AmericanPapist Comments
That's why American Papist has been too busy to comment on the Bishop Gumbleton news! Merry Christmas, Tom.
oh great... now I'm loathe to check my news feeds...
A couple quick points, Thomas - (if I might make so bold)...
First, I'm highly reluctant to say you missed something. I'm not sure there's really anything to miss. The message is fairly straight-forward , I think, though I do tend to be a "surface message" film viewer. I just don't think there were the same "hidden undercurrents" in this film as there were in his other works, like Signs or The Village.
Second, I think you're absolutely right about M. Night's cameo. Unless you happened to be the rare person who knew nothing about M. Night's struggle to make this film, his presence would be somewhere between "massively" and "profoundly" distracting. (Try putting someone else in that role - such as Naveen Andrews, perhaps - and that character becomes instantly more interesting and believable. Plus, Shymalan is a poor actor. That's a problem in its own right.)
Third, 1,000 bonus points to you for enjoying Wide Awake. Heck, 1,000 bonus points to you for even seeing it. It's a wonderful little film, in spite of Rosie. (I like to think of it as Signs for Kids. And without aliens. The themes are all there, though the context is significantly different.)
Fourth, you are far from alone. Nearly everyone I've spoken to about this film came away disappointed - especially serious M. Night fans. They nearly all express a deep dissatisfaction with the story, the style, the approach...and pretty much everything else.
I say "nearly," though, because there are some exceptions. Myself, for example. I loved it. Wouldn't put it over Signs or Unbreakable, of course. But I did think it was right up there with the others. But perhaps more importantly, I thought it was pretty consistent with his other works, both in terms of style and content. I guess I'm a bit at a loss when folks find it inferior to his others because it seems almost exactly the same to me.
What I'd love to see is an account of how you thought it fell away. Were you expecting something you didn't find? Was it a case of being disappointed with what he was actually saying? Was it partially that his style is wearing a bit thin for you? Or was it a product of the fact that he seems to be starting too many ideas he can't possibly finish in the story he's telling?
That last criticism is one I have myself, despite my M. Night fanaticism. He needs to tighten things up a bit. Focus is needed in storytelling, and he's definitely a bit undisciplined at times...and growing more so. That's why Unbreakable is my favorite: tight, complete and utterly self-contained.
(OK, so maybe those weren't "quick points.")
I thought the movie was directionless and never established a theme or really had a reason for being. Shyamalan peaked with Signs ... as long as studios keep endulging his desire to "act," he'll never get back to what he's actually good at doing: telling stories.
No, you didn't miss the point. There wasn't a point.
Great blog, by the way.
Unbreakable. Sixth Sense. The rest are silly, pretentious, or worse.
I still remember how dismayed--I mean, almost _embarrassed_--my husband and I were at _Sign_. Aliens bested by baseball bats and water? Honestly.
The trailer for _Lady_ didn't look very promising to me, and the reviews I read seem uniformly negative. Too bad, when one considers the talent of the director (who is also one of the few directors of colour with any clout in Hollywood) and many of the cast.
Oh, well.
I don't know, I thought the movie was enjoyable enough. I'm not going to put it up there with Unbreakable, Signs, or The Village, but I thought it was a nice "story" and that is all it every claimed to be. I enjoyed myself while watching it and have recommended it as a good movie
I must admit, other than a critique of Shayamalan's acting, which is valid, I think, and a general feeling that it wasn't as good as Unbreakable or Signs, I'm not hearing any specific critiques of the film. I loved it, to be honest, and don't really get why so many others don't, especially since their comments start out with "It wasn't as good as..." Details, people, details!
How is Signs a good movie? What kind of dumb aliens would invade a planet which is 70% water, thus making it virtually poisonous to them? That would be like humans invading a planet full of carbon monoxide.
I always thought Sixth Sense was one of his best so far - the ending really got me when I first saw it. I doubt I will bother seeing Lady in the Water now that I've read the reviews and people's comments.
See, Thomas? You're not alone. (Though I am pleased to see a couple other fans - or at least "mild fans.")
