Good in concept, poor in execution, "The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan" was plagued by terrible acting, amateurish directing, and the easy comparison to "The Blair Witch Project" which did a similar type of promo on the Sci-Fi network. The 3-hour (!!) "mockumentary" was nothing more than a giant infomercial for Shyamalan's body of work and his new movie "The Village". The worst part of the film was the acting. The old woman who supposedly knew Night as a child came off like one of those old ladies you see in commercials trying to sell you life insurance. The real estate agent overacted so badly that I can't believe she wasn't recast. The believability factor of the script was also quite low. Why would the director talk to a pizza guy about M. Night Shyamalan? Why would anyone care if Johnny Depp was considered for the lead in "Signs"? If electrical equipment strangely stops working around Shyamalan, how does he work around all that equipment on a movie set? I could go on, but you get the idea. Perhaps if this movie was shorter and perhaps if the acting and script were better, this could have been a decent "horror" film along the lines of a "Twilight Zone" episode. As it turned out, it was about as scary as "Manos, the Hands of Fate".
67 Reviews
Mockumentary?
razzberriez18 July 2004
I may be just a thirteen-year-old kid, but I know enough to see that this is most definitely not something to see if you want to be kept up at night pondering how brilliant it was, how compelling it was, or how horrifying it was. It's hard to distinguish the line between joke or...joke. In all seriousness, it really is hard to tell whether this is a publicity stunt gone horribly, horribly wrong or a peek at the secret life of M. Night Shyamalan, who might be just a li'l bit crazy.
I seriously doubt that M. Night created movies to show an inner him. I also doubt that M. Night sees dead people. It just sounds absolutely absurd. And another thing, at some of the most intense moments, there were film run outs or audio malfunctions.
But then again, it could be absolutely true (Doubtfully.). Some people are always searching for secrets that others don't want to find. Maybe M. Night was brilliant enough to deposit his secrets into the most obvious place -- his movies. Then, he doesn't have secrets to hide. People may search and search, but never find them. It is sort of like that part in Pirates of the Caribbean where Johnny Depp tells the two shipmates that he could have told them the truth just because they would never believe it was the truth. M. Night Shyamalan could have just had a hand in this to "seal the deal." Just to make the truth a little bit more unbelievable.
I seriously doubt that M. Night created movies to show an inner him. I also doubt that M. Night sees dead people. It just sounds absolutely absurd. And another thing, at some of the most intense moments, there were film run outs or audio malfunctions.
But then again, it could be absolutely true (Doubtfully.). Some people are always searching for secrets that others don't want to find. Maybe M. Night was brilliant enough to deposit his secrets into the most obvious place -- his movies. Then, he doesn't have secrets to hide. People may search and search, but never find them. It is sort of like that part in Pirates of the Caribbean where Johnny Depp tells the two shipmates that he could have told them the truth just because they would never believe it was the truth. M. Night Shyamalan could have just had a hand in this to "seal the deal." Just to make the truth a little bit more unbelievable.
not quite what I had hoped, but similarly interesting...
humbleservant419 July 2004
First of all, this "doc", as it's so lovingly referred to throughout the program, is not that at all. In the style of the Blair Witch Project, it takes what may be perceived as a compelling legend, and "scripts" a make-believe story to give it more life. While not all aspects of the program are less than admirable, it does touch on the shrouded life of a groundbreaking Director. For the most part, it seems like a publicity stunt on the behalf of the famed filmmaker. Don't get me wrong, I love his films.
But this appears to be an attempt to up his box-office numbers, given that his last two of his three films failed in comparison to The Sixth Sense.
Still, there are some very interesting aspects of the show, and it makes for a very entertaining watch; if you can get past the sometimes miserably acted scenes. What bothered me the most was Nathaniel Kahn, the Director of the film. His portrayal as a driven documentarian is flimsy throughout, and his interviews are barely acceptable as what are supposed to be true encounters.
However, as I said, it does make for a very interesting watch, even though it's three hours long with an assload of commercials. But hey, what are we supposed to do about network television, right?
But this appears to be an attempt to up his box-office numbers, given that his last two of his three films failed in comparison to The Sixth Sense.
Still, there are some very interesting aspects of the show, and it makes for a very entertaining watch; if you can get past the sometimes miserably acted scenes. What bothered me the most was Nathaniel Kahn, the Director of the film. His portrayal as a driven documentarian is flimsy throughout, and his interviews are barely acceptable as what are supposed to be true encounters.
However, as I said, it does make for a very interesting watch, even though it's three hours long with an assload of commercials. But hey, what are we supposed to do about network television, right?
A Well-Made Hoax
tjunderwood19 July 2004
I admit it.
