THE GOD IS BACK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHnKnVUySJU

With the cinematographer from It Follows and the star of The Witch. GOOD.

Feels a little late after Room and 10 Cloverfield Lane. A rental, at best IMO. Would be surprised if this did numbers; might depend on the release date.

Legal name, actually. He's fucking insane.

This kinda freaked me out on a personal level lol

Instead of conversation about the actual movie.

No message

No message

No message

No message

No message

No message

http://busymoms.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/maxresdefault.jpg

Not sure it was supposed to. SKEPTICAL!

Getting great buzz...

http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/split-review-m-night-shyamalan-1201918995/

Night Dogg has given McAvoy, best known for his role as a bald ass mind-reader in silly children's films, "the role of his career."

Powerful.


Meanwhile Nolan has been lazily riding the comic book gravy train and only recently took a break from that to mine WWII for a quick blowy from critics and film fans who'll act like they've never seen low sat washed out horseshit with stupid shots of grains of dirt exploding everywhere and blood hitting the lens during battle scenes.

And Tarantanko is probably somewhere polishing off scripts where gays and women violently get revenge.

Night Dogg continues to explore the boundaries of the human experience in earnest, unlike some cynical, creatively-constipated, money-grabbing cowards.

When MNS starts creating better movies, he'll get better responses to his movies.

Simple.

At any rate this one looks good so far and I'll see it in the theater unless reviews are bad.

That's the problem with apologists, you people are always so insecure about your "guy" that you can never deal with criticism of your guy without throwing out "squirrel!" and pointing to someone else.

No message

No message

No message

No message

No message

No message

No message

http://movieweb.com/split-movie-review-2016-m-night-shyamalan/

One of the better posters in the last couple of years.

GENIUS!!!!!

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/split_2017/


https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/sep/27/split-review-james-mcavoy-m-night-shyamalan-fantastic-fest-austin


http://www.avclub.com/article/james-mcavoy-and-m-night-shyamalan-crash-fantastic-243225

I dug Devil and LOVED The Visit. Maybe Shyamalan needed to get back to basics after the years of criticism, but if he keeps making movies like The Visit I'm all in.

Similar to Damon Lindelof's criticism following Lost and his subsequent revival with The Leftovers (yes, I'm going to keep plugging The Leftovers until the final season comes out).

I can't wait.

McAvoy kills it. As does the psychologist lady.

I would have liked to see a bit more of his different personalities and how they conflict, but overall very tight.


As for the inevitable twist? It's solid. I won't say anything more. Just stay off the Wikipedia page.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/split_2017/

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13112682&mesg_id=13112682&page=

mistermaxxx is going OFF.

Trajectory definitely pointing upward after The Visit.

he's been unable to keep it from falling apart a few times, which have been well-addressed, but when he hits the mark...genius.

pace
dialogue
wit
visuals
got the most out of each actor

and the end...so good.

best comic book movie of the last 5 years.

Cuz that movie was good too.

Still, glad to see this movie will be a hit. It deserves it.

NNNNNNIIIIGGGGHAAAAA!!!!

M. Night's gotta follow through on what that twist promised right?

Walking out of the theatre, we totally forgot we saw xXx. M. Night came through band crushed the buildings.

I'm not going to see this because I already have enough of a problem sleeping and seeing this is likely to cause me to not sleep for a couple of days. j/k It would be at least a week.

But it looks suspenseful and tense.

He got out of his element there for a while, making The Lady in the Water, The Last Airbender and After Earth. Suspense is his bread and butter and while I appreciate that he broadened his craft, there's nothing wrong with being great in one area of filmmaking. I would think most directors would give up quite a bit to have his track record, duds none withstanding.

I dig his style and some critics dismiss him as 'the twist director', but it does work and there something to be said for good genre filmmaking. He hits all of the right notes but directing the story in a fresh and compelling way, which based on everyone's review seems to be the case in this new flick.

still processing how much balls it takes to go out and create YOUR OWN comicbook universe right in the middle of the DC/Marvel war. and this shit is better than EVERY DC comicbook movie ever made and the best comicbook movie of the last 5 years at least.

why?

it's like standstill dunks and breakaway runs on video games. what the fuck am i talking about? lemme explain. when i was a kid, all the sports video games where just rife with unrealistic trash. shaq could be right underneath the damn basket and would shoot a weird fade away layup. there were no standstill dunks until 2000 when the first 2k dropped on dreamcast. in madden, the fastest muhfuckas in the world where getting caught from behind...just walked down. from joey galloway to bo jackson to randy moss...walked down in the open field. BULLSHIT.

and that's how i feel when i watch comicbook movies. nothing feels "REAL". i wanna see these people doing the most mundane shit possible, so that when it becomes time to be SUPERHUMAN, i have seen the human part before i see the super. ironman comes closest to this, which is why it changed the game, but it STILL feels cartoonish. it's warped somehow. whether it's the acting, the set design, the effects...it's too big and it begins to lose its integrity.

