The Hot Blog

I do love that The Happening is being sold as "M. Night's first ever R-rated film." Yeah... I am all about watching a flick with motherfuckers being killed for no good reason by ................ . Fun times. Fun times.

M. Night Shyamalan still remains one of my favorite directors. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are two of my favorite films of this decade. Signs, tense and suspenseful as hell, was a simpler film (he called it his 'Wal Mart film', having been burned by the response of Unbreakable), but even his stupid is smarter than most people's intellectual.

Even his lesser works, be it the flawed but interesting The Village, or the complete misfire of Lady In The Water, feel wholly original and the work of someone who truly gives a damn. His directorial style resembles a twisted Claude Chabrol and his dialogue is always refreshingly human. While his scripts are hit and miss, he is never less than a visionary pro behind the camera. He pulls career highlight performances out of mainstream stars like Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson and peppers the rest of his cast with interesting character actors (who else would have given Toni Collette an Oscar-nominated role?).

Even if The Happening underwhelms (as the current buzz suggests), I will continue to look forward to this most unique auteur, whose successes are richly rewarding and who's failures are always the result of trying too much, rather than daring too little. He is an American original and should be treated as such.

Pardon the slight preachy-ness, but the guy deserves a defense. Along with Chris Nolan and Martin Campbell, there is no modern director who's films I look forward to more than Shyamalan.

And thanks Dave, for pointing out the absurdity of calling the $255 million worldwide take for The Village a disappointment.

It's marketing assholes and their slaves who come up with pieces like that on M.Night that make me leap into his corner.

He's not a "brand" -- he's a filmmaker. Artists need to stop letting Mad Men dictate the terms.

The whole piece seems set up from somebody with an axe to grind. Or worse, it's the subtle sheeple reinforcement that he's not playing by The Man's limited rule book. All the better for M.Night.

What disturbs me about the marketing of "The Happening" is how much they trying to make it look like something Spielberg would direct. That's a whole new level of subliminal brand marketing.

And how can you really deny branding in Shyamalan's case? The guy's (made-up) middle name is fucking "Night" for chrissakes!

The Village actually had a $50 million opening? Jeeeezz......Three major oversights on your list of director's who are bankable on the strength of their own name - Ridley Scott, Robert Zemeckis and Michael Mann. Really, David Fincher (a man who for all his plaudits has only ever had one $100 million grosser in his career) over those three? Beowulf was the first Zemeckis movie NOT to gross $100 million-plus in the last decade-and-a-half, and even then it was arguably designed as a litmus test for the mainstream viability of IMAX 3-D.

Edit, you did include the Scott Brothers after all, mea culpa...

The point is, he was already a "brand" when he was in college. Consciously or not, he made it easy for the executives to exploit him.

I honestly believe that he doesn't want to be seen as a one-trick pony (and I don't really think he is - I actually like him). However, at the same time I think he knows that his dispositions are hard to change and, ultimately, his future box office success is closely correlated with his name.

And another reason why he's not Spielberg and will never be Spielberg is because he's not showing any of that range. At least not yet. For now he maybe a more faithful Spielberg desciple than Zemeckis.

Good call on the backfiring of the Wachowski Bros. Speed Racer is my favorite movie of the summer so far, but you can sent a family film by saying it's created by the guys that made an R rated trilogy. It does not compute. That's like Looney Tunes: Back in Action from the director of The Howling.

"can't sell" not "can sent"

I don't know, I think M. Night's stupid is pretty stupid. Granted, it's a different kind of stupid than what your Michael Bay and your Brett Ratner will come up with, but I was still rolling my eyes at the turd sandwiches he was expecting me to swallow and thank him for (Signs, The Village, and Lady in the Water).

Oh, and Christian - his branding is totally of his own creation. He's a savvy guy as far as that goes, to the detriment of his own craft.

Yes, Shyalaman comparing himself to Spielberg and Hitchcock smacks to me of branding. And for those who believe that he has the moves of those two... I won't go for the one trick pony, but rather that all his films are directed in the same gear. He never gets out of second. He is so obsessed with maintaining "tone" that he doesn't seem to appreciate that drama is about highs and lows, fasts and slows. Jaws, CE3K and even ET have moments of great excitement around which Spielberg slows things down in order to make the speed more intense.