I bought into this show because of the dizzying amount of air time the Sci-Fi channel used to promote it and my interest in Mr. Shyamalan.
Five minutes into it, I knew I'd been duped.
As I told my wife...
If Nathaniel Kahn and his crew were indeed shooting a conventional documentary, you never would've heard the Sci-Fi Channel executive's portion of the phone call during the opening sequence in the hotel room, only Nathaniel's. There would have been no reason to "mic" the caller unless it were planned that way.
At that point in the "doc" they would've had no idea they were taking an "alternate creative direction" and simply wouldn't have that elaborate of set-up so early on.
Still, well-made and interesting. Too bad legitimate news organizations were so easily tricked by Sci-Fi's publicity department.
As for those of you posting comments thinking what you saw was real, please refer to "War of the Worlds".
I bought into this show because of the dizzying amount of air time the Sci-Fi channel used to promote it and my interest in Mr. Shyamalan.
Five minutes into it, I knew I'd been duped.
As I told my wife...
If Nathaniel Kahn and his crew were indeed shooting a conventional documentary, you never would've heard the Sci-Fi Channel executive's portion of the phone call during the opening sequence in the hotel room, only Nathaniel's. There would have been no reason to "mic" the caller unless it were planned that way.
At that point in the "doc" they would've had no idea they were taking an "alternate creative direction" and simply wouldn't have that elaborate of set-up so early on.
Still, well-made and interesting. Too bad legitimate news organizations were so easily tricked by Sci-Fi's publicity department.
As for those of you posting comments thinking what you saw was real, please refer to "War of the Worlds".
Silly and Moronic
driver_819 July 2004
M. Night is a pretty big star. Which made me wonder why this documentary on him would be on a basic cable station. Actually, it was on one of the cable stations down towards the end that nobody watches. I used to watch it when it had MST 3000 on it. OK, you know which one? Well, after sitting through the most painful first hour of this, I realized why others passed on it. Man! This was horrible! I mean, made for 1st graders, simplistic and silly. It acts like a documentary, but in reality, it is a bunch of bad actors, working without pay, pretending to be part of M. Night's earlier life. Speaking of MST 3000, this actually would have been entertaining, had Mike and the bots gotten hold of it. However, without them, it is just humiliatingly bad. I enjoy his movies, but beware of this foul offering.
Stupid
Heresy19 July 2004
A real documentary on Shyamalan would have been interesting, unfortunately this is nothing more that a badly done parody of some of Shyamalan's work feeding into the 'mysticism' of his movies. Fine for what it is but it's sad that SciFi passed this off as a real documentary instead of a commercial for the Village/Shyamalan (but I guess that is on par for a channel that passes off that fraud John Edwards as anything more than a bad circus act.)
Think 'This is Spinal Tap' without any of the wit, humor or even decent acting.
(3/10)
Think 'This is Spinal Tap' without any of the wit, humor or even decent acting.
(3/10)
Looking for the Blair Witch on the set of "The Village"
dandargon19 July 2004
I made it through about two and a half hours before moving on to repeats on the History Channel. After about the first hour I started to suspect that this (the film) was either a put-on or the filmmaker had to make a three hour production out of ten minutes of material.
If you've seen it (the documentary) how many people carry Polaroid cameras anymore? And if so would you go drinking with a bulky camera that takes twelve pictures for $14 per roll.
I liked the bit about Henry. That was pretty creepy. I also enjoyed how the teacher held on the the special picture Mr. Shaymalan made which hasn't aged a day in the twenty years she's had it.
Don't bother if you haven't seen it. See The Village.
If you've seen it (the documentary) how many people carry Polaroid cameras anymore? And if so would you go drinking with a bulky camera that takes twelve pictures for $14 per roll.
I liked the bit about Henry. That was pretty creepy. I also enjoyed how the teacher held on the the special picture Mr. Shaymalan made which hasn't aged a day in the twenty years she's had it.
Don't bother if you haven't seen it. See The Village.
it was one of night's best movies it's intriguing, u don't know what the truth is
tina_ayoub17 October 2006
Nathaniel was very convincing with his story and his evidence to support the story.While watching the movie i thought the only way 4 Nathaniel to b wrong was that Night is in on this documentary.even if night was in on this it still makes a good story,plus i didn't believe that night was an isolated guy.i've seen him in interviews,on the red carpet,he's full of energy and very friendly.so before making any conclusions i surfed the net and found out that it was a hoax. actually i'm surprised that night didn't do the story as a movie where at the end people will think it's a hoax when it's actually true.good job 4 Nathaniel and night this so far is the weirdest idea.
