I watched a better version of this on daytime television. I think it was an episode of the new outer limits. Four teenagers are on a hike in the woods. They find a cave with a chest that has a chalice filled with blood. They accidentally spill the chalice and immediately the sun goes out, the world is dark, and it starts getting colder. Entire episode is the four of them in the cave, trying not to freeze. Ultimately they come to terms with the fact that they have to commit human sacrifice and fill the chalice (I think there were cave paintings explaining it, it was long ago). They draw straws or something, kill one of the girls, fill the chalice, sun comes back up... then the radio says the earth passed through a cloud of solar dust or something and they and the audience are left to wonder if the sacrifice was necessary and the event was supetnatural.
@@hplovecraft1402 The twilight zone reboot only lasted a few episodes but it had some bangers. There was one where George kastanza from signfield played a suicidal Death that involved a trauma surgeon wondering if he actually made a difference. And a sequel to the classic episode with the psychic kid where the original actor revised his role as an adult.
I still find it funny that M. Night tired to claim the reason why people didn’t like his ATLA movie was because as a Indian his brain didn’t think of stories the same as westerners… which is really odd given he’s spent decades of his life in the west making movies for primarily western audiences…
I can’t watch anything that seems to have forced wokeness in it which means that I watch mostly classic and foreign films at this point. Hopefully this dearth of creativity and forced mediocrity because of political agendas will pass soon.
@@MrHorsesongs05 The only exception is Robert Eggers’ movies because he acts all far left in interviews but his movies are fanta-historical and he doesn’t break history with wokeness. So I do support him and we all should because he’s the only director doing it. I’ve bought all 3 of his movies because he’s willing to say sorry but I’m not adding wokeness to history when it didn’t exist.
Gay couple: “We’re such good, progressive and considerate people.” Dave Batista: “Unless one of you willingly sacrifices yourself, hundreds of millions of men, women and children die every few hours, including us. Please make the hard choice for the sake of all humanity.” Gay guy: “Fuck the world! They can all die! Aren’t we such good and moral people! 😊”
Signs is a good and suspensful movie up until half-way through when the movie decides that the mysterious and hostile aliens attacking the planet are all double digit IQ. Water is their weakness, and they run around naked. Isn't our planet 80% water? What are they going to do when it rains? Why would they even invade here? Would you attack a foreign land if 80% of it was suphiric acid which sometimes falls from the sky? How about doing it naked?
To be fair, it's like a poor man's "War of the Worlds", where the technologically advanced Martians invaded only to realize far too late that maybe it's a bad idea to invade a planet without checking to see if there were dangerous microbes in the air.... Sure, to be just as fair, H.G. Wells was originally running on what was cutting-edge Victorian science, with a metaphor for European colonialism where colonists run headlong into things like Malaria to kind of bring them to a stop, and in-universe the Martians' rarified atmosphere and more ancient biology had long ago eliminated Martian disease, leaving them unprepared for Earth's much dirtier environment, but the point still stands that "Signs" was just a second-rate modern rewrite of the more famous and almost endlessly-adapted "War of the Worlds", with all H.G. Wells' familiar serial numbers filed off....
The "Aliens" are actually Demons taking over the world. The water around the house is blessed. Mel gibson reclaims his faith as he realises its all part of gods plan.
I've a question. I went on a school trip recently. The museum worker was going on that Brits photographed on trophies of war was bad. Two minutes later she 's explaining one of those trophies, which is a plaque showing a victory of the local king over his enemies. That was a celebration. Then also asked quite forcefully for the kids to write in demanding reparations. The double standard was interesting. So do I ring up the Commission for racial equality, and say swap the races or substitute another race and ask if that's racist or not? Record that and then use that in a complaint.
I'd say that reverse logic wouldn't enter their heads because the notion would be immediately rejected - maybe you could go in the Style of an Alex Stein: publicly exaggerate their own position to utter absurdity to an higher authority or in a way that makes them question themselves
Imagine telling someone Batista was once a bigger star in WWE than John Cena... Note: I'm meant that a lot of people nowadays would be surprised to hear that (probably coulda phrased it better).
for about 2 years in the early 2000s thats arguable like while he was in evolution Batista was a bigger deal than Cena but the rest of their careers just dont compare
@@t8kabr8km85 agreed 100%, but I do wonder how much bigger Batista would/could have been if he hadn't had so many repeat injuries I swear the guy tore his ACL at least once a year
My biggest problem was : it's a " is it supernatural or not?" movie made by the person who always has a supernatural otherworldly element in his movies.
This was a case where having a gay couple actually made sense. If you’d had a regular mom and dad, you’d have a strong expectation that the dad would sacrifice himself for his family. Here, having two guys made it easier to string things out. As you point out, the bigger issue was that the potential for it all being revenge on the gay couple was blown by the potential bad guy being the first to die…
@@thomgizziz Ikr? I mean, I would for my wife and kids. But the last thing I would want is man-hating feminists crapping on me despite my sacrifice with all the pandering about how "men don't matter"!
@@thomgizziz The natural instinct to protect and sacrifice is stronger in men, generally. As time goes on, men need to discern if that is good or not, for their own existence.
I didn't get that impression at all. Frankly I was happy to see two gay men portrayed as rich self centered assholes who's selfishness bring about the apocalypse. Their unwillingness to sacrifice ANYTHING is the heart of the homosexual agenda. My wife and I thought it was a biting critique of the modern gay man.
me too. am waiting for a 3rd horror film with a cabin in its title. - altho someone in Hollywood's probably have a thing for cabins ... and not want anyone else in by having it as a horror loc.
I heard good things about the audio book so I gave it a try. I was put off about all the lefty talking points and tried to persevere as some of the mystery intrigued me. I had to stop but thought an 80-minute film would be asier than a 10 hour film. You guys condensed it into far less than flat even.
Sixth Sense was overrated, I'd argue that Unbreakable is the only good one of his that I've seen, though I haven't seen Split or Glass, so I can't really speak for their quality.
Here’s an ending: The couple says “screw the world” and escapes, only for one of them to suddenly get killed in a car crash or something. Now they’re stuck with the end of the world and one of them is dead anyway. THE END.
I always thought an ex-neighbour was pestilence, as when they moved in these strange flies also appeared, and when they got evicted the strange flies also went as well, it wasn't as if they were unclean people as they constantly had there washing machine going at night and she hovered her flat every day at 3am. It was just odd that those strange flies were with them.
That sounds like something out of a really interesting book or short story. Like I can just picture the creepy weirdness of a dank laundry room and the flies 🪰🪰
Remember when there was a magazine saying M. Night is "The next Spielberg" lol The Sixth Sense is his best film. Probably because he had a lot of people telling him what to do and what not to do.
I don’t get why people seem to think he’s actually a good actor. He’s fine as Drax in Guardians of the Galaxy, but only because it’s a role that demands and over the top comedic performance, something most actors can pull off without much effort. Anything else the guy has done and he’s basically a charisma vacuum. It’s not even that’s necessarily bad, he’s just kind of there.
This is actually a premise that works with a gay couple more than a straight one (not necessarily in the execution, but concept). A straight couple with a biological child would have an obvious choice (the father). But there really should have been at least one person questioning why the intruders have to kill each other. It should have been a Final Destination thing where some freak accident kills them as a sign or something. Then they could ask more questions. A big problem was that there wasn't a mystery. It was obvious that the destruction was real. I was hoping the intruders would show the drawings they mentioned to show that was was happening was predicted ("It's just like my dreams!"). There's just a bunch of little bad decisions from a writing standpoint.
Excellent analysis. The film was a decent way to spend roughly 90 mins, but the heavy handed emphasis on how "the purest love was found in a gay couple" grew a bit annoying. It's rather like how no one is allowed to be thrilled about getting married/having a baby...if he's/she's hetero.
