• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorLSH
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2008 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    LSH wrote
    A most positive thing, though, is that it does contain M. Night's best cameo to date (in the sense that you don't actually see him).



    Where was him? i didn't see him! Was him in the crowed in the field cross-road?


    He provides the voice of the enigmatic 'Joey'.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2008
    LSH wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    LSH wrote
    A most positive thing, though, is that it does contain M. Night's best cameo to date (in the sense that you don't actually see him).



    Where was him? i didn't see him! Was him in the crowed in the field cross-road?


    He provides the voice of the enigmatic 'Joey'.


    SPOILERS

    The one who shot the brats from within the house?
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLSH
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2008
    Christodoulides wrote
    LSH wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    LSH wrote
    A most positive thing, though, is that it does contain M. Night's best cameo to date (in the sense that you don't actually see him).



    Where was him? i didn't see him! Was him in the crowed in the field cross-road?


    He provides the voice of the enigmatic 'Joey'.


    SPOILERS

    The one who shot the brats from within the house?


    SPOILERS

    Zooey's tiramisu-loving friend.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2008
    Ah...ok! smile Well now you can read my whole post in the previous page wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  1. For someone who didn't want to read any of the in-depth reviews...did you like it?

    Single word answers please!
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2008
    I did. I think i am the only one.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLSH
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2008
    No.
  2. Okay... I´ll try to keep this spoiler-free...

    First of all, what is it about the acting that I am reading so much about? I have no idea where this is coming from, but maybe the woodenness was terminated by the dubbing (we watched the german language version).

    So... I think we had the pitch-perfect audience for this movie, obviously Shyamalan-fans. They jumped at the right moments, they giggled at the perfect spots, they did the correct "ouch"es... they stared in shock... it was perfect. No laughing about unbelievable plot-points, bad acting or whatever. Perfect audience.

    The story: Great. Nothing we didn´t see before (though under different circumstances), but the way it unfolded and was presented was very fine. The explanations were as vague as they had to be, given that again this movie was not about what´s "Happening", but how exactly the chosen characters deal with it.

    That´s what every Shyamalan story is about. He presents a fact (this boy can see the dead, this guy is unbreakable, there is an alien invasion going on et cetera) and then throws in one or more characters with specific backgrounds and/or personal problems and lets them react to the fact. And in those characters lies his strength as a writer and director. They are totally believable people. Each and everyone. Even the guy with the two different arms in Lady in the Water. They are believable because there are a lot of very crazy people out there with very specific problems, very frightening mind conditions. You think Zooey was bad in The Happening? I can give you very specific details about a girl I once knew which would make Zooey´s character in the movie seem like Speedy Gonzales doped with Red Bull. Shyamalan´s characters can be extremely nuts, and that´s what I love about them. Even the normal guys seem so crazy, because these days, in the movies, you get only the standard types. But Shyamalan picks the interesting people. Just look arounf and open your eyes. If you look really close, you will discover these people everywhere around you. The mad guy from work, the strange girl in the supermarket, the old woman from that house right next to you. Now imagine an earth-shattering event - and throw those people into the situation; it couldn´t be less crazy then what Shyamalan comes up with. I recognize his characters. And I appreciate his presentation of real people.

    So, what do I think? I think the movie will not end up to be my favourite Shyamalan movie, since Signs is so perfectly constructed, and The Village teared at me from all sides, but it will stand right next to the rest, which are all regarded with awe around here.

    Yes, I liked The Happening. You bet I did. It was intense, it was gripping, and I really loved the way it was unfolding and going on. Some things were intensely shocking, others were humourous and lovely. And all the time I wanted to grap Zooey and hug her endlessly. God, was she sweet.

    I didn´t hear anything from the score, not a clip, nothing. I experienced it in the theatre first, and I am happy about it. JNH did it again.

