«

Ok, sorry this isn't a DVD related topic, but it will eventually be on
DVD, so it's not too far off.

********** SPOILERS **************

Near the end of the movie, when we learn the "big secret" - I found
myself to be a little ****ed off that Shyamalan had lied to the
audience by putting the date at the beginning of the film.

It's easy to throw the audience for a loop when you have lied to them
all along, don't you think? I wonder why he did that? I wonder why he
felt it necessary to deceive us into thinking one thing, so that he
could really throw us at the end...

am I making too much of this, or does anyone else feel the same way?

PhattyBoombatty

Phatty Boombatty wrote:
> Ok, sorry this isn't a DVD related topic, but it will eventually be on
> DVD, so it's not too far off.
>
> ********** SPOILERS **************
>
> Near the end of the movie, when we learn the "big secret" - I found
> myself to be a little ****ed off that Shyamalan had lied to the
> audience by putting the date at the beginning of the film.

Ah, so the "big secret" is that it takes place in modern times? I
assumed that.

--

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
yet been written."

--Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology

"Phatty Boombatty" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Ok, sorry this isn't a DVD related topic, but it will eventually be on
> DVD, so it's not too far off.
>
> ********** SPOILERS **************
>
> Near the end of the movie, when we learn the "big secret" - I found
> myself to be a little ****ed off that Shyamalan had lied to the
> audience by putting the date at the beginning of the film.
>
> It's easy to throw the audience for a loop when you have lied to them
> all along, don't you think? I wonder why he did that? I wonder why he
> felt it necessary to deceive us into thinking one thing, so that he
> could really throw us at the end...
>
> am I making too much of this, or does anyone else feel the same way?
>
> PhattyBoombatty

There was a date at the beginning? I must have missed it.

Too bad. I really wished this movie would have been better. It seems that
Shayamalan tried to hard to come up with the "twist" ending on this one. I
remember reading that some people were upset that Signs did not have the
"surprise" at the end like his other couple of films. Probably tried too
hard here.

Bad dialog. A few of the actors are really terrible at pulling out the
certain way the townsfolk talk in this movie. Sigourney Weaver came across
pretty bad with the particular dialect she was trying to portray.

People in the audience laughed at 3-4 parts that I did not think were meant
to be intentionally funny.

Blind girl? For the first half it just seemed she needed a walking stick
and could see fine.

Shayamalan also felt necessary to remind us of the story 2-3 times at key
moments. I guess he thinks the audience cannot keep up with his story so he
has voice overs of previous scenes show up to "remind" you of what's going
on. Unnecessary.

Well of course this is all my opinion. The movie was not the worst I've
seen. I just suppose that I was expecting more from the trailers I had seen
and Shayamalan's previous work.


HDTV games lists and discussions
http://www.hdtvarcade.com

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Ollie T" <> wrote:

>
>"Phatty Boombatty" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Ok, sorry this isn't a DVD related topic, but it will eventually be on
>> DVD, so it's not too far off.
>>
>> ********** SPOILERS **************
>>
>> Near the end of the movie, when we learn the "big secret" - I found
>> myself to be a little ****ed off that Shyamalan had lied to the
>> audience by putting the date at the beginning of the film.
>>
>> It's easy to throw the audience for a loop when you have lied to them
>> all along, don't you think? I wonder why he did that? I wonder why he
>> felt it necessary to deceive us into thinking one thing, so that he
>> could really throw us at the end...
>>
>> am I making too much of this, or does anyone else feel the same way?
>>
>> PhattyBoombatty
>
>There was a date at the beginning? I must have missed it.
>

Yes, he put the date of "1897" or something at the beginning, leaving
no room in the viewer's mind that there is any possibility of anything
else. Then, at the end, we learn differently, and I felt like I had
been lied to and manipulated so that he could make his big twist more
effective.

I actually liked the movie, but this particular point really
disappointed me and made me lose a little respect for the director.

PB

"Ollie T" <> wrote in news:nzSOc.11231$Zm3.3178
@fe2.texas.rr.com:

> I just suppose that I was expecting more from the trailers I had seen
> and Shayamalan's previous work.
>


Why he wasn't roundly declared a hack after his FIRST movie is a complete
mystery to me. The Sixth Sense was an absurdly overwrought melodrama
with a climactic twist that left me thinking "Well? Yeah, so what?" I
guess he benefitted handsomely from all of the people who had never heard
of Carnival Of Souls or An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge.


--
"There is no more foul or relentless enemy of man in the occult world
than this dead-alive creature spewed up from the grave..."


The Castle Monster: http://www.processionofthedamned.com/diablo.htm

Derek Janssen <> wrote in
news:410c133f$0$2819$:

> Murder wrote:
>>
>>>I just suppose that I was expecting more from the trailers I had seen
>>>and Shayamalan's previous work.
>>>
>> Why he wasn't roundly declared a hack after his FIRST movie is a
>> complete mystery to me. The Sixth Sense was an absurdly overwrought
>> melodrama with a climactic twist that left me thinking "Well? Yeah,
>> so what?"
>
> Given that for most of us in the theater, the movie was about Haley
> Joel Osmont--and about Bruce Willis playing a realistic non-action
> character again, which he hadn't gotten the chance to do for a
> while--remember taking The Ending pretty much in the same spirit as
> that loopy "WTF??" tacked-on Kevin Costner ending in "No Way Out":
> Yeah, yeah, have to add some last cheap sting for the audience before
> the credits roll, just get it over with and make it plausible...
>
> Of course, then, everyone who didn't see it coming had to go back and
> say, "Oh, yeah, the restaurant!", and so on, and that (and the
> spoiler-trolls beating it six miles into the ground on the net) pretty
> much upstaged any rational discussion of the film from then on--
> Still, when taking some friends to see it, did manage to sucker them
> in by telling them the subplot had Willis's characters' marriage
> "breaking apart"...
>
> Derek Janssen (best way to preserve the artistic sanctity of the first
> 90 minutes)
>
>
>


Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't know why I lash out like that... I'm just a
frustrated screenwriter.