what Night Dogg has been able to do in Unbreakable and now Split is create superheroes and supervillains in the most hyper-realistic universe you'll ever see on film. they EAT FUCKIN FOOD, they hunch their shoulders when they walk, they genuinely cry...and they do it without being prompted by MUSIC, so it feels authentic and the loniless and despair just leaps of the screen...it's the most detailed shit i've ever seen in film, given the genre. that's why they get called -suspense-thrillers, when they are, in fact, comicbook movies. people don't know what to make of them, because the dude absolutely refuses to coddle audiences and let them off the hook with "Oh, nothing going to really happen to these kidnapped girls...this is just a comicbook movie...winkwink"...nah, these bitches gon get eaten alive by a fuckin supervillain and it's gon look real and it's gon be tragic. it's not gon be ben kingsley in a cave twisting his fuckin mustachio and taunting ironman and we all watch that bullshit like suckers waiting for our dogg tony stark to...Dun Da Da Dah...save the day...NOPE. that is easy and been done do death. it's so formulaic and insulting i can't take them shits seriously after seeing split.

I appreciate the Marvel films as spectacles and events, but if you've seen one you've seen them all. and I'm never compelled to see any of them again.

Marvel/DC try and plaster "real life" over the implausibility of their movies, but it comes off as convincing as a video game cinematic. Shyamalan has made a superhero universe with real people.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2xIw2jXcAAJhlD.jpg:large

20 years of foreshadowing.

by Tom Philip for GQ Magazine

http://www.gq.com/story/we-ranked-every-m-night-shyamalan-movie

Anyone reasonable got a real review?

Nothing I said there is unreasonable.

I think it's a real return to form for M. Night. Showcases his brilliant framing of shots and sense of timing, the things that made him a star way back when. James McAvoy, who I normally am indifferent toward, is brilliant-- period. A knockout of a performance. If this had come out in 2016, it'd genuinely be in my Top 5 performances of the year.

>James McAvoy, who I
>normally am indifferent toward, is brilliant-- period. A
>knockout of a performance. If this had come out in 2016, it'd
>genuinely be in my Top 5 performances of the year.

I too think McAvoy is either hammy or a bit of a dick in most of his performances. here it works perfectly.

Without spoiling it like some people are, if you like his earlier films, mos def go see this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjhHjhyv6sw

a fraud-genius giving props to true original genius.

and y'all can whine about some fuckin trolling all you want, because i had to watch them night dogg pile-ons for YEARS and i ain't say shit but "wait til it's my turn"

*shrug*

it's just my turn. my dude getting ALL THE CREDIT. all of it.

I don't know why you should get credit for that but it's a thing you want and here you go.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

cause i just offer up a COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED "you just mad" and move right along.

And a perfectly fine discussion could have been had.

Since you went the agendabot route you're getting exactly the sort of discussion you were going for.

Of course, that is, until your good buddy Frank comes in and squashes it on your behalf as he pretends like you don’t go out of your way to turn everything MKS, Nolan, or Tarantino discussion into some antagonistic agenda bullshit and you’re not just reaping what you sew.

Only reaping going on right now ain't being done by me. It was all good just a few pile-ons ago.


*shrug*

You being all up in arms because the rest of us weren't sucking his dick right along with you through a stretch of truly bad movies and trying to party when he finally puts out a pair of winners as though that undoes the trash ass run from LITW-AE is hilarious.

So, yeah, the reason why nobody is trying to have any kind of reasonable discussion with you on the subject is the fact that you've spent years positioning yourself as his Katrina Pierson, complete with acting like a victim for being a champion of dogshit.

i already disagreed with the movement to go back and force feed people with the idea that signs and the village were bad, when they weren't shit on at the time. after lady in the water, which was bad, people started going back and trying to say most of his shit was terrible and that simpy wasn't true. sorry if you think that's dicksucking.

i personally think cysing blond ninjas and ignoring mark-missing garbage like deathproof is dicksucking.

because most people skipped them in the theater.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It was the sixth highest grossing movie of 2002. And 2nd in terms of original movies (behind My Big Fat Greek Wedding.)

I think Signs' initial response was buoyed by the goodwill of the previous two films but as time passed, the disappointing (to many) second half of the film, "swing away", and the nonsense of aliens being naked on a planet where they were allergic to the majority of the planet and part of the atmosphere overwhelmed the positives. (Personally, I still think the first half of the film is pretty great but I hate the second half.)

The Village is when the haters started to emerge and Night responded by clashing with Disney, getting a big head, and delivering the hater party-starting Lady in the Water.

the idea that it was only disliked in retrospect is convenient, but not accurate.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Now people are more reticent to defend Night but the film still has more fans than I think it deserves. But, at the time, I'd say a majority of people were defending it. Ebert loved it and it got a B Cinemascore which isn't bad.

