Reply to Topic
Oh my gosh. That looks like wilder & funnier ripoff of Three's Company. I wanna see reruns.
Shyamalan teams up with Ashton Kutcher!
It predated Three's Company, I believe. (Holden, help me out here.)
And it was much funnier. Hanks was hilarious in it. Yes, it had its moments of stupid sitcom one-liners, but it was still funny. Scolari and Hanks were just sarcastic enough to pull it off without being too sugary.
And it was much funnier. Hanks was hilarious in it. Yes, it had its moments of stupid sitcom one-liners, but it was still funny. Scolari and Hanks were just sarcastic enough to pull it off without being too sugary.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Getting down to the brass tacks, Shyamalan's works are basically longer episodes of The Twilight Zone or X-Files. So I think the concepts in The Sixth Sense or Signs are already pre-established just through the trailers. Everything except the "twist" or epiphany are laid out for the audience in the coming attractions reel. So that leaves, in this day and age, only the acting to be critisized. I think depth of character is the only way to sell the audience on his premises. If an actor cannot come across as believable; a feeling, thinking, critical human being, then you're left waiting in anticipation for the end of the film. Which, if you're just waiting for the film to end, then you haven't enjoyed your experience. In that respect, I think Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson, as well as the rest of the cast, must have shown some facets of real human beings because these films are so popular.
I remember thinking that Farrah-Fawcett could only act with her breasts. But then I saw The Burning Bed and Extremities, she blew me away with her range. How about Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love? My way of thinking is that if an actor can do real drama--show real emotion--then he or she has reached the pinnacle of range. And mostly that is what Shyamalan must demand in his movies. Now as far as Kutchner goes, it remains to be seen whether he can carry a Shyamalan movie or not.
Remembering the Twilight Zone again, William Shatner had to convince us that there was a gremlin on the wing of the airliner, because we all know that that doesn't really exist. And he had to do it by showing us some depth and vulnerability to his character. He must fool us into thinking he's crazy, like everyone else aboard that plane thought he was crazy, until that final shot when we see the damage done to the wing of the aircraft, and we think 'oh, he wasn't crazy afterall'. Now that's acting.
I remember thinking that Farrah-Fawcett could only act with her breasts. But then I saw The Burning Bed and Extremities, she blew me away with her range. How about Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love? My way of thinking is that if an actor can do real drama--show real emotion--then he or she has reached the pinnacle of range. And mostly that is what Shyamalan must demand in his movies. Now as far as Kutchner goes, it remains to be seen whether he can carry a Shyamalan movie or not.
Remembering the Twilight Zone again, William Shatner had to convince us that there was a gremlin on the wing of the airliner, because we all know that that doesn't really exist. And he had to do it by showing us some depth and vulnerability to his character. He must fool us into thinking he's crazy, like everyone else aboard that plane thought he was crazy, until that final shot when we see the damage done to the wing of the aircraft, and we think 'oh, he wasn't crazy afterall'. Now that's acting.
__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.
r66-The member who always asks WHY?
I have been formatted to fit this screen.
r66-The member who always asks WHY?
?? Shatner? Or Lithgow?
I see what you mean. Movies such as The Others were good *throughout* the movie, not just during the several twist endings the film had. In fact, I didn't even know the film had a twist ending when first watching it. Yet it engaged me with its incredible acting and ambiance, so even if it hadn't had a twist ending, I'd have enjoyed it immensely.
Sixth Sense was that way too, although less so.
Signs was another -- engaging anyway, twist ending or not.
I see what you mean. Movies such as The Others were good *throughout* the movie, not just during the several twist endings the film had. In fact, I didn't even know the film had a twist ending when first watching it. Yet it engaged me with its incredible acting and ambiance, so even if it hadn't had a twist ending, I'd have enjoyed it immensely.
Sixth Sense was that way too, although less so.
Signs was another -- engaging anyway, twist ending or not.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
"Three's Company" aired from 1977 until 1984. "Bosom Buddies" aired from 1980 to 1982. "Bosom Buddies" was never anywhere near the kind of hit "Three's Company" was (few shows are), but because of Hanks being in it, it still shows up in re-runs. I don't think any of the major cable networks is running it just now, but it'll be back, and back, and back.
