Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: 42 on July 30, 2004, 04:46:10 PM
-
The atmosphere of this movie just rocks.
I guessed the surprise twist with Adrian Brody's character early on, but it was still cool just anticipating if I was right.
The twist about "the Towns" didn't guess, which made it very cool when I was revealed.
I guess Mr. Shyamalan has a lot to live up too. I think everyone in the theater was trying to guess what the surprise ending would be first. I think he did a good job of playing up to this expectation. Course, I think he needs to make a few more film without the surprise to get people to drop their expectations again.
Also, I think I'm going to be afraid of bright reds for a few days.
-
aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY DIDN"T ANYONE STOP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, yeah, sure you POSTED Spoilers, but I read the spoiler thread for SPidey first. and uh.. CRAP.
Yes, I know I have no one to blame but myself, esp since it was Shyamalan. But I just... I'm weak.
I'll still go see it, and I only scanned the post, so maybe I won't understand.
-
42 lets out an evil laugh. Mwahahahaha.
-
So the question I have after talking with Spriggan:
What are the dates on the Tombstone at the start of the film? Spriggan and I have differing opinions about this.
-
Well we figured out I was wrong, but I had the missfortune of getting a major spoiler from a review on tv. But that aside, it was an ok movie, probaly my least favorite of his. I had a real hard time grasping everything he wanted me to, I knew what the "twist" was at the end going into the theater. But he took a lot of liberties with the audience, ones that were pretty streached thin.
I think RT has it pegged at 45%, it's deffinatly a 40%-50% movie.
What I'm surpriesed about is how much some critics hate this move as well as Shyamalan. Slate calles him a villiage idiot becsaue he refuses to leave his own little world (ie he dosen't live in Hollywood), his movies (besides six sense) all are bombs, and he purposley dumbs things down. Of course I love how movie crits love to imply that anyone who likes something they don't are simpletons.
-
One of the first times I've disagreed with RT. I thought it was about an 85%. However, critics have responded poorly to Shyamalan since Sixth Sense. (Which is, in my opinion, his least-impressive movie.)
This one had excellent character development and impressive visuals. The plot was probably the weakest of the four--though Signs wasn't up there on plot either. However, the thematic material of this one was far more interesting than that of Signs.
-
See I liked this one more than Signs.
I now think that Shyamalan needs to make a big-budget scifi film that doesn't have his signiture twist. I think this would help throw off his audience and give him more longevity in the industry.
I do agree with a lot of critics that are getting tired of him making movies that are all very similar in feel and plotting. It's making his work predictible and passe.
-
I would like to say that I resisted the temptation to read this thread until after seeing the movie.
And now all I can say is, that was a very weird movie. Good I think, but weird.
-
I now think that Shyamalan needs to make a big-budget scifi film that doesn't have his signature twist. I think this would help throw off his audience and give him more longevity in the industry.
I agree completely, 42. Excellent assessment. Scott Card learned this after ENDER'S GAME. If every book focused around a powerful twist, everyone would only look for that, instead of paying attention to the rest of the work.
-
Finally got around to watching this tonight. After a few weeks of dodging spoilers I had "The Towns" twist figured out by about half way through. Wasn't really expecting the Adian Brody twist.
I'm a little disappointed. I'm an M.Night fan, and though the atmosphere is pretty cool (thought not quite as utterly oozing as Sleepy Hollow) I just didn't like the story that much.
I'll have to see it again though.
-
42,
Dates on the tombstone: 1890-1897
I just saw the movie and liked it. The part at the end freaked me out cause I knew it was a real person (and I thought they just didn't want her to leave the village).
-
Saw it last night. Don't know how to rate it, since I had been given the spoiler. Plus I'm a half hour late. Will try to post when I get online later this morning.
-
42,
Dates on the tombstone: 1890-1897
That was what Eric Snider had issues with, the fact that the movie lied to us with those dates. But really it wasn't that, the villiagers were lying the whole time, so it didn't bother me.
I just saw the movie and liked it. The part at the end freaked me out cause I knew it was a real person (and I thought they just didn't want her to leave the village).
Ditto. I figured "oh the crazy Elder doesn't want her to get the medicine, so he's trying to scare her back."
-
Okay, so I've had some time to think about it.
It took me a long time to get into it, and I don't know if it was because they didn't set it up well, or if it was because I already knew the premise (a little of both, I think). The red creatures threw me off, because the book I read didn't have such things (all it has was the adults telling the children they couldn't go in the woods, but all the kids were younger, and the premise was that they lived in a Colonial House/Truman Show-type environment, where people would come and watch them live without the kids knowing what was up).
So I was still freaked out by the red things, and I can't BELIEVE they didn't do anything about the psychotic killer in their midst. They kind of just hoped it would go away, it seemed, but sheesh, isn't this what they were trying to prevent? Obviously their little experiment didn't work. There will be crime anywhere there is civilization, whether you take your culture back 100 years or not, because where there are people, there are people who will do bad things no matter what!
