Print Page | Close Window

So Satan Walks into This Elevator...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: DISCUSSIONS & POLLS on 2010 RELEASES
Forum Name: DEVIL
Forum Discription: Who the DEVIL Gave M. Night Money Again?!?!?
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4560
Printed Date: April 16 2014 at 6:15am


Topic: So Satan Walks into This Elevator...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: So Satan Walks into This Elevator...
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 8:05am
EVEN WE, JADED AS WE ARE, CAN'T GET OUR HEADS AROUND HOW LAME the CONCEPT for http://www.razzies.com/forum/devil_forum457.html -

SINCE the "STORY" IS CREDITED to 5-TIME RAZZIE® NOMINEE (and 2-TIME RAZZIE® "WINNER") http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452637/awards -
FIRST of ALL, WHY DOES the DEVIL NEED to TAKE an ELEVATOR -- WHAT, the STAIRS WERE OUT-of-ORDER??   

SECOND, DOESN'T SATAN HAVE a BETTER WAY of TROLLING for LOST SOULS THAN HANGING OUT in OFFICE BUILDINGS??  

THIRD, WHO THOUGHT THIS WAS an EVEN REMOTELY SCARY CONCEPT??

AND LASTLY -- and MOST IMPORTANTLY -- WHO the HELL IS STILL SPENDING MONEY to MAKE MOVIES BASED on IDEAS from the TWIT-MASTER of TWIST ENDINGS...OR, AS HIZ DWINDLING NUMBER of CLOSE FRIENDS CALL HIM..."M"??? 

WE SEEK ANSWERS -- and SNIDE COMMENTS -- from YOU BELOW...




ANGRY DUDE: "Okay, who the Hell farted -- It smells 
like the Devil in here! Oh, wait a minute..."  



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 8:58am
As I said elsewhere, this movie looks like something more in line with what we want.  Now, the only question is, does anything else in this dumping ground of a weekend warrant our attention (not that we need anything else this year)??  
 
As to the plot twist, let me guess.  The Devil will turns out to be one of the people in the elevator.  If I'm right, that would be s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o cliché!!  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: That's the "twist" implied in promotional materials for the film -- My money's on the red-haired older lady -- after all, she sure looks like Hell!!  


 
 


-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 11:51am
It's always a bad idea to make a movie with a "twist ending," and then let people know there's gonna be one...  



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 12:13pm
All they have to do is say that Shyamalan is involved, and everybody knows there will be a twist.  
 
We should start calling him Chubby Checker. . .   

 


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 12:56pm
Even though more than half the films he's made don't contain a twist??  

Originally posted by cvcjr13

All they have to say is that Shyamalan is involved and everybody knows there will be a twist.
 
We should start calling him Chubby Checker. . . . [QUOTE]
 
 If you noticed, each character has red on them, the police's badge, the businessman's tie, the woman's scarf, etc.  



Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

That's the "twist" implied in promotional materials for the film -- My money's on the red-haired older lady -- after all, she sure looks like Hell!!  


Also, I'll like to point out this isn't being screened to the critics. I was about to post this before HeadRazz posted this thread for "Devil" but I guess he beat me to it. 

And to answer HeadRazz's questions above:

1. Why the hell does the Devil need to control peoples' bodies yet filmmakers keep making films about possessions.
2. See #1.
3. Umm....a lot of people. Let me point to you that there are people out there that already have a phobia over elevators and being stuck in them. Add the Devil into that equation and everything goes into chaos!
4. The studios. Duh.

Another thing to point out: Devil merely may be just a metaphor of calling someone "bad" in an extreme way. There's nothing to prove of what we've gotten now that the literal Devil is going to be in the movie. It's also interesting to point out that the concept is based off of Agatha Christie's "10 Little Indians," one of the best murder mysteries I've ever read.

I still have high hopes for this movie...  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I, too, am a big fan of Agatha Christie's. So please explain to me how five people stranded in an elevator is in any way "based off of 10 LITTLE INDIANS," -- in which ten apparent strangers are invited to a remote island, then killed off one-by-one until only their host -- and his motive -- are left to be revealed...



-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 1:49pm
To moviewizguy: Dude, Shyamalan has made "twist endings" his trademark. And once they started to suck (and could be seen from a mile away) everyone stopped caring. Then he just gave up as a writer altogether, and his movies have been unwatchable ever since.  
 
And I'll answer the questions, too. 

#1. Because it's a "WHAT A TWIST!". 

#2. Yeah, shouldn't the Devil be hanging out at, say, Wall Street or in Washington DC (or even Hollywood) instead? More than enough lost (or greedy) souls in those places! 

#3. So people who fear being stuck in elevators are going to pay to see a movie about their worst fear? Nah! Oh, and the Devil ... just another "WHAT A TWIST!".
 
And by your logic, every single horror/slasher movie in which a group of people are killed one by one must be based on "Ten Little Indians". Yet another example of you trying to make an MNS movie look more important (or better) than it really is. 

I wouldn't say you have high hopes, more like you're desperately clinging to hope!  


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 1:58pm
Okay guys, let me pitch you one...the devil is walking down the street and stops at a hot dog stand....

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 1:58pm
BHB -- stop being so stupid. You know why people watch horror movies? Because by the end of the day, they feel safe. That's the entire point. Oh, people are scared of ghosts. PEOPLE STILL WATCH MOVIES ABOUT GHOSTS. You don't make much sense, BHB.

Why are you constantly shoving words down my throat? STOP DOING THAT! It's really annoying and wrong when you do that to people. You know why I mentioned "10 Little Indians"? When asked about the inspiration for the idea for this film, MNS said......wait for it....don't beat me to it...."10 Little Indians." You truly are narrow-minded. The similarities between the two are unparalleled and implying that going by "my logic" that every slasher would be based on "10 Little Indians" is more than idiotic. 

You truly are a piece of work, BHB. Now let's just wait for you to shove more words down my throat or find an excuse by saying what you wrote wasn't what you meant. We've all seen it all before. Unhappy


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 2:18pm
Am I just imagining the blatant similarities between Devil and 10 Little Indians? HeadRAZZ described 10 Little Indians sufficiently. Devil is about 5 (instead of 10) strangers stuck in a confined space (like the island) and being killed off one-b- one until -- well, we don't know the ending to Devil yet, do we? But it's apparent the inspiration for the film was "10 Little Indians." It's just confirmed by MNS in an interview.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Anyone can claim to have been "inspired" by a classic novel -- That doesn't mean their work is of a similar caliber, or even worthy of comparison. MWG, your naive acceptance of anything Hollywood spews out as self-promotion is both endearing and kinda scary. And, even though you took offense at BHB's horror/slasher analogy, he's more correct than you are here: If you buy M. Night's argument, the makers of all those FRIDAY THE 13th and HALLOWEEN sequels/remakes could claim Agatha inspired them as well -- After all, they all feature groups of people being killed off one-by-one in a confined setting...  




-------------


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 2:51pm
The Devil in the elevator, huh?  

There are far scarier things to worry about.  Imagine being in an elevator with an obese man.  The elevator breaks down and you are trapped. Oh, and that obese guy has been known to cause highrise evacuations with his flatulence.  

Then again would that still be better than watching this movie!!  

Also, over the years, the Devil has tried many different ways of trolling for souls...some lame, some good:  

(Re)Possessing a car, check.  

Going down to Georgia...check.  

Buying a soul for seven wishes...check. 

Etc.


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 2:56pm
In other words, MWG, Shyamalan likes to take good stories, and ruin them: "The Birds" with "Happening" (or so he claims), "Avatar: The Last Air Bender" with "Last Fart Bender," etc.. Yep, you can't get any more Hollywood than that!  

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 3:10pm
Well, people fear bees, so I guess a movie about people trapped in an elevator with bees should be made, too. Yeah, "Bees In an Elevator" -- Sounds kinda like "Snakes On a Plane", because people hate snakes and flying, you put the two together. Result = epic fail. Yeah, combining fears doesn't seem to make for good movies. Or maybe there should be "Bears On a Submarine"?  
 
As for "horror movies are all like Ten Little Indians", sorry, that's sound logic. For example, "Aliens", a group of people on a ship, there's an alien killing them off one by one. Hence, "Aliens" must be like "10 Little Indians". How about "Nightmare On Elms Street", or "Friday The 13th" or "Halloween", those all had groups of people dying one at a time. See what I mean? I say the things I say about you because you've made it a habbit of defending a filmmaker who is unworthy of being defended, to the point where you make these weird comparisons in order to make his work seem on the same level as someone else's masterpiece(s).  
 
Even if his last few movies are based on other movies or stories, he has repeatedly failed (on every level) to make a movie (or tell a story) that's anywhere close to being as good as what he claims "inspired" him. His career is in such a downward spiral that now the mere mention of his name makes people groan or laugh. 

What's next? Perhaps you'd like to defend Uwe Boll and declare every movie he has made is on a par with Alfred Hitchcock?  



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 3:52pm
Burn and M.W.G....Do you two have to fight about everything?! Forget the premise! No matter how it sounds, it doesn't have anything to do with the final product. People watch horror movies to get scared -- Period. Who cares who created the "Trapped people" genre??  

On another subject, does anyone want to talk about the directors the Dowdle Bros.? They made http://www.razzies.com/forum/quarantine_forum313.html - and THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES,two average passable horror movies.  

On the subject of M. Night's reviews, I don't want HeadRazz to start another debate on whether Rotten Tomatoes is worse than Metacritic or not, but the concensus points out that when Shyamalan fails, he does so wnth his writing or directing, not both.

And in order to defend Uwe Boll, he'd have to be compared to his idol, not Shyamalan's. I don't know who that would be, I just know his favorite movies and(of course) his favorite video-games. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Am I misunderstanding you, or are you actually arguing in this post that a film's concept "doesn't have anything to do with the final product"???  That's an argument that makes MWG's post seem studded with clear-headed logic!  If the basic premise doesn't work, nothing about the film will, either. 

Also, your claim that critics suggest Shyamalan's films fail due to either his writing or his directing (but never both) falls flat, since reviews on all three of his recent writing/directing gigs (LADY IN THE WATER, THE HAPPENING and LAST AIRBENDER) find fault with both the scripts and M. Night's "execution" of them... 

 


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 5:39pm
Back on topic, please!  

The devil walks into an elevator.  He kills those who enter...I wonder if it's because he can't stand their farts?  

I predict this movie is going to be a laugher...does anyone even remember the days when M. Night was great?  It feels like eons ago!  