Bunkum...
edlk19 July 2004
...and not even remotely clever bunkum. "Raven5" my hat. Inferior filmmaking, but very nice camera-work, which amounts to nothing of substance. Three hours (with commercials, including for "The Village")
that could/should have been whittled down to a tight 90 minutes that still would have managed the joke but with some edge to it. A great conning opportunity missed. A self-indulgent Blair-Witch wannabe.
that could/should have been whittled down to a tight 90 minutes that still would have managed the joke but with some edge to it. A great conning opportunity missed. A self-indulgent Blair-Witch wannabe.
Hoax
angel-17819 July 2004
People are so gullible for believing this is a real. Here is an article on IMDb.com stating that everyone admitted that it's a hoax. The teenagers acting was so bad and heavy handed. Didn't that give it away to everyone?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0391311/news
M. Night should be ashamed of himself for being part of this hoax and so should the people at the Sci-Fi channel. This is NOT the way to promote the movie. If you check older comments, there are people who actually believed this!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0391311/news
M. Night should be ashamed of himself for being part of this hoax and so should the people at the Sci-Fi channel. This is NOT the way to promote the movie. If you check older comments, there are people who actually believed this!
What a Great Idea!
Daryl-724 July 2004
It seems like some people are whining that this was probably fake. Huh? Of course it was fake. I would think anyone could tell that within minutes of the opening.
But think about the idea. Either someone pitched this idea to M. Night or he thought of it himself. We need to do a "puff piece" on the upcoming movie "The Village" but, goddamn it, this is M. Night Shyamalan! We can't just do a normal thing - interview the actors, hype the movie, etc. (think Catwoman). "Oh, he's such a great director, y'know." "I loved working with her, she's so professional, y'know." "There was such great chemistry, blah, blah, blah." Y'know??
Instead, we'll treat the whole puff piece as if it was an M. Night conspiracy story, except the conspiracy involves M. Night himself! Then we'll farm it out to the Sci Fi channel and pretend that it was SUPPOSED TO be a puff piece but then the director changed it in midstream to this expose on M. Night's personal story.
It's genius, I think. They fit all the things that are noticeably about M. Night into the plot. Why does he live in Philly instead of L.A. like all the other directors? Why has he had such great success at such a young age? How does his Indian heritage play into his direction? Why is he so private? Why are his latest movies all so dark? Why does he write the scripts and direct?
Congratulations to the creators of this fake-umentary. We loved every minute of it, and my view of the Sci Fi Channel just went up 150 points. You guys rock.
As for the back-and-forth of whether it's fake? Get over it.
But think about the idea. Either someone pitched this idea to M. Night or he thought of it himself. We need to do a "puff piece" on the upcoming movie "The Village" but, goddamn it, this is M. Night Shyamalan! We can't just do a normal thing - interview the actors, hype the movie, etc. (think Catwoman). "Oh, he's such a great director, y'know." "I loved working with her, she's so professional, y'know." "There was such great chemistry, blah, blah, blah." Y'know??
Instead, we'll treat the whole puff piece as if it was an M. Night conspiracy story, except the conspiracy involves M. Night himself! Then we'll farm it out to the Sci Fi channel and pretend that it was SUPPOSED TO be a puff piece but then the director changed it in midstream to this expose on M. Night's personal story.
It's genius, I think. They fit all the things that are noticeably about M. Night into the plot. Why does he live in Philly instead of L.A. like all the other directors? Why has he had such great success at such a young age? How does his Indian heritage play into his direction? Why is he so private? Why are his latest movies all so dark? Why does he write the scripts and direct?
Congratulations to the creators of this fake-umentary. We loved every minute of it, and my view of the Sci Fi Channel just went up 150 points. You guys rock.
As for the back-and-forth of whether it's fake? Get over it.
The Blair Witch Boondoggle
onepotato224 July 2004
My Architect was a fence-riding movie. There was worthwhile footage and some insight but there was also bad taste, self-promotion, and more than a little cheese. It was unclear if the previously unknown Nathaniel Kahn had any thing deeper in him but to self-identify (loudly) that he was related to someone famous and talented. It was hard to assess blame for the saccharine and sophomoric parts, but with this project the blame comes into crisp focus. Nathaniel Kahn was the problem.
In this, his next project, Kahn with no taste to restrain himself, wastes no time in finding and enhancing his inner whore, selling his approval and switching hats from "documentarist" to "huckster" for a mediocre would-be-spooky backstory about M. Night Shymalan; as a tie-in to pre-sell that directors next mediocre genre-piece. Instead of being Hollywoods next brilliant P.R. move, this is a thoroughly icky, "run-to-the-shower-to-wash-the-stink-off" piece of self-degradation.
Kahn had no other story to tell before immediately selling himself out as a shill to promote "The Village." Shymalan himself is to say the least full of... himself, and for Kahn to line up behind him to produce this piece of faux-lore is the most embarrassing piece of a**kissing since Waylon Smithers took that job under Monty Burns.