So what I don't understand is why, when they realized they had a psychotic killer among them, they weren't able to say, "You know what? This isn't working! People are the same everywhere!" instead of continuing with a farce, lying to their children and scaring them to death of creatures that didn't exist, in the name of so-called safety.
I liked Ivy and what's-his-name, River Phoenix, though. They're strong characters, and I liked that it was Ivy who was the one who made the run through the woods--not only is she female, but blind on top of it. And she still kicks butt!
Okay, similarities to the book:
It's been a few months since I've read it, so it's all on recall, but pretty much it's *exactly* the same plot. Main characters are older, so Ivy has a love interest, and she's blind. But it's basically an isolationist community, and the girl protagonist has to make a run through the woods to the nearby city to get medicine for someone in the village who's sick. In the book, there's a cholera epidemic that she's trying to prevent any more children dying of. It's not really clear in the movie what the first child died of, but I thought it was cholera because of the book. When no other children died, I had to change my mind.
I think what's happened here is that the studio liked the basic idea of the book (they had optioned it, you see), but didn't want to have to stay true to the book. So they've used the basic plot, the skeleton, and given it new flesh. That can make it very hard to win a copyright suit, because I think the rule is that you can't copyright a plot, just specific details. It'll be a tough case to prove, I think, but I also think Margaret Peterson Haddix is justified in thinking that they've lifted her idea.
-
Ditto. I figured "oh the crazy Elder doesn't want her to get the medicine, so he's trying to scare her back."
There was a moment there in which I wondered if the nightmare creatures really did exist, but then I thought it was a crazy Elder, too. But now I think that all the animal killings, etc., were done by Noah. In other words, they had the makings of a psychotic serial killer in their midst, who had fixated on Ivy.
-
So what I don't understand is why, when they realized they had a psychotic killer among them, they weren't able to say, "You know what? This isn't working! People are the same everywhere!" instead of continuing with a farce, lying to their children and scaring them to death of creatures that didn't exist, in the name of so-called safety.
I don't think it's the same. Noah was mentally retarded and didn't really have control over his emotions and reactions. The killers on the outside were all portrayed as being evil men, who didn't CARE that they were doing wrong. I really don't see it as being the same. And you saw his parents- they couldn't cope with the fact that he was a killer. They blocked it out of their thoughts. Because they couldn't believe that their son would do that.
-
Plus, they really did have a good society. I'm willing to bet the per capita percentage of violent crimes there was way lower than it was on the outside.
-
I don't think it's the same. Noah was mentally retarded and didn't really have control over his emotions and reactions. The killers on the outside were all portrayed as being evil men, who didn't CARE that they were doing wrong. I really don't see it as being the same. And you saw his parents- they couldn't cope with the fact that he was a killer. They blocked it out of their thoughts. Because they couldn't believe that their son would do that.
Yeah, I can see your point, and of course he's no Son of Sam or Dahmer. But what was up with all the dead animals? ...And I do agree, EUOL, that they had a better society there, that it was happier and had much less crime. And being isolated as they were, they didn't have the possibility of less-desireable elements (gangs, drugs) immigrating and introducing crime.
Also, on the subject of the unoriginality of the story, someone on my childlit listserv said she saw a news story in which the movie was compared to an old episode of The Twilight Zone. So perhaps it's simply not such an original story, though Shyamalan did make it in an interesting way.
-
I just saw this so I have to weigh in:
First of all, I loved it. I thought it was really excellent.
But, to continue the conversation, I don't think the lack of violent crimes justified the elders in continuing the experiment. They created a world--however violence-free it was--the foundation of which was the populace living in constant fear. The elders are the only ones who were better off, because they were the only ones with peace of mind.
-
Exactly. Because they were the only ones who knew the whole truth. The others lived in constant fear of the creatures who *could* do violence to them, if they were real.
-
However, I kind of like the fact that the movie ended this way (in other word, I don't see it as a plot-failure). My wife was creeped out by the monsters, but more creeped out that those people were living in a completely false world--I like that that was not resolved.
-
I like that that was not resolved.
I very much agree.
-
MHO: I was bored through most of the beginning, thank god for Ivy *dreamy sigh*. I had, unknowingly, already figured out he whole village thing before ever seeing the movie so that was no big shock. I was expecting it to be scarier, a lot.
Why would you send a blind girl out in the woods alone? I get they didn't want to blow their cover, but come on. I can only stretch my disbelief so far.
And don't get me started on his cameo. Ridiculous! I agree with most everyone that he needs to get away from the shcok ending thing or his career is going to tank.
-
I wasn't expecting the monsters to be fake, heh. Even when you knew they were made up, that one at the end was pretty spooky looking. Yeah, and when Lucius got stabbed, I was like why are they killing him off. Then I was thinking maybe he'd live, but then he got stuck again and I figured that was the end of him.