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 6:00pm
The difference is that the killer in both 10 Little Indians and Devil is one of the "strangers," and the fact that the victims in the slasher films you've mentioned aren't confined to one area... 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Oh, come on!  In the FRIDAY THE 13th movies, the victims are all "confined" to Camp Crystal Lake. In the HALLOWEEN films, the victims are all "confined" to a specific house or neighborhood. In the SAW films, the victims are all "confined" to the killer's dungeon/torture chamber. Etc. Etc.  

MWG -- Please give up on this specious argument -- Shyamalan brought up TEN LITTLE INDIANS in a futile attempt to make his own work look classier. And the fact that you, alone among the world's population, choose to believe him makes you look foolish and, at best, semi-literate...  



-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 8:05pm
Oh sorry, I forgot, the "confined area" element. Once again, "WHAT A TWIST!" Although, "Alien" was on a single space ship, so that can count as one area. And one of the ship's crew turned on the other and tried killing them. So, does that make this movie "Alien In An Elevator"?!?  
 
We all agree Shyamalan is not the next Spielberg. He is, in fact, the new Michael Cimino. He had a promising career ahead of him, but thanks to his ego getting too big for his own good, and making VERY BAD creative choices, he is now the laughing stock of the movie industry.  
 
Oh, and I know I already posted this in the "Fart Bender" forum, but it's so funny and true, it's worth a second look.  
 
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1940892 - http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1940892     
 
Ah, this movie is going to fail so badly, it's almost a comedy!  


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 13 2010 at 10:42pm
Yes!  Burn and M.W.G DO have to fight about everything!  It's their raison d'être!  Or is it their raisins d'extra?  Sometimes I get confused about these things. . . . Confused
 


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 7:07am
A fantastic quote from someone that I'd love to share:

"People continue to bitch about Night, but I don't think they even know what they're bitching ABOUT necessarily. It's getting to the point that a lot of the people complaining about him weren't even old enough to have seen one of his "good" movies in the theater anyway. I don't think there are a lot of 20-year olds that have even watched "Sixth Sense" or "Unbreakable", much less any that know what a big deal Night was in the beginning and that how once upon a time, people didn't know that Bruce Willis was dead the entire time. I've never cared much for his films, but I don't think he's the worst filmmaker out there or anything. He peaked young and early, nothing else he's done other than "Signs" could really be considered a blockbuster (which itself was almost a decade ago), so he's an easy target. I also know of a lot of people that think that every movie Night puts out will be the one that kills his career dead, yet they continue to think that Kevin Smith is the greatest thing on the planet, though he's hardly ever made a dime for anyone.

From years of working at a movie theater, I've learned that filmmakers' names attached to movies don't mean sh*t to most people and that the people complaining about them mean even less. They're just the loudest and in no way represent the majority. More often than not, the same asshole that laughs at Night's name on the poster outside STILL buys a ticket for it 30 seconds later. People say that Michael Bay is the worst thing to happen to movies, but "Transformers 2" still makes 400 million. Someone "can't believe" that they're making another "Saw" after they and all their friends paid to see the first 6 on opening weekend. I'm a lot less bothered by the people that just come up and buy a ticket for something that looks awful if they do it without telling me how bad they think it's going to be first. I guarantee that if another "Indiana Jones" gets made, half the people that buy tickets for it at the midnight shows will tell you how much they thought the last one sucked. They're not stating their opinion so much as as they're saying "Don't take me seriously, no matter how much I bitch and moan"."

And another...

"Those same audience members who "boo" M. Night's name in a trailer are the ones who allow the crappiest music to invade the airwaves, the stupidest reality TV shows to stay on air, the most pathetic topics to trend on Twitter, and lead movies filled with cheap sex, mind numbing effects, drunk jokes, and shallow storylines to hit mega box office success.

And because of this, Hollywood happily continues on its cycle of dumbing down our already dumbed-out generation of people who trick themselves into thinking they are "smart" when they are in agreement with the bitter, talentless, uncreative, hack "critics" on the sidelines who make a living writing up their pseudo-intellectual rants persecuting a genuine artist and storyteller who DARES to break the rules.

Un-freakin-believable.

This quote is dedicated to M. Night:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” ~ Theodore Roosevelt"


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 8:05am
Translation: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
 
Hey, you want to defend a man who has shot himself (and continues to shoot himself) in the foot, have fun doing it. M. Night's movies are no smarter than the movies in that article above, they are just shot in a fancier style. Do we even know if those same people who laugh and groan at his name are the same people who paid for "Trannies 2"? I doubt it, since if they groan at M. Night, chances are they would groan at Michael Bay's name, too.  
 
I keep telling you, you're preaching to the wrong crowd!  



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 8:09am

Two bad movies (possibly) in one year for M Night:

It must be his birthday (or the impending death of his career)


-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 8:58am
Actually, reactions from people who went to pre-screenings said it was good. One said it was better than MNS's last few films. The two who posted their opinions rated it a 6 and 7 out of 10 accordingly. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: MWG -- I assume you're referring to pre-release ratings at IMDb?  Are you so naive that you are unaware that those ratings are often posted by studio shills?? And do you honestly think that if the film deserved a 6 or a 7 out of 10 rating, its makers would refuse to screen it for critics???  

Just how naive are you?!?  




-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 9:00am
Because you know it's true. Tongue  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Translation: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
 
Hey, you want to defend a man who has shot, and continues to shoot himself in the foot, have fun doing it. M. Night's movies are no smarter than the movies in that article above, they are just shot in a fancier style. Do we even know if those same people who laugh and groan at his name are the same people who paid for "Trannies 2"? I doubt it, since if they groan at M. Night, chances are they would groan at Bay, too.
 
I keep telling you, you're preaching to the wrong crowd.
 



-------------


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 9:43am
Please! Do not let this forum go the way of the forum for Disaster Movie!

-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Mrc. 25; Divergent. Apl. 1; NOAH, Sabotage. Apl. 15; Oculus. Apl. 22; A Haunted House 2. Apl. 29; The Other Woman.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 9:45am
In response to that "devil is walking down the street and stops at a hot dog stand" challenge, I've got one: A failing filmmaker has lost face in the industry. He wants to be back on top of his game, but he has lost his touch. Just then (WHAT A TWIST!) the devil shows up to make a deal with him. 

Oh wait, when it comes to Hollywood, that's more of a "based on a true story" movie. Never mind!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 9:46am
And back to those "pre-screenings," which are to learn if there's an audience for the movie, not if the movie is actually good. That's what pre-screeenings for CRITICS are for.  

[QUOTE=moviewizguy] 
Because you know it's true. Tongue [QUOTE]  


Yeah, I know it's true that you're wasting your time preaching that MNS is a good filmmaker to a Forum where he is seen as a total joke. Wink  


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 10:36am

"Can M Night Shyamalan do worse than The Last Airbender?"  That is the question critics and moviegoers will be asking when (and if) they see this movie.  



-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 10:53am
Except, MWG, who will be in a fetal position, rocking back and forth and mumbling to himself: "It's still good, it's still good. M Night is just having a dry spell. He'll be good again soon, he'll be good again soon..."

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 12:02pm
Except from the fact that M Night Shyamalan didn't actually "make" the movie. He is neither the director nor the writer. He just made the story. The Dowdle Broothers directed this, and Brian Nelson wrote the screenplay...  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Boy, MWG, when you decide not to let go of something, you're incredibly tenacious...and reliably delusional!  Since when is having "made the story" not considered "writing"???  I expect the WGA (and anyone else assessing that credit rationally) would disagree with you here. Shyamalan may not have directed DEVIL, but he does have a "writing" credit for having concocted the story...and on some posters. Ol' M is also prominently "credited" as the film's producer. Hardly a case of not having actually "made" the movie... 



-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 12:04pm
You're right and you're wrong in your response below, HeadRAZZ. You're right about my wrong choice of words(although that's also your fault, since you keep editing what I write). It's not that the premise has nothing to do with the script. There are good movies with premises that sounded dumb. You're wrong about the reviews of Shyamalan's movies. Most comments say things like "He needs to get away from the laptop and hire a screenwriter to translate for him" or "Visually it's flashy,but there's not enough development."  
 RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Am I misunderstanding you, or are you actually arguing in this post that a film's concept "doesn't have anything to do with the final product"???  That's an argument that makes MWG's post seem studded with clear-headed logic!  If the basic premise doesn't work, nothing about the film will, either. 

Also, your claim that critics suggest Shyamalan's films fail due to either his writing or his directing (but never both) falls flat, since reviews on all three of his recent writing/directing gigs (LADY IN THE WATER, THE HAPPENING and LAST AIRBENDER) find fault with both the scripts and M. Night's "execution" of them...

Even though I dislike when posters tell us about pre-reviews, you all seem to be missing the point. Even if this movie has 100% good reviews it won't make people think better of Night, because he didn't write the script, nor did he direct it. 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Actually, reactions from people who went to pre-screenings said it was good. One said it was better than MNS's last few films. The two who posted their opinions rated it a 6 and 7 out of 10 accordingly.
 




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 12:39pm
The mere sight of M. Night's name attached to this movie will be enough to keep people away...  



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 2:20pm
There's no such thing as bad publicity...  



-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 4:51pm
Michael Cimino is living proof that your statement above is is not true. And MNS is headed in the same direction as Cimino.  




-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 6:14pm
Looks like MWG may have a "fan" on the IMDb -- Could somebody explain this to me?:  

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0796117/board/thread/170635894 - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0796117/board/thread/170635894



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 7:57pm
It's not just MWG and me who fight about everything -- It's MWG ... and ANYONE here who is aware of what a good movie is!  

And on the subject of that MWG thread on the IMDb that Vits mentioned above: Maybe it's A love letter to MWG from another armchair critic who wouldn't know what a good movie is if one bit him in the face?




-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 14 2010 at 8:30pm
I don't even know who he/she is. It's pretty creepy. He/she's been following me around for a couple of days already. I've always wondered what it would be like to be in a Fatal Attraction situation. Now I know why they say "Be careful what you wish for!"  



-------------


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: September 15 2010 at 12:24pm
This film holds the distinction of being the only new release this week not being screened in advance for critics.  If they do eventually see it, they probably won't be impressed.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 15 2010 at 1:09pm
It seems that MWG's campy fandom for MNS has lead to his having a "campy" fan of his own!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 15 2010 at 1:12pm
Yeah, that's usually how not letting the critics view a movie works...  