Unpopular opinion: Split wasn't a good movie nor was it intended as an *Unbreakable* sequel. It was advertised as such to drum up interest in *M. Night's* movies after the couple of duds he manufactured.
Shyamalan saying he allows character direction to dictate plot twists and being a control freak with actors and characters on set isn't necessarily a contradiction. He may already have written the character arcs and now he's very insistent on them being carried out to the letter without actors' intervention. That said I don't believe him, too many of his films have terrible twists to assume he doesn't crowbar them into his films with all his might
Thank you for your inteligent and reasoned critique of this skubolan fest of a non-movie. I had heard that this intellectual abomination was a bad movie but without facts to back up the assertions. Now I have the facts, thanks to the LE team.
I literally have stopped watching movies and TV shows that have come out within the last 5 or so years. You’d think the major losses the industry has taken with their woke messages would cause them to stop, unfortunately they seem to be doubling down. Get woke and go broke.
A movie scripts sometimes circles several years until it's picked up, preproduction and filming and editing/post can add up to 2 years we have lived through about 2 "cycles" how often is really "enough" if their bubble still reinforces the ideology and rationalize away failures from "this idea is faulty/bad" to "Our critics just don't get our enlightened understanding" or simply "they disagree we reeeee"
'Devil' is great: it's about repentance and reconciliation, about taking responsibility and healing in the milieu of a sometimes creepy, bottle/chamber play horror movie.
One thing Harry didn't mention, in regards to the plot too, is the big reveal of why this all happened and it is just as cringy and progressive as you'd expect. One of the couple has huge homophobic, cliche parents. They were chosen to save the world because 'their love was the purest of all others in the world' I barely made it 30mins into the film with the cringe acting, boring pace and how blatantly M. Night is just a way to push tickets. The Visit, Knock at the Cabin, all very confined locations (a single house through a found footage angle, a bunch of people standing in a cabin talking for an hour) are all VERY cheap to produce, and his name still gets people in seats, meaning even if they don't get THAT many people in, the film still makes a decent profit.
The actors did their best in an ultimately disappointing film. The couple were gay so that they would have an obvious motive to suspect the four doom mongers of for targeting them. The storytelling didn’t feel especially woke or progressive. As it was Shyamalan I spent the whole movie anticipating a twist ending. When there was no big reveal moment it left me feeling quite flat.
I mostly enjoyed the movie, but I can't disagree with your take on it: the movie could have been a little better, but I don't think it was a bad one. The storytelling didn't feel very woke or progressive to me: the gay and multi-racial characters reminded me of the way Ellen Ripley from "Alien" was apparently handled: Ripley was supposedly originally written as a male character or without any particular gender in mind, and after a strong audition the part was given to Sigourney Weaver, who launched a zillion "strong female character" imitators in sci-fi movies made since then, with very few of the imitators ever feeling as genuine or likable as the original. The characters in this movie seemed to be much the same way to me: you could have changed the race of any or all of the characters, or made the gay dads a straight couple, and almost nothing else about the movie would have changed, with the characters all generally haunting the lighter end of a shades-of-grey spectrum where nobody in this thriller was genuinely evil or written to be particularly unlikable, but there was tension and danger and conflict between the characters all the same. That's quite a refreshing change from the flood of "woke" movies out there that are written around token characters who can't be portrayed as anything less than completely syrupy sweet and perfect protagonists, vs. white male hetero villains.... If more "woke" movies were like this, I probably wouldn't complain about them very much! Ultimately, I don't think the ending was unearned or thoroughly botched, but it did leave me a little flat: I felt like it could have been better served by some ambiguity about whether the dads did the right thing and whether the "horsemen" were delusional or really acting on actual prophecy. A bigger and bolder twist ending might well have also served the movie better, though I can't imagine what sort of twist might have ultimately worked - maybe something in the spirit of the divisive ending to Stephen King's "The Mist"? Still, I can't say it's a terrible ending, just not the sort of gut-punch or get-under-your-skin ending I think could have pushed this movie a star or two higher than my 3/5 and no lower than 2/5 star rating. I thought it was a competently made, entertaining, and mostly harmless movie that could easily have been worse in less skillful and talented hands - the worst I could say about it, really, was that it wasn't much better or worse than entertaining and inoffensive with a somewhat disappointing conclusion, but otherwise unremarkable.
I don't get this movie. There are four people who came here to stop the apocalypse by begging two gay dudes to kill themselves? And when they don't do that the four people started to suicide themselves. I am like why? Are you delaying the apocalypse? If your dead is causing this apocalypse maybe don't kill yourself? There is nobody forcing you, you have kids and family to go back to. There is no horror in this. It's just too stupid and boring to watch. If you ever thought about watching this, don't. It's a waste of your time.
I got shown the trailer by force before a video I actually wanted to watch, and I could tell just from that trailer that it was going to be chock full of woke messaging.
THE SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE are great. SIGNS is good (I don't care how much people complain about it). THE VILLAGE is flawed but it has a great cast & great moments. More importantly it articulates a certain mindset. Watch the film as if you were one of those activists constantly screaming to abolish all guns or abolish the death penalty & then when it reaches the ending ask the question: "Did it work?" LADY IN THE WATER is weird but interesting. SPLIT & GLASS are both Great. AFTER EARTH... is bad. Everything else I didn't even bother to see... I'm sure they live up to their reputation.
I think your take on "The Village" is right on target! Of the movies you've listed that I've seen, I think you're being pretty fair about it - I thought "Sixth Sense" was a fine movie; "Signs" and "The Village" are quite enjoyable if a bit flawed and don't really deserve the hate they get; "The Visit" was a reasonably entertaining bad movie marred by a couple disappointing decisions; "Unbreakable" and "Devil" didn't leave any particular impression on me good or bad, "The Happening" never really interested me enough to watch it, and the other movies I've never really heard of. I thought the first season of his TV show "Wayward Pines" was quite engaging, but got a bit rougher with the following seasons. I've been quite enjoying the TV show "Servant", which has a short episode format (about 15 or 20 minutes I think) that seems to be just about the sweet spot for Shyamalan's storytelling style: quite punchy and atmospheric, and with just a couple episodes left to it I'm still not quite sure how he's going to end it. Really, with that in mind, I think that someone should have rounded up Shyamalan to head up with creative control one of the handful of otherwise unnecessary and misguided "Twilight Zone" reboots that have been made over the last couple decades: he's clearly a fan of the sort of weird (and sometimes goofy) dark fantasy/sci-fi/horror plot-twists that Rod Serling made himself famous for, and I really can't imagine Shyamalan goofing it up any worse than any of the folks who were put in charge of those unfortunate reboots!
@@pietrayday9915 Devil is hilarious in a way I hope was intentional and not by pure accident. There is no way someone wrote up that the security guard throws a piece of toast in the air to see if it falls butter side down to know if the Devil is in the building. But someone did write that, and so many other incredibly stupid things that Devil becomes a comedy.
I agree with everything but Signs. Are you seriously telling me that a species possesses the technology to traverse the galaxy did not do any recon to see that the planet they intend to invade is 2/3rds covered by a toxic substance?
@@pietrayday9915 Thank you, I really appreciate that. I often think that Shyamalan's biggest problem is that his stories suffer for having to be movies. If they could be streamlined down to the length of a TWLIGHT ZONE episode they might actually be stronger for it. That said, I don't think he is in the league of Rod Serling or his writers like Richard Matheson or Charles Beaumont but I agree we could not do any worse than him if he were placed in charge of that IP. If nothing else, I respect Shyamalan for always swinging for the fences, even if that means he strikes out most of the time.
