Yeah, I was "wary" of the whole R rated thing. It should have been a comedy though. The audience was roaring with laughter, and not the "this is crap and I'm making fun of it" kind, but the "OMG You're not serious!" kind.
I thought the gag reel on the DVD was kind of bland though. Nothing like the one on Lady...were there gag reels on the other DVDs? Some reason I don't remember...
EDIT: #@!*! The strike thing doesn't work. Well, pretend there is a strike there.
It
should have been a comedy? No, no, no! The only attempt M. Night Shyamalan had to comedy was Wide Awake and I think that was he weakest film. I just saw it on DVD, and ... well, it wasn't weak because of the comedy, although it should have been a more serious film for such a subject matter (a boy trying to find God), I thought it was weak because I already had my "God" moment when I started believing in omnitheism in around middle school. [strike] My concept is simple: mass is god, because mass can do anything. Different masses are different gods, because I am a pluralist. Energy, or mass in motion, is the means to nirvana. The reason why we exist is to someday reach that nirvana after many reincarnations (I believe people reincarnate into the same thing, only possibly more evolved over their environment over time). The only thing I can't prove of my theory is the reincarnation part. But think about the god part. Tell me something mass cannot do given consciousness, time, and energy. There is nothing mass can't do with those three things. It's impossible to think up of the impossible as long as you have those three components. I've spent many nights thinking about this, and the only thing I can think up of that you cannot do is always using the word can't in the sentence. Which makes your argument completely mute. "You can't fly without motorized transportation." Then you make a part of history null by completely removing a part of it. Therefore, reality starts to collapse within itself.
It really is basic.
As for the reincarnation theory? Well, other than first-hand testaments to reincarnation to whom who never believed in it before unlocking the secret of it, how do you explain instinct? It's simple: instinct is develop, as a sub-conscious identity of the soul, that happens over time as you begin to live many lives. You can't remember English from life to life, but how about sex? I've heard of stories of babies still inside the woman actually pleasuring themselves. How is this possible? Instinct. And how does instinct happen? Reincarnation. And I think some people have stronger reincarnation genes than others; I had no instinct to masturbate. I didn't remember my wet dreams when I was twelve and I didn't know you had jerk your penis inside and outside of the vagina to actually have orgasm. When I was young I thought you stuck it in there and like magic, it comes out. I was never taught by anyone how to masturbate. In fact, I had erections watching erotic anime and I thought I was coming when I was in fact peeing. That's how bad it got. One day, when I was thirteen, I realized that putting your hand on the penis stimulates it, so I stimulate it until I reached orgasm. But, in my surprise, my semen was not white. When it came out, it was yellow. It was dying. I did a little research on this. I used an old cup and put my semen in it. It turns from white, to yellow, to brown, and then eventually to black. See, the only reason why I could stimulate my penis just from touching it was because I hadn't had a sex dream in awhile. And I never understood why people thought that masturbating turns you into a sex addict. It doesn't. It does completely the opposite, at least for me. Before I masturbated, I used to picture girls naked at school and completely stare at their developing breasts. I was, indeed, a pervert. And I couldn't help myself because all I kept thinking about was sex when I was in seventh grade. Now, after learning how to masturbate, I still think about sex, but whenever I look at a woman and I'm not trying to get aroused, I can fully look at her face and never at her breasts, even if they are particularly uncovered in some way.
Wow, I have completely gotten off topic.