The Village is when things started to turn. Only someone with an agenda wants to believe that things took a turn with Signs.

that aliens who can't survive water coming to a planet covered in water was a stupid plot point.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and then you have idiots tryna split hairs talmbout, "well there's a difference between alens being unaware that BACTERIA that could harm them existed in the earth's water/atmosphere and the aliens just being deathly allergic TO THE CHEMICAL COMPOUND WATER, WHICH IS MADE OF HYDROGEN and OXYGEN, TWO OF THE TOP 3 MOST ABUNDANT ELEMENTS IN THE FUCKING UNIVERSE."

so, rather than inferring that night dogg's aliens were poisoned by the bacteria in the water...i mean, there's "WATER" in the fucking air...all of you pressed ass non-critical thinkers kept repeating the same lame ass "ALLERGIC to water" lie. the alien wasn't allergic to the water...it was fucking burned by it. it was TAP water. there weren't alens dying en masse in the earth's oceans. it was ONE goddamn alien that was left behind after the rest of them fucking dipped out. but y'all too damn goofy and pressed to take the time to THINK about it.

this is why i love baiting y'all into this agenda shit. i honestly don't feel the vast majority of you have real opinions on most of the shit i harp on around here. you just repeat shit you hear and read. night dogg is one of the best filmmakers out there and actual film films understand that. most of y'all just moviegoers and need to be coddled by morgan freeman's annoying ass VO explaining that aliens were allergic to bacteria and not "water"

and war of the worlds was fucking TRASH compared to signs.

Pretty sure Signs showed that the aliens didn't go anywhere near the coasts/oceans and also that Mel's area was in the middle of a drought. It's set up that not only are the aliens allergic to water (or something in the water) but they KNOW they are allergic to it but they still waltz around nekkid.

In War of the Worlds, which is a wildly anti-climatic ending, the aliens didn't know that they were allergic to anything. The book explains the aliens were "slain, after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth."

It's still a crappy ending (deus ex aer, if you will) but it was straight from the book, which is why Spielberg doesn't get as much shit for it. If Spielberg had developed a reputation for big twists and then his twist was that microbes killed the aliens, people would have been more upset.

sorry, we just not gonna agree.

people ain't care cotillard bond-villain talked with a nuclear bomb counting down in the back of a truck for 5 minutes and the bomb had like 2 minutes to go. people ain't care when said bomb exploded less than a couple miles off the coastline and everything was all good. i do not forgive stuff like that, but PEOPLE do. when it's Night Dogg, everything in the film is up for debate. everything. it's exhausting.

when I want to read a breakdown of signs vs. war of the worlds

and I won't come back to this thread, but I hope writing that exorcised some demons for you.

I'm just reminded of one film that bored me and one that I barely watched.

shouts to you

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=village.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=signs.htm

people "skipped" them tho.

here's the thing: maybe a lot of y'all don't have REAL opinions on Night Dogg and you are, IN FACT, just midlessly piling-on, because that's what i've thought for a long ass time, just by reading what y'all say about his work.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And I don't ever see those pile-ons when his latest piece of shit is released

or what you think of them.

one day when you find those people it will be...whatever it is.


This is not that day.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Did Miss Peregrine even get a post? Does anyone rep Burton on here?

Meanwhile, every Night film is kicked off with stuff like, "LMAO!!!! GENIUS!!!! Y'ALL SCARED!!!! 250 MIL....BOOK IT!!!!"

You've made Night an agenda; you gotta expect the shitstorm that comes with that.

You have very little in the way of creative insight or, at a minimum, either no ability or desire for an actual conversation so you fall back on the gimmick.

so, that's false. if you wanna discuss my reasons for thinking he's overrated, i'd be more than happy.

Or a Tarantino fanboy.

Or Shyamalan.

That's something you don't seem to grasp.

You're a superstan though, the kind I guy who picks someone and pretends that person is god made flesh.

Further, I know from personal experience you throw tantrums whenever I've presented a sound argument that goes against the grain of one of your idols.

from previous post you ignored...

"Nolan's films are fucking STERILE, soulless, muscular spectacles that bombard the senses with massive scores and clunky ass visuals"

The score from TDK was a watershed moment IMO. The score from Interstellar is a nuisance of bombast that, imo, exemplifies the absolute worst trends in cinematic audio.

All in all I think he makes consistently enjoyable movies where the whole is greater than the sum of individual parts.
I loved Inception personally though it leaned heavily on absurd concept that was never adequately articulated IMO. He benefits greatly from quality casting and engaging visuals.

I don’t see sterility or lack of soul in his movies. In fact he’s done a remarkable job of injecting soul and grit into flawed concepts.

