The wait is over. It's been two long years since "Signs" came out, and now the best filmmaker in the world is back with "The Village." CNN.com's review calls "The Village" "Shyamalan's best film yet, demanding repeated viewings and endless discussion about the morality and implications of the characters' choices." Tune in to FlynnFiles later this weekend and I'll give you my take.

David Fincher is a better filmmaker but Shyamalan is very good. I don't understand why people were so down on Unbreakable. But like P.T. Anderson, Night suffers from a bit of a bloated ego which makes him have a hard time making films consistently at the highest level he is capable of. Anderson and him share a determination to only direct their own screenplays and could both use a good producer to reign them in at times. Fincher doesn't suffer from this problem.

I forgot to mention David Lynch. The two Davids are better filmmakers than Shyamalan.

David Lynch's movies are absolutely horrible and unwatchable. Mullholland Drive may have been the worst movie I have ever seen. Because it has intellectual pretensions, smart people kid themselves into believing it was a good movie. It was neither entertaining nor intelligent, but rather stream of consciousness nonsense that fools intellectuals into believing that there must be some deeper meaning to the film. There's not. Lynch just made a bad movie, and spliced up the scenes in random order to make it seem as though it was some artsy masterpiece. Normal people know they've been ripped off after seeing Mullholland Drive. But intellectuals keep offering interpretations of what they just saw--like a sophomore explaining the true meaning of Stairway to Heaven's lyrics. Words cannot do justice to just how awful that movie is.

Shyamalan's stories are hit and miss...This is going to be a BIG miss.

Is there ANYone that doesn't see the "twist" coming?

MNS does some really great things with the camera and with his screenplays. Plus he adds a positive perspective on interesting issues, like faith and morality in "Signs", that most directors would never even consider. So, I guess in this age of Hollywood mediocrity, those qualities have earned him the Shyamalan-worship-cult that obsesses over his every move.

But being the "twist-meister" seems to really limit him. There are SERIOUS plot holes in all of his movies, holes that wouldn't exist save to serve the inevitable twist that's become his trademark (watch the Shyamalan crazies come out over that one).

The Sixth Sense was so successful because you actually CARED about the boy and the Bruce Willis character. You find yourself too engrossed in the action to look for a twist. Now, EVERYone looks for the twist, figures it out, then has to sit through what have become increasingly silly, poorly written movies.

This twist is so obvious...I can't see wasting 10 bucks just to have my suspicions confirmed. I guess I'll rent it.

Looking forward to your review, Dan.

Raging Fred, you are very correct about the narrative problems in MNS's films, although this really most hampers only Sixth Sense which does not actually work with its twist ending. That is why I say he needs a good producer to rein him in. I don't want to explain in detail why 6th Sense doesn't work narratively (no reason to give away plot points, although everyone will pretty much know them by now) but Unbreakable and Signs do a much better job of downplaying the twists in a more Hitchcockian fashion.

Dan, you are completely wrong about Lynch, especially Mulholland Drive. I used to share your opinion about Lynch based on the fact that I hate hipsters and so-called intellectual types who like to wax philosophical over the most inane of topics while drinking mochas or whatever. Intellectuals almost invariably discuss in minute detail and with total seriousness the most opaque of works of modernist art as if opacity indicates depth rather than, far too often, an actual lack of depth. It is like looking at a muddy puddle, it can appear quite deep when in fact it is only a shallow half inch hiding only drowned worms.

But do not be fooled by the pretensions of the hipster intellectuals, who cannot actually intelligently explain anything, into dismissing Lynch's work. I would suggest that you first go watch Elephant Man and The Straight Story his two "normal" films. When you do so you will immediately pick up on the fact that Lynch is clearly a Christian humanist and all of his films are quite profound when understood in that frame. You can then see how clearly his visions of the grotesque in life in his "weird" films should be seen as actually doing two basic things. First, he has amazing compassion and sympathy for the sinners in modern life and yet makes sin itself completely realistic in its abjectness and depravity. And secondly, his films testify to the importance of what is for the most part missing in them. It is similar to Shakespeare where the nihilistic views of characters of his like Hamlet or MacBeth should not be confused as representing what Shakespeare himself believes or even what the message of those plays are.

