Woodfoot that was the weakest shit I've ever read in entertainment. Kindly shut the fuck up until you actually see the movie.

6/13/2006 10:43:09 AM

Quote :

"so hes mimicking his favorite director Alfred Hitchcock who also had bit cameos in the movies he directed."

There's a big difference between walking through a shot with a birdcage in your hand and giving yourself a minutes-long part with lines during the pinnacle of the OMG TWEEEEESSSST.

6/13/2006 10:55:37 AM

Not to mention the fact that a shitload of vain directors give themselves cameos.

OMG PETER JACKSON IS TEH DRUNK HOBBIT!!1

6/13/2006 11:51:23 AM

If I was a director, id put myself in the movie somehow

6/13/2006 12:16:09 PM

i posted a lot on page 1

what is the weak shit you speak of?

6/13/2006 12:17:00 PM

I think he's mad at you for being observant.

6/13/2006 12:33:16 PM

i'm wondering, does he think i made up that synopsis?

6/13/2006 12:35:16 PM

[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 1:14 PM. Reason : spaces]

6/13/2006 1:13:45 PM

so TNT is showing "exclusive footage"

and it really looks to me like its going to be the sixth sense again

I'M HELPING SOMEONE BUT I'M REALLY DEAD

oh gosh

and they just showed the "monsters"


[Edited on June 17, 2006 at 11:22 PM. Reason : weak sauce]

6/17/2006 11:21:18 PM

I'M HELPING SOMEONE BUT I'M REALLY DEAD A MERMAID A MERMAN A MERPERSON.

6/17/2006 11:22:52 PM

after watching sixth sense

i will pay to see any movie that this man makes

including this one.

6/18/2006 12:45:39 AM

I think this M catches too much crap, but I guess any successful director catches some. I mean, sure he seems to put a lot of twists in his movies, and if you don't like that, then don't go. I liked all his movies, because I accepted that there would be a twist, and then I waiting for it to be revealed to me.

I think a lot of people hate him because he's rich off of ideas they think they could easily have thought of themselves. Well, then go and do it, go get rich.

I'm not contending that he's the best writer/director out there, but I think he catches too much shit for pretty decent movies. Also, Quentin seems to put himself into minutes long speaking roles too (although he admittedly does pretty well usually)

I think people wouldn't have had such a problem with him in the Village denouement had they not been able to spot him as the director so quickly because he's brown.

On a side note, his AMEX commerical did suck, Wes Anderson pwnt him to infinity.

6/18/2006 10:26:25 AM

Woodfoot, your spoiler just sparked my interest in the film, so it didn't support your argument in my case.

I like Unbreakable.

Water is way over used in many, many art forms. In both the film and lit classes I've taken at State there are so many water references and I get really tired of it. So I'm not going to judge a director based on his own over-usage.

6/18/2006 12:07:13 PM

yea signs is disapointing

but i gotta admit

near the beginning when mel gibson runs around the house and yells "I am insane with anger"

that is hilarious

6/18/2006 9:03:10 PM

^haha, i nearly shot coffee out of my nose

6/18/2006 9:20:18 PM

Signs was his worst movie. The other of them weren't really bad movies at all.

6/18/2006 10:50:58 PM

Unbreakable was great, I watched it last night

I always feel bad for Mr. Glass when he falls...

6/19/2006 8:02:49 AM

This movie looks terrible, but you m. night fanboys are going to love it anyway just because you've convinced yourself it will be brilliant.

He's a hack who writes contrived plots with corny diologue. I really hope that this is the film that exposes him for the talentless baffoon he really is. But after hearing people in this thread say that they thought Signs and The Village were good, I've already lost all faith in humanity.

6/27/2006 3:52:15 AM

well I think he had one great movie, the sixth sense, and has been riding its success with some ok, not great follow ups

but everyone has their own opinion and some people might like every movie a supposed "great" director makes

I, for example, hate stanley kubrick movies... full metal jacket sucked, wtf was 2001 a space shithole waste of GD time... Clockwork orange was ok... and I liked the shining

doesnt mean im right or wrong , thats just what I think

6/27/2006 7:56:54 AM

no, it does mean you're wrong.

