Originally Posted by Rausch:
He's had a number of good films.
The problem is when it isn't good it's usually terrible...
M Night cracks me up. Part of what pisses people off - is they go to a film thinking it's one thing - and it isn't that thing at all.
The Village comes to mind. If you knew coming in you would be mind fucked somewhere and it's not actually about old house on the prairie life - you might appreciate it more. [Reply]
It's no wonder critic and fans opinions are so different on RT
If you're a fan of Unbreakable and Split you'll be be ok, but critics have fair game to chew on as well... this movie could've been better
McAvoy is absolutely brilliant, skinny old Willis still inhabits his role nicely, Jackson had one of his best turns in a while... but I left with the sense that their performances were somewhat wasted on a pedestrian ending
It gets a flat B, it draws you in... then disappoints a bit at the end [Reply]
I didn't like Unbreakable at all, although it was far better than his later shit (never has one director gotten so much mileage out of one good movie as M. Night Shamalangawhatever). I'd never seen a superhero action movie that was so completely devoid of action.
Originally Posted by Frazod:
I didn't like Unbreakable at all, although it was far better than his later shit (never has one director gotten so much mileage out of one good movie as M. Night Shamalangawhatever). I'd never seen a superhero action movie that was so completely devoid of action.
No interest in seeing this.
I haven’t seen all his movies.
But I did like Signs, The Village and that one a few years back with the weird grandparents. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990:
I haven’t seen all his movies.
But I did like Signs, The Village and that one a few years back with the weird grandparents.
I quit watching his shit after Signs, a movie that features a farmer who sleeps in, never works, and doesn't own a gun, pitted against aliens who are also unarmed, dumb enough to be trapped in pantries, and despite water being poisonous to them, are trying to invade a planet mostly covered in water, where it rains. [Reply]
eh I thought it was decent enough but I can see why a lot of the critics criticized the 3rd act . still I give props to M Night for coming up with this trilogy and thought it was cool that the kid that played Bruce Wills' son in Unbreakable came back for this. Overall Glass was entertaining enough for me and McAvoy is flat out superb.
Originally Posted by Frazod:
I quit watching his shit after Signs, a movie that features a farmer who sleeps in, never works, and doesn't own a gun, pitted against aliens who are also unarmed, dumb enough to be trapped in pantries, and despite water being poisonous to them, are trying to invade a planet mostly covered in water, where it rains.
Not to defend the director, but just to touch upon something that I see in a lot of movies with aliens
It seems as if it's very tough to get aliens right, especially when they aren't being ported from long running book or tv series. A lot of that seems to come from having to figure out a way that they can be beaten back by humans, who are pretty much guaranteed to be the lesser race in these encounter movies.
Death by a cold
Death by water
Death by a drunk who flies a dud missile up into the big weapon
Death because killing one means killing them all
and so on
So creatures who are far enough advanced that they can conquer the problem of interstellar travel conveniently forget to vaccinate, have computers that can be hacked by people who've never seen them before (on any level), keep leaving obvious weak points of super weapons exposed, refuse to wear appropriate protective suits, don't max out their DNA potential through genetic engineering, and the like.
And that nonsense arrives from the more honest alternative, which is that aliens who are advanced enough to cross the void are almost certainly going to be advanced enough to take us out with little effort required on their part. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
Not to defend the director, but just to touch upon something that I see in a lot of movies with aliens
It seems as if it's very tough to get aliens right, especially when they aren't being ported from long running book or tv series. A lot of that seems to come from having to figure out a way that they can be beaten back by humans, who are pretty much guaranteed to be the lesser race in these encounter movies.
Death by a cold
Death by water
Death by a drunk who flies a dud missile up into the big weapon
Death because killing one means killing them all
and so on
So creatures who are far enough advanced that they can conquer the problem of interstellar travel conveniently forget to vaccinate, have computers that can be hacked by people who've never seen them before (on any level), keep leaving obvious weak points of super weapons exposed, refuse to wear appropriate protective suits, don't max out their DNA potential through genetic engineering, and the like.
And that nonsense arrives from the more honest alternative, which is that aliens who are advanced enough to cross the void are almost certainly going to be advanced enough to take us out with little effort required on their part.
Yep. You'd at least think they'd be bright enough to bring ray guns and umbrellas. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
I quit watching his shit after Signs, a movie that features a farmer who sleeps in, never works, and doesn't own a gun, pitted against aliens who are also unarmed, dumb enough to be trapped in pantries, and despite water being poisonous to them, are trying to invade a planet mostly covered in water, where it rains.
I've had to learn to change how I describe flicks now. In the past I'd say "yeah, It was a good movie."
Now I see there's a big difference between "I really enjoyed it" and "It's a good movie."
I just don't think "good movies" have glaring plot holes, huge inconsistencies, and obvious oversights. I can understand a continuity error here or there but...eh.
And I haven't gone to see it yet but have watched 3 or 4 reviews where people bring up that Bruce Willis clearly doesn't seem to give a shit. That he's basically phoning it in. [Reply]
This movie sucked. We had some free tickets that were expiring and had to choose a movie. Besides Macavoy's brilliant performance, it was a train wreck. Willis phones it in. Jackson doesn't do shit until the last 3rd of the movie. Another stupid twist at the end that everyone can see coming. Such a waste of talent and my time. Even with it being free. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rausch:
I've had to learn to change how I describe flicks now. In the past I'd say "yeah, It was a good movie."
Now I see there's a big difference between "I really enjoyed it" and "It's a good movie."
I just don't think "good movies" have glaring plot holes, huge inconsistencies, and obvious oversights. I can understand a continuity error here or there but...eh.
And I haven't gone to see it yet but have watched 3 or 4 reviews where people bring up that Bruce Willis clearly doesn't seem to give a shit. That he's basically phoning it in.
I admittedly haven't seen many new Bruce Willis movies, but it seems he's been phoning in performances for some time now. Kevin Smith described directing him as "soul crushing." [Reply]