@@Charlotte_Martel I'm not going to say that isn't a flaw up for scrutiny but I also don't let it bother me anymore than say Alien invaders dumb enough to be infected by diseases which they have no immunity (WAR OF THE WORLDS) or Aliens who's computer software can be accessed by a 90's earth computer (INDEPENDENCE DAY). For me, SIGNS is about being locked into this situation with this family. It's about showing what most of US would look like in this scenario. No context of what's going on. No secret superweapons to save the day. No one coming to save you. It is just waiting in the house to weather the storm outside. Hoping to survive. What the threat outside is, is kinda irrelevant. The same story could have been told with vampires, werewolves or fish people, it really didn't matter. (Just not zombies, that's been overdone) Yes the aliens should have been kept more vague, arguably the story should have simply ended with the aliens being gone at dawn with no explanation but audiences expect their big 3rd act climax so it had to end with some level of plot convenience. So yeah, I give it a pass. You don't and that is perfectly fine. Enjoy what you enjoy & I will do the same.
Signs was entertaining. It would make more sense if it was a small invasion rather than a global one. I can imagine a small group of aliens who are allergic to water taking risks and exploiting a planet covered in water, but a big invasion is weird and makes the aliens seem stupid.
But the size of the army doesn't negate the idea that they are taking risks? I mean, Space is filled with a bunch of nothing for untold amounts of lightyears between anything worthwhile. So, it's likely that an alien race, regardless of size, would have trouble finding any planet with life on it, let alone one that doesn't have something harmful on it (I mean, we can't even find life and no planet seems to be perfectly livable either). The movie implies that they came here for us, so either as labor or food or whatever. Either way, where else could they go if not Earth if that is what they need? The fact there is water all over Earth doesn't matter much if they are desperate for a specific resource to survive. And it seems likely that they were desperate and short on supplies by how they were depicted. In fact, the whole beginning of the movie where they are just hanging around in the sky staying invisible and having a few scouts checking around, seems to imply that they were contemplating if it was worth it to invade, and the fact they did even though they ended up losing easily shows that this was likely a last-ditch effort of a dying species that wanted to go out fighting. I think this is all fairly well implied by the movie (primarily by the son throwing out theories). There is also of course the idea that they weren't extraterrestrial at all, and that they were simply demons. In this case the idea was that the water was dangerous because of it being holy or purified or something, and so not all water would count, or that there are other rules to it. And in this case, they actually had no other choice but Earth, since they are bound here (there are theories that the invisible spacecraft were angels, or something to that affect, and they were the ones to stop the invasion). This may be a bit far-fetched, but the idea is still plausible, which fits the tone of the movie about faith in things that seem easy to explain scientifically at first, until they aren't, and having to decide to believe what may be the truth no matter how out there it is. Or something like that, I'm not good at explaining it, but the movie has a whole conversation that does better than me to explain it.
Simple answer as to why the four "horsemen" can't simply "not allow" the apocalypse is because they are messengers of God. I have not watched the movie, as I am not a fan of Mr. Shyamalan. IMO his only good movies were "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" (although some may argue the other two parts "Split" and "Glass" were well done too). But basically the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse" represent methods of death and destruction via God's will. Apparently in this movie if they can convince one to show self-sacrifice, that will save humanity. This is an old trope in movies.
I thought The Happening was crap but I've never understood why people use that talking-to-the-plant scene to bash it. The scene was clearly tongue in cheek and played for laughs.
Please don't see Old. I'm a fan of M. Night Shyamalan, have been for decades, and that movie almost made me hate him. The acting was terrible, the editing was bizarre at times, the plot is pedestrian at best, and the twist made me irrationally angry. I've never felt like a movie mocked me for wasting my time on it. This movie felt like it was.
Cabin in the Woods was a world spanning secret organization who conducted human sacrifices under specific rules and conditions in order to appease ancient gods and prevent their awakening and destruction of life on earth.
The charm of Cabin in the Woods was that it was basically satirizing horror movie tropes/ideas in a slightly self-aware way so that it didn’t take itself seriously. This movie on the other hand looks like it’s not trying to have any fun whatsoever.
I don't know how many of you read, or tried to read, the book it's based on but I quit halfway through. Every other page is used to remind you of how gay the characters are. I wish I was exaggerating but seriously, it's f'n bad
5:00 The only moral choice is to not murder. I cannot control the actions of demons or other weird supernatural entities. I can only control my own actions. If because of my action (or inaction) other people or creatures choose to commit atrocities, I am not morally responsible. I am only morally responsible for my own actions. Saying it is selfish to not-murder is like saying it's selfish to not pay a kidnapper's ransom.
I've watched most of m night shyamalan's movies, and with the exception of some of his earlier work like Signs, and Sixth Sense, and his Unbreakable/Split/Glass trilogy, all of them have been unbearably awful.
I'd love it if Rupert Grint had the chance to be in something that would do him justice. He's a really good actor and the subsequent Harry Potter films after the first two did him a and his character a great injustice.
No, He's lost his touch. If he's gonna let jack holes dictate how he does his movies I'm not bothering watching them anymore. Like lol if you are trying to make money, why would you make them the main characters? He knows 98% of the population doesn't believe they actually behave this way...but he made this any way. No.
@@Melian_Dialogue - Yeah, having seen both "Cabin in the Woods" and "Knock at the Cabin" now, I can't really say that the two movies have much of anything to do with each other, aside from being set in a cabin, in the woods. They aren't the same genre, the tone is totally different, the plots and premises are completely different, the themes and conflicts and so on completely different. And that's really saying something, considering that "Cabin in the Woods" was unapologetically a "rip-off" of hundreds of other movies, with that being a prominent plot point: you'd think there would almost HAVE to be more in common between these two movies, considering how many cabin-in-the-woods cliches "Cabin in the Woods" revels in playing with (the cabin-in-the-woods thing is actually an entire subgenre of horror movies, with the "Evil Dead" movies being two of the more popular and famous examples, but "Equinox", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Friday the 13th", and tons of others did it long before "Cabin in the Woods" did!) And arguably, the cabin-in-the-woods thing on film goes back at least as far as "The Old Dark House (1932)", with H.P. Lovecraft (of all people) helping to set the basic template over a century ago with the Edgar Allan Poe inspired short story "The Picture in the House (1920)". Now, "Knock At the Cabin" does have similarities to some other movies - "Funny Games" comes to mind, but I'm sure there were plenty of others that play a little more explicitly with an antichrist theme, and I think similar "would you be willing to kill a loved one to stop an apocalypse" ideas have appeared in the original "Twilight Zone" or other anthology horror series and elsewhere a few times over the years - but I can't rightly say I've ever seen a story that does exactly what "Knock At the Cabin" does. Anyway, here's the obligatory "Spoilers" warning, but: "Cabin in the Woods" is a comedy-horror film about a handful of stock teen slasher movie characters who spend their spring break in a cabin in the woods, only to find out they've been set up by a government conspiracy to be the sacrifices for Lovecraftian Elder Gods as thinly-veiled horror movie audience stand-ins who require the same stock archetypes to be killed over and over again to stave off an apocalypse for another year, with this year's sacrifice running off the rails when a couple of the stock characters realize they've seen the plot to this movie before, and subvert the horror movie cliches inflicted by a horde of pastiche horror move monsters to save themselves, thus triggering "Armegedden" (which can basically be equated to the world being given bad reviews from angry cosmic horror movie fans.) In contrast (more spoilers), "Knock at the Cabin" is a religious thriller about a loving family who vacation in a cabin the woods, only to become hostages in a home invasion by a handful of "religious fanatics" who have been drawn to the cabin by prophetic visions to try to stave off the apocalypse by persuading one of the family members to sacrifice themselves, while the fanatics unleash plagues one-by-one by sacrificing themselves to convince the family that the prophecy is real; ultimately, the family is left with a difficult decision to make when they finally see enough proof to realize that the apocalypse is real, and the self-sacrifice is the only way to prevent it; the most cynical and self-serving character, after a little character development, volunteers at last, and the end is averted. And, for comparison (even more spoilers), "Funny Games" is an experimental thriller about a loving family who vacation in a fancy isolated summer home on a lake, only to become hostages in a home invasion by a couple of strangely-acting sadistic sociopaths who have been drawn to the house to play some "funny games" with their victims for (apparently) their own entertainment, beating and torturing the family mercilessly, forcing them to choose a family member to be killed first. Looking at first like a particularly nasty and mean-spirited but otherwise conventional horror-thriller, things start getting weird in the film when the killers begin doing things like winking at the cameras, and then addressing the audience like they're accomplices in the invasion, and then things get really strange when one of the victims manages to get free and kill one of the invaders, and the other invader apologizes to the audience for the mess, picks up a TV remote control from a nearby coffee table, and "rewinds" the movie to rescue his accomplice and then inflict even more torment on the nice family, including murdering their young son on-screen in a particularly gory way. The family eventually negotiate a sacrifice to try to appease the killers, but they end up murdering everyone anyway for laughs, and the audience (presumably) watches the credits roll while feeling a little dirtier for having been voyeurs to the whole nasty proceeding. Anyway, aside from the woodland cabin settings, the word "cabin" in the titles, and very different uses of an "apocalypse", "Cabin in the Woods" and "Knock At the Cabin" have almost nothing in common with each other.