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

This film holds the distinction of being the only new release this week not being screened in advance for critics.  If they do eventually see it, they probably won't be impressed.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 8:47am
The reactions from Twitter are pretty positive so far. It's much better than the reactions from TLA, where half of the people loved it and half of the people hated it:

whosethatgal: Movie "Devil" ain't bad to watch... surprise twist in the plot & scary scenes.

FarahBella: The movie Devil was crap! Piranha was worst! My god! Ghaaaa! Im so angry!

quekbel: Buddy said tat 'Devil' is a thrilling movie w a twist. Should I watch?

simontay78: Just saw the movie "The Devil" oh man this time the director nails it!!! Suspense, thriller, horror and mystery are all there! >_<

CindyClarissaA: Devil was a really good movie! You guys should catch it! =)

sweetsueann: Devil. A good movie with a simple storyline. 

OD_TheBigB: The movie: Devil is good but is very disgusting...haha...dun dare take lift anymore..

xiaomann: I swear I won't take the lift later. Cos I just watched devil the movie just now. No, won't be taking lift for sometime..

UNICKIQUE: Devil, the movie , was nice.

zane_riza: Just finished watching M.Night's 'Devil'. Ppl trapped in lift. Bloody. Not cool. Take stairs next time. By the way, scary movie!

chucksexified: Devil is the best movie I've watched after Inception this year. Kudos to M. Night! :)

suazzer: #Devil movie - xslent, gr8 thrills, clever horror n suspense. Shyamalan got tis right

IMJulioFuerte: great movie #devil a #mustsee

thesavvy: #Devil isn't scary, but it is a fun psychological thriller that I enjoyed. Is it good? Ask me after I see it a second time, which I will.

And a review: http://www.aprilfy.com/2010/09/movie-review-devil.html - http://www.aprilfy.com/2010/09/movie-review-devil.html


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 10:45am

IMDB, Twitter, yeah, these are creditable movie review sites. Ermm  Can't wait until the REAL critics get a look at it! 




-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 1:29pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

IMDB, Twitter, yeah, these are creditable movie review sites. Ermm  Can't wait until the REAL critics get a look at it! 


FYI, box office analysts actually look at Twitter to predict how successful a film will be. For example, Bruno got horrid, horrid reactions from Twitter and guess what happened. It dropped like 70% in its second week. Since it's not screened to the critics, this really is the best that we've gotten so far to judge how good the movie is. Obviously, people do like the movie. Currently, the best review I can find is from a reviewer I think is really credible. He HATED TLA and MNS's past few films but I don't see how that has anything to do with his overall opinion but here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJYV1dEs0a8&feature=sub - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJYV1dEs0a8&feature=sub

And here's another: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/894300/reviews/?movie=771203480 - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/894300/reviews/?movie=771203480


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 2:09pm
Moviewizguy -- Enough already!! Seriously! I know you all think I should agree with him for defending Night constantly, but I don't.  

There are many aspects that show what's wrong today with judging a movie, and his constant remarks on movies that haven't been released are unfair pre-judgements, even if he says positive things. IMDB and R.T have had user comments(not reviews)from people saying how it will be. The same thing happened to THIS IS IT! where people said things like "This is gonna suck" or "Why would I pay to see a child rapist for 2 hours?"  

Another thing is that even though I like his movies I can see why others don't. Rather than being in denial, you should just accept that the majority gives the final ruling. There are movies that have an unfair concensus based on the wrong things and I admit that was the case of UNBREAKABLE(they always compared it to THE 6TH SENSE)and THE VILLAGE(because of The Rule Of 3 the 4th movie was always meant to fail).


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 2:52pm
I find this all very amusing...as we all are aware, MWG lives in a universe where M. Night Shama-lama-ding-dong sh*ts gold bricks (pardon my French). But the rest of us are somewhat more capable of analyzing scat. And, yes, I'd definitely put a lot of faith in what I read on Twitter....as we all know, if a lot of people go see something, it must be good!  



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 3:47pm

There's something unfortunate about this movie that I must tell you: I don't know if you are aware of this, but 'Devil' is actually Part 1 of a three part movie series called 'The Night Chronicles', a series of supernatural films produced by M Night Shyamalan.  The next part of the series, titled 'Reincarnate', is in production and is set to be released in 2012.



Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 5:02pm
After this movie, will production on "the trilogy" still be continue?  Then again, Cartoon Network is still doing more live action programming, regardless of ratings...I think M. Night may still make those other turds films.

Also, when it comes to MovieWizGuy, I usually just ignore him.  Besides, I wonder if he really thinks those movies are great, or if he just does that to annoy people.  You know, it's like having Cool Whip on your pie.  

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

There's something unfortunate about this movie that I must tell you: I don't know if you are aware of this, but 'Devil' is actually Part 1 of a three part movie series called 'The Night Chronicles', a series of supernatural films produced by M Night Shyamalan.  The next part of the series, titled 'Reincarnate', is in production and is set to be released in 2012.



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 5:40pm
I'm sorry. I don't really care.  

Originally posted by Vits

Enough,Moviewizguy!Seriously!I know you all think I should agree with him for defending Night constantly,but I don't.

There are many aspects that show what's wrong today with judging a movie,and his constant remarks on movies that haven't been released are unfair pre-judgement,even if he says positive things.IMDB and R.T have had user comments(not reviews)from people saying how it will be.The same thing happen to THIS IS IT! where people said things like "This is gonna suck" or "Why would I pay to see a child rapist for 2 hours?".


The entire point of The Night Chronicles is to give up and coming (potential) filmmakers the chance to break out. 3 films, one each year, so Reincarnate will actually come out in 2011. The writer of Buried is writing the script and the director of The Last Exorcism is attached to direct it. Seeing how Buried is one of the most talked about films at the TIFF and seeing how critics were in love with TLE, it's probably going to end up being a good movie, just like the case with this film. I know you feel the need to shout blasphemy at everything MNS is involved with but he actually seeks out talented people to make the movie. You shouldn't judge a film by the attached producer.  

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

There's something unfortunate about this movie that I must tell you: I don't know if you are aware of this, but 'Devil' is actually Part 1 of a three part movie series called 'The Night Chronicles', a series of supernatural films produced by M Night Shyamalan.  The next part of the series, titled 'Reincarnate', is in production and is set to be released in 2012.



Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I find this all very amusing...as we all are aware, MWG lives in a universe where M. Night Shamalamadingdong sh*ts gold bricks (pardon my French) and the rest of us are somewhat more capable of analyzing scat. Yes, I'd definitely put a lot of faith in stuff I read on Twitter....and as we all know, just because a lot of people go see something, it must be good.
 

Must I say this 1000 times? MNS is only the producer. You're all giving him too much credit when other talented people are behind this movie. I remember you said you liked Hard Candy. Feeling the need to repeat this, the writer of Hard Candy wrote the script for this film.

Originally posted by Berrynoia

Also, when it comes to MovieWizGuy, I usually just ignore him.  Besides, I wonder if he really thinks those movies are great, or if he just does that to annoy people.  You know, it's like having Cool Whip on your pie.

Yeah, because annoying people is the greatest thing to do. /sarcasm  


-------------


Posted By: Morbid Angel
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 6:05pm
Maybe this'll be "M"'s big turnaround movie...?  People have mentioned that this looks kind of scary, so it's already a damn sight better than Airbender & The Happening.  I was pretty damn positive that nothing could've been suckier than Lady in the Water, but ya know what?  He proves he's a man of surprises and probably released The Happening just to prove me wrong and make me look like a tool for thinking that Lady was his worst possible.

Soooo then... Devil has to be slightly more engaging than a piece of old toast to be better than Lady in the Water.  Hell, "M" could release a documentary on shoemaking subtitled in Cyrillic and it would be better than Lady.  I'm probably not gonna pay to see Devil unless it plays at the $3 theatre here (the Regency, which gets movies about a month late), since I think playing a guessing game with $9.50 is better served at buying lunch rather than a possible boxoffice disaster.  Even out of Morbid curiosity.


-------------
Don't get me wrong, I love The Crow... except for a single part where the Asian chick goes "I like the pretty light..." in this bizarre way, I get chills every time I hear it... it's just awful...


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 6:19pm
1. Thanks, Vits, for not being the total MNS groupie that MWG, who thinks ANYTHING he touches is gold, when in fact he lost his golden touch 6 years ago (or earlier than that).
 
2. Oh yeah, Twitter is like THEE source to guess how well a movie will do at the box office. Also, I hear strippers are great judges of how the stock market will do on a daily basis, according to some surveys their Wall Street clients gave them. 
 
3. Oh goodie, two more turds, er, movies for movie-goers to boo once MNS's name appears on screen! And seeing how producers have ALOT of influence over the movies they work on, yes, you CAN judge a movie by who produces it, ie. all the horror movie remakes produced by Michael Bay.
 
4. The theory of MWG just being a troll has been mentioned before. He might deny it, but considering how he goes out of his way to defend EVERYTHING listed on this forum, he's either really is a troll, or he just has no clue what a good movie is!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 6:48pm
Difference is that MNS was working on TLA when Devil was being made. In fact, if you've been following interviews of him, he let the directors and writer have creative control of the film. He pushed them to not let the studio interfere with the project and to let them do whatever they wanted. Going by your logic (see what I'm doing here?), the Jeepers Creepers films should be masterpieces because Francis Ford Coppola produced them. On top of that, if you really wanted to judge a film based on a producer, why did you ignore the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio produced Orphan? Oh, right, because it doesn't support your argument. Will Smith also produced Lakeview Terrace.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

3. Oh goodie, two more turds, er, movies for movie-goers to boo once MNS's name appears on screen! And seeing how producers have ALOT of influence over the movies they work on, yes, you CAN judge a movie by who produces it, ie. all the horror movie remakes produced by Michael Bay.


-------------


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: September 16 2010 at 8:54pm
For whatever it's worth, I think I'm gonna give this one a chance. I plan on seeing it after work tomorrow. I'll letchall know.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 17 2010 at 10:52am
It all depends on how much clout the producers have over those movies. Were they on set the whole time, or did they just give out a bunch of money and say "have fun"? And why would you bring up those movies if they were epic failsures? That just proves that those actors suck as producers, which is the real reason why I didn't bother mentioning them. But let's not forget, this movie is M. Night's idea, and one can't help but wonder if "Fart Bender" sucked as bad as it did because MNS had one eye on "Fart Bender" and the other eye on this movie...    

