Kids have terrific imaginations and when someone is able to successfully integrate it into film it usually proves to enrich the movie as a whole. It's very tough to pull off I imagine.

See, that's exactly the thing. You got that right away. The film was the truth, as filtered by Tom Hanks' character. It was the truth he could bear to remember, and he recreated it for his kids using his imagination, not the "facts". I'm astounded by the sheer amount of critics, Ebert included, who interpreted everything on-screen in a completely literal fashion. Which, of course, invalidates everything it's trying to say about the horrors of child abuse, and the slow process of recovery.

I wanted a dog just like Shane.

I can see and perhaps even understand your dislike for "The Village", Steerforth, and I suppose I don't have much to defend it with, other than the fact that I greatly enjoyed it. As was said, "to each his/her own". It was interesting to read your thoughts, though! I hadn't run into a "non-fan" of the movie, who could exactly pin-point their dislike of the movie before...so it was actually a kind of relief to finally hear from someone who doesn't like it exactly WHY they didn't...if that makes sense.

I enjoyed the movie, "Nim's Island", Liberty...not a huge favorite, but cute.

I could, but I found this quote from Roger Ebert that summarizes my views, and that's a lot less work than typing up my own bitter thoughts:

"The Village is a colossal miscalculation, a movie based on a premise that cannot support it, a premise so transparent it would be laughable were the movie not so deadly solemn ... To call the ending an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It was all a dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore."

Warning; Spoilers below.

I guess I'm still not satisfied with your explanation, because you haven't exactly explained WHY it's insulting to try and pass the premise of the film off as believable. Also, what made you think the ending was an anticlimax? Just because the monsters didn't turn out to be real in the end? I found the climax of the film to be quite interesting, and I was much more satisfied with it ending in a twist, then I would have been had it ended with the monsters being real.

I do feel a little insulted, as you seem to suggest that even though I may not be unintelligent, I am not objectively judging the script, which I think is an unfair assumption. I'm willing to believe I simply misunderstood you, and if that be the case, I apologize.

I'll always be a,
NL101

A couple of years ago my wife and I got the whole of the James Bond series on DVD in this big collectors case (including the Casino Royale version with Daniel Craig), and occasionally I'll pull the set out and watch a film. I've been a Bond fan for my whole life, although I tend to like Roger Moore the most as he's the one I grew up watching in the title role. *hears booing and hisses from the crowd*

Of course everyone has heard of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the odd "middle child" of the "Blofeld Trilogy" starring that "fake Bond guy", George Lazenby, and even having not seen it Bond fans will still be able to take note that at one point Bond gets married in the film, which later films point back to from time to time. I'd never really watched it before and to be frank never really had the desire to. Either Connery is Bond or Roger Moore is, and production stills of Lazenby wearing what can only be described as Austin Powers style clothing only subtracted that much more from my desire to see the film. But last night I sat down and forced myself to watch it, and will readily and happily report that this is one of the best Bond films I've seen, hands down. Easily in my top 5.

The first thing I noticed was that the style of the film is different from previous or later 007 movies and Lazenby actually makes a pretty good Bond. Of course Bond has his fair share of shenanigans he gets into with various beautiful women, but he kind of gets Cupid's arrow right through the torso when Tracy (played in elegant fashion by Diana Rigg) enters the scene and the movies portrayal of the two characters love (yes...I can't believe Bond actually falls in love with someone) is surprisingly touching. And the ending...well...what can one say? I knew it was coming and yet I didn't want it to happen. Lazenby, despite almost no previous acting experience, really pulls that portion of the movie off quite well, and I'm forced to wonder if perhaps he should have had another stab or two at more Bond films. This film is wholly underrated in my opinion. I can't believe I went through life as a Bond fan so long without watching it. It added a very real human side to the character that you don't really see throughout the rest of the series except in glimpses and only helped the series. The new Casino Royale feels like a direct nod to this film.

If you're a Bond fan and you haven't seen this one I strongly recommend giving it a go, it doesn't disappoint.

Hmm... I really enjoyed The Village. Signs was good until they revealed the aliens. Lady in the Water was utter rubbish. The Happening was very good in parts and really stupid in other sections. I haven't seen Unbreakable.
It seems to like M Night Shyamaladingdong (or whatever his name is) is trying to do for movies what Rod Serling did for TV with The Twilight Zone. I think he's a very good cinematographer and has good ideas but needs them to be developed further and with more depth (another script-writer would help in this area).

I guess I'm still not satisfied with your explanation

See, and I'm not satisfied that anything I propose will change your mind. Nor do I care about changing your mind. Do I have more to say? Yes. Do I feel like publishing a dissertation to validate my opinion in your eyes? Not really, no.

I do feel a little insulted, as you seem to suggest that even though I may not be unintelligent, I am not objectively judging the script, which I think is an unfair assumption. I'm willing to believe I simply misunderstood you, and if that be the case, I apologize.