Personally, I think Shyamalan needs not only to work with a writer other than himself... he also needs a producer. Spielberg did that with Raiders. He knew, after 1941, that he had to go out and prove himself as a commercially viable director who could work to a budget and schedule. And look at the beauty Spielberg gave us.

I don't know which producer to put him with, but put him with one who WILL NOT SHARE THE CREDIT WITH HIM. The credits would read "A ____ Production." Period. "Directed by___" Not "An M. Night Shyamalan Film."

Umm why does Peter Bart now have a blog? And who thought this was a good idea, and why?

Sorry, meant to put that in the BYOB thread.

Um how about the director who is more of a brand than any you of the ones you mention "TARANTINO" ?

Not sure where to put this since you meant to put yours in BYOB, but re: Bart
Maybe because being annoying and ill-informed once a week just isn't enough? This side of Steven King in EW, is there a worse column in American mass media than Bart's?

Not sure where to put this since you meant to put yours in BYOB, but re: Bart
Maybe because being annoying and ill-informed once a week just isn't enough? This side of Steven King in EW, is there a worse column in American mass media than Bart's?

I completely agree with Scott Mendelsen (and dude, nice job NOT signing your name at recent posts...lol) and think Shyalaman is one of the many victims of the internet everyone's a critic thing. He's like a higher pedigree whipping boy for the internet movie nerd culture. The dude has made some terrific films and like Scott said, his bad still has some great stuff going on. There are some absolutely stunning moments in both THE VILLAGE and LADY IN THE WATER.

I also agree a producer to rein him in would be ideal.

I think the brand name director list shrinks considerably if you weren't allowed to use lines like "from the director of Se7en and Fight Club". David Fincher is know to types like us, but outside of that, I do not think that he alone would rattle anybody else's antennae very much.

I'm only using Fincher as an example, by the way, not to single him out, since his name alone gets ME interested in seeing whatever he's making (along with the Coens, Mann, Kitano, Whedon, etc).

JBD: This would be the same Tarantino who hasn't cracked $75 million since 1994?

Cadavra : Lets leave boxoffice aside.

I'm not arguing about the imagined value of marquee pushing of the director - I was just surprised Tarantino was left off the list of directors as 'brands' that's all. The selling of him comes before his films nearly always.

If only 4 people out of 10 walking into Jurassic Park knew Speilberg had directed it. What hope does Tony Scott have?

Man! SIGNS sucked hard! One of the few movies in the last few decades that left me truly angry.

Signs was a near masterpiece. I loved it.

I agree with Malone. It made me angry as well.

Another vote for "angry." Even putting aside the religious claptrap, Signs is built on space aliens capable of interstellar travel yet unable to work a farmhouse doorknob. And if their weakness is water, you'd think they'd be better prepared when invading a planet that's two-thirds covered by the stuff.

At least The Village made a half-assed attempt at closing its plot holes.

Signs rules. Swing away Merrill. Swing away.

If it makes you angry. You must not have asthma, appreciate Romero zombie films, or last second discussions with loved ones before they bleed out. Good times. Good times.

I just wish the movie was a little honest and instead of 'swing away' the line was 'Murder that motherf&%*ing alien with a baseball bat. Murder away'

IOIO -- I was definitely entertained by Signs, but "Swing Away"? As a friend of mine loves to point out: "Gee. What is dead mom's big psychic advice which will be crucial for Joaquin's survival? Swing away! In other words: "Son, defend yourself."

That and the whole aliens-who-can't-come-into-contact-with-water-but-choose-to-invade-a-planet-that -has-so-much-water-it's-in-our-air" thing -- those two things kind of sullied the experience a little bit for me.

Sidenote, I watched Parenthood this past weekend, for the first time since it came out. I was shocked at how many seriously funny lines of dialog are in that movie, and I also had forgotten that it has a young Leaf Phoenix playing Diane Wiest's troubled teen son. Good casting. He definitely sold the "that kid ain't quite right" pretty well as did his sister played by Martha Plimpton.

I continually watch Parenthood because it has held up as a comedy. It also reminds me that Ken Ober gave up REMOTE CONTROL for the good Parenthood TV show, and NBC cancelled. Ober deserved better.

