just flounder. There is zero tension and the ending is just dumb - The plants just stop releasing toxins? Great.
The best/worst part of this film is spotting just how many times the Boom Mic makes an appearance in shot. Its beyond amateurish.
The most disappointing thing is M. Night Shyamalan usually has great shots and cinematography in his films. Here, the framing and look is just guff.
He needs to change track and just do something different. A love story - no frills, no twists, no kooky fucking characters, no monosyllabic quiet leading men, and no bastard cameos.
|
|
|
Post by pauliepoos on Jun 21, 2008 16:30:54 GMT
I forgot I saw this on the day of release - I must have blanked it from my mind.
Parts were intriguing, parts were exciting, parts were awful, and the ending was terrible. And like Moog I kept noticing the boom mic in shot. In fact it was so obvious at one point that people laughed and a few pointed.
I loved Betty Buckley though and wish more of the film had been devoted to her little world.
|
|
|
Post by Bungle on Jun 22, 2008 15:33:48 GMT
God this is awful.
The worst thing (of many) is that absolutely everything that characters say of do makes any sense. You're constantly wondering why they would do or say what they have just done. The pacing is completely off and there is zero tension.
|
|
|
Post by pauliepoos on Jun 22, 2008 18:01:36 GMT
We went for a walk today around Roath Park, and every time it got really windy and the trees rustled loudly we'd repeat what we were saying 3 times and just freeze before feigning self harm. Other passers by must have thought we were mentalists. Bridgend people haven't been able to see the film: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7463814.stm
|
|
|
Post by mcqueen on Jun 22, 2008 20:54:06 GMT
I absolutely HATED Signs with such a passion that a £10 bribe would not get make me sit through another of his films.
|
|
Mike
Su Pollard
"I want a chandelier. A motorised one."
Posts: 382
|
Post by Mike on Jun 22, 2008 23:02:40 GMT
I absolutely HATED Signs with such a passion that a £10 bribe would not get make me sit through another of his films. I felt the same way after the terrible ending to Unbreakable, and I also hated Signs. This, however, is worse than either of them. It's a shame, because his films always look like they're going to be amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Jun 22, 2008 23:42:27 GMT
That man can sure give good trailer.
Maybe that's the way to enjoy his films: just watch the trailers.
|
|
The Moog
Su Pollard
I'm just a dog chasing cars.
Posts: 271
|
Post by The Moog on Jun 23, 2008 6:10:56 GMT
See, I really liked Signs. I wasn't bothered by the twist, but I did like how it was quite a good "God is there, you know" film without being overtly pushy, which most religious films tend to be. It tied well into the whole "coincidence or signs" speech earlier in the film.
Mel Gibson was also very good in it. The scene where he talks to his dying wife one last time is especially well done.
And the scene with the camcorder at the Spanish kids birthday party - that was a genuinely disturbing/scary moment. I remember watching it in Sweden the first time. And later after the film had finished, I had to go upstairs in the dark, and all I could think of was that friggin' alley. Brrr.
The first time I saw the Village, I hated it. But that was because the film had been advertised as a horror and suspense movie, and I was expecting gore.
I watched it again on DVD a year or so later and realised it wasn't about horror, it was about love, and the film was actually a very well made love story. Plus the cinematography in it is great. It's flawed, yes, but not so it's a bad film.
And if we didn't have The Village, we wouldn't have the incidental music to The Apprentice. So it's at least good for something.
|
|
|
Post by mcqueen on Jun 23, 2008 19:31:58 GMT
See, I really liked Signs. I wasn't bothered by the twist, but I did like how it was quite a good "God is there, you know" film without being overtly pushy, which most religious films tend to be. It tied well into the whole "coincidence or signs" speech earlier in the film. Mel Gibson was also very good in it. The scene where he talks to his dying wife one last time is especially well done. See thats my problem with Signs- it was a monster movie that had this pseudo God shit. That and the fact that Aliens who are burned by water shouldnt come to a planet where it is floating around in the atmospshere all the time (God that film was dumb). Thankfully I saw it for free at a preview in American- I was shocked when people stood up and applauded!!
|
|