Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Got Miikka? · 07-09-2008, 01:20 PM

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:

I watched this movie yesterday. And... it did in fact... well, actually, I don't want to go so far as to say 'sucked', because comparatively-speaking, Lady In The Water SUCKED, so this, not being as bad as Lady In The Water, could therefore not accurately be described as a sucky movie. But it wasn't very good.

A lot of debate going on about 'biological evolution' in this thread. Do not put words into this movie's mouth. This movie goes to great pains to explain the 'happening' as nothing more than an inexplicable act of nature; 'inexplicable' becoming a great overall theme for a movie that really makes no sense. The script makes a couple of references to the scientific method and Mark Wahlberg has an awkward discussion with his high school class about it but do not mistake this obvious exposition for thoughtful or thought-provoking writing. Shamalyan's script works hard to evoke plausiblity but the result is almost unfailing in its lack thereof. There are some great unintentional laughs. A zookeeper goading lions into ripping off his limbs or a man turning a riding-mower on himself: these are meant to be shattering and disturbing sequences but ultimately stifling a loud guffaw proved difficult. The sequence where the two kids Wahlberg's crew is travelling with are shot in the head is outrageous. And what the fack is up with the old lady at the end? Is she supposed to be some kind of lame metaphor for the plants themselves?

All that slagging aside I thought this movie actually had a lot going for it. The pacing of the film - which is thnakfully short at about an hour and a half - moves along slowly at an almost meditative speed, which gives the movie a creepy feeling. Despite the clunky dialogue and lousy characters I thought Wahlberg and even this Zooey Deschanel (what's her deal, anyway - she's always weird in every movie) managed to find some salvage. Rumor has it Shamalyan is given total creative autonomy over his work; if true, he might do well to allow others some input because this movie was a few tweaks away from being fairly decent (in other words, manipulating or underplaying its faults so as to appear more mysterious, or less hammy). I guess M. hasn't ever heard of War of the Worlds, though, because the premise of the ending of that story is rather remarkably like the one that comprises this entire story.

Oh and as far as the Hitchcock-complex: Shamallama's role in this movie is limited to a single line of dialogue spoken over a cellphone. Phew! Sweet relief after having to endure his part as a central character in the last movie...

07-09-2008, 01:20 PM	#78
Got Miikka? One of the Nine Join Date: Sep 2006 Exp:	SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: I watched this movie yesterday. And... it did in fact... well, actually, I don't want to go so far as to say 'sucked', because comparatively-speaking, Lady In The Water SUCKED, so this, not being as bad as Lady In The Water, could therefore not accurately be described as a sucky movie. But it wasn't very good. A lot of debate going on about 'biological evolution' in this thread. Do not put words into this movie's mouth. This movie goes to great pains to explain the 'happening' as nothing more than an inexplicable act of nature; 'inexplicable' becoming a great overall theme for a movie that really makes no sense. The script makes a couple of references to the scientific method and Mark Wahlberg has an awkward discussion with his high school class about it but do not mistake this obvious exposition for thoughtful or thought-provoking writing. Shamalyan's script works hard to evoke plausiblity but the result is almost unfailing in its lack thereof. There are some great unintentional laughs. A zookeeper goading lions into ripping off his limbs or a man turning a riding-mower on himself: these are meant to be shattering and disturbing sequences but ultimately stifling a loud guffaw proved difficult. The sequence where the two kids Wahlberg's crew is travelling with are shot in the head is outrageous. And what the fack is up with the old lady at the end? Is she supposed to be some kind of lame metaphor for the plants themselves? All that slagging aside I thought this movie actually had a lot going for it. The pacing of the film - which is thnakfully short at about an hour and a half - moves along slowly at an almost meditative speed, which gives the movie a creepy feeling. Despite the clunky dialogue and lousy characters I thought Wahlberg and even this Zooey Deschanel (what's her deal, anyway - she's always weird in every movie) managed to find some salvage. Rumor has it Shamalyan is given total creative autonomy over his work; if true, he might do well to allow others some input because this movie was a few tweaks away from being fairly decent (in other words, manipulating or underplaying its faults so as to appear more mysterious, or less hammy). I guess M. hasn't ever heard of War of the Worlds, though, because the premise of the ending of that story is rather remarkably like the one that comprises this entire story. Oh and as far as the Hitchcock-complex: Shamallama's role in this movie is limited to a single line of dialogue spoken over a cellphone. Phew! Sweet relief after having to endure his part as a central character in the last movie... Last edited by Got Miikka?; 07-09-2008 at 01:24 PM.