Films like Blue Velvet (about the attraction of sin and near occasions of sin, love and family as the bulwark against lust and sinful self-destruction, and that hope/faith/charity and grace triumph ultimately), Eraserhead (about the horror of abortion, a strong pro-life film), Lost Highway (about the devil's actual presence in the world and the means by which he seduces us through our vanity and jealousy), or Twin Peaks (again about the actual existence of the devil and about the destruction of the American family over the last generation or so) are illustrative.

As for Mulholland Drive, it is a complex film but well worth the effort to understand. If you see his fundamentally traditional moral views and Christian humanist standpoint you will get more from it. Other than Straight Story, Mulholland Drive is his greatest film accomplishment so far. It tells the story of the last moments, or minutes in the life of a woman in absolute despair right before she commits suicide. You can be put off by its modernist approach which contorts time and perspective in attempting to demonstrate on film what goes through the mind of someone in suicidal despair (as a general rule I can't stand that sort of modernist style in literature like Gertrude Stein---she is absolutely miserable---or Joyce and Faulkner) but you need to first figure out the content and message of his films, which is completely admirable and defensible, before rejecting the form of them. The problem with modernist garbage is that it is usually intrinsically nihilistic so its content blows. But on rare occasions, like in Lynch's films, the modernist stylings are manipulated in order to present a very traditional and good worldview. Donnie Darko does this as well. Hipsters do not get this because they are fundamentally nihilistic, this is why they adore b.s. like American Beauty and Tarantino films. Since they see that Lynch is "formally" doing something complex and "interesting" they assume that it is open to their inane musings.

Glad I got a forceful response from you Dan but seriously check out Straight Story (one of my five favorite films). It is a clear tale of the necessity of the sacrament of confession, and the tough pilgrim's road to salvation, of the fundamental necessity and value of family and actual love for humanity of the non-b.s.-leftist-socialist variety. When you see that movie I promise all will become clear.

Here is a website that fully explains what is going on in Mulholland Drive. The one thing the author does not stress enough is the actual Christian ethos of Lynch's films. Mulholland Drive is not at all interested in "promoting lesbianism" or any other crap, it is actually showing the tortured psyche of the individual alienated from the good or God, the fact that she is lesbian only adds to the depth of her confusion.

http://www.themodernword.com/mulholland_drive.html

My additions to the discussion on that site are on page four of the visitor's comments.

Good post topics could be favorite films and worst films seen as well.

The worst film I have ever seen is Batman Forever. How you could claim Mulholland Drive as the worst film you have ever seen is beyond me. (Sorry for the lengths of these posts).

Brian,

Don't usually comment on these kinds of posts as I am a simple man and just like what entertains me and makes me think a bit.

But, your well thought out breakdown of film and its greater meaning is very impressive.

I'm glad you're on our side.

Brian: you are usually so smart . . . how can you have such poor judgment in artsy movies?

I thought the ONLY people who liked Mulholland Drive were men who thrill in the lesbian scenes.

It is a tribute to your character that the lesbian scenes are not your reason for liking the film.

It is an indictment of your judgment that you like the movie at all. It is seriously one of the worst movies EVER made.

BTW: If Lynch's point were really so Trad Catholic and as moralistic as you pretend, then he wouldn't have made the lesbian scenes the way he did -- hardly Hays Code compliant.

Et tu Mols?

Yes, the lesbo scenes do it for most mortal men but not for me. In fact, I agree that sex as a rule should never be depicted on film, particularly deviant sex. But since you and Dan do not first demonstrate that you understand the film your rejection of it tout court isn't persuasive. Even if you had added three exclamation points (!!!) to saying that it is "one of the worst movies EVER made" for even more emphasis on the fact that you loathe the film, that wouldn't change my view.

Back to the lesbo scenes. They can be justified (to a degree), particularly since it is at least a possibility in the film that they never actually occurred but are instead a fantasy born from despair in Diane/Camilla's mind, particularly the last sex scene which is clearly a mental image she is conjuring up as she, well, uh, "occupies" herself just before she kills herself. Agreed, these are really seedy aspects of the film, but these are really seedy aspects of life. On one level I wouldn't mind if such things were never broached for discussion in art, let alone actually filmed, but it is clear to me that Lynch deals with the grotesque and the shameful not to wallow in it but to lift us up from it. Those who are titillated by it are solely responsible for their moral failing.