    I know people will hate this movie with all their power (and already are), but that´s the way it is. I live with that kind of aggressive anti-shymalanism since The Village, and as long as Shyamalan keeps ignoring it and does what he does, I am a very happy man. His movies are inspiring on so many levels. I know others think I am nuts. But maybe I am just one of Shyamalans characters and that´s why I feel totally comfortable in his movies.

    A very strong 8 of 10.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2008
    I don't think you're nuts, I love his movies.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLSH
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2008
    POSSIBLE SPOILERS

    I love all his movies up until the last two. The Happening is just too inane, even for him. Yeah anyway, excuse me for a moment while I try to outrun the wind. rolleyes
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2008
    Ralph Kruhm wrote

    Yes, I liked The Happening. You bet I did. It was intense, it was gripping, and I really loved the way it
    was unfolding and going on. Some things were intensely shocking, others were humourous and lovely. And all the time I wanted to grap Zooey and hug her endlessly. God, was she sweet.



    Sweet. That makes 2 of us. wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLSH
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2008 edited
    POSSIBLE SPOILERS

    In the light of Demetris' assessment, I decided to go see the movie again with the hope that I was deeply mistaken in my original sentiments but sadly, I still can't bring myself to liking it. The thing is, you sit there during the movie with a number of questions, hence the idea of the marketing campaign - "what is it?", "what is 'the happening'?", "what can it be?", etc etc. And I'm thinking, I like Mark Wahlberg, I think he's a really good actor, and when M. Night Shyamalan is being good, he's a very adventurous writer-director. I also like the idea of this ill-defined thing just 'happening'. But the questions I also ended up asking myself were, "why isn't this working?", "how do you pronounce Zooey Deschanel?", "why does Mark Wahlberg sound so stilted?". So I worried about it and worried about it and finally worked out the reason it wasn't working for me. You have to admire the fact that M. Night is trying to make an intelligent and ostensibly supernatural thriller... but it doesn't work. At an early stage on in The Happening, Mark Wahlberg's character observes that there are some things that science explains a way for but we'll never really know, or something along those lines. And so there is a sense in Shyamalan's writing of superciliousness which really bothers me, a kind of "I know what's going on, it's a morality tale and you all better wise up", just an awful sense of being talked down to. Because in the end, the idea or revelation of The Happening is not that particularly great, in fact it's not really a revelation. There's a sense of Cloverfield in it that you don't really know what's going on and you don't have to know what's going on as long as you accept that something is, as the title suggests, happening. I just didn't like this "I'm ahead of the game and it's happening because you're being bad to the planet" sort of thing which, bizarrely, made me feel like being lectured to. The script is, I'm afraid, badly written in terms of the dialogue - there are too many instances where people actually have discussions in which they explain the plot to each other and to themselves. Finally, if you do go and see The Happening and you buy into the explanation of why it's all happening and how it's all happening, ask yourself this question: who or what is making the wind blow? Seriously, sit there, watch the movie and consider this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2008 edited
    Well, i am not one of those tree-hanging global warming is the 'cause of all hippies but you shouldn't underestimate the might of nature mate. I see some of the aspects of the scenario as far-fetched too but don't forget that it's been long proven that trees and plans are alive organisms that live, breath and react to stimuli like every other alive creature; the way we treat earth, i don't see it as a very wiredrawn event that some day, even hundreds of years from now, it'll start rejecting us. And we all know pretty well how helpless we are all standing in front of such displays, in awe.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLSH
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2008
    I don't think anyone should underestimate the might of nature, and I'm not dismissing the theories projected in the movie, I just think it's really bad, preachy filmmaking.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2008
    Just watched:

    * STARDUST

    Holy Hallucinations, Batman, what a crappy movie! It's amazing that you had so much talent at your disposal, yet wasted it on plot holes, sirupy clichées and endless superficiality. Maybe I misunderstood the whole thing and it's really a parody on the fantasy genre, but it really didn't come through properly in that case.

    The only good things about it were the often wonderful visual effects and one of the most sparkling and bold scores I've heard in years - mixed REALLY loudly and in-your-face.
    I am extremely serious.
  3. Thor wrote
    The only good things about it were the often wonderful visual effects...

