Tom Fonseka
We in Malaysia just got to see the 2 hour special via HBO recently. If it was a hoax, it was very well done. Congrats, M. Night! The drowning, the house where he was supposed to have grown up during his ages 10 - 12, the anger shown at being confronted with this 'information', the face of 'Henry' in the mirror, the crow, it was all so convincingly done! The whole theme of the 'documentary' hinted that M. Night was driven by unseen forces...that his creativity was controlled by an unseen force, presumably the spirit of the boy who drowned 200 years ago. The crow which apparently appeared everywhere he went...it was typical genius of M. Night.I enjoyed it. Let me not spoil it for those who are yet to see it. If u are a fan of M. Night, don't miss this for anything!
laviniajoseph
Even though I have seen nothing with my own eye. I believe the buried secret could be / is a true fact and people are mocking the documentary because they simply don't understand it. Me and my friends was glued to the television in the middle of the night. People always mock what they do not know about and there so much we don't know. The evidence to me was quite hard and there was so many unanswered questions. The only scene from this I could question was the website scene on which you go on (m. nights) and one of the people that John Edwards spoke to on the computer which I think was raven 5 who knew what John was wearing and where he was. I though instantly oh there is a webcam somewhere but still had me thinking there might not of been. Also what was weird when the girl showed John and his crew, the pond in dead of the night (You would catch me anywhere like that at night) It actually quite motivated me myself to look into it which I am doing. Even if this doc was not true. I still know that what was showed does exist and we shouldn't mock it. I think they are just scared as we are maybe
xchar
(This is a SPOILER only if you haven't read anything about the film.) Okay, so it didn't deliver what was promised (a real buried secret) and it was an hour too long. But director Nathaniel Kahn has a masterful command of the medium and the format. I didn't know beforehand whether it was factual or not, so I kept looking for "tells": little flaws that would reveal that it was scripted (for example, an actor moving their lips while another actor was speaking their lines). I never spotted such a lapse. Everyone was totally convincing--including Kahn and Shyamalan themselves. The geeky computer kid was great! Shyamalan's low-key reaction to the "invasion of privacy" was done just right. The casual introduction of key elements--crows, black cars on a country road--was handled nicely. I hope this documentary is included on the DVD--I want to watch it carefully again!
jdwa1
This was as much a documentary as "Farenheit 9/11" but far more plausible! I thought it was cute, funny and rather entertaining. Seeing places I've been as locations in the film was great!! My wife enjoyed the scene in the MacDade Mall, where she hung out as a kid.I agree with the poster who compared this to a Hitchcock type promo. His were always done as if the film was the reality and he was just the "reporter". Also I have to agree that three hours was too long. Two hours max would have been fine, it would have tightened up the pacing, and would have forced him to loose the brief "recap" scenes that reminded you what happened five minutes ago.All in all, enjoyable.
AD