Interstellar gets by primarily on emotional gravity even if the ultimate message of “love” proved generic and trite. Inception leaned heavily on an emotional center of profound loss and gave us an ending worth discussing.

The Dark Knight toyed with those elements to minimal affect but found it’s soul in chaos anchored by an incredibly inspired casting choice, which is no small feat.

Clunky visuals? I don’t see that at all. Quite the opposite in fact.
Nolan tends to create a complete experience even in the face of glaring flaws.

He casts well, his actors exhibit strong character work, and he pulls emotional strings with a deft hand. He lacks that light touch with his audio/visual choices, but his movies are hardly limited to assaults on our audible/visual senses.

>The score from TDK was a watershed moment IMO. The score from
>Interstellar is a nuisance of bombast that, imo, exemplifies
>the absolute worst trends in cinematic audio.

Dark Night is one movie. And it's overrated. Ledger was good, but that movie took on a whole other life when he died.

>All in all I think he makes consistently enjoyable movies
>where the whole is greater than the sum of individual parts.
>I loved Inception personally though it leaned heavily on
>absurd concept that was never adequately articulated IMO. He
>benefits greatly from quality casting and engaging visuals.

Actually, Inception's concept was overly-articulated by Ellen Page's completely unnecessary character. And the visuals in that film were inelegant, trippy garbage. And, again, a big loud ass score.


>I don’t see sterility or lack of soul in his movies. In fact
>he’s done a remarkable job of injecting soul and grit into
>flawed concepts.

There is a lack of soul. There's no grace in the camerawork. It chases dialouge and action, instead of properly framing it. There isn't ONE character worth loving in a Nolan film. Not one. Because he drowns them in the frame. The just talk and talk and talk to advance his gimmicky non-linear BS.


>Interstellar gets by primarily on emotional gravity even if
>the ultimate message of “love” proved generic and trite.
>Inception leaned heavily on an emotional center of profound
>loss and gave us an ending worth discussing.

Interstellar, like most of his films, got by on spectacle. The ending was ridiculous and corny. It was Contact.


>The Dark Knight toyed with those elements to minimal affect
>but found it’s soul in chaos anchored by an incredibly
>inspired casting choice, which is no small feat.
>
>Clunky visuals? I don’t see that at all. Quite the opposite
>in fact.
>Nolan tends to create a complete experience even in the face
>of glaring flaws.

That's it right there...an "experience" of sight and sound. The characters and the story are just there to serve his technical pursuits. He talked more about some damn IMAX cameras than he did about the story and characters during his Batman run. That's all I needed to know about him right there.


>He casts well, his actors exhibit strong character work, and
>he pulls emotional strings with a deft hand.

"You infected my mind"...that's deft? He managed to make Cotillard sound like a bimbo.


He lacks that
>light touch with his audio/visual choices, but his movies are
>hardly limited to assaults on our audible/visual senses.

He doesn't have any touch. He's the Jeff George of directing. He's got a big tool and he just wants to show it off.

I left you the last word on both of the above exchanges, in fact.

What I squash is a non-stop stream of back-and-forth bullshit. That's what I don't want. It's unreadable. It's horseshit. It's just namecalling garbage. You wanna namecall with him? Take that shit to inbox.

I've had people shit on my taste for not liking movies they loved and vice versa. I get mad, but I eventually walk away-- or try to keep every conversation about the movie, even if I felt personally patronized or attacked. Because an endless stream of "you're an idiot" replies just isn't interesting to read. At all. And it certainly doesn't promote conversation.

Ba likes M. Night. He draws comparisons to other filmmakers and says M. Night is better. That's fine. If you want to reply and tell him you think he's wrong for reasons x, y, and z, that's fine too. And if neither of you can reach common ground or promote a decent discussion with the other, both of you are free to walk away at any time, or to take it to Twitter/inbox/etc. But once that back-and-forth namecall, never-ending sea-of-replies horseshit starts, you're goddamn right I'll just cut it all out. The posts, even the ones for movies I hated, deserve better than that.

And that has nothing to do with him being my "buddy." Exhibits 1-462: other posts between two people I don't even know where I've done the exact same fucking thing.

You definitely have a particular affinity for Basa and I'm not the only one who's noticed.

He goes out of his way to create those chaotic exchanges in all of the few subjects he posts about with minimal exception.

You never seem all that bothered with his incessant trolling on every topic because that certainly doesn't promote healthy discussion and you certainly don't want to see him take his medicine.

If you didn't want those things to happen you'd pull your boy aside and tell him to, like, you know, stop doing that.

Your general bias for him isn't the end of the world... But it still exists.

We've met. You know I'm a good guy and you know I mean well. I don't know why this one guy has you so hot under the collar.