Spoilers: This movie was actually pretty good, a solid 4 out of 5. Ppl so caught on dumb stuff, the point of the Harry Potter actor who attacked the gay dude in the bar, was to throw off the viewers to think it was something else. Also, they imply that there are "rules" which isnwhy they cant leave, I mean you dont have to spell everything out, its implied that aomething bad like the end of the world would happened if they didnt kill themselves. Hes been doing his thing lately, I enjoyed Old as well
I'm not gonnna lie, watching the Happening back then in theaters made me a bit paranoid about the world for a bit at some time but then it went away. I mean kind of like those killer mirror movies where you look in the mirror and whatnot etc.
Sixth sense was great, unbreakable is a masterpiece, the pitch for signs must of been what if we do an alien invasion film from the point of view of normal people living out in the middle of nowhere so you never see any aliens or action, the village was good up until the twist, the happening was ruined by Mark walbergs acting so I can't tell if it was good or not, split was OK but made really good by its twist ending, glass was so bad its hard to believe, old was OK by this point I expect everything he does to be either hilarious or crap so it was a surprise it was OK, the visit was hilarious. Not seen airbender. That one with will Smith and his son was forgettable and the start of will smiths fall from grace.
After Earth was far worse than forgettable. What was supposed to be tha launch of Jaden Smith's career showed that he had neither his father's talent nor his mother's luck. The kid was unbearable, and Will performs mostly by just dictating orders to him. I sincerely wonder how Last Airbender would have been received by those who haven't watched the animated series. Anyone who has seen the series hates it by comparison.
heard the review on ComicsFilmExplained ... had the underlining sus its stupid...the 'supetnatiural' is the detraction. - a bunch of soppy ass 'males' having strong backed people waiting on their choices/ 'sacrifice' dying in the wait (and THATS besides the world is collapsing) and they never did make the choice at the end.
@@themeangene the irony of that statement is that I agree with it, and yet I don't think overly highly of cabin in the woods and Shakespeare. Don't get me wrong, they are reasonably good and very good, respectively, they're just not my favorites. That's how bad knock at the cabin sounds.
I watched a better version of this on daytime television. I think it was an episode of the new outer limits. Four teenagers are on a hike in the woods. They find a cave with a chest that has a chalice filled with blood. They accidentally spill the chalice and immediately the sun goes out, the world is dark, and it starts getting colder. Entire episode is the four of them in the cave, trying not to freeze. Ultimately they come to terms with the fact that they have to commit human sacrifice and fill the chalice (I think there were cave paintings explaining it, it was long ago). They draw straws or something, kill one of the girls, fill the chalice, sun comes back up... then the radio says the earth passed through a cloud of solar dust or something and they and the audience are left to wonder if the sacrifice was necessary and the event was supetnatural.
Okay, so I looked it up. Its not Outer Limits but an ep of the 2002 Twilight zone, called "Sunrise"
@@guilhermehank4938 Cheers for the name. Looks like a worthy episode to check out.
@@hplovecraft1402
The twilight zone reboot only lasted a few episodes but it had some bangers. There was one where George kastanza from signfield played a suicidal Death that involved a trauma surgeon wondering if he actually made a difference. And a sequel to the classic episode with the psychic kid where the original actor revised his role as an adult.
I still find it funny that M. Night tired to claim the reason why people didn’t like his ATLA movie was because as a Indian his brain didn’t think of stories the same as westerners… which is really odd given he’s spent decades of his life in the west making movies for primarily western audiences…
M. Night Shyamallamalon: "When toast falls jelly-side-down, it means the Devil is nearby."
I liked that film but that scene had me flabbergasted.
*_Never watched it, never will ..._*
I can’t watch anything that seems to have forced wokeness in it which means that I watch mostly classic and foreign films at this point. Hopefully this dearth of creativity and forced mediocrity because of political agendas will pass soon.
@richardaaron4454 Same. Postmodern film is sh!t. Don't watch much past 2010 and just focus on old and foreign films.
It's shyte
I never even heard of it 😂
@@MrHorsesongs05 The only exception is Robert Eggers’ movies because he acts all far left in interviews but his movies are fanta-historical and he doesn’t break history with wokeness. So I do support him and we all should because he’s the only director doing it. I’ve bought all 3 of his movies because he’s willing to say sorry but I’m not adding wokeness to history when it didn’t exist.
Gay couple: “We’re such good, progressive and considerate people.”
Dave Batista: “Unless one of you willingly sacrifices yourself, hundreds of millions of men, women and children die every few hours, including us. Please make the hard choice for the sake of all humanity.”
Gay guy: “Fuck the world! They can all die! Aren’t we such good and moral people! 😊”
Why would you take Dave Batista's word for it?
@@JacobthePoshPotato
Because you're gonna give him what he wants
Yes, the gays, they are such hypocrites . Shyamalan is a Soros agent, i knew it
@@bigboydancannon4325 yeah, unless, as they say, you want your clothes folded, while you're wearing them, do as he says, lol
Turns out it's a good criticism of lefties
Signs is a good and suspensful movie up until half-way through when the movie decides that the mysterious and hostile aliens attacking the planet are all double digit IQ. Water is their weakness, and they run around naked. Isn't our planet 80% water? What are they going to do when it rains? Why would they even invade here? Would you attack a foreign land if 80% of it was suphiric acid which sometimes falls from the sky? How about doing it naked?
Also humans are mostly water. I'm not trying to judge, but it just seems like they had nothing to gain.
I agree with everything you said, but I still enjoy that movie and Sixth Sense.
To be fair, it's like a poor man's "War of the Worlds", where the technologically advanced Martians invaded only to realize far too late that maybe it's a bad idea to invade a planet without checking to see if there were dangerous microbes in the air....
Sure, to be just as fair, H.G. Wells was originally running on what was cutting-edge Victorian science, with a metaphor for European colonialism where colonists run headlong into things like Malaria to kind of bring them to a stop, and in-universe the Martians' rarified atmosphere and more ancient biology had long ago eliminated Martian disease, leaving them unprepared for Earth's much dirtier environment, but the point still stands that "Signs" was just a second-rate modern rewrite of the more famous and almost endlessly-adapted "War of the Worlds", with all H.G. Wells' familiar serial numbers filed off....
