"Alric Knebel" <alric@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:z8-dnXEIXZh3FlTanZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Evil Sponge wrote:
>> "Alric Knebel" <alric@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:q7mdnRBFyYugQFranZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>Evil Sponge wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Bernie Dwyer" <b_duibhirz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:47C1FB82.D7637B52@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.lep.co.uk/entertainment/Films-39robbed39-of-an-Oscar.3810166.jp
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, that's 'jp' at the end, not 'jpg' - no idea why.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The Sixth Sense? WTF? Maybe if they created a new prize category for
>>>>"most obvious plot twist". Jeez.
>>>
>>>I didn't think it was that obvious. In fact, I went to see it twice to
>>>see if they were true to their conceit, in every scene.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've had this discussion with many people now, and I still don't get
how
>> anyone fails to work it out. I have to apologise here, because it's
>> impossible to say this without sounding patronising - but I guessed it
>> from the trailer. And about 10 mins into the film, it was so painfully
>> obvious that I found myself sneering at it and hating it, and even more
>> so at the people who walked out of the cinema saying "wow, that was
>> amazing!" I've spoken to a few other people who feel the same way, but
it
>> seems the majority love it. Er.... anyway... nothing personal. To each
>> his own, there's no accounting for taste, horses for courses, etc.
>
> Sneering it and hating it, huh? Why?
I just thought it was a bit amateurish. The story was clearly built around
the twist, and once you've got past that, all you're left with is a mildly
interesting horror film with a few loud noise scares. Hayley Joel Osment's
performance is excellent, but beyond that I can see little to get excited
about.
There was more going on than the
> fact that he was dead. Hell, that wasn't even that much of the plot.
You
> just guessed, but you couldn't have known. In other words, it popped up
> as a possibility and you held on to it. At that time, Shyamalan
provided
> no PROOF.
>
Of course there was no proof, otherwise we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
> My own experience was by happenstance. I didn't see that many trailers,
> and had no interest in seeing the film itself because I don't like ghost
> stories. I saw it on someone's recommendation. No, not accurate.
> Correction: On someone's INSISTENCE. So I was sort of sitting and just
> watching it, and nothing was really obvious. Now, it's possible at the
> point when the boy tells Dr. Crowe (Willis), "I see dead people," that
> you'd think, hey, maybe HE'S dead. But I didn't. I was at that point
> pretty much caught up in what the boy was feeling. In fact, it didn't
> occur to me at all that we were in for some sort of trick. But even
> knowing it, so what? I saw it a second time to see if Shyamalan covered
> all the bases, and he did: he insured that Crowe touched nothing, said
> nothing to anyone but the boy, and did nothing to elicit any responses
> from the people around him, while all the while suggesting that HE was
> relating to THEM (his wife, the boy's mother). The whole idea was
finely
> executed, whether you figured it out or not.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one : ) I thought it was executed
very badly. It's a shame, because it's an interesting story idea and it
could've been done better.
I know, because I
> saw it a second time. Hell, I saw it a third time, at home. That's
> because there were other aspects of it BESIDES Crowe's being dead which
> worked -- if you weren't sitting with your arms across your chest,
> insisting you were so much smarter than everyone else -- like a
diversion,
> with the director doing a bit of legerdemain by telling a good story. I
> liked all of that, despite the fact that I went in to the initial
viewing
> slightly skeptical, because, like I said, I don't like ghost stories.
> There was the story of the boy himself, seeing the dead people, and that
> was curious; and how the dead girl showed the little boy where the video
> she'd made was hidden, and it was revealed that the girl's own mother
had
> killed her. The ghosts coming and going and appearing suddenly was
> executed to optimize the creepiness. Then there was all of the stuff
with
> the boy's mother's frayed nerves, her issue with her mother the boy
helped
> resolve (quite tearful to me); a fine performance by Toni Collette.
There
> was also the thing with Crowe's previous patient (the boy who'd killed
> him), and how he, too, had been seeing the dead people. Myself, I was
> involved in all of that, so when the doctor looked preoccupied, I
assumed
> as is typical in movies with a romantic subplot that he was more
concerned
> with his professional life and his personal life was suffering as a
> consequence. So, taking in all of that, had Crowe NOT been dead, it
would
> have still been a good movie. His being dead was merely this other
thing,
> way in the background, a little extra.
I disagree... I think his being dead was the film's entire raison d'etre,
hence making it too obvious ruined the film for me. I appreciate what
you're
saying about the rest of the story, but for me it was all just filler.
You sound to me like you thought the whole goddamned
> thing rested on this supposed trick,
Yes!
and once you accidentally GUESSED
> it was, you couldn't get past your own superciliousness because THAT'S
> what YOU were enjoying about your experience. You take yourself too
> seriously.
Er...
It was just a guess that turned out to be true, which came
> to you because of some mood you were in. For the rest of us, it was the
> STORY itself, and had Shyamalan ended the story at the discussion
between
> the boy and Crowe prior to the boy participating in that play, I would
> have walked out thinking it was a pretty fair piece of entertainment.
> When Crowe turned out to be dead at the moment you thought he was going
to
> go home and reconcile himself to his wife (all of his demons resolved,
the
> trick was lagniappe.
>
> In conclusion, you sound to me like someone convinced by his own
> pretensions.
>
>
Or maybe I'm just someone who's expressing my honest opinion of a film,
which you disagree with.
|