As long as he's not calling out people in particular, I don't care if he plays that Armond White "Better Than" game. As I've repeatedly said, it's the needless back-and-forths that are exclusively personal that get deleted. If you want to make a Shyamalan vs. Tarantino post, you can do it too.

I won't name them, because I don't want to invite them out of the woodwork, but I've had pairs that have needed separation on this board before because they were fucking up posts. I've had to send inboxes to people to chill. I've had to delete plenty of shitty reply chains that are about nothing but personal clashes.

Ba rarely posts in PTP anymore. And the only time he ever gets into it with anyone here is over Shyamalan. And really, the only person he gets into it with over Shyamalan is you. If you wanna talk his Sports behavior, I don't moderate there, and I've disagreed plenty with things he's said and posted there. I've disagreed with it on the board, and I've told him via text that he's wrong on things. He'll tell you this. (I mean, you've likely seen literally every Lakers post he makes, in which I constantly disagree with everything he says other than Ingram being good.)

But yes, I know him outside of OKP. That's true. We're the two Duke fans on Sports, and people have said "Longo is gay for Ba teehee!" when I agree with him because there's nothing more clever for them to say. And they'll selectively ignore that I treat him the same as everyone else.

Anyhow. This will be deleted soon too, because it's really really dumb that I have to keep spelling this out, and I don't even know what the hell MKS means, lol. But you've met me and know that I'm not an idiot, nor is there some Vast Message Board Conspiracy To Make Certain Posters Pass Optics Tests. I just don't want personal back-and-forth shit ruining posts. Take it to inbox, or leave it alone. That's it.

>We've met. You know I'm a good guy and you know I mean well.
>I don't know why this one guy has you so hot under the collar.

The only reason I decided not to let up on his wack ass Night posts was his bitchass ego tantrum when I, again, had a perfectly reasonable and well thought out reply that he couldn’t really disagree with.

Cool.

>But you've met me and
>know that I'm not an idiot, nor is there some Vast Message
>Board Conspiracy To Make Certain Posters Pass Optics Tests.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. I just said you have a bias toward Basa, not that there’s some deeper current or anything. I don’t even the correlation. Shit the first comment was mostly ball breaking about your off board relationship- of which I don’t know the extent- and you just happened to bite much, much harder on it than anticipated and I expanded a little.

Still, I said it’s not the end of the world.

I.E, it’s no big deal. I’m not ranting and raving about unfairness of your moderating in every post. I don’t feel oppressed. In fact I think I’ve only made that reference one other time. I do think you’re a little light on Basa in PTP because very little of what he does is productive or designed to stimulate good conversation. His approach is a half-step above spam if you ask me.

I might have the worse reputation but I’m far and away easier to have a civilized, nuanced agree-to-disagree type of conversation with and the only reason I decided not to let up on his wack ass Night posts was his bitchassed ego tantrum when I, again, had a perfectly reasonable and well thought out reply that he couldn’t really disagree with.

>just don't want personal back-and-forth shit ruining posts.
>Take it to inbox, or leave it alone. That's it.

Fine, I’ll leave his stupid Shyamalan posts alone.

all i do is cyse Night Dogg and shit on other directors that a lotta people on this board think are so great. i've always maintained that history will prove me right and talent gon talent.

if they wanna say i'm wrong...cool. but, you have to concede that all the name-calling is just a sign that these people are insecure and rattled to see someone break rank and shit on nolan, tarantino, anderson, ritchie and all the other "cool" kids. i think those filmmakers are insanely overrated and i say why. they always skip over the WHY (like the fact that Nolan's films are fucking STERILE, soulless, muscular spectacles that bombard the senses with massive scores and clunky ass visuals) and jump right to "but you like m. night tho" and then accuse me of not wanting to engage in meaningful conversation. i ain't seen ONE of these people say "well, i like Nolan's trash ass visuals."

i spared this whole board from my opinion on inherent vice, because i LIKE PTA, but that was a bag of shit. it BOMBED and critics treated it with kid gloves because he's "cool" and they ain't wanna look like a dickhead for shitting on PTA like they shit on Night Dogg. M. Night is friendly, goofy Indian guy, who despite the oft-repeated LIE, is humble as fuck. PTA takes himself seriously as fuck and his "ego" isn't part of his narrative. hell, people shit on kevin smith for frying the guy about frogs falling out of the sky. that WAS a stupid ass device, but i liked it. i liked that he went there. and that's the same reason i like m. night. i admire the attempt. period.

got me

and this might be his 3rd? Great, I will check it out. Thanks

cot damn!

previous statements to the contrary.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

M. Night knew what he was doing.

Then the nigga ate my baby, breh.

^^that's what I had to keep telling myself since I was sitting next to my wife during this thing.

That and the fact that these were, at least in the context of the movie, teenage girls in a decidedly vulnerable situation, had me trying to repress my appreciation.