But, if I thought you had made a completely objective analysis of the issue, I would HAVE your opinion. We can't both be right. That's the basis of human disagreement—I cannot logically accept your position. I think objective inquiry rarely comes into play until someone dislikes something. People don't ask themselves: "Gee, I wonder why I liked that." No, they ask themselves, "How could that have possibly been that awful?" I think it's really reaching to see that as an "insult". I didn't intend it as such, nor do I think you should interpret it thusly, so I can't apologize for it. Really, I can't worry about sanitizing my posts to the point that they couldn't possibly offend a single solitary person at some point, in some regard. If we all did that, there would never be any substantive opinions offered, and what's the point? I'm often blunt, and I realize that isn't typically well received here, but my intent is never to offend.

Hmm, I personally thought The Village was a very well done, thought provoking film. I already knew part of the twist ending, so the

It is a little far fetched, but hey, what film is not in some way far fetched. Even those "realistic" films have unrealistic moments.

The Village is in the same ballpark as The Birds in my book of open ended films endings. It's still a great film, just makes you think more than normal.

*joins the group that despises Signs*

One of the few "scary" films I've seen where I was laughing at the jump scenes.

My only real problem with Shyamalan is that his stupid twist endings usually undermine the central points of his stories, thus ruining all the good stuff that leads up to them.

He's great on Visuals and Atmosphere, but The Sixth Sense is still his only film that really holds water. Having said that, previews for The Last Airbender look awesome, and as it's not his story he can't ruin the ending (I hope).

And by the way, I agree with everyone who thinks Signs really sucked. At least his other films were actually kinda scary.

GB

EDIT: Oops, I missed Shadow's Bond post. I agree with everything you said Shadow . I can only add that Ian Fleming always wanted Lazenby for the part of Bond. Lazenby apparently looked the way Fleming envisioned Bond.

Aw' c'mon! Am I the only one here that liked Signs?

Lazenby was much better than I thought he'd be, GB. Like I said I was wondering why he didn't continue on. One reason may have been that the press apparently savaged him which probably hurt his chances, but still...

Yes, unfortunately audiences and critics were merciless about Lazenby. But still, at least we got to grow up with Roger Moore . Actually the only Bond I didn't like was Timothy Dalton, which is odd because he's a great actor. He was just all wrong for the part though.

GB

I've always enjoyed George Lazenby and not just because he's an Aussie. I think he played the part of Bond well and his adventure had more emotional depth than other classic Bond movies. On Her Majesty's Secret Service has been one of my favourites ever since I saw it as a child. I've never been a fan of Roger Moore as Bond.

Aw' c'mon! Am I the only one here that liked Signs?

I liked "Signs"! I didn't think it "scary" at all...but I liked it.

See, and I'm not satisfied that anything I propose will change your mind. Nor do I care about changing your mind. Do I have more to say? Yes. Do I feel like publishing a dissertation to validate my opinion in your eyes? Not really, no.

I think you're perhaps misinterpreting my intent. I in no way expected that you would change my mind, nor did I think I would change yours. I was merely inquiring so that we might strike up some interesting conversation, which is what this forum is for.

But, if I thought you had made a completely objective analysis of the issue, I would HAVE your opinion. We can't both be right. That's the basis of human disagreement—I cannot logically accept your position. I think objective inquiry rarely comes into play until someone dislikes something. People don't ask themselves: "Gee, I wonder why I liked that." No, they ask themselves, "How could that have possibly been that awful?" I think it's really reaching to see that as an "insult". I didn't intend it as such, nor do I think you should interpret it thusly, so I can't apologize for it. Really, I can't worry about sanitizing my posts to the point that they couldn't possibly offend a single solitary person at some point, in some regard. If we all did that, there would never be any substantive opinions offered, and what's the point? I'm often blunt, and I realize that isn't typically well received here, but my intent is never to offend.

There is a difference between thinking someone has not objectively analyzed something, and having a different opinion. By saying they haven't objectively looked at something, you're saying they're "wrong," but by having a different opinion your simply saying that there is no right or wrong but that you look at it differently. Now I believe to a certain extent you can objectively say movies are "bad," but most of peoples thoughts on movies aren't objective, they're simply personal preference. I don't agree that looking at things objectively only comes in to play when one dislikes a movie; I think about why I liked the movie all the time. Anyways, what I was saying was simply that I felt that, even though you allowed me to have my own personal opinion, you still insisted it was wrong. Obviously I misunderstood you.

For the record, I in no way expect you to "sanitize" your post to the point of them being unforgivably dull, but perhaps I could suggest that you be a might bit more gentle when dealing with others about their personal opinions?

I'll always be a,
NL101

The issue Steerforth, is that narnialover101, wants your opinion on Signs, not Eberts. That's why he wasn't satisfied. As for me, I thought Signs was a decent movie, but certainly not on the calibur that Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were. And while I am on Shamylan, I am interested in Last Airbender.

there's a movie called "Her Majesty" and it was filmed in Australia. it was rather disturbing to say the least.....

I really enjoy the movie "The Water Horse"! that movie is AWESOME!