Evil Sponge wrote:
> "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.
Actually, it was your SNEERING at the rest of us that pissed me off.
But, point taken.
--
_________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
|
