criterionforum.org

The teaser is already online for this summer 2006 release

Twist ending: the lady is a slut with nuts.

i have no clue about the film, but the trailer i saw at the cinema yesterday was good.

It looked good, but Shyamalan has so far managed to waste money over and over again, so I have my doubts.

I'm actually really excited by this. I ('m probably one of the few who) really loved Signs. Yes, The Village was brutally bad but it seems this film is more of fantasy than his usual "wait-until-the-final-few-minutes-for-the-twist-ending" suspense stuff. It's being marketed as a "A Bedtime Story".

Oh yeah, Christopher Doyle is the cinematographer so it's going to look gorgeous.

I really didn't think the Village was as horrible as everyone says it was, and found the "secret" at the end somewhat poignant, even though I really didnt particularly enjoy the whole Red-Creature-Macguffin thing (If that could even be called a Macguffin. What was so horrible about it? I've never really discussed that aspect to anyone and the few reviews I read only mentioned "The ending sucks." and thats all.

Annie Mall wrote:New extended trailer is up

Yikes. that looks really bad to me.

I'm just wondering why the creatures look like a cross between wild bores and werewolves.

And it looks like they went all out on the "Evil Dead" POV shots.

stroszeck wrote:I really didn't think the Village was as horrible as everyone says it was, and found the "secret" at the end somewhat poignant, even though I really didnt particularly enjoy the whole Red-Creature-Macguffin thing (If that could even be called a Macguffin. What was so horrible about it? I've never really discussed that aspect to anyone and the few reviews I read only mentioned "The ending sucks." and thats all.

The thing that "sucked" about it was that I saw it coming from about a mile away. I pretty well predicted it a good while before the movie got around to revealing it. It wasn't a particularly clever twist and I didn't find it poignant so much as boring.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The thing that "sucked" about it was that I saw it coming from about a mile away. I pretty well predicted it a good while before the movie got around to revealing it.

So did everyone, didn't they?

I really don't understand why everyone gets so hung up on the 'twist' ending to his films. His last two films didn't even have have twists, unless you consider Casablanca to have a twist ending as well.

There is more to the Village than it seems to have been given credit for. See Gary's review at dvdbeaver, as I can't be bothered to articulate my own opinion.

I'm not hung up on his twists at all, I just felt that The Village wasn't as emotionally potent as much as you felt it was. I also felt it's political allusions weren't particularly eye-opening or insightful. I really don't think critics missed the boat on this one. It wasn't so different than the rest of his ouevre, but I felt his execution was lazier and sloppier. If the audience saw the twist coming then all the more reason for Shyamalan to make the underlying themes that much more resonant which I think he failed to do.

I was much more drawn and affected by Signs meditation on faith and belief. I found it to be extraordinarily powerful and one of finest, tightest screenplays he's written.

All that said, I am pleased by both Lady In The Water trailers.

Out of all of M. Night's movies the one I enjoyed the most was Unbreakable which kinda gets marginalized but I thought it was quite an interesting, thoughtful take on the superhero movie. I really like how M. Night stretched out the origin of Willis' character becoming a superhero over the entire movie whereas most films get it over with in the first third or half of the movie. I also thought it was interesting how he tried to show his powers in a realistic way.

I do think that the trailers for his new one, Lady in the Water do look interesting and I'm curious to see it if only for Christopher Doyle's camerawork and the always watchable Paul Giamatti.

And see to me Unbreakable seemed like a strange remake of Dead Zone only with Samual L. Jackson at its worst. I really can't stand any of his films but I find myself wanting to see them nonetheless.

The list of young filmmakers doing anything interesting in mainstream American cinema is pretty short, and in that regard, Shyamalan's films seem significant and fresh and sincere and likeable. They also often embarrass me, seem just a little ridiculous; something in me wants to roll my eyes and reject them -- not sure why. Their lack of guile? Their sincerity? It may be related to my temptation to hold my nose when going past New Age bookstores.

A.

che-etienne wrote:It looked good, but Shyamalan has so far managed to waste money over and over again, so I have my doubts.

I'm stunned to read favorable reviews of SIGNS.. of course to each his own and I'm glad some at least found pleasure in this film, but to me & mine, this was truly one of the worst films I've ever ever, man I mean ever. Especially considering the promise inherent in 6th SENSE. SIGNS made Schrader's EXCORCIST-DOMINION look like THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC.

I'll go see this new one just like I went to see all the others even thoughI only enjoyed Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. One for equality, I feel that Signs and The Village sucked equally.

The Shymalan films I've enjoyed the most are the ones that are considered his biggest flops: UNBREAKABLE and THE VILLAGE.

As Fletch says above, UNBREAKABLE is a brilliantly conceived superhero movie without ever really announcing itself as one. In fact, it's more faithful to origin myths in comics than any of the recent SPIDERMAN/X-MEN films, and better to boot.

I don't know why I liked THE VILLAGE so much. Yeah it had its cheesy moments, and the 'twist' was obvious from the get-go. Despite that, I found it really haunting and loved its slow, atmospheric pace. Visually, it reminded me a bit of COMPANY OF WOLVES and other horror fairytales that I love.