In my eyes, the stink from this trash, irreversibly damages both Kahn and the earlier effort.
In this, his next project, Kahn with no taste to restrain himself, wastes no time in finding and enhancing his inner whore, selling his approval and switching hats from "documentarist" to "huckster" for a mediocre would-be-spooky backstory about M. Night Shymalan; as a tie-in to pre-sell that directors next mediocre genre-piece. Instead of being Hollywoods next brilliant P.R. move, this is a thoroughly icky, "run-to-the-shower-to-wash-the-stink-off" piece of self-degradation.
Kahn had no other story to tell before immediately selling himself out as a shill to promote "The Village." Shymalan himself is to say the least full of... himself, and for Kahn to line up behind him to produce this piece of faux-lore is the most embarrassing piece of a**kissing since Waylon Smithers took that job under Monty Burns.
In my eyes, the stink from this trash, irreversibly damages both Kahn and the earlier effort.
Poorly structured, average acting and a touch cynical but interesting enough to try watching once (spoilers)
bob the moo23 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Due to the production of The Village, a documentary film crew get a high level of access to the reclusive director M. Night Syamalan. Thanks to their producer and Night's publicist, they have a collection of authorised interviews to do and find that they are all fairly uninteresting. When they do some talking head stuff with fans, they come across a kid who claims that Night is 'connected'. Following this thread they begin to uncover some strange items in Night's past and, as they wander off the 'authorised' path, they are met with resistance from Night's people. The end result is a speculative documentary that has been disowned by the producers and has been the subject of a legal challenge by Night himself.
Despite my plot summary, I sat down to this 'documentary' knowing full well that it was just a piece of fiction as opposed to a genuine documentary. Apparently in the US, some viewers bought it and bought the whole idea even though that many of the 'real' people do come across as actors and some of the shots are too deliberately staged. If it were a documentary it would be made as one this is more like the Blair Witch Project as it tries to record things happening. Anyway, even with the knowledge that this was a rather cynical marketing ploy I must say that it was better than a load of talking head interviews with gushing actors, which is usually what we get in the way of promotional material.
Even if the 'plot' goes a little far, it is still quite well written and the connections to Night's films makes you think 'well, I suppose' and it helps engage. However this is not to suggest it is a perfect film because it isn't it is not as well structured as it needed to be and the producers could have done a lot better with it. In some moments it is well done but generally the stuff with the film crew is rather heavily staged and obvious to the detriment of the film. Also the actual plot is a problem with its overuse of a pizza delivery boy and some teenagers making it feel like a film as opposed to a factual piece. Depp and Brody come off a bit wooden, while Night himself is too obviously creepy and the performances from the documentary crew themselves are pretty weak and unconvincing.
However this was still interesting enough to watch once even if you know it is a fake. The plot is quite clever even if the structure is not as good as it needed to be and it shouldn't have wandered so heavily into Blair Witch territory as it did. Although I can't understand why so many people fell for it, I do think that, as a promo, that this is at least an interesting try and is certainly more enjoyable that the usual actors answering the usual questions and saying how wonderful everything was. Imperfect and will annoy those who see it as a cruel marketing gimmick but it is interesting enough to be worth seeing if you get the chance.
Despite my plot summary, I sat down to this 'documentary' knowing full well that it was just a piece of fiction as opposed to a genuine documentary. Apparently in the US, some viewers bought it and bought the whole idea even though that many of the 'real' people do come across as actors and some of the shots are too deliberately staged. If it were a documentary it would be made as one this is more like the Blair Witch Project as it tries to record things happening. Anyway, even with the knowledge that this was a rather cynical marketing ploy I must say that it was better than a load of talking head interviews with gushing actors, which is usually what we get in the way of promotional material.
Even if the 'plot' goes a little far, it is still quite well written and the connections to Night's films makes you think 'well, I suppose' and it helps engage. However this is not to suggest it is a perfect film because it isn't it is not as well structured as it needed to be and the producers could have done a lot better with it. In some moments it is well done but generally the stuff with the film crew is rather heavily staged and obvious to the detriment of the film. Also the actual plot is a problem with its overuse of a pizza delivery boy and some teenagers making it feel like a film as opposed to a factual piece. Depp and Brody come off a bit wooden, while Night himself is too obviously creepy and the performances from the documentary crew themselves are pretty weak and unconvincing.