The real "Three's Company" rip-off from that era was "We've Got It Made" (1983)...though they mixed it up with two guys and one girl cohabitating - a blonde circa-early-'80s bombshell named Teri Copley. I must admit, as a thirteen-year-old lad, she looked amazing to me parading around in tight T-shirts. Though she was no Heather Thomas or Catherine Bach.
The real "Three's Company" rip-off from that era was "We've Got It Made" (1983)...though they mixed it up with two guys and one girl cohabitating - a blonde circa-early-'80s bombshell named Teri Copley. I must admit, as a thirteen-year-old lad, she looked amazing to me parading around in tight T-shirts. Though she was no Heather Thomas or Catherine Bach.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra
X
Favorite Movies
Well, I never had those particular troubles watching TV shows, Holden. I watched Three's Company for John Ritter. 
I hadn't realized those two shows were contemporaries of each other. Go figger.
I hadn't realized those two shows were contemporaries of each other. Go figger.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Originally posted by r3port3r66
Getting down to the brass tacks, Shyamalan's works are basically longer episodes of The Twilight Zone or X-Files. So I think the concepts in The Sixth Sense or Signs are already pre-established just through the trailers. Everything except the "twist" or epiphany are laid out for the audience in the coming attractions reel. So that leaves, in this day and age, only the acting to be critisized. I think depth of character is the only way to sell the audience on his premises. If an actor cannot come across as believable; a feeling, thinking, critical human being, then you're left waiting in anticipation for the end of the film. Which, if you're just waiting for the film to end, then you haven't enjoyed your experience. In that respect, I think Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson, as well as the rest of the cast, must have shown some facets of real human beings because these films are so popular.
I remember thinking that Farrah-Fawcett could only act with her breasts. But then I saw The Burning Bed and Extremities, she blew me away with her range. How about Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love? My way of thinking is that if an actor can do real drama--show real emotion--then he or she has reached the pinnacle of range. And mostly that is what Shyamalan must demand in his movies. Now as far as Kutchner goes, it remains to be seen whether he can carry a Shyamalan movie or not.
Remembering the Twilight Zone again, William Shatner had to convince us that there was a gremlin on the wing of the airliner, because we all know that that doesn't really exist. And he had to do it by showing us some depth and vulnerability to his character. He must fool us into thinking he's crazy, like everyone else aboard that plane thought he was crazy, until that final shot when we see the damage done to the wing of the aircraft, and we think 'oh, he wasn't crazy afterall'. Now that's acting.
Getting down to the brass tacks, Shyamalan's works are basically longer episodes of The Twilight Zone or X-Files. So I think the concepts in The Sixth Sense or Signs are already pre-established just through the trailers. Everything except the "twist" or epiphany are laid out for the audience in the coming attractions reel. So that leaves, in this day and age, only the acting to be critisized. I think depth of character is the only way to sell the audience on his premises. If an actor cannot come across as believable; a feeling, thinking, critical human being, then you're left waiting in anticipation for the end of the film. Which, if you're just waiting for the film to end, then you haven't enjoyed your experience. In that respect, I think Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson, as well as the rest of the cast, must have shown some facets of real human beings because these films are so popular.
I remember thinking that Farrah-Fawcett could only act with her breasts. But then I saw The Burning Bed and Extremities, she blew me away with her range. How about Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love? My way of thinking is that if an actor can do real drama--show real emotion--then he or she has reached the pinnacle of range. And mostly that is what Shyamalan must demand in his movies. Now as far as Kutchner goes, it remains to be seen whether he can carry a Shyamalan movie or not.
Remembering the Twilight Zone again, William Shatner had to convince us that there was a gremlin on the wing of the airliner, because we all know that that doesn't really exist. And he had to do it by showing us some depth and vulnerability to his character. He must fool us into thinking he's crazy, like everyone else aboard that plane thought he was crazy, until that final shot when we see the damage done to the wing of the aircraft, and we think 'oh, he wasn't crazy afterall'. Now that's acting.