--
"There is no more foul or relentless enemy of man in the occult world
than this dead-alive creature spewed up from the grave..."


The Castle Monster: http://www.processionofthedamned.com/diablo.htm

Phatty Boombatty wrote:

> Yes, he put the date of "1897" or something at the beginning, leaving
> no room in the viewer's mind that there is any possibility of anything
> else. Then, at the end, we learn differently, and I felt like I had
> been lied to and manipulated so that he could make his big twist more
> effective.
>
> I actually liked the movie, but this particular point really
> disappointed me and made me lose a little respect for the director.

Like the time back when we were all "wow"'ed by the Sixth Sense ending,
and MNS went around enjoying his new O.Henry Of The 90's status, and
joking(?) on award shows, "Oh, and btw, the mother's really dead, too..."

Which--aside from the "Oh, she was NOT, and there's nine scenes that can
prove it!" factor--kind of jackass-embarrassed the more open-minded
minority of us fans who liked MNS's gloomy atmosphere in the *first*
halves of "Sixth" and "Unbreakable", and didn't really give a crap
whether Bruce dropped his glasses after the apocalypse or not.

He can be a fairly good creepy-gloomy director when he isn't trying to
show off some tunnel-visioned script goal, but nope, we just HAD to
encourage him with obsessing over all that Bruce Willis stuff five years
ago, didn't we?...

Derek Janssen

Murder wrote:
>
>>I just suppose that I was expecting more from the trailers I had seen
>>and Shayamalan's previous work.
>>
> Why he wasn't roundly declared a hack after his FIRST movie is a complete
> mystery to me. The Sixth Sense was an absurdly overwrought melodrama
> with a climactic twist that left me thinking "Well? Yeah, so what?"

Given that for most of us in the theater, the movie was about Haley Joel
Osmont--and about Bruce Willis playing a realistic non-action character
again, which he hadn't gotten the chance to do for a while--remember
taking The Ending pretty much in the same spirit as that loopy "WTF??"
tacked-on Kevin Costner ending in "No Way Out":
Yeah, yeah, have to add some last cheap sting for the audience before
the credits roll, just get it over with and make it plausible...

Of course, then, everyone who didn't see it coming had to go back and
say, "Oh, yeah, the restaurant!", and so on, and that (and the
spoiler-trolls beating it six miles into the ground on the net) pretty
much upstaged any rational discussion of the film from then on--
Still, when taking some friends to see it, did manage to sucker them in
by telling them the subplot had Willis's characters' marriage "breaking
apart"...

Derek Janssen (best way to preserve the artistic sanctity of the first
90 minutes)

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 10:46:40 -0700, Phatty Boombatty
<> wrote:

>Ok, sorry this isn't a DVD related topic, but it will eventually be on
>DVD, so it's not too far off.
>
>********** SPOILERS **************
>
>Near the end of the movie, when we learn the "big secret" - I found
>myself to be a little ****ed off that Shyamalan had lied to the
>audience by putting the date at the beginning of the film.
>
>It's easy to throw the audience for a loop when you have lied to them
>all along, don't you think? I wonder why he did that? I wonder why he
>felt it necessary to deceive us into thinking one thing, so that he
>could really throw us at the end...

Because that was the lie that the village elders were feeding the
children and young adults. They couldn't very well put real dates on
the headstones in their cemetary.

Mike

I've never been terribly impressed with his films. Sixth Sense in itself was
OK as a film, but not the groundbreaking film with a twist that everyone
made it out to be - a victim of hype to me, it was. A twist that was in
films before it, such as the excellent Adrian Lynes "Jacob's Ladder". Noing
the twist in that film does not at all detract from the experience on
repeated viewings, unlike sixth sense.

Signs? My god now that was a travesty. I refused to let any more of my money
go to him after that... From the enormous holes in that story, to the
embarassingly predictable shots it was pure garbage (I was in the theatre
next to my wife, saying "the camera is going to dolly back now and there
will be a reflestion of the alien in the tv", and "the door will open and he
will have his clerical gear on", etc. Bingo, bingo, bingo). I think the
Maddox review of Signs covers everything else crap about it. .


"Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
news:410c019b$0$2846$...
> Phatty Boombatty wrote:
>
> > Yes, he put the date of "1897" or something at the beginning, leaving
> > no room in the viewer's mind that there is any possibility of anything
> > else. Then, at the end, we learn differently, and I felt like I had
> > been lied to and manipulated so that he could make his big twist more
> > effective.
> >
> > I actually liked the movie, but this particular point really
> > disappointed me and made me lose a little respect for the director.
>
> Like the time back when we were all "wow"'ed by the Sixth Sense ending,
> and MNS went around enjoying his new O.Henry Of The 90's status, and
> joking(?) on award shows, "Oh, and btw, the mother's really dead, too..."
>
> Which--aside from the "Oh, she was NOT, and there's nine scenes that can
> prove it!" factor--kind of jackass-embarrassed the more open-minded
> minority of us fans who liked MNS's gloomy atmosphere in the *first*
> halves of "Sixth" and "Unbreakable", and didn't really give a crap
> whether Bruce dropped his glasses after the apocalypse or not.
>
> He can be a fairly good creepy-gloomy director when he isn't trying to
> show off some tunnel-visioned script goal, but nope, we just HAD to
> encourage him with obsessing over all that Bruce Willis stuff five years
> ago, didn't we?...
>
> Derek Janssen
>
>