However this was still interesting enough to watch once even if you know it is a fake. The plot is quite clever even if the structure is not as good as it needed to be and it shouldn't have wandered so heavily into Blair Witch territory as it did. Although I can't understand why so many people fell for it, I do think that, as a promo, that this is at least an interesting try and is certainly more enjoyable that the usual actors answering the usual questions and saying how wonderful everything was. Imperfect and will annoy those who see it as a cruel marketing gimmick but it is interesting enough to be worth seeing if you get the chance.
A total setup - shame on the makers for this tabloid stunt
raop7423 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This "documentary" is garbage. What is the intent of this film? That Manoj Night Shyamalan is intensely private? That he keeps secrets and expects the people who work with him to do so as well? So what? Aren't these the precautions of all successful filmmakers?
POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
As I was watching the crew go through this pseudo documentary, I kept thinking, "Wow, look at how they're leading people," or, "I don't find this believable at all." Night comes off very rational, if a little eccentric. There's nothing dark about him, at least no more so than most intelligent and philosophical people.
In fact, I felt sorry for the way that the director and crew for this "whatever" kept stalking poor Night and his associates. And some of the people interviewed in the documentary were obviously brought in to simply add to the drama (i.e. Javier, the pizza guy). All these little mystical interludes are clumsly done, you can anticipate these events before they happen.
At three hours long, I think this whole film was overkill. I'm left thinking the same thing that Night said to the director, "You don't need an angle to do this. Just film a documentary about me and the work I do." If only the people involved in the making of this film had listened. Sadly, Night has even more reason to seek privacy now.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
As I was watching the crew go through this pseudo documentary, I kept thinking, "Wow, look at how they're leading people," or, "I don't find this believable at all." Night comes off very rational, if a little eccentric. There's nothing dark about him, at least no more so than most intelligent and philosophical people.
In fact, I felt sorry for the way that the director and crew for this "whatever" kept stalking poor Night and his associates. And some of the people interviewed in the documentary were obviously brought in to simply add to the drama (i.e. Javier, the pizza guy). All these little mystical interludes are clumsly done, you can anticipate these events before they happen.
At three hours long, I think this whole film was overkill. I'm left thinking the same thing that Night said to the director, "You don't need an angle to do this. Just film a documentary about me and the work I do." If only the people involved in the making of this film had listened. Sadly, Night has even more reason to seek privacy now.
Seems like it belongs in DVD extra footage
Roodog29 July 2004
When first seeing the add for "Buried Secret" on Sci-Fi, I did believe that it might be an unauthorized piece. Having seen his three last films, however, and knowing of this affinity for clever twists, I did suspect that this might be more of a making-of "The Village."
The first scene of "Buried Secret" put both of these to rest for me. This film is part mockumentary, part infomercial for "The Village", and a dash of "Blair Witch Project." I won't give any details away, but I have to wonder whether a piece like this wouldn't be more appropriate for the die-hard "M" fan to watch as DVD extra content released with "The Village."
The first scene of "Buried Secret" put both of these to rest for me. This film is part mockumentary, part infomercial for "The Village", and a dash of "Blair Witch Project." I won't give any details away, but I have to wonder whether a piece like this wouldn't be more appropriate for the die-hard "M" fan to watch as DVD extra content released with "The Village."
Shame on Shyamalan: Double talk to fantasy.
gb4-120 July 2004
Daisy chain promo. He was honest in his interviews. I guess he was afraid to hurt his rep as a story teller? Crossing truth with fiction promotes mental illness in people. I did enjoy Shyamalan bug eyed performance. It was like a early shatner performance. He puts his viewers in his world, on his terms, a real control freak. The supporting cast held my hand too tight leading us down the road of fantasy. Double talk to fantasy. Shyamalan is a real modern day PT Barnum.
Probably better than his up coming movie? Shame on you. EGO MANIAC!
Probably better than his up coming movie? Shame on you. EGO MANIAC!
Interesting
teasz529 January 2005
I guess I am a little slow on the uptake as prior to this "expose" I was without a clue as to who Mr. Shyamalan was. However, being a sci-fi channel fan I, of course, sat down to watch it.
Hmmmmmmm.....
It was interesting (some parts), bizarre (more parts), semi-believable (considering our apparently national pass-time of tearing apart those that are talented). This, of course, was before I realized it was more of a spoof and a "teaser" for the upcoming movie "The Village" rather than a legitimate "deep dig" they proclaimed it to be.
Before, I realized the true intent, my ire at the "shock-u-mentary" was the fact that they appeared to be accusing him of taking information from his own life and working them into "horror-type" movies.
Ummmm...standard procedure for most writers is to "write what you know".
The fact that Mr. Shyamalan can expand on these experiences and make excellent movies is something to be in awe of. (Yes, since I saw this and realized who he was, I sat down and watched all his movies.)