The "Aliens" are actually Demons taking over the world. The water around the house is blessed. Mel gibson reclaims his faith as he realises its all part of gods plan.
@@lobot6894 same, it’s become a inside joke with myself.
There seems to be a trend of programming talking about how we’ll have to sacrifice someone we love or even ourselves to save the world recently
It's people who take the Trolley Problem seriously, they seem to be desperate to find a way to kill innocent people that conforms with their morals.
"White people need to sacrifice themselves for colored people" The Jewish hierarchy,probably
What if that has anything to do with the jibity jab.
*_Connor looks like he's about to throw up when Harry starts describing the utter cringe garbage of a movie ..._*
M. Knight is like if Neil Breen had a bigger budget and was slightly more competent.
Neil Breen? I know what that is!!!
Who am I? What am I?
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
"I can't believe you committed suicide. I cannot believe you committed suicide. How could you have done this? How could you have committed suicide?"
I've a question. I went on a school trip recently. The museum worker was going on that Brits photographed on trophies of war was bad. Two minutes later she 's explaining one of those trophies, which is a plaque showing a victory of the local king over his enemies. That was a celebration. Then also asked quite forcefully for the kids to write in demanding reparations.
The double standard was interesting.
So do I ring up the Commission for racial equality, and say swap the races or substitute another race and ask if that's racist or not? Record that and then use that in a complaint.
No, take your country back
Not a double standard. The only standard today is 'hate all white men' Everything is this.
I'd say that reverse logic wouldn't enter their heads because the notion would be immediately rejected - maybe you could go in the Style of an Alex Stein: publicly exaggerate their own position to utter absurdity to an higher authority or in a way that makes them question themselves
When you realise that it's emancipation, not slavery, that they hate...
To them, one victory is that of humans, the other is the victory demonic non-humans.
I'll let you decide which is which.
Imagine telling someone Batista was once a bigger star in WWE than John Cena...
Note: I'm meant that a lot of people nowadays would be surprised to hear that (probably coulda phrased it better).
They both suck ass. Cena built a fortune off of stolen valor and no one said shit. I can't stand either one of the lefty tossers.... the Rock too.
for about 2 years in the early 2000s thats arguable
like while he was in evolution Batista was a bigger deal than Cena but the rest of their careers just dont compare
@@t8kabr8km85 It wasn't until 2006 that things changed
**checks their stats in Here Comes the Pain**
This is surprising?
@@t8kabr8km85 agreed 100%, but I do wonder how much bigger Batista would/could have been if he hadn't had so many repeat injuries
I swear the guy tore his ACL at least once a year
My biggest problem was : it's a " is it supernatural or not?" movie made by the person who always has a supernatural otherworldly element in his movies.
This was a case where having a gay couple actually made sense. If you’d had a regular mom and dad, you’d have a strong expectation that the dad would sacrifice himself for his family. Here, having two guys made it easier to string things out. As you point out, the bigger issue was that the potential for it all being revenge on the gay couple was blown by the potential bad guy being the first to die…
Isnt is odd that we never expect women to make a sacrifice?...
@@thomgizziz Ikr? I mean, I would for my wife and kids. But the last thing I would want is man-hating feminists crapping on me despite my sacrifice with all the pandering about how "men don't matter"!
@@thomgizziz The natural instinct to protect and sacrifice is stronger in men, generally. As time goes on, men need to discern if that is good or not, for their own existence.
I'd definitely like more film or TV reviews from you guys!
I didn't get that impression at all. Frankly I was happy to see two gay men portrayed as rich self centered assholes who's selfishness bring about the apocalypse. Their unwillingness to sacrifice ANYTHING is the heart of the homosexual agenda. My wife and I thought it was a biting critique of the modern gay man.
Harry: "Switch off the audio for two minutes to avoid spoilers"
_Two minutes later_
Harry: "Rupert Grint's character dies"
The twist being that there was no twist is actually fucking hilarious for an M. Night Shyamalan movie.
I hoped it would be like Cabin in the Woods. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined...
me too.
am waiting for a 3rd horror film with a cabin in its title.
-
altho someone in Hollywood's probably have a thing for cabins ... and not want anyone else in by having it as a horror loc.
Yee i wait red woke flags to pop out, before watching.
These days, I only need to see the cast to see if it's worth watching :/
Forcefully diverse?
Trash.
Luckily, the trailers and promotional material are more than telling about the priorities of the creators
Someone did sacrifice himself to save the world. Jesus.
If I went to a theater and forked over $18 to see this, I'd be pissed. Thanks Lotuseaters for watching it so I wouldn't have to.
I heard good things about the audio book so I gave it a try. I was put off about all the lefty talking points and tried to persevere as some of the mystery intrigued me. I had to stop but thought an 80-minute film would be asier than a 10 hour film. You guys condensed it into far less than flat even.
M. Night did one good movie (Sixth Sense). Two decent movies ( Unbreakable and Glass). All the rest range from bad to astonishingly bad.
I liked the Village. Didn't see Unbreakable or Glass, didn't look too good to me.
Call me weird, but I actually liked Lady in the Water.
Village was his last decent one
Sixth Sense was overrated, I'd argue that Unbreakable is the only good one of his that I've seen, though I haven't seen Split or Glass, so I can't really speak for their quality.
@@BlackIce3190 I liked Lady in the water as well. But I do understand why people dislike it.
Here’s an ending: The couple says “screw the world” and escapes, only for one of them to suddenly get killed in a car crash or something. Now they’re stuck with the end of the world and one of them is dead anyway. THE END.
See, that's the kind of twist ending we expect from Shamalama-ding-dong, but I guess he used up all his creative juices.
Connor's reaction to being asked by Harry "do you care?" Couldn't have been any better....
Connor, you are a fuckin hero, Sir!
I always thought an ex-neighbour was pestilence, as when they moved in these strange flies also appeared, and when they got evicted the strange flies also went as well, it wasn't as if they were unclean people as they constantly had there washing machine going at night and she hovered her flat every day at 3am. It was just odd that those strange flies were with them.
Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies.
That sounds like something out of a really interesting book or short story. Like I can just picture the creepy weirdness of a dank laundry room and the flies 🪰🪰
Okay but I'm picturing a flat just sort of hovering slightly above a block of other flats near it...
@@feralcyborggaming1531 Dave Beelzebub, works at a local garage and his wife Marge Beelzebub who part-times at the local Oxfam shop
It'll be the damp. Whoever moved in probably fixed the issue.
Shyamalan movies are really like flipping a coin. Heads they suck tails they're pretty good.
A gay couple causes the end of the world essentially, pretty based
It was bad. The Village and Signs were great though!
He's a decent director when he's not totally in control of the project. He needs co writers and he has to keep his hands off of the camera though.
Remember when there was a magazine saying M. Night is "The next Spielberg" lol
The Sixth Sense is his best film. Probably because he had a lot of people telling him what to do and what not to do.
It's got Dave Bautista in it. That should be a huge red flag.
Is he a prog? Or is it just because of his wooden acting?
@@ulaznar Both. He was poorly "rated" by people that wrestled him as well.
He was the best part of the film for me. Awful awful film though
I don’t get why people seem to think he’s actually a good actor. He’s fine as Drax in Guardians of the Galaxy, but only because it’s a role that demands and over the top comedic performance, something most actors can pull off without much effort. Anything else the guy has done and he’s basically a charisma vacuum. It’s not even that’s necessarily bad, he’s just kind of there.
This is actually a premise that works with a gay couple more than a straight one (not necessarily in the execution, but concept). A straight couple with a biological child would have an obvious choice (the father).
But there really should have been at least one person questioning why the intruders have to kill each other. It should have been a Final Destination thing where some freak accident kills them as a sign or something. Then they could ask more questions.