Anyways, that's not the real reason why I believe in reincarnation. My real reason is because it is the most noble thing to believe in. To me, Heaven is like, "well, I want to die." With reincarnation, dying is a bad thing because you'll most likely end up in a third-world country at their birth rates. Plus, you forget everything, or depending on your soul imprints and DNA almost everything you learned before hand. Not trying to be racist here, would you rather have all the people die in Africa and have them reincarnated in America, or visa versa? I think you know the answer. People in America have more fulfilling lives. We live longer. If everybody just suddenly died in Africa, would we honestly care? I don't think so. Most of us blink our eyes on a third-world genocide. But, to me, that's what is so Ducked up about us. The rich. Even the poor here can eat. It's been proven by the television show 30 Days that you can still survive on near-minimum wage incomes. Not that any of us should live like that, I hope that eventually their will be a government department dependent on getting rid of unskill workers. Not that I'm a socialist, because actually I consider myself a neo-objectivist which is, in Randism terms, "capitalist", but I wouldn't mind paying a portion of my money for a free college education for everybody. I think it should at least be required in the future. I hope robots can just replace jobs with no future, but then again I do believe robots have souls, although we are their masters so I don't think there would be too many, "save the robots" protesters. Anyways, my point is: people would care a LOT more about the third world if they were forced to deal with the fact that there is reincarnation, and you keep coming back as the same being. It's something people should care about, but they don't. The latest Ponsi-scheme guy was on the major news networks and they were laughing about all the billions of dollars he stole. Like it was some Ducking joke. People who have ruined thousands of lives. And they laugh about it. What the Duck is wrong about our news? I think it's almost as bad as killing people, because you are usually caught in the first or second act, whereas this guy was lying to and ruining hundreds of thousands of lives. Sure, you can recover from it, but that doesn't make it right in the first place. I wouldn't mind if they gave him the death penalty, but they never will. If you aren't directly involved in killing someone, you can't get the death penalty. Which is complete bull#@!* anyways. How do we even know that dying is such a bad thing in the first place? It's possible we go to Heaven or Hell. It's possible we just rot in the ground. But the only real bad thing about it is that you won't be able to see that person again. It's almost, in a way, selfish to say the murder and the death penalty is the worst crime. Because at least with other crimes and punishes we absolutely know what has happened to those people. Yes, I think death is bad. You forget pretty much everything you once learned. And then all those people around you will miss you. But everybody dies. The only point it will be a real crime to kill someone is when you make the human body of itself immortal and that person was going to live until someone killed that person directly and it couldn't be by some mistake. By this argument, you might think I'm pro-choice, but I'm entirely pro-life. At least in the United States. I don't care what you say about the United States, it is one of the best nations in the world. We have rights and dreams most people couldn't dare fathom. To kill an innocent infant because, what, it is inconvenient for you, to me, is completely selfish! If the entire world was like the United States, and you lived in the scummiest of places in that conceived world, then, maybe, I'd be pro-choice. But I'm hoping by the time the politicians get their heads out of their asses and become the right neo-conservatives they ought to be and start making puppet governments to dictatorships and third world countries, that possibly America itself will be a place without ghettos. That maybe we can rise above that bull#@!* and have good role-models rather than the stupid, infamous ones we have in the media. Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsey Lohan are not good role models, yet thousands of pre and teenage girls think so highly of them it makes me want to vomit. [/strike]
But anyways, getting back to my point about M. Night Shyamalan. I don't think he does very well in comedy. His good jokes are subtle. And a movie of subtle comedy is not a good one. I think he does best in thrillers, like most of his movies. I, like he, thinks his best movie was Unbreakable. The Happening shouldn't have been a comedy. Then nobody would take his next movies seriously. No, it should have been a neurotoxin that tried to kill people instead of making people kill themselves. That itself is mind control. Which, I think is almost impossible for a plant to do, seeing as they don't have the complexity of the human brain nor can they even fathom it right now that they would need to understand in order to actually cause temporary mind control. But there are known neurotoxins that already do bad things, like paralysis that it wouldn't be unfathomable to think up of a neurotoxin that simply makes people suffocate. It could simply replace the oxygen in the air, and there you go you could be dead in minutes. While plants having the ability to have people kill themselves is a funny idea, and a ridiculous one, this doesn't mean it should be exploited so as they change the entire movie around and make it a comedy. It wouldn't be like Shyamalan to do that. The only way I could see The Green Effect or The Happening being a comedy is if they had a lecture from Al Gore talking about how cutting down trees causes global warming and thus killing the people on the planet. That would be funny, but not Shyamalan. Frankly, even though it is ridiculous, I am happy with the end result he made. Just like with all his movies. They are his movies, and I think he should be able to do what he wants to do with them, even if it is not the most popular decision. I wouldn't want him to change the movie just because I said it would be better this or that way. That would make me respect him less as a writer and director. It's a good thing he stands up to critics and fans alike and does things his way. It shows courage and passion in an otherwise untalented market, I believe.
Now, if only M. Night Shyamalan had gone on and did Mark Wahlberg's other recent movie,
Max Payne. What a Ducking disaster that movie was. I could have made a better movie than that. For a movie, it was average. In fact it would be kind of good had it not been based on a video game. But the video game, the video game is so much better in every aspect I just wished they split the game to three parts like the video game and did the exact same scene-by-scene scenario that the video game did. It's almost sad that a video game with such an awesome idea was completely wrecked by the movie like that. And the music. Oh my god the music in the video game is SO much better than the movie. I think they must have hired some #@!*ty temp or something because it was awful! It's horrendously sad when you can't even surpass the video game in the music department.
I wish I had the talent to make six machinima movies on the Max Payne franchise. I would show it how it is. If anyone is interested in helping me make six machinima movies, three machinima's on each game like each part of Max Payne one and two, please contact me. I will do almost ANYTHING to have that on my big screen. I would pay one-hundred dollars for all six films, if anyone has done it.
(And actually, luckily we got something like that on YouTube. But I would have removed the HUD and basically not have Max Payne shot during the entire filming process.)