One only has to watch his movies to grasp the genius of this man as a writer, cinematographer and producer. (I love Steve King's books, but have yet to see one of "his" movies that has not left me wishing I hadn't spent the money.)
IF Mr. Shyamalan truly is as "quirky" as this footage suggests, then I wish everyone in Hollywood and/or involved in movie production were that way. Then perhaps we would not be bombarded by some of the senseless drivel that poses for "art" today.
Hmmmmmmm.....
It was interesting (some parts), bizarre (more parts), semi-believable (considering our apparently national pass-time of tearing apart those that are talented). This, of course, was before I realized it was more of a spoof and a "teaser" for the upcoming movie "The Village" rather than a legitimate "deep dig" they proclaimed it to be.
Before, I realized the true intent, my ire at the "shock-u-mentary" was the fact that they appeared to be accusing him of taking information from his own life and working them into "horror-type" movies.
Ummmm...standard procedure for most writers is to "write what you know".
The fact that Mr. Shyamalan can expand on these experiences and make excellent movies is something to be in awe of. (Yes, since I saw this and realized who he was, I sat down and watched all his movies.)
One only has to watch his movies to grasp the genius of this man as a writer, cinematographer and producer. (I love Steve King's books, but have yet to see one of "his" movies that has not left me wishing I hadn't spent the money.)
IF Mr. Shyamalan truly is as "quirky" as this footage suggests, then I wish everyone in Hollywood and/or involved in movie production were that way. Then perhaps we would not be bombarded by some of the senseless drivel that poses for "art" today.
Great Fun! More enjoyable than some of his films. But there are problems...
anismuse16 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I actually quite enjoyed this "mockumentary." I had heard about it vaguely, but only got to see on TV a few hours ago. I think it was actually more interesting than say "unbreakable." :).
That aside, I thought it started becoming quite obvious this could be hoax (in case you didn't know already), when they started interviewing Night's high school friend, who he "confided" in about his "secret." She was way too poised and articulate to not be an actress. One of the main reasons documentaries are so interesting is the spontaneity of the subjects; their every-day kind of reactions; not composed, emotive, acted out sequences. I don't think you have to be completely gullible to believe it was real, especially if you didn't already know it was a hoax. One could actually believe it, if seeing it as a piece completely disjointed from the marketing hype of that last Night disaster, the village. It was well-crafted, but I have seen a lot of documentaries that are even better crafted and have extremely high production values. Yes, the sea-sickening hand-held camera jiggling got a little too over-the-top sometimes. It did start to especially unravel around the end, where it got needlessly melodramatic.
The reasons this failed so miserably has a lot to do with the way it was handled by the Hollywood spinmeisters, rather than its content. I don't think there is anything wrong with mockumentaries, especially if they are well crafted and entertaining. But the Hollywood spin-machine seems to have lost touch with the real world, and are increasingly underestimating the intuition and intelligence of the audience. The marketeers seem to now be living in their own little fantasy world. They actually seem to believe that by creating such obviously over-hyped sensationalist marketing ploy would actually impart any kind of believability to a project like this. They just don't seem to know how to use the media anymore. There are just too many overpaid and way under-qualified marketing (moron) executives working as publicists and marketeers in Hollywood today. I just hope M. Night doesn't eventually fall prey to this vicious vortex of doom. He is a frightfully intelligent person, and a director with great style and potential. He needs to shed that twist ending thing to sell his films though. He will then do a lot better, with or without the help of spirits :)
That aside, I thought it started becoming quite obvious this could be hoax (in case you didn't know already), when they started interviewing Night's high school friend, who he "confided" in about his "secret." She was way too poised and articulate to not be an actress. One of the main reasons documentaries are so interesting is the spontaneity of the subjects; their every-day kind of reactions; not composed, emotive, acted out sequences. I don't think you have to be completely gullible to believe it was real, especially if you didn't already know it was a hoax. One could actually believe it, if seeing it as a piece completely disjointed from the marketing hype of that last Night disaster, the village. It was well-crafted, but I have seen a lot of documentaries that are even better crafted and have extremely high production values. Yes, the sea-sickening hand-held camera jiggling got a little too over-the-top sometimes. It did start to especially unravel around the end, where it got needlessly melodramatic.