A big problem was that there wasn't a mystery. It was obvious that the destruction was real. I was hoping the intruders would show the drawings they mentioned to show that was was happening was predicted ("It's just like my dreams!").
There's just a bunch of little bad decisions from a writing standpoint.
Enjoying this team reviews
A "competently made turd" is the best brief review that I've ever heard.
My review of Infinity Pool is a pretentious nepobaby turd, jsyk.
Sad plug
Well they can repopulate the world...oh wait.
This is not volentary.
They are being coerced with the fate of the world.
Excellent analysis. The film was a decent way to spend roughly 90 mins, but the heavy handed emphasis on how "the purest love was found in a gay couple" grew a bit annoying. It's rather like how no one is allowed to be thrilled about getting married/having a baby...if he's/she's hetero.
Unpopular opinion: Split wasn't a good movie nor was it intended as an *Unbreakable* sequel. It was advertised as such to drum up interest in *M. Night's* movies after the couple of duds he manufactured.
I try to start my day with a well produced turd. Holywood here I come.
Shyamalan saying he allows character direction to dictate plot twists and being a control freak with actors and characters on set isn't necessarily a contradiction.
He may already have written the character arcs and now he's very insistent on them being carried out to the letter without actors' intervention.
That said I don't believe him, too many of his films have terrible twists to assume he doesn't crowbar them into his films with all his might
I watched it because Rupert Grint was in it, I've not seen him in a film for a bit; he deserved much more screen time
He was done dirty even in the Harry Potter movies.
Sad. Watching anything as long as some guys in it.
@@mjanny6330 because nobody is allowed to be a fan of anything are they?
Thank you for your inteligent and reasoned critique of this skubolan fest of a non-movie. I had heard that this intellectual abomination was a bad movie but without facts to back up the assertions. Now I have the facts, thanks to the LE team.
WHAT A TWIST! 😃
Shimamalan should go to jail for ruining Airbender....
Idk if I’d still agree but I recall really enjoying the village
>Paying for woke entertainment
You guys better bring Gary from Nerdrotic on a show when he will be in the UK later this year
This!
I'm all about that Cabin in the Woods ending.
I don't even bother with holloywood anymore.
sacrificing the world for the good of your family is kinda based ngl
To be fair you cannot spoil it the director did that already
I literally have stopped watching movies and TV shows that have come out within the last 5 or so years. You’d think the major losses the industry has taken with their woke messages would cause them to stop, unfortunately they seem to be doubling down. Get woke and go broke.
A movie scripts sometimes circles several years until it's picked up, preproduction and filming and editing/post can add up to 2 years
we have lived through about 2 "cycles"
how often is really "enough" if their bubble still reinforces the ideology and rationalize away failures from "this idea is faulty/bad" to "Our critics just don't get our enlightened understanding" or simply "they disagree we reeeee"
I've stuck to films from the 70s-90s. Far better
Who keeps funding M. Night’s projects?!
I try to avoid this half-smart twist merchant's work since _The Village_ . No, you don't get a second chance after that utter tripe.
'Devil' is great: it's about repentance and reconciliation, about taking responsibility and healing in the milieu of a sometimes creepy, bottle/chamber play horror movie.
Is this supposed to be M. Night's analogue of "Cabin in the Woods"? That's what immediately came to mind when you described the premise.
One thing Harry didn't mention, in regards to the plot too, is the big reveal of why this all happened and it is just as cringy and progressive as you'd expect. One of the couple has huge homophobic, cliche parents. They were chosen to save the world because 'their love was the purest of all others in the world'
I barely made it 30mins into the film with the cringe acting, boring pace and how blatantly M. Night is just a way to push tickets. The Visit, Knock at the Cabin, all very confined locations (a single house through a found footage angle, a bunch of people standing in a cabin talking for an hour) are all VERY cheap to produce, and his name still gets people in seats, meaning even if they don't get THAT many people in, the film still makes a decent profit.
The actors did their best in an ultimately disappointing film.
The couple were gay so that they would have an obvious motive to suspect the four doom mongers of for targeting them.
The storytelling didn’t feel especially woke or progressive.
As it was Shyamalan I spent the whole movie anticipating a twist ending. When there was no big reveal moment it left me feeling quite flat.
I mostly enjoyed the movie, but I can't disagree with your take on it: the movie could have been a little better, but I don't think it was a bad one.
The storytelling didn't feel very woke or progressive to me: the gay and multi-racial characters reminded me of the way Ellen Ripley from "Alien" was apparently handled: Ripley was supposedly originally written as a male character or without any particular gender in mind, and after a strong audition the part was given to Sigourney Weaver, who launched a zillion "strong female character" imitators in sci-fi movies made since then, with very few of the imitators ever feeling as genuine or likable as the original. The characters in this movie seemed to be much the same way to me: you could have changed the race of any or all of the characters, or made the gay dads a straight couple, and almost nothing else about the movie would have changed, with the characters all generally haunting the lighter end of a shades-of-grey spectrum where nobody in this thriller was genuinely evil or written to be particularly unlikable, but there was tension and danger and conflict between the characters all the same. That's quite a refreshing change from the flood of "woke" movies out there that are written around token characters who can't be portrayed as anything less than completely syrupy sweet and perfect protagonists, vs. white male hetero villains.... If more "woke" movies were like this, I probably wouldn't complain about them very much!
Ultimately, I don't think the ending was unearned or thoroughly botched, but it did leave me a little flat: I felt like it could have been better served by some ambiguity about whether the dads did the right thing and whether the "horsemen" were delusional or really acting on actual prophecy. A bigger and bolder twist ending might well have also served the movie better, though I can't imagine what sort of twist might have ultimately worked - maybe something in the spirit of the divisive ending to Stephen King's "The Mist"? Still, I can't say it's a terrible ending, just not the sort of gut-punch or get-under-your-skin ending I think could have pushed this movie a star or two higher than my 3/5 and no lower than 2/5 star rating.
I thought it was a competently made, entertaining, and mostly harmless movie that could easily have been worse in less skillful and talented hands - the worst I could say about it, really, was that it wasn't much better or worse than entertaining and inoffensive with a somewhat disappointing conclusion, but otherwise unremarkable.
I don't get this movie. There are four people who came here to stop the apocalypse by begging two gay dudes to kill themselves? And when they don't do that the four people started to suicide themselves. I am like why? Are you delaying the apocalypse? If your dead is causing this apocalypse maybe don't kill yourself? There is nobody forcing you, you have kids and family to go back to. There is no horror in this. It's just too stupid and boring to watch. If you ever thought about watching this, don't. It's a waste of your time.
I got shown the trailer by force before a video I actually wanted to watch, and I could tell just from that trailer that it was going to be chock full of woke messaging.
Shyamalan only made one good movie in his entire career. What's that you say? He hasn't retired and his career isn't over? I'm still right.
THE SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE are great.
SIGNS is good (I don't care how much people complain about it).
THE VILLAGE is flawed but it has a great cast & great moments. More importantly it articulates a certain mindset. Watch the film as if you were one of those activists constantly screaming to abolish all guns or abolish the death penalty & then when it reaches the ending ask the question: "Did it work?"
LADY IN THE WATER is weird but interesting.
SPLIT & GLASS are both Great.
AFTER EARTH... is bad.
Everything else I didn't even bother to see... I'm sure they live up to their reputation.
I think your take on "The Village" is right on target!
Of the movies you've listed that I've seen, I think you're being pretty fair about it - I thought "Sixth Sense" was a fine movie; "Signs" and "The Village" are quite enjoyable if a bit flawed and don't really deserve the hate they get; "The Visit" was a reasonably entertaining bad movie marred by a couple disappointing decisions; "Unbreakable" and "Devil" didn't leave any particular impression on me good or bad, "The Happening" never really interested me enough to watch it, and the other movies I've never really heard of.