It is pointless to go into much detail in this venue on the film since it is too complex and needs to be watched and discussed. My point still remains that if you watch Lynch's "normal" films of Elephant Man and Straight Story then his Christian humanism will become abundantly evident. The hipsters really don't know what to do with these films of his, literally they say things like "Straight Story? Wasn't that a DISNEY film?"

I did not claim he was a trad Catholic (I think he is actually either non-denominational Protestant or a "culture" Catholic, I know he has been divorced for example) but the themes of his film are clearly congruent with the best contained in traditional moral thought.

I will say one thing about M. Dr., did you not pick up immediately on the level of critique of post Golden Era Hollywood contained in that film? One of the major and completely obvious themes of the film is how morally bankrupt Hollywood is and how it actually destroys lives as well as undermining American culture and families. You can't tell me you missed that? It is even implied in the title of the film which is the name of the posh street that runs directly above Los Angeles in the foothills overlooking Hollywood. Why do you think the film was completely ignored by the Oscar Committee in 2001? Lynch was given a best director nomination despite the fact that the film was not nominated for best picture, any acting oscars, original screenplay, or cinematography. The Academy is completely ideological but they aren't stupid, they know when they are being insulted and the entire film is an indictment of everything that Hollywood stands for.

I may stand "indicted" by you and Dan for loving that film but I am confident that given a chance and a carefully selected jury pool ;) that I can make a spirited defense and be acquitted on all counts.

Q: "Why do you think the film was completely ignored by the Oscar Committee in 2001?" A: Because it was completely dreadful.

Uh, Mols, explain how the Oscars work to Dan, heh-heh.

Brian: I hate to break it to you, but Lynch simply is not a man of your virtue. He filmed those scenes because HE wanted to see them. I consider that obvious.

I too do not particularly care for the Oscar's usual choices, but I could just as well ask the question -- why didn't Mission to Mars or Battleship Earth win best picture? Perhaps because they satirized the crap coming out of Hollywood? No -- because they are the crap coming out of Hollywood.

Seriously, MD was terrible. And to say that Lynch is better than M. Night is simply insane. M. Night is Hitchcockian with a sci-fi twist, while Lynch is an Orson Wells trainwreck.

Molly, the only movies I have seen in the last fifteen years are "Big" and "Stalag 17", so thanks for carrying on the discussion on movies and cinema. I look forward to watching "Stalag 17" the next time you're up.

O.k., this obviously isn't the venue to argue about this. Neither of you has yet indicated whether you have seen Elephant Man and/or The Straight Story. Repeatedly saying MD is crap and is on a par with Battlefield Earth, and calling it the worst film ever and also generalizing about Lynch (again w/o indicating what you have seen of his) is just not an attempt to argue with me.

Usually, when two parties disagree strongly on something that is called a "controversy." Then, "argument" ensues to resolve the difference of opinion, hopefully in favor of agreement about the truth or reality of the issues involved. (the facetiousness is only partly tongue-in-cheek here).

I seem to have struck a chord by defending Lynch who you guys feel really stole precious hours off your life when you watched MD. That is the way I feel about Batman Forever and I will never forgive Joel Schumacher for it.

Maybe someday you will let me host a Lynch film fest where we watch at least one of the two normal films of his I mentioned and then one of his wierd ones, like MD. That way I can actually point to the evidence of the film itself in detail to support my interpretation. Otherwise, I just wait on your reviews of The Straight Story, seriously, that film is one of the best ever.

Btw, I don't claim to myself be of "my virtue," but thanks for the compliment Mols. I disagree about why those scenes were put there but am agnostic about whether Lynch deep down had a prurient motive . . . I will leave such suspicion of his internal imperatives to Kant. To my mind it is like the sex scenes in the recent remake of The End of the Affair, I think the film could have been done fine without them, and they are actually much more extensive and intense then the scenes in MD (but of course are hetero so not essentially deviant) but a pretty convincing argument can be made for including them. Bottom line in my opinion, the sex scenes in MD are not enough of a problem to reject the movie on that basis and are not important enough to love the movie on that basis (as the pervs do). The fact that they are so striking is probably the best argument that he should have done w/o them since even we have gotten totally caught up in them. All the readers of this are probably going to run out to rent the movie to see the scenes . . .