The response to your Swing Away comment is simple: Merrill was freaked out. He had no idea if these fuckers could be taken out by a bat. The dead wife saw as much, and shared the information.

I simply do not get why this statement gets slammed so much. When M. Night put it in there as a clear bit of "GO FOR THE HEAD" bit of business. Which would be inspired by Romero. It's not like you would know to swing away or to go for the head unless someone told you.

The aliens with the water-phobia. This is an easy one in a sense because the aliens did countless snatch and grabs around the world. They were disperate for food. They decided to do whatever it takes to get this precious human meat.

Again... the aliens are more like zombies. If you look at them as zombies and not as aliens. It makes more sense. It does not change the possible plot-hole. It only fixes it with some duct tape.

Or, M. Night figured audiences would swallow his stupid ideas and not complain about them because he's full of himself.

My opinion is, it's a very insulting movie.

I think it's insulting with the whole weird flashback of events before the major events happen, but the human thought process works that way. On occassion; we are known look over a lot before we deal with any given hectic situation. Mel's character sort of plays into that logic, and tries to pull the pieces together in a poorly edited sequence. Yes the whole FAITH aspect of it's hokey, but it works from a certain point of view.

I also think it's a zombie movie much in the same way that I, ROBOT is a zombie movie. If you look at them as ZOMBIE films. It becomes apparent that they are about as sci-fi as George Romero in a Star Trek uniform.

Why look at these films as anything more than "type type type...internet movie nerd sez Night ez bad....he sux...type type type...Uwe Boll....blah blah blah George Lucas shit on my childhood....Zzzzz...."

Arnold: TELL DON HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT COMMENT!

"THAT'S A GOOD ONE!"

Also... here's to Lady and the Water.

I liked all of M. Night's movies except for the dumb ending of The Village. I haven't seen Lady In the Water, I guess I should check it out.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to "The Happening." It looks pretty interesting to me.

I had enjoyed all of his films, up until Lady in the Water. That was the point where his godawful performances infected the entire cast.

But the aliens aren't allergic to water. They're allergic to what we have done to it. There's a reason why the little girl keeps saying the water is contaminated.

Or, that's my understanding of Signs' ending and Ive stuck to it all these days. But then, I really really liked that movie. That party sequence freaked.me.out.

Camel: that's a rather good take on the water. The contamination being everything we put in there to purify it. Which would be a good bit of business on Night's part. Good share there Camel.

Good idea, too bad it isn't actually in the movie. That's what can only be called a justification after the fact.

I mean, Signs is the kind of movie where it amazes me that everyone doesn't notice how incredibly bad it is. It has good scenes here and there, and good music and cinematography, but the package as a whole is corrupt, and I don't use that term lightly.

umm... how can you say that? Are you M Night Shyamalan? Do you have a Being John Malkovich style portal into his brain to know what there is or isn't in his movie? Considering the amount of stuff he's tried to put into films past and since (successfully or unsuccessfully) I would never put anything past him.

That's an interesting idea about the water Camel, but I'm not buying. The intent of that line was clearly that the girl intuitively just wanted more water around so she kept asking for glasses of water. The "contamination" was her excuse to get a new glass.

I do agree with the people who say that Night's movies, no matter how bad, always have some really great parts. Also, whoever said he needs to work with other writers is bang on the money. He's much more talented as a director than he is as a writer.

Camel, I'm pretty sure all you have to do to know what's in the movie is watch the movie. If the only way to know something is in the movie is by reading M. Night Shyamalan's mind, then I think by definition that makes it not in the movie.

Just to prove I'm not a hater, I'll say this: some sequences in Signs are awesomely directed. There is real tension in the movie. But the script sucks so bad that, for folks like me and Jeff, it takes the whole movie down with it.

Is nobody allowed to dislike Shyamalan without being called a hater? Are there merely two categories, fan and hater?

I think he's an arrogant ass, but that isn't unique in the industry. I just don't like his movies. Signs has its moments in the first half but gradually becomes ridiculously, insultingly stupid. The Village was too easy to figure out and ultimately not very interesting. Lady in the Water is horrifically awful, and casting himself in that role was a catastrophic mistake. The Sixth Sense is decent but I don't care if I ever see it again, and I haven't seen Unbreakable since its theatrical release.