I thought the first season of his TV show "Wayward Pines" was quite engaging, but got a bit rougher with the following seasons. I've been quite enjoying the TV show "Servant", which has a short episode format (about 15 or 20 minutes I think) that seems to be just about the sweet spot for Shyamalan's storytelling style: quite punchy and atmospheric, and with just a couple episodes left to it I'm still not quite sure how he's going to end it.
Really, with that in mind, I think that someone should have rounded up Shyamalan to head up with creative control one of the handful of otherwise unnecessary and misguided "Twilight Zone" reboots that have been made over the last couple decades: he's clearly a fan of the sort of weird (and sometimes goofy) dark fantasy/sci-fi/horror plot-twists that Rod Serling made himself famous for, and I really can't imagine Shyamalan goofing it up any worse than any of the folks who were put in charge of those unfortunate reboots!
@@pietrayday9915 Devil is hilarious in a way I hope was intentional and not by pure accident. There is no way someone wrote up that the security guard throws a piece of toast in the air to see if it falls butter side down to know if the Devil is in the building.
But someone did write that, and so many other incredibly stupid things that Devil becomes a comedy.
I agree with everything but Signs. Are you seriously telling me that a species possesses the technology to traverse the galaxy did not do any recon to see that the planet they intend to invade is 2/3rds covered by a toxic substance?
@@pietrayday9915 Thank you, I really appreciate that.
I often think that Shyamalan's biggest problem is that his stories suffer for having to be movies. If they could be streamlined down to the length of a TWLIGHT ZONE episode they might actually be stronger for it.
That said, I don't think he is in the league of Rod Serling or his writers like Richard Matheson or Charles Beaumont but I agree we could not do any worse than him if he were placed in charge of that IP.
If nothing else, I respect Shyamalan for always swinging for the fences, even if that means he strikes out most of the time.
@@Charlotte_Martel I'm not going to say that isn't a flaw up for scrutiny but I also don't let it bother me anymore than say Alien invaders dumb enough to be infected by diseases which they have no immunity (WAR OF THE WORLDS) or Aliens who's computer software can be accessed by a 90's earth computer (INDEPENDENCE DAY).
For me, SIGNS is about being locked into this situation with this family. It's about showing what most of US would look like in this scenario.
No context of what's going on. No secret superweapons to save the day. No one coming to save you.
It is just waiting in the house to weather the storm outside. Hoping to survive.
What the threat outside is, is kinda irrelevant. The same story could have been told with vampires, werewolves or fish people, it really didn't matter.
(Just not zombies, that's been overdone)
Yes the aliens should have been kept more vague, arguably the story should have simply ended with the aliens being gone at dawn with no explanation but audiences expect their big 3rd act climax so it had to end with some level of plot convenience.
So yeah, I give it a pass. You don't and that is perfectly fine.
Enjoy what you enjoy & I will do the same.
I went to the cinema to watch this. I want my hours back. It ruined my date. It was a turd. Except the performance of the big guy. His acting is good.
7:25 in an interview Quentin Tarantino says that he uses this process.
Shouldn’t they be the seals not the horse men?
Signs was entertaining. It would make more sense if it was a small invasion rather than a global one. I can imagine a small group of aliens who are allergic to water taking risks and exploiting a planet covered in water, but a big invasion is weird and makes the aliens seem stupid.
But the size of the army doesn't negate the idea that they are taking risks? I mean, Space is filled with a bunch of nothing for untold amounts of lightyears between anything worthwhile. So, it's likely that an alien race, regardless of size, would have trouble finding any planet with life on it, let alone one that doesn't have something harmful on it (I mean, we can't even find life and no planet seems to be perfectly livable either). The movie implies that they came here for us, so either as labor or food or whatever. Either way, where else could they go if not Earth if that is what they need? The fact there is water all over Earth doesn't matter much if they are desperate for a specific resource to survive. And it seems likely that they were desperate and short on supplies by how they were depicted. In fact, the whole beginning of the movie where they are just hanging around in the sky staying invisible and having a few scouts checking around, seems to imply that they were contemplating if it was worth it to invade, and the fact they did even though they ended up losing easily shows that this was likely a last-ditch effort of a dying species that wanted to go out fighting. I think this is all fairly well implied by the movie (primarily by the son throwing out theories).
There is also of course the idea that they weren't extraterrestrial at all, and that they were simply demons. In this case the idea was that the water was dangerous because of it being holy or purified or something, and so not all water would count, or that there are other rules to it. And in this case, they actually had no other choice but Earth, since they are bound here (there are theories that the invisible spacecraft were angels, or something to that affect, and they were the ones to stop the invasion). This may be a bit far-fetched, but the idea is still plausible, which fits the tone of the movie about faith in things that seem easy to explain scientifically at first, until they aren't, and having to decide to believe what may be the truth no matter how out there it is. Or something like that, I'm not good at explaining it, but the movie has a whole conversation that does better than me to explain it.
What expose is he referring to in the beginning?
Simple answer as to why the four "horsemen" can't simply "not allow" the apocalypse is because they are messengers of God. I have not watched the movie, as I am not a fan of Mr. Shyamalan. IMO his only good movies were "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" (although some may argue the other two parts "Split" and "Glass" were well done too). But basically the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse" represent methods of death and destruction via God's will. Apparently in this movie if they can convince one to show self-sacrifice, that will save humanity. This is an old trope in movies.
I thought The Happening was crap but I've never understood why people use that talking-to-the-plant scene to bash it. The scene was clearly tongue in cheek and played for laughs.
It wasnt funny tho. Just stupid
“Why don’t you just not do that?” End of discussion.
2:35 so a knock off of cabin in the woods.
Signs and Sixth Sense were the only good movies he made imho.
Please don't see Old.
I'm a fan of M. Night Shyamalan, have been for decades, and that movie almost made me hate him.
The acting was terrible, the editing was bizarre at times, the plot is pedestrian at best, and the twist made me irrationally angry.
I've never felt like a movie mocked me for wasting my time on it. This movie felt like it was.
The acting was dreadful in Old, even from Rufus Sewell and he's normally fantastic.
Shymalan has always been massively overrated. I switched off after the first five minutes of The Sixth Sense because it was way too obvious.
The Shammallama strikes again!
Isn't this the exact plot of Cabin in the Woods?
No.
Cabin in the Woods was a world spanning secret organization who conducted human sacrifices under specific rules and conditions in order to appease ancient gods and prevent their awakening and destruction of life on earth.
The charm of Cabin in the Woods was that it was basically satirizing horror movie tropes/ideas in a slightly self-aware way so that it didn’t take itself seriously. This movie on the other hand looks like it’s not trying to have any fun whatsoever.
I don't know how many of you read, or tried to read, the book it's based on but I quit halfway through. Every other page is used to remind you of how gay the characters are. I wish I was exaggerating but seriously, it's f'n bad
Walberg talking to plants
“Hi, plant. How are ya? Say hi to your mother for me.”
Signs is excellent. The rest not so much.
5:00 The only moral choice is to not murder. I cannot control the actions of demons or other weird supernatural entities. I can only control my own actions. If because of my action (or inaction) other people or creatures choose to commit atrocities, I am not morally responsible. I am only morally responsible for my own actions. Saying it is selfish to not-murder is like saying it's selfish to not pay a kidnapper's ransom.
Oof, hard fkn pass.
Hey, it's 50% ok. 1 ghey gets murdered.
"Family"
I've watched most of m night shyamalan's movies, and with the exception of some of his earlier work like Signs, and Sixth Sense, and his Unbreakable/Split/Glass trilogy, all of them have been unbearably awful.
What a twist! :D (Robot Chicken reference)
I really liked the movie despite the horrible messaging. About the story about the gay couple making **** with their son and i got kind of disgusted.