One last point. Shyamalan is no Hitchcock. In fact he very self-consciously styles himself after Hitchcock and it is at times disruptive in his films. Particularly with the way he has to cast himself as one of the characters in each of his movies. Hitchcock would always be sure to appear somewhere right near the beginning of a film b/c he didn't want people to get distracted playing "where's Waldo," and never made himself be an attention drawing character, or even having any spoken lines.

Signs is a perfect case in point about MNS's ego being obtrusive. His first appearance in the film is getting in his suv after running errands and the whole Hess family stares at him as he backs away. One of them says cryptically "is that him?" and there is no response as they all grimly stare at him, he catches their glance, gets flustered and squeals away. That is huge ego, sorry Mols, that is more Orson Welles like. B/c don't you see all the levels of cleverness that scene oozes?, Night's character is pivotal in the story, all the main characters stop and stare at him . . . AND, he is the writer and director, as in he created these characters that are now staring at him! Wow, it is just like in the old disney cartoons when Mickey would jump off the page as Walt was drawing him and start chatting it up with him. It is layers of pretentious self-referentiality, something Lynch never does.

Then, Night only makes it worse the next scene he has in the film, which is again a pivotal one (I won't give away plot points); that scene as well drips with all the double meaning of the actor playing the character speaking the lines and causing action in others is also the writer who wrote the lines the character is speaking and the director causing the action of the other actors/characters.

Lynch and Fincher are both better than Shyamalan. I stand by my original claim, and I can't wait to go see The Village!

MNS's appearance as "Ray Reddy" in Signs contributed to the movie, which was a huge hit among critics and theater-goers. Whereas, MNS's films often have a moral message--Signs clearly did--you project one upon Lynch's movies. I have seen Blue Velvet, The Elephant Man, Wild at Heart, and Mullholland Drive. They're not great movies--certainly not entertaining--and the last two are positively horrible. I mean it when I say that Mullholland Drive was the worst movie I have ever seen. Don't kid yourself into thinking that people dislike the movie because of its lesbian scenes. They dislike the movie because it is horrible.

I liked the alien in Meatballs II!

Did anyone ever see the episode in the last season of Dukes of Hazzard where the Duke boys met an alien?

I liked the alien, S.P.E.W.E.Y. from Chris Elliot's "Get A Life".

it genuinely intriques me how much seemingly conservatives devoted to modesty and the good seem to have a fetish for hitchcokian-type horror movies.

there's something a bit perverse about it.

girl with a pearl earring is the last good movie i've seen -- genuinely good as in artistically good and good in the sense that it illuminates the human struggle to pursue and create beauty while maintaining virtue. it also reveals how the best among us are often mistakenly thrown out of our lives as trash.

and there are no explicit sex scenes -- even though some of its scenes are the most intensely passionate i've ever scene.

take a holiday from your moral/political agenda and observe the world around you. beauty and viture are hidden in the grimiest of places.

a side note, your brand of right, your brand of conservatism is at the twilight of its being. the rest of us are, frankly, tired of your polemics and bored with your rules. so smoke a cigar, have a stiff drink and a good cry and return to reality.

cheers,
joan

Conservatives stand athwart history yelling stop. New "conservatives" are standing ahead of history and impatiently waiting for it to catch up. We'll always be miles apart.

The Village was great, best movie I've seen in a while.

The all-time best alien in a feature film has to be Kuato from Total Recall. He lived in some dude, on the side of his body if I remember correctly. He was also all knowing and very, very wise. Now that's cool. Alien's that use a host are cool.

Internet connections, photo related kobe bryant software and are more likely to use an kevin garnett Internet photo website to have prints andre agassi or photo gifts made from them. A Photo yao ming Marketing Association survey says that shaquille o'neal 37.6% of digital camera owners have ordered david beckham photo prints from an Internet website. michael schumacher We are seeing a strong movement towards babe ruth digital images and a decline in the use tiger woods