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Going by your logic (see what I'm doing here?), the Jeepers Creepers films should be masterpieces because Francis Ford Coppola produced them. On top of that, if you really wanted to judge a film based on a producer, why did you ignore the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio produced Orphan? Oh, right, because it doesn't support your argument. Will Smith also producedLakeview Terrace.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: phe_de
Date Posted: September 17 2010 at 1:26pm
50% at RT so far. Not so bad.
Alpha and Omega is at 13% so far. This may be worthy of "Bonus new worst movie".
 


-------------
Everything is possible, and nothing is sure.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 17 2010 at 1:47pm
At the beginning of today, it got 4 negative reviews in a row and I thought, "Go figure." Then, I looked it up again and it's up to 50%, which is pretty good. I thought the critics would still poke fun of him (they still are) but they're less evil then they were before.


-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 4:47am
Hmmm, before reviews started coming out, there appeared to be a definite effort to divorce Shama-lama-dingdong from association with this movie. Now that critical review are coming in that aren't smashing it to pieces, it's okay to let him be associated with it again?

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Areyouserious?
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 7:11am
M. Night used to be a good, then he decided he could do better, and it didn't work out for him. And now he's became extremely repetitive. He always has a stupid plot twist, and of course an indian guy in the movie, for no apparent reason. With Devil they make it apparent that it seems that the indian guy is the devil because of his "oh hell no" attitude and him being in every scene of the trailer, but i seriously suspect its the girl who claimed to be bitten. But i'm not going to watch it to check. 

-------------
I will be famous:) Till then I'll prove how ridiculous hollywood is.


Posted By: Areyouserious?
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 7:13am
I hadn't heard how bad alpha and omega was, my sister was dying to see it, but now I have a reason to not go.

-------------
I will be famous:) Till then I'll prove how ridiculous hollywood is.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 3:38pm
You know?Whenever someone insulted Shyamalan's writing(very few say he's a bad director)I'd always tell him/her that his scripts tend to have flaws but when it comes to inceptioning premises(I think UNBREAKABLE is the most original)and story structure he's the man.I know the idead of this one doesn't sound very good,but neither did "A widow former priest/farmer and his family fear an alien invasion",and look how that turned out.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 4:11pm
For those questioning why the Devil would be in an elevator, the film explains it really well. My review:

The Night Chronicles is a series of three M. Night Shyamalan-produced films that gives up and coming filmmakers the chance to break out. Shyamalan makes up the story and lets other potential filmmakers write and direct his idea, which is probably a good thing since a lot of people hate him at this point. DEVIL is the first of the three and it's basically about a group of people trapped in an elevator who realize that the devil is among them. I won't go any further into that because it'll ruin the many surprises in the film.

Now here's something you don't see every day: A horror movie that is NOT a remake and DOESN'T rely on clichés and jump scares! Is it really happening? You better believe it. Inspired from Agatha Christie's AND THEN THERE WERE NONE (AKA: TEN LITTLE INDIANS), DEVIL is actually more than a "throwaway" horror film than the previews may have led you to suspect. There's something much more sinister going on than trying to figure out which one of the five people is the Devil.

Is DEVIL scary? Not really, but it's damn creepy and suspenseful in many parts of the film. The Dowdle brothers, the directors, used the technique "less is more," which surprisingly works in trying to get under your skin. DEVIL also pushes the PG-13 rating a bit, even though it cuts away in a lot of scenes. There are also some pretty cool twists throughout the film. The brilliant cinematography by Tak Fujimoto takes advantage of the cramped space in the elevator to make the audience feel like they're stuck in there with the rest of the characters. Fujimoto also gives us sweeping and gorgeous views of downtown Philadelphia.

The castmembers range from sufficient to outstanding. Logan Marshall-Green and Bojana Novakovic stood out to me the most, both giving some very raw performances. Novakovic, in particular, is a rising star. I also liked Chris Messina, the biggest star in the cast. Bokeem Woodbine was a hit or miss, though. Geoffrey Arend is actually the character that gives audiences some laughs while putting our guards down and later have the film pull the rug from under our feet. Jenny O'Hara rounds out the main cast playing your typical old lady.

The sound effects actually pay a huge part in this film in trying to mess with your head. When the lights go out in the elevator, all hell breaks loose and your overactive imagination will do some mental damage to your head. The great soundtrack by Fernando Velázquez also ratchets up the tension. With a running time of 75 minutes (without credits), the film moves in a quick and entertaining fashion, never letting go of the audience's interest.

When the credits roll, DEVIL ends up being more of a morality tale rather than your typical "whodunnit" film. The film is creepy and there's a lot of suspense propelled by realistic performances by some of the castmembers and the claustrophobic feel in the elevator. If you want an original horror film that messes with your head, entertains you throughout, has a truly satisfying conclusion, and leaves you with something to think about, DEVIL is the perfect film. Don't let M. Night Shyamalan's name turn you off. I think it's the best horror film this year so far. 8/10


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 7:07pm
Here's the thing, it's the TWISTS that people got sick of. Once the twists became his trademark, people got tried of them after awhile (hence the hatred for "Village"). Then he let his ego got too big for his own good (his bad choice in casting himself as the most important character in "LITW"), and then it seemed like he stopped trying all together ("Happening" and "Fart Bender", the latter IS being insulted for his bad direction of action). The man lost his touch. He should not write any more. Just produce and direct, and don't use your name as a marketing tool, because it's not a selling point any more.  

Originally posted by Vits

You know?Whenever someone insulted Shyamalan's writing(very few say he's a bad director)I'd always tell him/her that his scripts tend to have flaws but when it comes to inceptioning premises(I think UNBREAKABLE is the most original)and story structure he's the man.I know the idead of this one doesn't sound very good,but neither did "A widow former priest/farmer and his family fear an alien invasion",and look how that turned out.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 7:25pm
The more I think about it, the more laugh out loud funny it is that this movie is even getting the attention it is, simply because a failing filmmaker's name is attached to it. I mean think about, take away MNS's name, what does this movie have going for it? It's not original. Elevator horror is not new or interesting. It was done in the Naomi Watts' movie "The Shaft". There's a script called "Up/Down", about people going up and down an elevator to avoid being attacked by a vicious monster locked in a building with them. There's even an IFC Short Film about people going down an elevator and believe a killer is waiting for them outside.
So what makes this this movie so special? It has the Devil in it, so it's a morality tale? Big deal! So was "Devil's Advocate" (which was also full of past Razzie contenders). Nope, it's all about MNS. Without him, this movie would just be a blip on the radar. It wouldn't be up for Razzie consideration, MWG wouldn't be giving it a 8/10 (please, don't deny it, you wouldn't even give a s*** about this movie if it wasn't for MNS), hell, it would be on SyFy Channel or direct to DVD. So yes, MNS's name does have some marketing power to it, the real question is if it's a positive marketing tool.
But I like the Movie Preview Critic's view on the subject, pointing out that yes, MNS's ego is too big for his own good and he's lost his touch, AND, this movie is nothing worth paying money for.
http://www.blip.tv/file/4134407 - http://www.blip.tv/file/4134407
Oh, and the movie's currently at 41% at RT. Officially rotten.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 7:52pm
Ummm, good guess but no. The concept is fantastic and interesting.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

It's not original. Elevator horror is not new or interesting. It was done in the Naomi Watts' movie "The Shaft". There's a script called "Up/Down", about people going up and down an elevator to avoid being attacked by a vicious monster locked in a building with them. There's even an IFC Short Film about people going down an elevator and believe a killer is waiting for them outside


The Hurt Locker is another war film. Big deal! 

So what makes this this movie so special? It has the Devil in it, so it's a morality tale? Big deal! So was "Devil's Advocate" (which was also full of past Razzie contenders).


So can you explain why I'm going to watch Buried next week?  

(please, don't deny it, you wouldn't even give a s*** about this movie if it wasn't for MNS)


Don't we have to wait for 100 reviews (see what I'm doing here?)? Oh, and it's rotten. Oh, noes! The world is gonna end! Yes, let's judge movies by its RT rating because it predicts how good a movie is!  

Oh, and the movie's currently at 41% at RT. Officially rotten.





-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 8:20pm
1. The devil ... in an elevator. This is fantastic and interesting to you? Hey to each his own. I just listed three movies that do the same elevator thing and another movie about the devil tempting people (to which there are quite a few of those, too). We're suppose to be amazed that MNS sandwiched the two genres together? What's next, "Bees In A Dentist's Office"?  

2. Probably, like the rest of us, you're wondering how Ryan Reynolds is going to have to carry an entire movie by himself, which is going to have to be seen to be believed. It already has the warning signs of A). Being a rip-off of a scene from "Kill Bill Vol. 2", and B). Having a huge plot hole (A cell phone that gets reception underground?! Most phones lose their signal due to where your fingers are located on the device!). But I'm sure if MNS's name was attached, you'd be ranking it an 8/10 as well and declaring it the NEW best thriller/horror movie of the year.  

3. Oh, I'm so sorry ... Mister "people on Twitter like the movie, so that proves it will be #1". Yeah, it's at #3 right now. There goes that theory. But we'll see who gets the last laugh when the rest of the reviews start coming in. Note: at least I wasn't declaring it good or bad based on all of THREE reviews.
 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 8:29pm
No, because in an era of remakes, films like this should be successful. If not, that's showing studios that original horror films shouldn't be made and that they should remake more classic horror films.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

1. The devil ... in an elevator. This is fantastic and interesting to you? Hey to each his own. I just listed three movies that do the same elevator thing and another movie about the devil tempting people (to which there are quite a few of those, too). We're suppose to be amazed that MNS sandwiched the two genres together? What's next, "Bees In A Dentist's Office"?


A) Kill Bill Vol. 2 is not the first film to have someone buried alive.
B) You can't shout out plot hole if you haven't seen the film. The first two questions HeadRazz asked about DEVIL is explained in great detail in the film.

And it has a 94% on RT and easily one of the best films in the TIFF. 


You're so predictable. I never said such a thing. Again, you have to shove words into my mouth. Do you purposefully tweak your memory? If so, I want to have that ability!  

3. Oh, I'm so sorry ... Mister "people on Twitter like the movie, so that proves it will be #1". Yeah, it's at #3 right now. There goes that theory. 


HeadRazz, you're grasping on straws below. Like I said earlier, critics have pointed out the obvious similarities and the difference between a typical slasher flick and a murder mystery is that the murder is one of the people in the group. Also, I've seen the movie and can confirm my belief that it's very similar to the book. Going any deeper in the similarities will spoil the surprises throughout the film...  

Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

Oh, come on!  In the FRIDAY THE 13th movies, the victims are all "confined" to Camp Crystal Lake. In the HALLOWEEN films, the victims are all "confined" to a specific house or neighborhood. In the SAW films, the victims are all "confined" to the killer's dungeon/torture chamber. Etc. Etc.  