"Or, M. Night figured audiences would swallow his stupid ideas and not complain about them because he's full of himself.

My opinion is, it's a very insulting movie."

I think your comments made it perfectly clear who the stupid one here is.

Uh oh, Roman called someone stupid. Next, he calls someone a poop head.

Mea Culpa. M. Night did do Amex Ads, so...

Roman: care to elaborate?

Lady in the Water is sort of a guilty pleasure for me. Shyamalan may be a nut job, but he's a nut job with conviction. What his "bedtime story" lacks in sense and purpose, it makes up for with a surfeit of odd details that feel personal to the idiosyncratic auteur. There's also an interesting sense of looseness and eccentricity to the compositions that I associate neither with Shyamalan nor his DP, Christopher Doyle.

Like most bullshit artists, Shyamalan can be quite entertaining even when you see right through him. I think his work has yielded diminishing returns ever since The Sixth Sense, but Lady is too loopily sincere to raise my hackles much.

I didn't dislike LADY as much as everybody else seems to. Had some interesting scenes in it, Giamatti was fine, and at least it wasn't a goddamn "Twilight Zone" episode padded out to feature-length like all of his other pictures.

Giamatti was really good in it. In my year-end wrap-up that year, I labelled him "Best actor in a bad movie".

I never understand that argument that aliens wouldn't attack a water-filled planet since water can kill them. Bullets kill humans but we're in Iraq. Aliens would find that to be a plot hole!

Yeah, but soldiers in Iraq also wear protective uniforms, they don't just run around naked.

But Eric all I'm saying is that I see something in Signs that you do not. Why then am I instantly wrong yet you are right. Do you have concrete proof as spoken by Shyamalan that that is the case? Cause if you do I'd love to see it and I will gladly say I was wrong. Until then I think it's incredibly rude to claim anybody's interpretation of a movie is flatout wrong simply because you don't like it.

Chris. Seriously.

That was meant to be "Christ". My blaspheming doesn't quite work when I spell it incorrectly, huh?

Still.

Christ. Seriously.

i'm gonna watch 'signs' again and suss out the whole water situation, then open a can of whoopass on whomever has the audacity to disagree with my assessment...

sorry, i'm just being a moron, trying to diffuse any aggro

I don't think your interpretation is 'wrong', KCamel, but let me put it this way - even if you were right, it wouldn't change my overall reaction to the movie, which was a lot of grumbling and eye-rolling. In fact, I think it might even make the movie a little less good that Shyamalan may or may not have been adding an ecology subtext on top of his huge religious subtext (which is really just text, there's no sub about it).

shyamalan's subtext is so heavy-handed it's more like a sub-woofer. he seems to be losing whatever subtlety he had in 'sixth sense' as time wears on

Camel, I wasn't responding to your thoughts on the water being contaminated per se, I was responding to your 3:53am comment above that said we couldn't definitively know what was going on in the movie without reading Shyamalan's mind. Touchy touchy.

But regarding your "contamination" theory, what Jeff said about it seems right to me. As I recall there was no explanation within the movie of why the girl was saying it was contaminated-- and without any hint whatsoever, you can't use it to close up a plot hole. Because you need to point to something in the movie that suggests that Shyamalan intended it that way.

Even if he did intend it-- and I don't think there's anything in the movie to back that up-- then he failed to connect those dots.

"Yeah, but soldiers in Iraq also wear protective uniforms, they don't just run around naked."

The problem with plot holes like this is, it's nota plot hole because we know NOTHING about these aliens. For all we know, the actual intelligent aliens are on the ships, and these are basically mindless drones that they grow on tubes and send out to harvest food. So why would they make protective clothing for them?

And the plot hole about alines that can't open a door...Shamalyan's (badly acted, by the way) character said he LOCKED HIM IN. NOthing points out that the aliens are very strong...the boy's book even says they probably wouldn't be.

The water killing the aliens is as much of a plot hole as germs killing the aliens in War of the Worlds. I don't think it entirely works, but it's not a plot hole. It's just a device to get rid of them.

I don't care for the "swing away" stuff, because I don't think anyone woud need to be told to hit something with a weapon in self-defense. That's pretty bumb.