    If I remember correctly most of the landscape shots were filmed in Norway and Isle of Skye.
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
  4. Anyone catch tonight's Doctor Who, "Midnight"?

    For an episode where, thinking back, nothing much actually happened the 45 minutes just flew by!! The whole "copying-what-people-are-saying" device was quite spooky. For a change, Russell T Davies writes an excellent episode.
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2008
    Thor wrote
    Just watched:

    * STARDUST

    Holy Hallucinations, Batman, what a crappy movie! It's amazing that you had so much talent at your disposal, yet wasted it on plot holes, sirupy clichées and endless superficiality. Maybe I misunderstood the whole thing and it's really a parody on the fantasy genre, but it really didn't come through properly in that case.

    The only good things about it were the often wonderful visual effects and one of the most sparkling and bold scores I've heard in years - mixed REALLY loudly and in-your-face.


    Go man go! punk

    (The score is mixed way too loud, you're so so so right.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2008
    Last night: watched Gangs of New York (it's amazing what a score release can do to you). This is one of those movies where you can see that with a bit more time it could have been utterly amazing, but it falls a long way short as it stands. I think musically this may be Scorsese's weakest film and that harms it - listening to the clips of Bernstein's score it sounds like that will make an incredible album but I'm not sure that would have been the answer, either - perhaps it would have been better than what the film ended up with, though. That Shore piece just gets downright annoying by the 20th time it has been repeated, and the music for the opening battle, coupled with the slow-mo shots that bring to mind Michael Bay, is a poor choice.

    Tonight, something far less controversial - Monsters Inc. Aaahhh, Pixar, can you do no wrong?
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2008
    FalkirkBairn wrote
    Anyone catch tonight's Doctor Who, "Midnight"?

    For an episode where, thinking back, nothing much actually happened the 45 minutes just flew by!! The whole "copying-what-people-are-saying" device was quite spooky. For a change, Russell T Davies writes an excellent episode.


    Mel didn't like it! I thought it was great, a very disturbing episode!
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    • CommentAuthorAnthony
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2008
    Southall wrote

    Aaahhh, Pixar, can you do no wrong?


    Cars. sleep

    And it's not bad, but I'm not a fan of Finding Nemo either. slant

    But I agree with you mostly:

    Toy Story love
    A Bug's Life love
    Toy Story 2 love
    Monsters Inc. love
    The Incredibles love
    Ratatouille love
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2008
    Anthony wrote

    And it's not bad, but I'm not a fan of Finding Nemo either. slant



    You're mad.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2008
    Anthony wrote
    Southall wrote

    Aaahhh, Pixar, can you do no wrong?


    Cars. sleep


    I love Cars! I wouldn't rank it at the perfection-level of virtually all the other ones, but I still love it. Very surprised to see that Cars 2 is on the horizon though.
  5. Southall wrote
    Last night: watched Gangs of New York (it's amazing what a score release can do to you). This is one of those movies where you can see that with a bit more time it could have been utterly amazing, but it falls a long way short as it stands. I think musically this may be Scorsese's weakest film and that harms it - listening to the clips of Bernstein's score it sounds like that will make an incredible album but I'm not sure that would have been the answer, either - perhaps it would have been better than what the film ended up with, though. That Shore piece just gets downright annoying by the 20th time it has been repeated, and the music for the opening battle, coupled with the slow-mo shots that bring to mind Michael Bay, is a poor choice.


    Amen!

    Saw today:

    - The Flight of the Red Balloon (dir: Hou Hsiao Hsien) - charming film. Small and beautiful. Juliette Binoche can do no wrong.

    - The Innocents (dir: Jack Clayton) - the film that appears to be one that invented the horror thriller tradition of having children sing disturbing ballads... Though it's a 1956 movie, the scare moments of the film really are quite frightening when you see them on the big screen.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2008
    * THE HAPPENING

    A FEW SPOILERS AHEAD!