MWG -- Please give up on this specious argument -- Shyamalan brought up TEN LITTLE INDIANS in a futile attempt to make his own work look classier. And the fact that you, alone among the world's population, choose to believe him makes you look foolish and, at best, semi-literate... 


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 8:57pm
I just watched this video and having already seen the movie, the predictions by the guy is really outside the box and not really correct. Also, he pointed out that MNS is the cause of his name being in the trailer. I have to repeat this again: A producer does not make a trailer. A director does not make a trailer. A writer does not make a trailer. Who makes trailers? Marketers/advertisers. Jesus, you'd think people would have figured that out. It's obvious that the marketers think that MNS's name is a selling point.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

But I like the Movie Preview Critic's view on the subject, pointing out that yes, MNS's ego is too big for his own good and he's lost his touch, AND, this movie is nothing worth paying money for.
http://www.blip.tv/file/4134407 - http://www.blip.tv/file/4134407


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 9:03pm
And what about his pointers of the production company having "Night" in the name, or MNS's name appearing 4 times in credits? And what about what saturnwatcher said that the TV trailers STOPPED using MNS's name when it was being insulted, but then put them back when a FEW good words were spoken about the movie? I know you're in the deepest sense of denial possible about MNS having an ego the size of Asia, but he really hasn't done anything to discredit that claim.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

 
I just watched this video and having already seen the movie, the predictions by the guy is really outside the box and not really correct. Also, he pointed out that MNS is the cause of his name being in the trailer. I have to repeat this again: A producer does not make a trailer. A director does not make a trailer. A writer does not make a trailer. Who makes trailers? Marketers/advertisers. Jesus, you'd think people would have figured that out. It's obvious that the marketers think that MNS's name is a selling point.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 9:16pm
1.  From one critic: "Devil" was lifted (no pun intended) from a short film called "Elevated" directed by Vincenzo Natali (Cube and Splice).... about three people, going down in an elevator, and one may be a serial killer, and a supernatural one at that". So much for that non-remake angle.

2. A). I'm sure "Kill Bill Vol. 2" wasn't the first, but it was the most recent, and thus "Buried" will be doomed to be compared to it. B). It's not a plot hole if it's a KNOWN FACT that cell phones are known for losing all reception when underground, such as while driving under a tunnel. Will it be a bad movie? Not sure. Time will tell.

3. Oh really? "The reactions from Twitter are pretty positive so far." "FYI, box office analysts actually look at Twitter to predict how successful a film will be. For example, Bruno got horrid, horrid reactions from Twitter and guess what happened. It dropped like 70% in its second week. Since it's not screened to the critics, this really is the best that we've gotten so far to judge how good the movie is. Obviously, people do like the movie." Thank you, I rest my case.

4. Once again, saying this movie is like "Ten Little Indians" is like comparing every single thriller or horror movie based around the idea of a group of people being killed off one by one to "Ten Little Indians". Oh right, but this movie takes place entirely in an elevator, and has the devil, thus it is genius!  

Originally posted by moviewizguy


No, because in an era of remakes, films like this should be successful. If not, that's showing studios that original horror films shouldn't be made and that they should remake more classic horror films.

A) Kill Bill Vol. 2 is not the first film to have someone buried alive.
B) You can't shout out plot hole if you haven't seen the film. The first two questions HeadRazz asked about DEVIL is explained in great detail in the film.

You're so predictable. I never said such a thing. Again, you have to shove words into my mouth. Do you purposefully tweak your memory? If so, I want to have that ability!

HeadRazz, you're grasping on straws here. Like I said earlier, critics have pointed out the obvious similarities and the difference between a typical slasher flick and a murder mystery is that the murder is one of the people in the group. Also, I've seen the movie and can confirm my belief that it's very similar to the book. Going any deeper in the similarities will spoil the surprises throughout the film


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:34pm
1. That one critic must have not seen Elevated because it wasn't about a killer among the group. It was about an alien trying to get in and kill them. Dur dur dur!  

3. Yeah, but I never said it was going to be #1. 

4. I've made my point and it's clear and concise. It's apparent you nor HeadRazz won't budge even though there's a lot of similarities between the two. I can make my point hundreds of times and it still won't get to your head so I'll just stop arguing it with you.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

1.  From one critic: "Devil" was lifted (no pun intended) from a short film called "Elevated" directed by Vincenzo Natali (Cube and Splice).... about three people, going down in an elevator, and one may be a serial killer, and a supernatural one at that". So much for that non-remake angle.
2. A). I'm sure "Kill Bill Vol. 2" wasn't the first, but it was the most recent, and thus "Buried" will be doomed to be compared to it. B). It's not a plot hole if it's a KNOWN FACT that cell phones are known for losing all reception when underground, such as while driving under a tunnel. Will it be a bad movie? Not sure. Time will tell.
3. Oh really? "The reactions from Twitter are pretty positive so far." "FYI, box office analysts actually look at Twitter to predict how successful a film will be. For example, Bruno got horrid, horrid reactions from Twitter and guess what happened. It dropped like 70% in its second week. Since it's not screened to the critics, this really is the best that we've gotten so far to judge how good the movie is. Obviously, people do like the movie." Thank you, I rest my case.
4. Once again, saying this movie is like "Ten Little Indians" is like comparing every single thriller or horror movie based around the idea of a group of people being killed off one by one to "Ten Little Indians". Oh right, but this movie takes place entirely in an elevator, and has the devil, thus it is genius!


-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 6:39am
Sorry, but this just isn't an interesting premise for a film. Yes, it is unoriginal...several films have been done on this premise and every TV show in history, comedy, drama whatever has done a "trapped in an elevator" episode at some point. Even everyday experience renders this trivial. We've all been in elevators. We all know that the best thing one can ever say about the experience is that we got where we were going. If you are in an elevator, you are already in hell. I'm guessing that if there is a hell, it looks exactly like an elevator. There is no misery that Satan could evoke on one.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 9:57am
1. Dur, dur, dur (what is that even suppose to mean)???? That's now FOUR movies that all deal with elevator horror, and as saturnwatcher said, there's hundreds of more TV series that have done an episode on the subject, so no, this movie is NOT original in any sense of the term, just because the devil is in it. Throwing two universal fears into one movie doesn't make the movie cutting edge. 

4. Just because the movie is about people dying one-by-one doesn't mean the movie is ON PAR IN STORYTELLING QUALITY with the likes of "Ten Little Indians". THAT is the point that HeadRazz and I are trying to make that YOU can't get through your head. It's just MNS's ego trying to make his s*** seem better than it really is, same as when he tries to compare "The Happening" to "The Birds". Yeah, they share the same plot, but in terms of quality, "The Happening" is utter trash.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 11:12am
Ok, I said I was going to say what I thought the other day, and I did see it, and then forgot to post... mostly through trying to forget this movie.

Mmmk, like I said the other day, I went in really wanting to like this. And it started a liiiittle slow, but then it picks up for a bit. There are some plot devices that are just unbearable, but I'm dealing with it.
There's the Hispanic guy who plays the role M Night himself would normally play, speaking only in Spanish and/or Melodrama. (In case I'm being unclear, he uses English words, but he speaks ONLY in melodrama.) He's ridiculous, but whatever, we're still OK for a while at least.
As you can tell from the trailer, and I'm not ruining anything by saying this, but the lights go out a few times, and bad stuff happens. You hear thumping and thudding to let you know that something's happened, and then the lights come back on, and oh look... Someone's dead or almost there. In a case or two, thudding doesn't even remotely make any sense as to what's just happened, those aren't the sounds that would be made in this situation.
As it goes on, the cliches get thicker and thicker, while the plot does the opposite.
We get to the climax, and the "twist" is clearly supposed to be there, but you see it coming a mile away. You get to the last scene, there's a little more faux-tension, only to quickly have that dissipated in the manner exactly in which you'd expect... It's just one big anti-ending.
One thing I noticed from this movie is that M Night always seems to try to work some sort of "Happy" ending into all of his thrillers, and why? They're THRILLers. You should walk out of the theater on pins and needles, not flowers and... muskrats. It fully kills the mood.

Halfway in, I thought this would be a 5 or 6 out of 10, but ultimately, I'm gonna give it a 2. Better than Happening and Lady, but that's not saying much, if anything. More disappointingly, I now feel that I retroactively hate the two M Night movies that I DID like, Sixth and Signs. Signs was already on the rocks with Melmel the Aussie Annihilator. He's already on permanent boycott.
I'm done with M Night. Done.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 11:44am
Yeah, there's something else I wanted to point out. Anyone else notice that one of the people in the elevator (the dark tanned one in the suit) looks almost EXACTLY like MNS? But, let's remember, he doesn't have a big ego ...

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 12:21pm
1. Dur dur dur means "retarded."  

4. And when the hell did I say the film has the same quality as the movie? BHB, please stop shoving words into my mouth. I've spent the entire posts saying how SIMILAR they were. In no point did I say they had the same quality. Learn to read.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, since it was Ol' M (and not MWG) who first raised comparisons between DEVIL and TEN LITTLE INDIANS, it's fair to assume Shyamalan did mean to equate the quality of the two -- Which is hubris at its berry worst. Most people won't even remember DEVIL by the end of this year, whereas Agatha Christie's INDIANS has remained a classic (and a touchstone in mystery and suspense) for more than half-a-century... 



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 12:30pm
I think it's based on your preferences. He explains everything to the audience but I think in a film like this, his character was needed to fill in the backstory, etc.  

Originally posted by dEd Grimley


There's the Hispanic guy who plays the role M Night himself would normally play, speaking only in Spanish and/or Melodrama. (In case I'm being unclear, he uses English words, but he speaks ONLY in melodrama.) He's ridiculous, but whatever, we're still OK for a while at least.



I think the technique was quite effective. In fact, during those scenes, the audiences were screaming and people were like, "Uh oh, somebody's going to die." Less is more and in this case, it works.

As you can tell from the trailer, and I'm not ruining anything by saying this, but the lights go out a few times, and bad stuff happens. You hear thumping and thudding to let you know that something's happened, and then the lights come back on, and oh look... Someone's dead or almost there. In a case or two, thudding doesn't even remotely make any sense as to what's just happened, those aren't the sounds that would be made in this situation.
 

I think the technique was quite effective. In fact, during those scenes, the audiences were screaming and people were like, "Uh oh, somebody's going to die." Less is more and in this case, it works.