But I love Signs...I think it's his most entertaining movie, and certainly the one I've watched most of his pictures. I love the feeling of doom. Jeff, it seems weird to me that you'd hate this one so much while giving passes to some real shitty movies. This one has way more good than bad, and so the big reveal is kind of crappy...everything that came before was so good, I can let it go.

Eric, I could care more about a sparrow's fart than I do about whether you liked the movie or not - that's not my beef - but what I do object to is to being told my opinion is flatout wrong simply because you don't like the movie, which is what you and Jeff are doing as evidenced by "Good idea, too bad it isn't actually in the movie" and "I'm pretty sure all you have to do to know what's in the movie is watch the movie."

As we've established, Shyamalan likes to put a lot of subtext (whether he's successful at it is another thing entirely) in his movies so I don't see why it's such a big craaazy jump to assume that maybe there's something else there. Geez. I am "touchy touchy" about that stuff. It's not like I'm trying to drawer subtext out of Dirty Love or Candleshoe.

And I agree with Perm. Part of the reason I liked Signs so much was because we saw so little of the aliens and so little of the outside world. And how are we to know that the aliens even know what water is? If I was an alien in a flying saucer and saw lots of blue liquidy stuff I'd never seen before I wouldn't go "wow, you reckon were allergic to that?"

ugh.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that when you assert something about the plot of the movie, you need to back it up with evidence from the movie itself.

If you can't do that, maybe I can also interest you in my theory that Charles Foster Kane was actually a cyborg sent from the future.

Eric, didn't you notice the kids were right the whole movie? The boy basically calls everything...that the aliens are weak, they'd be on foot and travel light (i.e. buck ass naked), etc. The girl says the water is contaminated (meaning the amoebas and other life in it), and the alien dies from the water.

You can argue up and down that the movie doesn't explicity say this, but it's not a stretch to say that it did, unlike your Citizen Kane comaprison.

The fact that the word 'contamination' occurs in the movie is just enough of a platform for KCamel to have his theory; for me, it's still not enough, because I don't see that it connects to anything else in the movie, or it even really matters or adds anything to the film. Water is just a convenient device to get rid of the aliens, like Big Perm said.

Perm, I'm also curious which 'real shitty' movies you think I've given a pass to. Signs has a lot going for it - the cinematography, music, and editing are all strong, the acting is good, it's funny, it's scary, I like the enclosed, claustrophobic quality of the story. But since the whole movie is designed by Shyamalan to prove what I think is a really stupid and insulting point that he wants to make, it all collapses in on itself.

Perm, you're arguing your point by citing details from the movie. Well done. That's all I've been saying Camel ought to do.

Big Perm: "The girl says the water is contaminated (meaning the amoebas and other life in it), and the alien dies from the water."

Me: "But the aliens aren't allergic to water. They're allergic to what we have done to it. There's a reason why the little girl keeps saying the water is contaminated."

How different is what Perm said to what I said all the way up there?

Well, the water is 'contaminated' from the alien POV, but we don't know what it is that's the contaminating part - the water itself, some kind of chemical in it, etc. And the movie doesn't give any answers.

He also listed more context from the movie-- i.e. the other stuff the kids said-- that would imply that the girl was right about contamination.

(None of us really cares enough about Signs to keep this going, do we?)

Jesus christ, you're being pedantic.

Actually, no, I'm not. He provided an argument, while you have provided assertions.

Tell you what, I've got a new theory: the girl thought the water was contaminated because they buried the mother's corpse too close to the well. The water then hurt the alien's skin because it was full of the dead mother's midi-chlorians! The aliens' real weakness all along was feisty midi-chlorians!

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything else in the movie that would support my theory-- but someday I hope to talk to Shyamalan to confirm that it's what he really intended. Because that's what counts.

I have to give it to Kamikaze, you guys are being a little pedantic. Jeff, why do you need answers as to why the water kills the aliens? Does it really matter? Would the movie be better if it ended like Psycho with a very serious scientist explaining exactly how and why the water killed them?

And Jeff, I can't name the specific shiity movies you've given a pass to because the only one I like to keep very detailed notes in a water-proof binder is LexG. But I know when people would talk about crappy horror movies nd torture porn, that you'd tend to say a number of them weren't tha bad. Which is fine with me. I'm pretty easy on movies a lot of times too. But Signs is immeasurably better than, say, Turistas or Hostel or Hostel 2.