    I just returned from it, and My God, what a crappy film!

    Marky Mark makes Adam Sandler look like Laurence bloody Olivier in this one, and the plot really went nowhere (what the hell was up with that crazy old woman thing?!? Talk about desperate and completely irrelevant plot points!).

    The comedy parts didn't work very well; they seemed forced and out-of-place in a film that otherwise took itself very seriously.

    Yes, there were hints of the classic Shyamalan "tension" we embraced in his first few films (the postponement of a kathartic resolution), but it was buried DEEP down below the aggravation of its badness.

    And the whole Nature Strikes Back/Environment message thing?! Come on! Disney's LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS had more scary plants than this!

    Having watched this and STARDUST during the weekend has not been the best "film fix" I've had. I should watch some Ridley Scott or Spielberg or Antonioni or something to get my head straight again
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2008 edited
    Anthony wrote
    Southall wrote

    Aaahhh, Pixar, can you do no wrong?


    Cars. sleep

    And it's not bad, but I'm not a fan of Finding Nemo either. slant

    But I agree with you mostly:

    Toy Story love
    A Bug's Life love
    Toy Story 2 love
    Monsters Inc. love
    The Incredibles love
    Ratatouille love


    Ha, for me, it's:

    Cars - love
    Toy Story - sleep
    A Bug's Life - sleep
    Toy Story 2 - love
    Monsters, Inc. - sleep
    The Incredibles - love
    Ratatouille - love
    Finding Nemo (you forgot that one, Anthony) - love
    ... And I'm pretty sure WALL-E will be love .
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2008 edited
    Five exceptional TV series...

    THE SOPRANO'S

    BAND OF BROTHERS

    I' CLAUDIUS

    TRAFFIK

    THE MONOCLED MUTINEER


    What's yours?

    EDIT : forgot to mention that composer PATRICK DOYLE is an Actor in The Monocled Mutineer ( music by George Fenton )
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2008
    Thor wrote
    * THE HAPPENING
    Marky Mark makes Adam Sandler look like Laurence bloody Olivier in this one, and the plot really went nowhere (what the hell was up with that crazy old woman thing?!? Talk about desperate and completely irrelevant plot points!).


    Irrelevant plot points? This is why Shyamalan films polarize audiences so dramatically...some people just don't see what lies beneath the surface. There was (at least the way I saw it, and find it only logical that it was intentional) a very strong subtext in the film about exploring the way people people react to disaster. And combined with the theme of driving the characters farther and farther from civilization (they started out in New York City!), it only made sense that they end up stuck with someone so far from civlization that they don't even know the disaster is occurring. I knew the old woman scene was coming, from reading reviews, and I knew everyone had characterized it has pointless and irrelevant, and yet when I saw the film, I just couldn't understand how anyone missed what Night was trying to show by bringing them to that old woman's house. They go from city to train to small town to even smaller town to rednecks in a boarded up house (their number of companions decreasing all the time) and finally to the old woman who is even MORE secluded than the rednecks who shot the kids. A perfectly logical progression, and when you recognize all these themes and subtexts and how they all play together, it turns the film from what is on the surface a rather silly horror movie, to what is actually (to me anyway) pure ART.

    And don't even get me started on Lady in the Water wink
    I love you all. Never change. Well, unless you want to!
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2008 edited
    Sorry double post
    I love you all. Never change. Well, unless you want to!
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2008 edited
    Scribe wrote
    A perfectly logical progression, and when you recognize all these themes and subtexts and how they all play together, it turns the film from what is on the surface a rather silly horror movie, to what is actually (to me anyway) pure ART.


    Nah, it's still completely out of the left field and a desperate attempt to add some random suspense to a film that had nowhere to go. It's about as much art as SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS.

    I'll take my subtext in Antonioni, Bergman, Ozu or Godard, thank you very much, and leave this shallow beast alone. Shyamalan can be good at what he does, but this was a miss for a variety of different reasons.
    I am extremely serious.