As it goes on, the cliches get thicker and thicker, while the plot does the opposite.
We get to the climax, and the "twist" is clearly supposed to be there, but you see it coming a mile away. You get to the last scene, there's a little more faux-tension, only to quickly have that dissipated in the manner exactly in which you'd expect... It's just one big anti-ending.
 

If you're more of a religious/spiritual person, you'll like the ending a lot more. I thought it was perfect and it fitted well with the moral of the story. I think it was a very satisfying conclusion.
99.9% of horror films have unhappy endings these days. It was refreshing to see one that ended on a hopeful/positive note. Again, it fitted well with the moral of the story and the last shot and line was perfect for what it was going for. Don't try to deny that.  

One thing I noticed from this movie is that M Night always seems to try to work some sort of "Happy" ending into all of his thrillers, and why? They're THRILLers. You should walk out of the theater on pins and needles, not flowers and... muskrats. It fully kills the mood.


I can see how you'd give it a 5/10 but a 2/10 is REALLY harsh, even for a film this good. It's unique and original and it's unlike any horror film you've ever seen. What was so bad about it? I mean, if the ending fell flat for you, the suspense was still there, the story came full circle, the performances were fantastic, etc.   

Halfway in, I thought this would be a 5 or 6 out of 10, but ultimately, I'm gonna give it a 2. Better than Happening and Lady, but that's not saying much, if anything. More disappointingly, I now feel that I retroactively hate the two M Night movies that I DID like, Sixth and Signs. Signs was already on the rocks with Melmel the Aussie Annihilator. He's already on permanent boycott. 
I'm done with M Night. Done.





-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 12:56pm
Can I be the ref in this fight? 

I think M.W.G. is winning. Why? He actually saw the movie. Every comment Burn has posted has been pre-judgement, which is actually M.W.G.'s trademark.  

For the last time: Don't focus on the premise. What matters is the script (and the movie) as a whole. 

The movie has in fact been rated "rotten" at RT, which makes it a contender. But I'm still glad because everybody thought it would get a 0%, since each Shyamalan movie has gotten worse reviews than the previous one.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 1:46pm
Hey, I'll admit "Inception" isn't 100% original, there's been plenty of movies about entering and interacting with people's dreams. But never before was there a story about entering people's dreams to steal company information or implant ideas. Supernatural elevator horror, I keep naming movies in which it's been used before, but just because the devil is in this one I'm suppose to think any more highly of it? And if the trailer is not giving us enough information to make a judgement call, then it failed at what it had to do. Frankly, the trailer didn't hook me in, and neither did the story's idea.
 
Oh, and the other reason why you get zero respect here is because you say things like "dur dur dur, retarded" or "learn to read", because it just proves you can't make an smart arguement and have to reduce yourself to being insulting just to try to get your point across. My only point is that you have no clue what a good movie is and you'll blindly lower your standards in order to like a movie that is utter s***. And then you come here and try to convince us the movie in question is good, when we've seen more movies in our lifetimes, so we can tell what a good movie is, and what is s***. 99% of the time, if a movie is here, it's because it's s*** in some way or another. Is this movie utter s***? No, but by no means is it anything to lose sleep over. As I said, if it weren't for MNS's name being attached, no one would give a flying f*** about this movie.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 1:55pm
I'm not at all surprised that the other MNS fanboy here is going to defend MWG. The only problem is I DID SEE THE MOVIE. As I said, it's nothing to lose sleep over. The usual "oh, we all seem like innocent people, but we have all done wrong in the past, so now the devil is here to make the final push for our souls", so what? 

The same story has been told time and time again, mostly on "The Twilight Zone". Oh, it's in an elevator? Big deal! Again, another plot device that's been done a million times. 2/10 is not harsh, it's truthful (although my score would be 2/5). There's nothing remotely special about it. 

This movie is direct-to-DVD quality (or Sy Fy Channel worthy). No offense to you Vits, but MWG will make whatever excuse possible so that a mediocre movie sounds like a masterpiece just because he found it slightly entertaining or interesting.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 3:47pm
Like saturnwatcher pointed out, the "stuck in an elevator" situation has been done in multiple media many, many times.  I should also point out that the "devil is among us" situation has been done multiple times, every time leaving open the question that HeadRAZZ pointed out - Why?  Yes, as best as I understand the Devil is not omnipresent like God, but he is spirit and he does command demons of all sorts.  He tends to save his personal appearances for God, for specific angels and for even fewer humans.  His strongest abilities are to lie and to tempt.
 
I recall particularly one TV movie where the Devil is the cause of the Bermuda triangle, going from human being to human being, as a human dies he takes over his or her body and goes on to torture and tempt other human beings.
 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 5:18pm
Excellent point, cvcjr. I mean the devil is supposed to have many demons who work for him, why would he show himself? Unless the soul is question would be such a victory in his quest to show up God, why would he venture onto earth when he can send one of his demon lackies to do it for him (a point made by the Keanu Reeves vehicle "Constantine")? But as we have all said, combining the "stuck in the elevator: and the "devil wants your soul" horror genres is nothing earth-shattering. 

MWG is just very easily sold.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 5:37pm
Ruh-oh. I think I just made somebody angry. Trying to deviate from the fact that I did not compare 10 Little Indians to Devil in terms of quality much?  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Oh, and the other reason why you get zero respect here is because you say things like "dur dur dur, retarded" or "learn to read", because it just proves you can't make an smart arguement and have to reduce yourself to being insulting just to try to get your point across.
 

Why? Watch the freaking movie because it answers it.

Originally posted by cvcjr13

Like saturnwatcher pointed out, the "stuck in an elevator" situation has been done in multiple media many, many times.  I should also point out that the "devil is among us" situation has been done multiple times, every time leaving open the question that HeadRAZZ pointed out - Why?  Yes, as best as I understand the Devil is not omnipresent like God, but he is spirit and he does command demons of all sorts.  He tends to save his personal appearances for God, for specific angels and for even fewer humans.  His strongest abilities are to lie and to tempt.

Why? Watch the freaking movie because it answers it.

If you had seen the movie, your question would be answered so were you lying when you said you saw the movie? If you saw the movie, you'd notice that even some of the plot twists in this film are very similar to the ones in 10 Little Indians. Why did those 10 strangers get invited to the island? Oh, because they did bad things to other people and now they're paying for it. Is it still not clear to you? Wow. Now you're going to argue that in slasher films, the victims did bad things.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Excellent point, cvcjr. I mean the devil is suppose to have many demons who work for him, why would he show himself? Unless the soul is question would be such a victory in his quest to show up god, why would he venture onto earth when he can send one of his demon lackies to do it for him (a point made by the Keanu Reeves vehicle "Constantine")? But as we have all said, combining the stuck in the elevator and the devil wants your soul horror genres is nothing earth-shattering. MWG is just very easily sold to.


-------------


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 5:48pm

moviewizguy's film opinions fit right in with an Evil Parallel Universe, where everything happens to be the opposite of what it seems. Could that be where moviewizguy gets his opinions from?

[rant]More importantly, this argument makes very little sense to me. Both sides seem angry, for lack of a better word, in thrir arguments. I don't know why not one, but TWO people here love M. Night Shyamalan! It's always a fight to talk about some of these movies. As for me, it seems Devil is nowhere near the worst this year has to offer, but is simply below average. At first I didn't think Devil had a chance of getting a forum here, because the director, John Erick Dowdle, released Quarantine in 2008, but compared to the other 80 RAZZIE tag movies for 2008, people adored it![/rant]



-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Mrc. 25; Divergent. Apl. 1; NOAH, Sabotage. Apl. 15; Oculus. Apl. 22; A Haunted House 2. Apl. 29; The Other Woman.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 6:01pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Ruh-oh. I think I just made somebody angry. Trying to deviate from the fact that I did not compare 10 Little Indians to Devil in terms of quality much?
Ah, no, it did not. What you wrote just proved you can't make a good arguement without being an immature when you're backed into a corner. Frankly, what you just wrote above proves it once again. Common sense would point that if a person is mentioning a classic, well respected story when talking about someone else's work, one would naturally come to the conclusion that the reasoning for this is because they are claiming such a work is on par with the likes of the classic, well respected story. That's why I object to your mentioning of "Ten Little Indians", as I'm sure the same can be said for HeadRazz. It was MNS just putting a smokescreen around his work again, like he does with all his failures, 'cause, you know, when he fails, that was his intentions.
 
Also, you should know by what means I saw the movie. I have a friend who works at a movie theaters and he gets free movie tickets. So he calls me up and asks if I would like to see "Devil" for free. I say "f*** it, so long as I don't have to pay for it, why not". We go see it, it was a morning showing, the theater was empty. By the end of the movie, we were acting out a Mystery Science Theater 3000 over the movie as we were mocking it and every cliche it used. In fact, at one point, I think we were laughing so loudly, I think missed the twist ending all together, not that we actually cared. So, you can say I SAW the movie, I just didn't pay much attention to it. But if you really must know ... spoilers:
 
The old lady is the devil! Yeah, no surprise there, who would think a little old lady is the devil, hence why it would be WHAT A TWIST! Yes, earth shattering movie worthy of 8/10, indeed. Oh, and the whole movie is about the devil and god wanting people's souls, which again, the devil could have sent a demon to do that rather than going himself. In the end, it's all about finding your religion, and we all know MWG eats that up with a spoon.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 7:03pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Ah, no, it did not. What you wrote just proved you can't make a good arguement without being an immature when you're backed into a corner. Frankly, what you just wrote above proves it once again. Common sense would point that if a person is mentioning a classic, well respected story when talking about someone else's work, one would naturally come to the conclusion that the reasoning for this is because they are claiming such a work is on par with the likes of the classic, well respected story. That's why I object to your mentioning of "Ten Little Indians", as I'm sure the same can be said for HeadRazz. It was MNS just putting a smokescreen around his work again, like he does with all his failures, 'cause, you know, when he fails, that was his intentions.

There's a difference between common sense and assumption. You, sir, were assuming even though I blatantly pointed out that they were similar in STORY STRUCTURE and not in terms of QUALITY. If I did that (which I did), common sense shouldn't even be in the equation.
 
Also, you should know by what means I saw the movie. I have a friend who works at a movie theaters and he gets free movie tickets. So he calls me up and asks if I would like to see "Devil" for free. I say "f*** it, so long as I don't have to pay for it, why not". We go see it, it was a morning showing, the theater was empty. By the end of the movie, we were acting out a Mystery Science Theater 3000 over the movie as we were mocking it and every cliche it used. In fact, at one point, I think we were laughing so loudly, I think missed the twist ending all together, not that we actually cared.