The reasons this failed so miserably has a lot to do with the way it was handled by the Hollywood spinmeisters, rather than its content. I don't think there is anything wrong with mockumentaries, especially if they are well crafted and entertaining. But the Hollywood spin-machine seems to have lost touch with the real world, and are increasingly underestimating the intuition and intelligence of the audience. The marketeers seem to now be living in their own little fantasy world. They actually seem to believe that by creating such obviously over-hyped sensationalist marketing ploy would actually impart any kind of believability to a project like this. They just don't seem to know how to use the media anymore. There are just too many overpaid and way under-qualified marketing (moron) executives working as publicists and marketeers in Hollywood today. I just hope M. Night doesn't eventually fall prey to this vicious vortex of doom. He is a frightfully intelligent person, and a director with great style and potential. He needs to shed that twist ending thing to sell his films though. He will then do a lot better, with or without the help of spirits :)
Obviously a hoax, but interesting nevertheless
directjw18 July 2004
You have to be completely gullible to think that this "documentary" was authentic, as the interviewees are obviously actors, and there are scenes where artificial lighting was obviously used, as in the scenes in the "haunted" house where Night supposedly used to live in. Also, Night isn't much of an actor himself, as you can tell by the interviews conducted with him that he was, well, acting. Then, at the end of the film, the Kahn has a corny coda where we hear Night leaving him a phone message pleading to him not to show this movie because, "the public won't believe a thing he shows", then he proceeds to interview people about their experiences with the supernatural. This is an obvious attempt to dupe the viewer into thinking that what they had just seen was the real thing.
With the said, the movie itself was well-made, and does raise some interesting questions about the nature of documentaries. When you think about it, a documentary is no more a portrayal of the truth as a work of ficiton is, as all documentaries are essentially depicting the truth as viewed by the filmmaker himself. Thus, Kahn's frantic search for supernatural connections in Night's life's are in reality nothing more than his attempt to salvage a project which was falling apart. In a way, all docs are like this, in the sense that the filmmaker starts out with an initial purpose and slant, and then the doc takes on a life of its own.
There's an interesting scene where Kahn is hanging out with Night, and Night gets angry at him because he keep trying to find an "angle" for his movie. Night suggests that not every movie has to have an angle, an interesting commentary on the nature of documentary film-making. Of course, the whole movie is a hoax anyways.
But for me, the most damning evidence of the inauthenticity of the movie were the scenes in Night's old house. If you ever shot a movie on film, which this doc was shot on, you know that when you shoot in dark rooms with boarded up windows, there's not enough lighting for the film to pick up any images. However, somehow Kahn was able to get pristine footage of a darkened room, despite the fact that all the windows are boarded up and there are no sources of sunlight.
Sci-Fi Channel and Kahn should just fess up and admit that Buried Secrets is a publicity stunt, albeit a well-made and perceptive one, to cash in on The Village. I mean, there are commercials for The Village during every break! In a way, this doc is offensive on that it is cashing in on the present craze in belief in the supernatural, and I wonder how those on the other side will react to this after Night and Kahn eventually pass away and enter the other side.
But, that's life, I suppose.
With the said, the movie itself was well-made, and does raise some interesting questions about the nature of documentaries. When you think about it, a documentary is no more a portrayal of the truth as a work of ficiton is, as all documentaries are essentially depicting the truth as viewed by the filmmaker himself. Thus, Kahn's frantic search for supernatural connections in Night's life's are in reality nothing more than his attempt to salvage a project which was falling apart. In a way, all docs are like this, in the sense that the filmmaker starts out with an initial purpose and slant, and then the doc takes on a life of its own.
There's an interesting scene where Kahn is hanging out with Night, and Night gets angry at him because he keep trying to find an "angle" for his movie. Night suggests that not every movie has to have an angle, an interesting commentary on the nature of documentary film-making. Of course, the whole movie is a hoax anyways.
But for me, the most damning evidence of the inauthenticity of the movie were the scenes in Night's old house. If you ever shot a movie on film, which this doc was shot on, you know that when you shoot in dark rooms with boarded up windows, there's not enough lighting for the film to pick up any images. However, somehow Kahn was able to get pristine footage of a darkened room, despite the fact that all the windows are boarded up and there are no sources of sunlight.
Sci-Fi Channel and Kahn should just fess up and admit that Buried Secrets is a publicity stunt, albeit a well-made and perceptive one, to cash in on The Village. I mean, there are commercials for The Village during every break! In a way, this doc is offensive on that it is cashing in on the present craze in belief in the supernatural, and I wonder how those on the other side will react to this after Night and Kahn eventually pass away and enter the other side.
But, that's life, I suppose.
What urban legends are made of...