What is the insulting point of the movie?

"I've got a new theory". That's all my bit is! A theory. I'm not stating it as fact, but I was presenting it as a possibility to people who maybe hadn't thought of it. But instead of being conversational about it you and Jeff merely struck it down and said that I was, essentially, imagining things. I'm sorry I didn't have scientific research to prove that my theory was correct. However, it is my theory based on a specific line of dialogue and a running reference to contaminated water. I don't get how it's such a big jump from being "allergic to water" to being "allergic to what's in the water" and considering there is a line about the water being contaminated, I personally think it's a fairly reasonable explanation.

But, then again, I've never understood the "why would they come to a planet that's 60% water if they're allergic to it" because I'm sure there are plenty of alien organisms that we are allergic to and wouldn't know simply by looking at it.

The movie's about A-L-I-E-N-S. Think outside the box a little!

Oh, and by the way, if you had perhaps gone "hmmm, interesting theory. is there anything else in the movie that supports it?" I may have gone back to the movie and reported back about the kids always being correct and so on. But you didn't. Instead you flatout mocked me for my wild delusions (proven most remarkably by Jeff's "Good idea, too bad it isn't actually in the movie. That's what can only be called a justification after the fact.")

A lot of movies have been dismissed upon release and then heralded years later as having hidden meanings that people hadn't thought about. I'm not saying Signs will go on to become some oft-discussed piece of classic cinema, nor am I saying it's some freudian masterpiece, but sometimes people just miss stuff.

On the specific point of Signs: given the reality the movie presents-- that these aliens are advanced enough to travel through space, but not enough to protect themselves from one of the most common and visible molecules on the planet-- some explanation is required. And that Shyamalan failed to provide enough evidence in the movie itself to substantiate any theory.

Opinions may differ. For this viewer, it was too distracting and it brought down an otherwise well-directed movie.

But the general point I've been making all along is that any explanation has to be founded in the movie, and its creator's intent is irrelevant if he failed to give the audience what is needed to figure things out.

Maybe Jeff and I are just more interested in this aspect of the movie than you, so to you it seems like we're quibbling over details. I just meant to discuss your theory, not to frustrate you. So, seriously, we can call it quits if you like.

As for your addendum: I'm certainly open to the possibility that I missed things or don't recall them (as I haven't seen the movie since it was in theaters). That's why I was receptive to Big Perm's additional details. I really did think we were having a discussion, not an argument.

I'm no big fan of Signs, but I think maybe the water thing should get a pass because of the tight focus of the story. It's all from the POV of this one family, in a comparatively confined setting. They have no way of determining why the aliens are repelled by water, so neither do we.

Still, I agree it's a silly choice, because it nags at our sense of logic. Maybe M. Night should've gone with something more off-the-wall, like Krazy Glue, or Cream of Wheat. We still wouldn't understand it, but at least no one could argue "That's ridiculous! The planet is like 98% Cream of Wheat!"

Not our planet, at least.

Big Perm, I don't think this is an important aspect at all. I think it was a sloppy piece of screenwriting on Shyamalan's part that he thought nobody would care about and here we are.

As for your other shitty movies listing, here's how I would rank the ones you mentioned:

Hostel: 6/10
Hostel 2: 6/10
Signs: 4/10
Turistas: 2/10

It's the religious/philopsophical underpinning of Signs that I think is the insulting part.

I honestly think anyone dwelling onthe water aspect and all of that isn't seeing the forest for the trees. It's an accountant's way of lookng at a movie...define this for me, why is this? Who cares? We know NOTHING about the aliens, and we shouldn't. If there was a real invasion we wouldn't know anything about them either. I love that part of the movie. And the details about the aliens are superfluous anyway. This isn't Independence Day, it's not about the aliens or the invasion...it's about the family.

I mean, no one has ever really explained how Superman can fly. Sure, the sun gives him powers, but how exactly can he fly? He doesn't have wings, he doesn't flap his arms. Is he filled with a gas like helium? Is he able to somehow fold time and space? The movie doesn't explain it!