Ok. So you're going to try to argue with me when you didn't even pay attention to the film? If you blatantly go in a film WANTING to make fun of it, there should be no surprise that you *gasp* ended up not liking it! LIKE NO FREAKING WAY! And "every cliche it used," like what? There were no spontaneous boo scares nor were there use of CGI nor was the film converted to 3D. PLEASE, I would LOVE to know what was sooooooo cliched about it.

The old lady is the devil! Yeah, no surprise there, who would think a little old lady is the devil, hence why it would be WHAT A TWIST! Yes, earth shattering movie worthy of 8/10, indeed. Oh, and the whole movie is about the devil and god wanting people's souls, which again, the devil could have sent a demon to do that rather than going himself. In the end, it's all about finding your religion, and we all know MWG eats that up with a spoon.

You're assuming that I gave the film an 8/10 because of the twist alone. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. What am I going to do if I see you shoving words into my mouth? I'll start calling you names. Treat people the way you wanted to be treated, idiot. I liked the film because it actually had my heart racing more than any other horror film this year. Also, you say that the old lady turning out to be the devil was so obvious, which is laughable when you say it like that. But when you have her DIE and then make her come back to life, it's a freaking surprise. And again, if you actually paid attention to the film, you would know why the Devil went to do the job himself as you so conveniently pointed out that you did not pay attention. God gave you ears and eyes for a reason and they're not supposed to be used for NOT paying attention to a film. Also, it's funny you think I'm religious when I favor science over religion.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 7:29pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


I think it's based on your preferences. He explains everything to the audience but I think in a film like this, his character was needed to fill in the backstory, etc.


Couldn't disagree more. His purpose was to set up that you knew that the Devil was in the elevator with them. He was a plot device, not a character.

I think the technique was quite effective. In fact, during those scenes, the audiences were screaming and people were like, "Uh oh, somebody's going to die." Less is more and in this case, it works.


Must've been your audience. Mine seemed to groan, and I definitely did. Like I said, when... one character in particular "dies", it makes no sense to hear a series of thuds when a cord is involved, and the character affected makes no noise. I thought it was done horribly, and it got worse as the movie went along.

If you're more of a religious/spiritual person, you'll like the ending a lot more. I thought it was perfect and it fitted well with the moral of the story. I think it was a very satisfying conclusion.


I'll agree with you on that one, in one respect. If you like Kirk Cameron movies, like Fireproof or whatever that Razzie nominee was called, yes, you might like that kind of ending. However, you probably didn't like the rest of the movie, because it was violent, and you don't want to see violence unless its Jesus getting caned.

99.9% of horror films have unhappy endings these days. It was refreshing to see one that ended on a hopeful/positive note. Again, it fitted well with the moral of the story and the last shot and line was perfect for what it was going for. Don't try to deny that.


Horror movies have unhappy endings... BECAUSE THEY'RE HORROR MOVIES. If you end a Rom-Com with Julia Roberts suddenly getting gored by a rhino and then the movie fades to black. The ONLY person who'd get enjoyment out of that is a sick !@#%$@^# like myself. If the purpose of the movie was to be completely lame and cop out, and have a message that 100% does NOT fit a Thriller or Horror movie in any way, again, one that kills the mood, then yes... Perfect.

I can see how you'd give it a 5/10 but a 2/10 is REALLY harsh, even for a film this good. It's unique and original and it's unlike any horror film you've ever seen. What was so bad about it? I mean, if the ending fell flat for you, the suspense was still there, the story came full circle, the performances were fantastic, etc.


The Love Guru was original, and it failed. I saw this movie because I liked the idea. I hated the movie because they RUINED it.
The suspense was NOT there, as I've explained - cut to dark, something bad happens, and it's only a matter of what happens, not IF it happens, which would imply suspense. And even then, you have the good idea - being trapped in an elevator - and a very limited number of ways you can kill someone inside of one without repeating yourself. Which THEY ENDED UP DOING ANYWAY.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Glass in the neck, having you neck cut and dying from that? SAME. THING.

*END OF SPOILER ALERT*

The story came full circle? I guess... It ended. They did the little stupid upside-down shot of the city at the beginning, and it was right-side up at the end... So, as ham-handedly as possible, yes... It comes full circle.

Who gave "Fantastic" performances? They all gave competent performances, but... well, why am I arguing the definition of fantastic with you? It's been established that you have a very different idea of fantastic from those with critical analytical skills.

I give it a 2 because of how awful they made a good idea turn out. I might get generous and give it a 3. Maybe. It doesn't change the fact that it made me look back at every M Night movie and realize just how obnoxious they can be. It wasn't his worst quality movie, but it had the worst effect on me of any of them yet.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 7:38pm
Let's see, considering that you're always making excuses for bad movies, can you really blame us for thinking that your usage of "Ten Little Indians" was yet another excuse to have high praise for a movie which doesn't really derserve it? Like everyone else here said, it's not the worst movie of the year, it's not the best movie of the year (of ANY genre), it's just a little movie that got a bunch of hype because people laughed at its trailer due to the producer's name.
 
And of course I was going in to make fun of it. I've already stated a million times that the movie is nothing ground breaking, it's just merging two overly used gimmicks. So why would I really go in there to see it as a serious movie?
 
Cliched you asked. The dude in the hoodie, well, if he's in a hoodie, surely he must be up to no good! Or the little old lady, well no one would suspect it's a little old lady, oh WHAT A TWIST! Oh, scary image predicting everyone is going to die, been there, done that! Oh, and remember, they are trapped in an elevator, so they have to climb out of it through the top, but oh no, the cables snap! And everyone is suppose to be innocent, but no, they did something evil in the past. And the last person left standing is being tempted, but no, he turns back to goodness at the zero hour! Done, done, done, done, just like every ... other ... trapped in an elevator OR tempted by the devil movie or TV episode ... all which you apparently have never seen in your lifetime.
 
This is the part that I would point out how you're being immature by name calling, but you already pointed that out for me, thanks.
 
Am I the only one who ses the great irony that you claim that you're not religious, yet in the same paragraph, you mention god giving me eyes and ears. Again, what else are we suppose to believe when you ALWAYS give high praise to movies that have religious themes to them?
 
Frankly, the movie is not scary, it's nothing that hasn't been done before, it doesn't deserve your full attention, and like the Movie Preview Critic said, see it as a rental, IF you must see it at all.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 7:50pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

 
Cliched you asked. The dude in the hoodie, well, if he's in a hoodie, surely he must be up to no good! Or the little old lady, well no one would suspect it's a little old, lady, oh WHAT A TWIST! Oh, scary image predicting everyone is going to die, been there, done that! Oh, and remember, they are trapped in an elevator, so they have to climb out of it through the top, but oh no, the cables snap! And everyone is suppose to be innocent, but no, they did something evil in the past. And the last person left standing is being tempted, but no, he turns back to goodness at the zero hour! Done, done, done, done, just like every ... other ... trapped in an elevator OR tempted by the devil movie or TV episode ... all which you apparently have never seen in your lifetime.
 

It's not cliched if the point of the movie is for you to suspect every one.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 7:53pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

It's not cliched if the point of the movie is for you to suspect every one.
Which is yet another cliche in itself with thriller movies dealing with a group of people being killed off one by one.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 8:00pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Must've been your audience. Mine seemed to groan, and I definitely did. Like I said, when... one character in particular "dies", it makes no sense to hear a series of thuds when a cord is involved, and the character affected makes no noise. I thought it was done horribly, and it got worse as the movie went along.

I couldn't disagree with you more. But we can agree to disagree.

Horror movies have unhappy endings... BECAUSE THEY'RE HORROR MOVIES. If you end a Rom-Com with Julia Roberts suddenly getting gored by a rhino and then the movie fades to black. The ONLY person who'd get enjoyment out of that is a sick !@#%$@^# like myself. If the purpose of the movie was to be completely lame and cop out, and have a message that 100% does NOT fit a Thriller or Horror movie in any way, again, one that kills the mood, then yes... Perfect.

So are you seriously suggesting that horror movies with happy endings are bad? Movies like The Exorcist, Jaws, Alien, and Let the Right One In all had happy endings.

I saw this movie because I liked the idea. I hated the movie because they RUINED it.
The suspense was NOT there, as I've explained - cut to dark, something bad happens, and it's only a matter of what happens, not IF it happens, which would imply suspense.

So you didn't like the route with the detective's story?

And even then, you have the good idea - being trapped in an elevator - and a very limited number of ways you can kill someone inside of one without repeating yourself. Which THEY ENDED UP DOING ANYWAY.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Glass in the neck, having you neck cut and dying from that? SAME. THING.

*END OF SPOILER ALERT*

They were different and it was necessary for the girl to die a slow and painful death.

The story came full circle? I guess... It ended. They did the little stupid upside-down shot of the city at the beginning, and it was right-side up at the end... So, as ham-handedly as possible, yes... It comes full circle.

It was not stupid. The cinematography was fantastic.

Who gave "Fantastic" performances? They all gave competent performances, but... well, why am I arguing the definition of fantastic with you? It's been established that you have a very different idea of fantastic from those with critical analytical skills.

Umm Logan Marshall-Green, Bojana Novakovic, and Chris Messina were all fantastic. How can you say there were "competent"?

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Which is yet another cliche in itself with thriller movies dealing with a group of people being killed off one by one.

So are you suggesting that all murder mysteries are supposed to REVEAL the murder in the beginning, thus making it not cliched? If so, then it's not going to be a murder mystery!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 8:13pm
I'll comment on dEd's review, since he actually has a critical eye. There was no one in our theater to act all scared, but considering the movie was, oh, a horror movie, OF COURSE people are going to die! That's what people do in horror movies! Why would dEd be full of suspense?
 
And the religious theme, yes, if you're of Kirk Cameron's target audience, you would love that sort of thing (again, why we are meant to believe that MWG is religious), but it doesn't fit. Like dEd said, horror movies are suppose to end on a negative note, that's the point of horror movies, that the world is NOT the happy go-lucky place that we're meant to believe that it is. What's the point of a rom-com not ending with the couple together when the point of rom-coms is to convince us that true love exists and the guy will always win over the girl?
 
Oh, but "The Exorcist", "Jaws", "Alien", and "Let the Right One In" all had happy endings. Not really, considering they all ended with only ONE or TWO people surviving while EVERYONE else is dead. Then I guess by those standards, all slasher movies end on happy notes, too, because there's always one person surviving. (food for MWG's thought)
 
And yes, the movie begins and ends, so I guess that's going full circle. Fantasic performances, well, mind you, that is coming from a guy who thought "The Usual Suspects" was overrated (MWG, not dEd).
 