6/27/2006 9:40:12 AM

damn thats right

6/27/2006 9:43:57 AM

the fact that you mentioned m. night and kubrick in the same sentence means you lose

6/27/2006 11:59:41 AM

Unbreakable = good
Six Sense = good
The Village = piss poor
Signs = he should be hung by the balls for that film

6/27/2006 12:17:00 PM

unbreakable was not 'good'

'good' maybe by m. knight standards, but that certainly isn't saying much

6/27/2006 12:22:46 PM

NO!

Unbreakable was good

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 12:23 PM. Reason : ..]

6/27/2006 12:23:12 PM

Unbreakable = good
Six Sense = good
The Village = enjoyed it
Signs = enjoyed it

I think I have a great deal of suspension of disbeleif

6/27/2006 12:24:30 PM

^ If you can believe that we're supposed to be scared of the monster in the woods in The Village when we already know that the monster's fake AND SO DOES SHE, you're more right about that suspension than you can know.

6/27/2006 12:40:04 PM

^i dont get why you movie snobs have such a difficult time with this part of that movie.

Its not like the fucking elders made up the monsters. They built off the rumors and stories of monsters that were said to live in those woods.

not to mention she is a blind, scared, essentially brain washed, kid in the woods by herself. all she was thinkin about was the rumors of monsters in the woods.

then she hears growling and movement. again, why doesnt it make sense for her to be scared?

as for the audience, we know little more than she does. we also know the director's love for the supernatural and twists. so again, why did you have such a difficult time with this?

its not rocket science.

6/27/2006 1:04:25 PM

About the sixth sense

As soon as I got to the end, my first thought was why Bruce Willis' character never questioned why nobody would talk back to him but the boy

6/27/2006 1:10:24 PM

^Yeah that is exactly what I thought. I would think that he would notice after going an entire year without a single person (other then the kid) saying anything to him.

6/27/2006 1:13:00 PM

wasnt he aware that he was dead long before the end of the movie?? shit maybe i need to watch it again, i dont really remember the ending that well.

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 1:14 PM. Reason : *]

6/27/2006 1:14:10 PM

no, he only realized it after he saw his widow drop the wedding ring, after falling asleep while watching their wedding video.

6/27/2006 1:17:48 PM

It's just lazy writing.

"Hey guys, I know I already did reveal #1, but I still want a scary scene in here. I'll just put the monster in anyway!"

The whole reason she was shown/told about the costumes was so she wouldn't be scared when she went into the woods. While it's not hard to believe that she would be a bit scared considering her blindness and the years of legends about the woods, it's RIDICULOUS to believe that the audience would be in suspense after that scene.

How hard would it have been to have Brody discover the costume without having the girl or audience know? Then, she'd be genuinely scared, we'd be genuinely scared for her, the reveal with Brody in the costume would be an actual reveal, and we could still have the scene where she goes to the barn and learns about the nature of the costumes. The father wouldn't be any less sympathetic at that point, since he knew all along that she wasn't actually in danger.

Granted, that's not much better than what's actually in the movie, but it's a shitty movie.

As for comparing Tarantino's cameos to those of Shyamalan, to me they don't scream "HERE I AM!!" Sure, Tarantino gives himself a fairly large speaking role in Pulp Fiction, but he's just a part of a four-man scene, and aside from "dead nigger storage" he's just setting up everyone else. It doesn't hurt that the dialogue is great. The cameo in The Village says to me, "Here I am. In the frame. Doing all the talking. Isn't this cool?"

6/27/2006 1:18:40 PM

^Yeah i agree with you. not about it being a shitty movie, but revealing brody had the costume after the monster scene would have been more suspensful.

6/27/2006 1:21:51 PM

^^to be fair, tarentino plays a large role in at least two other of his movies: reservoir dogs, dusk til dawn, desperado


all feature him in a larger role than any shamalyan has ever played


that said, he still kicks way more ass than shamalayan ever will

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 1:34 PM. Reason : deperado wasnt his, my b]

6/27/2006 1:32:42 PM

back to my question

can anyone tell me why Bruce Willis didnt have some sort of revelation as to why nobody in the move, save for the kid, spoke to him

6/27/2006 1:34:26 PM

EVERYONE SAW YOUR QUESTION

IT ISNT AN ANSWERABLE FUCKING QUESTION

IT IS RHETORICAL WHETHER YOU MEANT IT TO BE OR NOT

WE DIDNT DIRECT THE MOVIE

GO CALL SHAMLAALALLA IF YOU WANT TO KNOW SO BAD

6/27/2006 1:40:16 PM

it was psuedo rhetorical, now quitcher yellin

6/27/2006 1:42:35 PM

Desperado was written and directed by Robert Rodriguez.