Why is the religious part of Signs insulting? I have a friend who was pissed off about that aspect as well, and for him it was because he saw it being a religious tract.

I would probably agree with your friend, except that I don't think it was specifically 'religious' per se but more about much broader outlook on life. Basically I think the deterministic/fatalistic 'everything happens for a reason' idea that the movie was pushing - and pushing very hard - is something of a lie forced down the audience's throat. I wouldn't mind it so much if it didn't seem to be the movie's entire reason for existing.

David Weitzner is spot-on and I give him two thumbs up.

He refers to Name-Checking, the dreaded disease I have dissed time and time again to this blog. Name-Checking has become more common on 3 fronts:

(1) Anything that looks iffy. "Knocked Up" and "Stop-Loss" are good examples. "The Happening" is another.

(2) During a recession. A year or so ago I spotted a poster for "Philadelphia" and it clearly name-checked "The Silence of the Lambs".

(3) Limited-release arthouse fare. "The Visitor" made the national top 10, but the poster and website name-check a pic that stayed in the arthouse ghetto.

Another deadly industry disease that Mr. Weitzner didn't refer to is Oscar-Whoring. All a studio has to do is add "Academy Award Winner" or "Academy Award Nominee" before an actor's name. The movie in question will become a Must To Avoid.

...except if the movie is actually good. And often, a good movie will be made by a good director. And also often, good directors will have their names mentioned in the advertising.

Once again: I wish I understood you, Chucky, because all of this sounds like the over-application of a rule of thumb into absurdity.

Chucky, don't you ever want to see or not see a movie because of who's involved with making it, or do you live in some kind of space/time vortex with everything is relative?

I know that I, personally, have seen many shitty movies just because they starred Jackie Chan.

See, the religious aspect is where I can understand becoming frustrated at the movie. Aliens took over the world and kills lotsa people, but as long as Mel Gibson finds his faith again it's a-okay. Even I found those last five minutes hard to swallow.

But, as Perm said, the alien backstory is just not that important to me. It's a fact of the movie that aliens are allergic to water or something in the water or some sort of water-related //thing//, but I don't really think it matters. But it is there and so I put my brain to work and came up with the contamination thing. It was as simple as that. It didn't take long. So it's not like I came up with some big elaborate theory involving zombies and mystical Mongolian magicians.

Eric, for me, a discussion ceases to be a discussion when people immediately shoot down another person's idea. But, hey, that's just me.

Fun fact - One of the movie's IMDb keywords is "contaminated water". haha.

Yeah, I really don't get this pathological aversion to "name-checking" and "Oscar-whoring." It's very hard to sell movies in brief TV spots and print ads strictly on the merits of their storylines. These "dreaded" techniques are efficient shorthand to convey that the film in question was made by people who may have impressed you before. The average person doesn't know Jonathan Demme's name, but they know Silence of the Lambs, and if they liked it they might be interested in the latest film by the same director. This seems like common sense marketing to me. I'll grant you that if you have Spielberg and Cruise, it's probably not necessary to trumpet "from the director of ET and the star of Mission Impossible." Everybody knows who they are. As for The Visitor - do you think they could've doubled their gross if the one-sheet didn't mention The Station Agent?

But are there really people out there (besides Chucky) who see the phrase "Academy Award winner" and think, "Oh hell no, there's no way I'm seeing that." Even if the story looks good and they enjoyed previous films by the parties involved? I kinda doubt it.

I'm sure that what Chucky is saying stems from a germ of truth - that he, or whoever taught him this lesson, looked at trailers and ads for mediocre movies directed by or starring former Oscar winners or nominees and saw that in desperation, the ad people were grasping at straws and mentioning whatever awards they could.

And then he overapplied this rule to include good movies too, indicating a certain inability to differentiate.

I imagine that a gross of $5.5mil, which is what The Visitor has made so far with at least a few mil to go surely, is a pretty damn good gross for such a small movie. One from a director, whose last film, as Chucky so lovingly mentioned, never left the arthouse ghetto.

For the record, it was Jeff that originally shot down your theory, not me. I only jumped in when you backed it up with a specious assertion that only a mindreader could know the answer.

Except that I had forgotten that the little girl says 'it's contaminated' which counts for something.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)