I agree with Doug, though. I'd love to see a detailed objection to the film. I don't think "it was a lousy film" is an invalid criticism, but I'd rather see some specific flesh on those critical bones. Hard to respond to a blanket criticism, even if it is accurate.
I do find myself intrigued by just how polarized folks seems to be by the majority of his films. There are some "lukewarms," - but the vast majority of reactions seem to be either passionate love or equally passionate hatred.
btw, i agree that MKS gets consistenly good acting out of his casts, it's just that he usually writes them in corny plots that can't be resolved without resort to weirdness.
Did anyone else read the book? I did (read it at the bookstore without buying it, shhh). It was...weird and very unsatisfying. Definitely not a book I would read to a child as a bedtime story, even though it was in the children's section. It would probably give a kid nightmares.
I was wondering if anyone saw the full page add some Orthodox took out about religious liberty in Turkey, applauding Pope Benedict XVI in today (Thursday the 21st)'s New York Times, I think on or around page A13...or A12...somewhere there
just wondering what your thoughts on it were, it was interesting to me
I completely lost faith in MKS after a tortured viewing of the Village. When I read the reviews for Lady (is there a single good one?), I saw the writing on the wall.
M Knight is another man driven coo-coo crazy by success in Hollywood.
Just give him a seat next to Rodman and Tom Cruise and close the door.
(Actually I would pay to see that situation and watch it unfold ...)
Bottom line: don't go to, buy, or rent movies made by crazy people. You're only cooperating in the illness.
I don't know, I saw most of his other movies and I dug 'Lady'. No, its not 'The Village' or 'Unbreakable' but it was still enjoyable. I still like MKS. I'll save the spot next to Worm for someone else. ;-)
Okay,
now I'm nervous:
" That's why American Papist has been too busy to comment on the Bishop Gumbleton news! Merry Christmas, Tom."
I'm on the side of loving everything he does. He's one of the few directors who's films all are scrupulously constructed - there's not a wasted shot or anything in the film that doesn't beling there. I thought "Lady" was a marvelous puzzle, it was really just a variation of a drawing room detective story, trying to figure out the answer to the puzzle. I think that the reason people don't like his films is that they go expecting a Hollywood film, which his are not, even though he makes them there.
I love the music, though.
I thought Lady in the Water was a highly interesting failure. Maybe you could say it was a bold, purposeful failure. The writing was a complete mess... the fact that Shyamalan seemed to know this and snub his nose at those who wanted something more coherent (or, ahem, adult) doesn't make it any better. Still, it had some moments that were incredibly powerful on a visceral level, and you've got the whole interesting story of what was up with M. Night before/during the making of this film. Really, I'd rather watch the failure of an 'auteur' over mediocre Hollywood nonsense any day of the week.
The Village gets a bad wrap. Am I the only one that thinks it is, by far, Shyamalan's best work? It seems to me that people get so carried away worrying about a twist that they miss a great social parable about the effects of fear. The question "how far we can go to protect innocence?" seems like one that all Catholics really need to consider. It's also just plain fantastic looking.
You are correct that it was a poor, arrogant film, Thomas. But this seems to be a film review from 6 months ago. A little behind the times my friend. So I won't try to give away anything else that has happened since July so you can catch up on your own. I will give you one hint: Archbishop Burke was very pleased with the World Series.
I'm jumping onboard to defend "Signs". The aliens were desperate to get edibles (dogs, cows, humans, etc.) and they clearly were superior to humans physically and technologically. It didn't hurt that a) Shymalan's wooden acting made sense sine he was supposed to be in shock, and b) it was an homage to my childhood favourite "War of the Worlds".
"Lady in the Water" is perfectly current events material, Mr. Peters. It only recently came out as a cheap rental. :) I won't be seeing it because a trustworthy friend told me it was worse than "The Village".
I thought "The Village" was a failure because the ending wasn't as good as I anticipated. I thought that the villagers were actually members of the monster race who had figured out how to stay human (avoiding red-pigmented food, taking drugs that were in the secret shed, etc.) but the mentally-disturbed character was reverting. Instead it was like a typical "The Outer Limits" episode. Except the dialogue was even worse.
I thought it was anexcellent movie.
Christine
"TheWorld...IMHO
Commenting by HaloScan