Particularly once he made her remove the skirt and rendered her a walking Maxim cover thereafter.

only a 34% drop.

..i vowed to not waste any more time & effort on shyamalan or his films, but made a last minute compromise for a friend and what do i get?

THE SAME BULLSHIT.

dude runs the same formula every film and STILL can't find a closer.

i'm not even bothering with an official review. mcavoy spent quite a bit of time studying prior performances of his peers (o.p.p.), channelling everyone from tom cruz to giovanni ribisi (etcetera!). and the weak reveal for the final scene is so clichéd its laughable.

shyamalan might be a talented writer when it comes to ideas, but fleshing them out and bringing them to fruition is not his forté.


*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...

>..i vowed to not waste any more time & effort on shyamalan or
>his films, but made a last minute compromise for a friend and
>what do i get?
>
>THE SAME BULLSHIT.
>
>dude runs the same formula every film and STILL can't find a
>closer.

What formula? Making a visually engaging movie and getting great performances out of actors?

>i'm not even bothering with an official review. mcavoy spent
>quite a bit of time studying prior performances of his peers
>(o.p.p.), channelling everyone from tom cruz to giovanni
>ribisi (etcetera!). and the weak reveal for the final scene is
>so clichéd its laughable.

you said absolutely nothing. this is a Hail Mary and it's WRONG. what cruise and ribisi performances did he pull from. you won't name any because i'll just watch them and tell you, in detail, why you're wrong.

what was cliche' about the reveal? the fact that it's NEVER fucking been done before. No one knew it was connected to a prior film, so you sound like the same type of doof back in 99 who was trying to convince people they knew bruce was dead .


>shyamalan might be a talented writer when it comes to ideas,
>but fleshing them out and bringing them to fruition is not his
>forté.

what fuckin i-hate-shyamalan template did you did use for this garbage?

Unbreakable and this.

Cause I don't doubt they will be doing a 3rd

Or else M. Night is a huge asshole for teasing people like that and not following through.

http://deadline.com/2017/02/rings-the-space-between-weekend-box-office-1201901560/

too bad about Taylor HACKford's The Comedian. He ain't made anything good since Ray. *shrug*

What both The Visit and Split do extremely well are the sudden moments of levity that balance the pacing and tension. Humor in horror flicks is such an underrated aspect; for many people laughing is a way to mitigate the immersion and allow them to enjoy the movie fully. In other words, if they can laugh during the times they're scared, they're more likely to enjoy the movie as a whole.

I loved the interplay between Casey's upbringing and the situation she found herself in. I was eagerly awaiting the moment her shit uncle would get his comeuppance but (as a horror fan) I LOVED the moment we found out he never did. That may have been the most (unexpectedly) chilling moment in a movie filled with those moments.

Although he didn't direct Devil, this has been a really great horror three film run from Shyamalan. I'm definitely digging his Damon Lindelof-like renaissance and will check out whatever's coming next (looks like it's Tales From the Crypt?!?!!? Fuck yes.)

I still haven’t caught The Visit so I can’t speak on that one, but this is a huge step back in the right direction.

-JM did the damn thing. Absolutely. The challenge with something like this is that the drive to create such distinctive characters can turn each of them into caricatures, and I think he did a great job of that. He walked up to the edge here and there but generally kept everything in pocket. I do wish we would have seen more of the videos, ideally through analytic perspective of the therapist.

-The three girls were excellent in what they were given. To me, only Ana Taylor Joy had anything real to sink her teeth into and she delivered.

-Speaking of the therapist, Ryan O’Reilly’s mom!
SPOILER SECTION:

All in all I enjoyed the story from start to finish. I love the notion of treating multiple personalities as a super power of sorts.

That said I do have a few qualms.

-The Beast himself was well executed, generally speaking. I had more to say on this right after viewing but after a week I need to watch again. I felt like his mission/motivation was a little…. Eh. He wanted to make the innocent suffer, but why teenage girls specifically?

Given The Horde’s backstory you’d think he’d target middle aged women or, in a darker twist, teen boys. Kidnapping mothers who were known child abusers or privileged teen males would have made far more sense. Given the backstory the desire to eat innocent teen girls doesn’t make a lick of sense. None whatsoever, other than the fact that teen girls are the designated genre victim/last survivor.

-The backstory with the uncle was fine. It was creepy and uncomfortable but he exercised some common sense with it. My issue with this comes with the climactic moment. On its own it’s not a big deal but it sort of doubles down on the flawed choice of victim IMO.

As I already said I think the choice for teen girls was seriously flawed and this compounds the issue. Her “magic charm” against the beast turned out to be her scars and the safe assumption is that those scars were self-inflicted, but again, given The Beast’s backstory as well as hers, why not give her a backstory of physical and emotional abuse where those scars where given to her? Obviously that fits a little too neatly but the point is that there was probably a better, tighter backstory for this.