From Dusk 'til Dawn wasn't cast by Tarantino's or RR's casting folks, but it's fair to say he wrote the part for himself.

Mr. Brown isn't that big of a role.

Anyway, it'd be ludicrous to pretend that Tarantino doesn't give himself significant parts in his own films. It's also ludicrous to pretend that he's a good actor. However, when I see him in his films, it seems like a small character that he's chosen to play. Shyamalan, more in The Village than in his other films, screams to me, "I made this movie and I've taken a small part...DIRECTLY IN THE FRAME AT THE HEIGHT OF ACTION".

6/27/2006 1:46:17 PM

this is true, tarentino's characters usually come at a otherwise lull

and i disgraced myself just now b/c i was about to say that mr brown wasnt small b/c he had the tipping monlogue, but luckily i remembered that was mr pink

6/27/2006 2:08:46 PM

Mr. Brown has the "Like a Virgin" monologue, so it's all good.

6/27/2006 3:20:30 PM

the preview for this movie on something i watched recently (syriana i think) is fucking hilarious.

6/27/2006 3:36:18 PM

NURSERY RHYMES ARE SO SCARY!1

6/27/2006 4:18:55 PM

this looks like tis going to be another masterpiece.




no, actually what i meant to say is that it looks retarded. want to know the "twist" the woman isnt really good she is like evil

7/7/2006 9:17:18 PM

The one reason that I did not like Signs was that it had absolutely no scientific grounds at all. Of course, every sci-fi movie is going to have a couple scenes where they put in some hand waving and expect the majority of the audience to ignore it. That's fine, it happens all of the time. But when the fate of the earth depends on aliens being alergic to water in the final hour, m. knight is seriously underestimating the inteligence of the average american.

The main point: If their skin reacted badly to a glass of water then they would have figured that out the second they entered the atmosphere.

7/8/2006 6:19:23 PM

Signs wasn't Sci-Fi, it was suspense.

All of his movies are.

They're not the worst movies and they aren't the best. Just go see em and have a good time.

7/8/2006 6:57:47 PM

Quote :

"Signs wasn't Sci-Fi, it was suspense. All of his movies are."

that is not entirely true. i agree that signs wasnt sci-fi, however, his movies are not suspense either, they are only advertised that way. m. nights movies are message movies disquised as suspense.

there was zero suspense in signs. from the beginning, the audience and cast were directed to think there were aliens invading earth and then, TA DA, there WERE aliens invading earth! how suspenseful! the major "tweest" only dealt with the fucking water.

in the village there were supposed to be some monsters and halfway through the movie we are told they are fake, then, are they really fake?, yep still fake. how suspsenseful! the major "tweest" was oh noes this isnt old times this is moder times.

m. night uses the cheapest brand of "suspense" out there, e.g. quick camera jumps, loud noises and other sensory stimulations that cant help but elicit a "jump" from the audience. the is the type of shit that makes most horror movies made these days so bad.

then, to make it worse, night uses this "suspense" to set up some hokey message. hey, life and love are fleeting. hey, pure innocence can be dangerous. hey, eveything happens for a reason, have faith.

meanwhile, it looks like this one is gonna say, oh the mermaid isnt the fictional character, you all are. or some other stupid bullshit.

Quote :

"They're not the worst movies and they aren't the best. Just go see em and have a good time."

attitudes like that are how the wayans brothers keep getting movies greenlighted

[Edited on July 8, 2006 at 8:41 PM. Reason : btw, forgive the prose, i am a horrible persuasive writer]

7/8/2006 8:40:29 PM

$gillion says this one has a suprise ending too

7/9/2006 12:07:40 AM

Quote :

"Signs wasn't Sci-Fi, it was suspense. All of his movies are. They're not the worst movies and they aren't the best. Just go see em and have a good time."

Words of wisdom right here. Then again, the people that post in this section are vain little negative nancies that are all in heated competition to see who can hate on popular movies harder.

7/9/2006 12:41:09 AM

Does it bother anyone else that the foreshadowing in the Itchy & Scratchy Land episode is better and more logical than it is in Signs?

7/9/2006 2:53:02 AM