The new one with the mermaid does look terrible though, at least from its trailer. But despite his occasionally clunky scripts, he's one of the few young American filmmakers with an immediately recognizable style.

Style is hardly a measurement of talent, especially now, when most people in culture are self-exhibitionists in some ways. Is it style or signature? A style for the sake of style, like Shamalan and Wes Anderson, seems pretty deceptive and dishonest. Like most self-exhibitionists, they try to define themselves by a certain aesthetic that falls short of who they really are. Toward the end I felt the same way about Kubrick.

Without Shamalan's "style" he is a hack. His scripts seem like poorly written poetry from a 7th grader and his subtext leaves more to be desired. His style is a gimmick.

Sorry for jumping down your through, it's been a pet peeve of mine to listen to people praise Shamalan's style. I feel like this need for style died a while ago and director's like Shamalan just don't get it.

It's interesting that Shymalan is getting flack for his "style" when people are using Mann's style as a defence in the Miami Vice thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "need for style" Justeleblanc, but I think the aesthetic approach of people like Kubrick, Shymalan, Wes Anderson, PT Anderson and even Altman to a certain degree either draws viewers in or leaves them cold. I for one enjoy the ambition, no matter how over the top and even if it doesn't always miss the mark, because when it does hit the mark the results are fantastic.

justeleblanc wrote:Style is hardly a measurement of talent, especially now, when most people in culture are self-exhibitionists in some ways. Is it style or signature? A style for the sake of style, like Shamalan and Wes Anderson, seems pretty deceptive and dishonest. Like most self-exhibitionists, they try to define themselves by a certain aesthetic that falls short of who they really are. Toward the end I felt the same way about Kubrick.

Actually, I agree with you (except for the Kubrick dig, ahem). Style and substance rarely go hand in hand, but I guess it depends what your definition of substance is with regards to a filmmaker. I feel Wes Anderson's first three movies are extremely substantial. Shymalan's of course don't have too much depth to them, but when he's on (which, again, to my mind is UNBREAKABLE and THE VILLAGE) his style seems to me more than just technical profiency. I love how he takes his time to let things build (to the extent that many mainstream audiences find the two above movies "boring"), his overall mise en scene is tremendously controlled, and a shot from one of his films is as identifiable as one from Wong or any Asian auteur.

Now of course he's just marrying this style for the most part to gimmicky shaggy dog stories, but the fact that they're so pulpy makes them more endearing to me, rather than a PTA or someone who also is stronger on the style than the substance, yet strives so desperately and futilely to be meaningful.

Style and substance rarely go hand in hand

I don't understand this statement. How can they possibly be divorced from each other? Style is the method through which significance is communicated; form and meaning cannot be separated, but depend on each other.

I think we are beginning to give the term "style" too narrow a definition. Many people use it as a pejorative for an excess of flashy formal elements, which they contrast to what they ambiguously term "substance," which could be anything, as long as it feels like something.

Let us be general: a style is a certain personal method of performance and does not mean excess or flash. Granted 'stylish' has these connotations, somehow, but mere 'style' does not. And frankly everyone to some degree has a style or personal method--it just happens that many artists, especially those with strong personality or individuality, have a very peculiar, noticeable style.

Now what does this mean for 'substance?' Substance cannot exist without style because it cannot otherwise be communicated, whether that style is one of excess or whether it is restrained. Substance cannot exist in a vacuum; therefore the idea that substance and style rarely go hand in hand rings false, since they cannot but go hand in hand: a film must have a style, a peculiar method of placing formal elements, whether it is derivative or not; meaning or significance--substance, if you will--cannot exist independently from form, or style, but must be created by it. What is being told cannot be separated from how it is being told since the manner of telling informs the matter.

However, what I think you were trying to communicate is that excessive or flashy personal styles tend to focus on themselves and forget to create significance, leaving them feeling like empty but nicely painted shells. Granted this does indeed happen a lot. But it is a strange hyperbole to insist that a highly personal style has some sort of magnetic repulsion to significance wherein they rarely ever in the history of cinema meet.

I think also we should begin to refine a bit our use of the words "substance" and "style" since, vaguely used, they tend to promote misunderstanding.

Mr. Sausage, I actually think you make a lot of good points here; however, discussions of this sort always remind me of a line by Homer Simpson in one of the earliest Simpsons episodes:

"What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!"

Add me to the Unbreakable appreciation society. I thought that was some good filmmaking, even if the Shyamalan twist at the end left me a bit cold. I wasn't the biggest fan of Sixth Sense, but Unbreakable was really enjoyable.

Signs and The Village were both pretty damn awful though, and I've little faith in Shyamalan, but I'll go see Lady In The Water for the Chris Doyle cinematography anyways. And I got a chuckle out of the winged thing (eagle maybe?) in the trailer, reminded me of Colbert Report's bald eagles.

Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were both excellent films. Too bad he hasn't made anything even remotely good since. And, Lady in the Water doesn't look that great either.

Something that annoys me about Unbreakable though: the text at the end that tells us what happens after the film has finished. If not for that, the film would have a perfect ending.