-I’m sorry but I laughed at the big reveal, at least the way it was executed. The whole, “hey wasn’t there a guy 15 years ago with a funny name like that?” thing was just bad dialogue. That’s a “worst of Law & Order” level line and a piss poor way to get there. That said the reveal was significant enough I was quickly overcome by feelings of “hell fucking yes” but the setup still left me rolling my eyes.

Again, it’s a damn good movie on the whole but there are some things that detract from it. It’s still a major step in the right direction for Night. Flaws and all, here’s hoping we get more of this and less of, say, The Happening or AE.

I attributed that to Dennis and Patricia's greater affinity for The Beast than the other personalities. Dennis had a penchant for watching young girls dance and I presume Patricia held some sort of malice towards them as well (although that wasn't explored, IIRC).

There are a few things that still don’t add up to the chosen victims here:

-The desire of The Beast to be given a sacrifice of pure individuals who were unmarred by the suffering of he/Kevin.

-The two controlling personalities were acting to bring about the Beast by providing a sacrifice he demanded.

Given the fact that these personalities arose as a mechanism to protect Kevin, the sort of sacrifice demanded by the Beast seems wildly off base in relation to the sort of suffering endured by Kevin/the Horde. Certain personalities may have had their preferences but as those personalities were in essence disciples and, to a degree, clergy for the Beast and his ideology, “pure teenage girls” comes across as a particularly clichéd bit of prey.

To that end, even if his rage was merely focused on the unblemished, pure and unmarred among us, why wouldn’t he simply demand children of an age that lacks true accountability? The notion of teenage girls being pure as the driven snow is just as clichéd and outdated as the use of said girls as the lone survivor and/or primary object of the villains murderous plan.

The direction of the character seems to justify a motivation of “absolute judgment for the wicked” much more than “pain for the pure” such as abusive parents, or at a minimum, “pain for the pure” would be reserved for the truly privileged, perhaps those arrogantly ignorant to the suffering of others.

I’m sure there are ways to justify this choice within the narrative but as-is it’s the least of potential creative options. For my money there were far more realistic and appropriate choices and the “final girl’ route was, dare I say, the laziest choice possible.

>There are a few things that still don’t add up to the
>chosen victims here:
>
>-The desire of The Beast to be given a sacrifice of pure
>individuals who were unmarred by the suffering of he/Kevin.
>
>-The two controlling personalities were acting to bring about
>the Beast by providing a sacrifice he demanded.
>
>Given the fact that these personalities arose as a mechanism
>to protect Kevin, the sort of sacrifice demanded by the Beast
>seems wildly off base in relation to the sort of suffering
>endured by Kevin/the Horde. Certain personalities may have had
>their preferences but as those personalities were in essence
>disciples and, to a degree, clergy for the Beast and his
>ideology, “pure teenage girls” comes across as a
>particularly clichéd bit of prey.

Cliched or not, the "teenage girl(s) attacked by predator" is a time honored trope in horror flicks. It's used in supernatural horror, slasher horror, campy horror, etc. Maybe it's because moviegoing horror fans probably skew younger or it's a chance to get some skin on screen or because females are generally easier to scare than males... or all of the above. It's fair to say it's cliched, but I don't think that should detract from the movie (as long as it makes sense).

>To that end, even if his rage was merely focused on the
>unblemished, pure and unmarred among us, why wouldn’t he
>simply demand children of an age that lacks true
>accountability? The notion of teenage girls being pure as the
>driven snow is just as clichéd and outdated as the use of
>said girls as the lone survivor and/or primary object of the
>villains murderous plan.

I would posit that the suffering The Beast was searching for could only be derived from victims who understood on some level what was happening. A baby or toddler or young child would only know that they're suffering, but not why or how. Whereas a teenage girl is old enough to know what, why and how pain occurs... but individuals will vary in terms of how much *suffering* she's endured. There's a big difference between a girl who complains about inviting the class outsider and another who grew up far, far too quickly.

>The direction of the character seems to justify a motivation
>of “absolute judgment for the wicked” much more than
>“pain for the pure” such as abusive parents, or at a
>minimum, “pain for the pure” would be reserved for the
>truly privileged, perhaps those arrogantly ignorant to the
>suffering of others.

Yeah, that's basically correct. Kevin/The Horde researched his victims ahead of time and followed them extensively (12 days, IIRC). He knew who these girls were, their upbringing, their wealth, their shelteredness. They may not have been "arrogant" or in any way malicious but they fit the criteria for The Beast's hunger.


>I’m sure there are ways to justify this choice within the
>narrative but as-is it’s the least of potential creative
>options. For my money there were far more realistic and
>appropriate choices and the “final girl’ route was, dare I
>say, the laziest choice possible.