Jane2153 April 2006
Like the hideously confounding and at times chilling stuff urban legends are made of, M Night continues to walk hand in hand with the likes of the Nelly the Lochness and the Blair witch. Once again M Night has pulled something similar to a horrifically ghastly gunny sack over our heads all the while dragging us into the middle of a wooded area in the dead of the witching hour fully intent on leaving us there to fend for ourselves. Although more of a shocumentary, one expects a level of cleared understanding when immersing into a documentary. However, M Night would have none of it. Whether he is a genius in his own right, or just plain insane, M Night has added all the elements of terror and surprise from his films and incorporated it into a world of his own in which he stars. He and very few others can make what can only be described as a work of art that each and every person leaves from feeling as if they were a part of history in the making. Taking with them a piece only as original as each person who viewed it. How one man can make you expect everything, receive nothing, and walk away feeling richer than ever is beyond me, but one would be a fool to pass upon this jewel.
i thought it was clever
sketch132323 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I thought the way they did this whole thing was so clever. They talk about through the film about making people believe in what they wouldn't normally believe, and thats what they were doing right there in front of your face again. Making you believe that this is all real. That M.Night can really be this way. How the intertwine all these aspects of his life and movies. I thought it was excellent....like another M.Night movie for your collection. If you are a big fan of his movies and can get passed it being a hoax and look at it at another angle --- you definitely should see this movie. A lot of people don't get M.Nights movies....they think they are about one thing when they are about something totally different. What he is trying to get at totally goes over peoples heads. Signs wasn't about *signs* (crop circles) - or aliens - it was about signs in life. (his son had asthma - poison cant get in - his daughter had water everywhere - to aliens its deadly ------ goes over peoples heads. Buried Secrets is very clever.
I was entertained
lawbuntz4 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
No one will read this I know cuz there are so many comments...that fact alone shows that this fake documentary has fulfilled its purpose. I enjoyed the show because it was creative and seemingly put sooo much effort into something so meaningless. It's cool to see how people waste their time and money. I really wish the acting was more edgy../.more real instead of being typical drama stuff. I liked the interlacing of the real street interviews and the fake. To me, it was amazing that Johnny Depp and Adrian Brody played along...but I guess Night asked them to do him a favor...and I would do that for my buddy too. That should show that Night was the mastermind behind this. I really wish the average rating for this show would go up - it deserves at least a 5/10 for effort..at least
a total fake from beginning to end
zachlen4819 July 2004
Although a total fraud this was still a fun watchable 3 hours on a rather boring M night. Having been in the film biz for more than 25 years,I'd like to explain. There is a scene in the early morning in a field which has a sub-title,"ONE HOUR BEFORE CREW CALL". There in the field we find M NIGHT walking in the field with a dozen or so black crows for company. For anyone in the industry a director never arrives at the time of the crew call let alone one hour before. Also if this was one hour before crew call it would have been 5:00am and still dark. ON a film such as THE VILLAGE the director would arrive 2 to 3 hours after crew. Also if M NIGHT was against this from airing he would never have appeared nor any scenes from his films to be allowed. This was a very smart gimmick to raise interest for the opening of THE VILLAGE.Many people will think this to be real. For those as jaded as I it was just one 3 hour long commercial, with added commercials for THE VILLAGE. This has really made me loose respect for a director I had admired in the past. Should THE VILLAGE not stand on its own then my days of seeing anything by M NIGHT are over. SIGNS was bad enough. UNBREAKABLE even worse.Another failure this early in his career would be the end of wasting my money on this publicity hound.
Scary... but fake...
baldwinaz18 July 2004
It was a great story, but I fully believe that M. Night wanted it to play out this way. Why else would have The Village, sponsored the program? I am sure that if he had not approved this to be shown, his movie definitely would have not sponsored it, as the movie received enough recognition as they were always going to the set of the movie, and everyone knows it comes out in the next few weeks. It was great and I truly enjoyed the 'documentary'. Too bad that they shrunk the credits down so much, that you couldn't read it! If it was true, great.. can't wait to see what is next! The best part was the "Signs" house. Here is a question for you.. Why didn't they just use that house?
Fun flick that raises interesting, albeit laughable points.
saildawg-124 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Buried Secret is kind of the ultimate movie trailer for the entire work of a director. It was very well made and, while not entirely convincing in its authenticity, definitely qualified as entertaining. A lot of viewers took the film too far and decided that it was an affront to their enjoyment of M. Night. If you like M. Night's movies and you don't take yourself too seriously, you should enjoy Buried Secret.
Most of the movie is designed to convince the viewer that M. Night's life isn't the normal Hollywood biography; that he never leaves Philadelphia and the surrounding area, that many of his movies are in a way autobiographical, that he has some amount of control over the supernatural, and that ultimately this is due to his having died as a child for a matter of many minutes.
One way or the other, it is an entertaining look at a popular icon and the legends surrounding him.
Most of the movie is designed to convince the viewer that M. Night's life isn't the normal Hollywood biography; that he never leaves Philadelphia and the surrounding area, that many of his movies are in a way autobiographical, that he has some amount of control over the supernatural, and that ultimately this is due to his having died as a child for a matter of many minutes.
One way or the other, it is an entertaining look at a popular icon and the legends surrounding him.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