As for the whole "it's cliched because everyone dies one at a time, so you have to guess who is doing all the killing", if we agree it's a staple of the murder mystery genre, then what makes this movie so ground breaking for using it? (more food for MWG's thought)
 
So, yeah, I'll go with dEd's review, seeing as how I have read he actually WORKS in the entertainment industry, and thus would know what a good movie, rather than MWG, who is really, really, really, REALLY easily won over.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 8:17pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Like dEd said, horror movies are suppose to end on a negative note, that's the point of horror movies, that the world is NOT the happy go-lucky place that we're meant to believe that it is. What's the point of a rom-com not ending with the couple together when the point of rom-coms is to convince us that true love exists and the guy will always win over the girl?

Movies like The Exorcist, Jaws, Alien, and Let the Right One In all had happy endings.
 
And yes, the movie begins and ends, so I guess that's going full circle. Fantasic performances, well, mind you, that is coming from a guy who thought "The Usual Suspects" was overrated (MWG, not dEd).

And I'm the guy who thought that Sapcey's performance in Usual Suspects was also fantastic and you seem to forget the fact that I said I rewatched US and said it was a lot better than my first viewing. Again, do you have this power to tweak your memory?
 
So, yeah, I'll go with dEd's review, seeing as how I have read he actually WORKS in the entertainment industry, and thus would know what a good movie, rather than MWG, who is really, really, really, REALLY easily won over.

I didn't realize that. What does dEd do?


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 9:16pm
Well, count your blessings folks. At least it isn't ten people stuck in the elevator. 

OTOH, maybe M wanted 10, but they cut the budget down to 5... Wink


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 9:50pm
Originally posted by JoeBacon

Well, count your blessings folks. At least it isn't ten people stuck in the elevator. 

OTOH, maybe M wanted 10, but they cut the budget down to 5... Wink
Yeah, thank goodness for limited budgets, as if that movie needed to be any longer! I'm sure that would have made MWG love it even more!
 
Oh, and MWG, I know you changed your mind about "Usual Suspects", hence why I wrote it in the past tense (he "thought", not he "thinks"). And I think dEd has mentioned in the past that he is that guy who has to sit through all the Disney Channel programming because he edits it for TV time.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 9:50pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


[quote[I couldn't disagree with you more. But we can agree to disagree.


Remind me to bring pots and pans if we ever meet. I'll scare the !@#$ out of you.

So are you seriously suggesting that horror movies with happy endings are bad? Movies like The Exorcist, Jaws, Alien, and Let the Right One In all had happy endings.


I wouldn't call those HAPPY endings, and I wouldn't put Jaws in the realm of the supernatural. Perhaps it's the... "double" happy ending that's so awful in Devil. There's a survivor, which there usually is, and then the... "morality" aspect. And it was just damn corny, yo.

So you didn't like the route with the detective's story?


... I'm not sure where you're even going with that, but the... certain intertwining between certain character's stories was corny, but acceptable. It's the way they resolved it that made it bad. It's like a story with no build up, or conflict, or intensity at all. There was no reason for it to happen. Have you ever had a buddy start to tell you a story about how he went to the bar, and this guy totally spilled his beer on him, and then your buddy says, "It's cool". Is that a story you need to hear? Is that a story you want to hear? Unless there's a fight, who cares?

They were different and it was necessary for the girl to die a slow and painful death.


It really wasn't different. The first person could've or should've died in a different manner if they were going to go that way. It was essentially the same injury.

It was not stupid. The cinematography was fantastic.


Lol DUDE... THE CINEMATOGRAPHY WAS LITERALLY BLACK. THERE WAS LITERALLY NO CINEMATOGRAPHY AT THAT POINT.

Umm Logan Marshall-Green, Bojana Novakovic, and Chris Messina were all fantastic. How can you say there were "competent"?


lol Fine, they were incompetent.
Fantastic is simply not an applicable term. If anyone from this movie wins an Oscar over this, you can rub it in my face. Until then, you don't know what a fantastic performance is. Period.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 10:15pm
I think the tradition of cvcjr, I too, will write a screenplay that should have been in the outtakes of "Devil".
 
Int. Hollywood Studio Meeting Room - Day
 
M. Night Shyamalan and three Studio Heads sit at a table. The Studio Heads look over his written treatment of "Devil" with cocked eyebrows.
 
Studio Head #1: Let me get this straight, M., you want to combine the overly cliched "trapped in an elevator" gimmick with the equally cliched "tempted by the devil" gimmick?
 
M. Night: That's right. Everyone fears being stuck in an elevator and everyone fears the devil, so if we combine the two, think how many scares we'll get!? It'll be like "Snakes On A Plane", only better, because I came up with the idea!
 
Studio Head #1: But, M., this treatment is littered with just about every cliche about elevator horror and devil temptation since the two gimmicks were invented!
 
M. Night: Fool! Don't you see?! My idea is far more than that! It's like ... that story ... you know, "Ten Little Indians". When we have a group of people are being killed off one by one until only the most innocent person is left!
 
Studio Head #2: Wait, isn't that the same plotline that is in ... oh ... EVERY horror movie since the 1970s?
 
M. Night: But not in an elevator, and not with the devil, hence, it's original!
 
Studio Head #3: I'm not sure, M., there's really nothing special about this story. I mean, how are really going to sell this to the public as something more than a glorified SyFy Channel movie?
 
M. Night: Must I think of everything? You put my name in the trailer, idiot! I'm thinking "From The Mind of M. Night Shyamalan"! That will get all my fans excited.
 
Studio Head #2 (under his breath): Yeah, all TWO of them.
 
M. Night: What was that?!
 
Studio Head #2: Oh, nothing! Nothing!
 
M. Night: What are you people so worried about? Don't you remember? I was once named "The Next Steven Spielberg", and to this day, nothing has disproven that opinion. My track record is spotless!
 
Studio Head #1: Well, M., many people will disagree with you on that. You have made a few minor mistakes; twist endings that can be figured out a mile away, casting yourself as the most important character of the movie, insulting movie critics, pretending to make a bad movie on purpose, trying to cram an entire season of a TV series into a 90 minute movie ...
 
M. Night: What are you saying?
 
Studio Head #3: We're just worried that the sight of your name might turn people off to the movie. They might laugh or groan because of all your recent ... shortcomings.
 
M. Night: Listen up, you business suit wearing f***heads! I'm M. Night f***ing Shyamalan! I f***ing created "The Sixth Sense"! Did you know that Bruce Willis was dead the whole time?! Oh, that's right, you didn't! So, sign me a f***ing blank check so I can make this f***ing brillant movie and make your stupid studio some much needed money!
 
The Studio Heads all look to each other, shrug their shoulders, and fill out all the needed paperwork to get the movie greenlighted. Shyamalan smiles over his latest victory.
 
Fade Out. The End.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 1:02am
I'd change this just a little.  I suspect this movie is a case of "we know this movie stinks but we don't want to lose him to another studio" type of thinking.  You know, the fear that, although this movie stinks, if they don't greenlight it, MNS will go to another studio and crank out a great movie (this has happened).  You should also have one studio exec throw in that this movie isn't as bad as The Happening or Lady in the Water, and another exec to counteroffer MNS that they'll do it if someone else directs.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 9:25am
Cool. I think I'll need him as some contacts to help me get up the ladder. 

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

And I think dEd has mentioned in the past that he is that guy who has to sit through all the Disney Channel programming because he edits it for TV time.


The scenes in the elevator is shot in a way to make you feel claustrophobic. You are even the character in some shots where the other characters look directly at the screen. Also, outside of the elevator, the shots of downtown Philadelphia are stunning. 

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Lol DUDE... THE CINEMATOGRAPHY WAS LITERALLY BLACK. THERE WAS LITERALLY NO CINEMATOGRAPHY AT THAT POINT.


-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 1:12pm
BHB -- you saw the movie after at least 10 to 20 posts saying how much it would suck. And those were just in this Forum!  

As we've told you again and again, what matters isn't a new story but new elements. Each year we get more bad romantic comedies. They have the leads in new settings and situations, but it all ends the same. I haven't seen this movie, so I don't know if it's different, but the bottom line is that you have to stop complaining about it. INCEPTION isn't the best movie of the year for it's creative plot about people getting inside dreams, but because of what they did with the premise. How many other movies in the 100+ years films have existed have you seen a street folding into itself?  

Nobody says DEVIL is a masterpiece(until I see it, I'll rely on critics and audiences). I just want to make sure you hate it for the right reasons!  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I'm not at all surprised that the other MNS fanboy here is going to defend MWG. The only problem is I DID SEE THE MOVIE.

The same story has been told time and time again, mostly on "The Twilight Zone".

No offense to you Vits, but MWG will make whatever excuse possible so that a mediocre movie sounds like a masterpiece just because he found it slightly entertaining or interesting.



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 1:39pm
It's really confusing if BHB has seen this at all. But then we find out he wasn't paying attention.


-------------


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 4:34pm
I had been talking specifically about how the movie cut to black any time any action had occurred, and how poorly orchestrated the random thuds and bumps clarified what was going on. I'm utterly unimpressed that they shot a movie in (forced effect gasp... can't even form a proper sarcastic one on this) an elevator! Not to mention that that part was bad, or ineffective, or at least nothing to write home about.

And stunning shots of downtown Philly?... Ok, they made the city look decent, but it's still... PHILLY. Coming from a rust belt state, rust belt states ain't "purdy". Again, I'll concede that the shots weren't BAD, and that they were DECENT, but I mean... 

Again, you just seem to be impressed by things that baffle me.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

 
The scenes in the elevator is shot in a way to make you feel claustrophobic. You are even the character in some shots where the other characters look directly at the screen. Also, outside of the elevator, the shots of downtown Philadelphia are stunning.
 


-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 4:52pm
Given how mundane and simple a setting the elevator is, I couldn't even comprehend a good story that could be set there almost in its entirety. And I have seen a handful of pretty images of old factories, but for the best such pictures, they have to be very well-thought-out and use special filters... right?


Posted By: themoviejester
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 7:04pm
Well there is one good thing that came out of this long and funny topic: I joined, just because of the marital-like fighting between BHB and MWG.  

But anyway, all we know is that some people are going to like a movie whether or not the critics, or you guys, say it sucks. Most likely MWG is going to like it, and BHB is going to insult it in every way --  THEN watch it!  


-------------



Print Page | Close Window