I like Rupert grint disappoints me he was in this, shamalon is 90% miss
I'd love it if Rupert Grint had the chance to be in something that would do him justice. He's a really good actor and the subsequent Harry Potter films after the first two did him a and his character a great injustice.
was interested in this until i read it was a girl and her two dads, sounds super cringe.
it was basically the same story as cabin in the woods
maybe it's the cabbin Epstine stayed at and the queen etc Maybe i should go find this cabbin
Harry looking swish.
As soon as I saw the ridiculous tickbox "one of each diversity" family in the trailer, I knew it'd be garbage.
No, He's lost his touch. If he's gonna let jack holes dictate how he does his movies I'm not bothering watching them anymore. Like lol if you are trying to make money, why would you make them the main characters? He knows 98% of the population doesn't believe they actually behave this way...but he made this any way. No.
The Happening is one of the greatest movies ever put to film......And that there is a fact
He blatantly stole both the end of the world shtick as well as the literal cabin from cabin in the woods. That guy is a total hack 1:43
He stole the close circuit TV system idea too.
@@Melian_Dialogue - Yeah, having seen both "Cabin in the Woods" and "Knock at the Cabin" now, I can't really say that the two movies have much of anything to do with each other, aside from being set in a cabin, in the woods. They aren't the same genre, the tone is totally different, the plots and premises are completely different, the themes and conflicts and so on completely different.
And that's really saying something, considering that "Cabin in the Woods" was unapologetically a "rip-off" of hundreds of other movies, with that being a prominent plot point: you'd think there would almost HAVE to be more in common between these two movies, considering how many cabin-in-the-woods cliches "Cabin in the Woods" revels in playing with (the cabin-in-the-woods thing is actually an entire subgenre of horror movies, with the "Evil Dead" movies being two of the more popular and famous examples, but "Equinox", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Friday the 13th", and tons of others did it long before "Cabin in the Woods" did!)
And arguably, the cabin-in-the-woods thing on film goes back at least as far as "The Old Dark House (1932)", with H.P. Lovecraft (of all people) helping to set the basic template over a century ago with the Edgar Allan Poe inspired short story "The Picture in the House (1920)".
Now, "Knock At the Cabin" does have similarities to some other movies - "Funny Games" comes to mind, but I'm sure there were plenty of others that play a little more explicitly with an antichrist theme, and I think similar "would you be willing to kill a loved one to stop an apocalypse" ideas have appeared in the original "Twilight Zone" or other anthology horror series and elsewhere a few times over the years - but I can't rightly say I've ever seen a story that does exactly what "Knock At the Cabin" does.
Anyway, here's the obligatory "Spoilers" warning, but:
"Cabin in the Woods" is a comedy-horror film about a handful of stock teen slasher movie characters who spend their spring break in a cabin in the woods, only to find out they've been set up by a government conspiracy to be the sacrifices for Lovecraftian Elder Gods as thinly-veiled horror movie audience stand-ins who require the same stock archetypes to be killed over and over again to stave off an apocalypse for another year, with this year's sacrifice running off the rails when a couple of the stock characters realize they've seen the plot to this movie before, and subvert the horror movie cliches inflicted by a horde of pastiche horror move monsters to save themselves, thus triggering "Armegedden" (which can basically be equated to the world being given bad reviews from angry cosmic horror movie fans.)
In contrast (more spoilers), "Knock at the Cabin" is a religious thriller about a loving family who vacation in a cabin the woods, only to become hostages in a home invasion by a handful of "religious fanatics" who have been drawn to the cabin by prophetic visions to try to stave off the apocalypse by persuading one of the family members to sacrifice themselves, while the fanatics unleash plagues one-by-one by sacrificing themselves to convince the family that the prophecy is real; ultimately, the family is left with a difficult decision to make when they finally see enough proof to realize that the apocalypse is real, and the self-sacrifice is the only way to prevent it; the most cynical and self-serving character, after a little character development, volunteers at last, and the end is averted.
And, for comparison (even more spoilers), "Funny Games" is an experimental thriller about a loving family who vacation in a fancy isolated summer home on a lake, only to become hostages in a home invasion by a couple of strangely-acting sadistic sociopaths who have been drawn to the house to play some "funny games" with their victims for (apparently) their own entertainment, beating and torturing the family mercilessly, forcing them to choose a family member to be killed first. Looking at first like a particularly nasty and mean-spirited but otherwise conventional horror-thriller, things start getting weird in the film when the killers begin doing things like winking at the cameras, and then addressing the audience like they're accomplices in the invasion, and then things get really strange when one of the victims manages to get free and kill one of the invaders, and the other invader apologizes to the audience for the mess, picks up a TV remote control from a nearby coffee table, and "rewinds" the movie to rescue his accomplice and then inflict even more torment on the nice family, including murdering their young son on-screen in a particularly gory way. The family eventually negotiate a sacrifice to try to appease the killers, but they end up murdering everyone anyway for laughs, and the audience (presumably) watches the credits roll while feeling a little dirtier for having been voyeurs to the whole nasty proceeding.
Anyway, aside from the woodland cabin settings, the word "cabin" in the titles, and very different uses of an "apocalypse", "Cabin in the Woods" and "Knock At the Cabin" have almost nothing in common with each other.
Spoilers: This movie was actually pretty good, a solid 4 out of 5. Ppl so caught on dumb stuff, the point of the Harry Potter actor who attacked the gay dude in the bar, was to throw off the viewers to think it was something else. Also, they imply that there are "rules" which isnwhy they cant leave, I mean you dont have to spell everything out, its implied that aomething bad like the end of the world would happened if they didnt kill themselves. Hes been doing his thing lately, I enjoyed Old as well
But you can't polish a...
*_The Woke do it all the time, they're absolute experts ..._*
@@jane---489 They've made an entire business out of it.
A certain Mythbusters episode comes to my mind
I'm not gonnna lie, watching the Happening back then in theaters made me a bit paranoid about the world for a bit at some time but then it went away.
I mean kind of like those killer mirror movies where you look in the mirror and whatnot etc.
Sixth sense was great, unbreakable is a masterpiece, the pitch for signs must of been what if we do an alien invasion film from the point of view of normal people living out in the middle of nowhere so you never see any aliens or action, the village was good up until the twist, the happening was ruined by Mark walbergs acting so I can't tell if it was good or not, split was OK but made really good by its twist ending, glass was so bad its hard to believe, old was OK by this point I expect everything he does to be either hilarious or crap so it was a surprise it was OK, the visit was hilarious. Not seen airbender. That one with will Smith and his son was forgettable and the start of will smiths fall from grace.
You watch way too many hollywood movies lol
@@mjanny6330 I've just been alive for a while
After Earth was far worse than forgettable. What was supposed to be tha launch of Jaden Smith's career showed that he had neither his father's talent nor his mother's luck. The kid was unbearable, and Will performs mostly by just dictating orders to him.
I sincerely wonder how Last Airbender would have been received by those who haven't watched the animated series. Anyone who has seen the series hates it by comparison.
heard the review on ComicsFilmExplained ... had the underlining sus its stupid...the 'supetnatiural' is the detraction.
-
a bunch of soppy ass 'males' having strong backed people waiting on their choices/ 'sacrifice' dying in the wait (and THATS besides the world is collapsing)
and they never did make the choice at the end.
Cabin in the Wood = the inspiration for Knock at the Cabin, in my opinion. Only Knock at the Cabin is progressive, and stupid.
Cabin in the Woods is Shakespeare compared to this film lol
@@themeangene the irony of that statement is that I agree with it, and yet I don't think overly highly of cabin in the woods and Shakespeare.
Don't get me wrong, they are reasonably good and very good, respectively, they're just not my favorites.
That's how bad knock at the cabin sounds.
6