We could go round and round about theoretical victims that may or may not have worked better in the narrative. But we may have to just agree to disagree for the sake of brevity. I'm not saying that other options couldn't be more effective, I'm just saying that the counterfactual doesn't exist in this case.

So why do I think the girls were effective? For one, we knew Casey the Outsider wasn't part of the original plan and we knew this because he didn't spray her until she opened the door. The film repeats this motif throughout: the first shot of the girls on the cots, the differing "fight or flight" responses, Casey's rape (after Patricia said they Dennis is "forbidden" from touching them), then her scars.

We're constantly reminded of the ways Casey is different from the other two girls and this is perhaps especially poignant when Claire is trying to give Marcia a peptalk when she's opening the latch. That false sense of security is never felt by Casey, the survivor of more trauma than anyone should ever experience at that age.

http://giphy.com/gifs/got-s-Mk2nWpI4dx1hm/fullscreen

Every now and then the camera would get blurry almost to disorient you or showing that someone was disoriented...did anybody pick up on that and what it was intended to mean?

It didn't seem to correlate with him switching personalities or the victims being drugged...just curious

MAN


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

I did hear the spoiler connection but it didn't mess up the viewing for me. I'm not sure I would have got around to watching this as soon had I not known.

although i agree with the other poster about the motivations of certain characters. i really enjoyed this

made me wanna go back and rewatch unbreakable

It's much better than I expected. Like "The Visit". McAvoy did his thing.

McAvoy was good. The lead girl was good. The twist was fine. The connection to Unbreakable was fine.

BUT

SPOILER














I'm a horror movie fan and this was really pretty tame, but for some reason it bothered me that the whole movie was watching these three terrified girls try to escape a maniac...only to have two of them get eaten. And the movie has no real resolution--dude just lets the final girl go home. Hopefully the follow-up movie will be more satisfying, because this wasn't.

SPOILERS







I liked it, but as a horror movie it was pretty tame. The funny thing is all the horror tropes you expect (jump scares, girls in underwear the whole movie) were there so M.Night was being intentional with his shit except actual real horror/scares weren't there.

Id say its because it was rated PG-13 but there's been successful PG-13 movies that have brought the scares + the creepiness. I think its because Mcovoy was more weird then creepy...I was never afraid of him as a bad guy in the film.

I cared about the girls because they did a good job being scared but that immediate creepiness that a solid horror film makes you personally feel? Not there at all.

saw similarities to Red Dragon.. I mean it's plenty different but the whole concept of the emerging monster had me seeing that.

looking forward to the 3rd one... wasn't expecting that.

Yeah. Season 3 of "Hannibal" was essentially Red Dragon and it went just like this movie. I kept thinking about that whenever dude talked about the beast and the horde.

>saw similarities to Red Dragon.. I mean it's plenty different
>but the whole concept of the emerging monster had me seeing
>that.
>

>saw similarities to Red Dragon.. I mean it's plenty different
>but the whole concept of the emerging monster had me seeing
>that.

Looked fantastic

McAvoy was phenomenal

But the Hoard was eh

And I agree with Cold Truth 110% the choice of victims was wack, yes guys, even though they were fine, but it's just fucn tired.

And the reveal poorly delivered, but glad it's giving us a third film

Gripes is small overall

4/5

i cant imagine being in a theatre, with no clue, hearing that Unbreakable music start

SPOILER

If I hadn't known about the Unbreakable connection, I miiiiiiight have forgiven the fact that this is essential just a movie where a psychopath with mostly unexplained superpowers kidnaps three girls, plays mind games with them, eats two of them and lets one go. The end.

Having heard about the twist, I spent the whole movie thinking "why am I watching this?" Then yeah, I thought very last minute of the movie was fun.

I love horror movies, but I'm not really into watching a whole movie where I'm rooting for the protagonists to escape...then most of them die and the final girl is released because she's a rape victim and not because of her wit and survival skills.

Once it finally ended my first thought was, "That's it?"

Same w/ Unbreakable but at least that had a better journey along the way

this what i'm talmbout right here. y'all so used to your lil silly comic book movies that you'd really be comfortable with her setting some basic ass trap and killing the villain.

no, the villain had motives and she didn't fit his victim profile. he let her go. simple as that.

The fact that it's the rape victim that he let's go only highlights it's stupidity.

His viks, if he a genius villian should've been people like his mother or the uncle who was raping her

She was never on his radar in the first place... remember the scene in the car?

That feeling of kindred spirits is a powerful thing, and is a theme that people heavily relate with.

constantly posts dumb ass shit about music, movies, and sports like he stuck in 1956

why do I come back to this place.

.

Or resort to hot takes?

I'm all for civil discourse but if you refuse to address any actual points then you're the one not adding anything useful.

Any thoughts on post #108?

.

Way to go!

but Split definitely got him back on everyone's radar.