M. Night Shyamalan

I would agree, but I think Unbreakable is his good one. I figured out 6th Sense halfway through the movie. As soon as I saw how the dead people looked to the kid, I realized that no one else was talking to Bruce Willis. Then I noticed the lengths the film took to keep anyone from talking to Bruce Willis. I was so sure of the ending that I didn't share my theory with my friend during the movie because I didn't want to spoil it for him. The Unbreakable ending caught me, though, and unlike the 6th Sense ending, there was no cheating.

I thought Unbreakable was an excellent movie that gets serverely underrated, so I can't agree with you there. And I enjoyed Signs, as well. Haven't seen The Village, but from everything I hear, it's a dog. So, I don't know, for me I've liked three out of three movies of his I've seen. Out of five movies (including that Catholic school one he made whose name escapes me at the moment) having two that everyone considers a failure is not that bad. So, I'm not closing the book on him yet. Though I don't hold out much hope for the mermaid movie, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Not something I'd want to see or make, but that doesn't mean he won't do something cool with it.

His putting his name all over a movie is not really being a dick. It's how filmmakers build and protect their work and career. Once your name becomes a marketable element, it behooves you to put it right out front. It's not that big a deal. John Carpenter uses the possessive, too, and people don't dogpile on him. More than anything it's usually something worked out by agents and managers and has so little to do with the actual work that doesn't really bear debate. (Have you counted how many times Rodriguez's name pops up in his credits? A lot. Does it matter? Not really.)

I love all his movies, all of them.

Without him cinema would be much the poorer.

I think he's a half-hit wonder. Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were all right for a little while, mildly entertaining but nothing that you don't forget two hours later. And then he did Signs. And then The Village - so he's officially in hack territory now.

I think his rampant egotism derails any chance he has of becoming a great director. Ego is a good thing. Don't mistake me there. But he wears it like a shiny new strap-on and it ruins things for him. It is a good sign however that he decided not to make himself a principle character in the Village.

And lets be honest Village had a lot more wrong with it then just the script. What a mess.

Shyamalan is the lowest of the low. He does not make movies for their artistic merit, he makes them so they are liked and so people will in turn like him.

There was an article about him in Entertainment Weekly back when Signs came out that has stuck with me over the past few years, and anytime i think of him. There was a quote from one of his producers about the overall disappointment that Unbreakable was at the box office (sure it made 90 million, but when your previous film scores 300+ anything is a disappointment). The producer said how hurt M. Night was because he thought it was a reaction to him personally and in turn took the poor box office as being a personal attack. He then took a few years to craft Signs so he could get back the status he was with the 6th Sense. That alone says that it is all about ego.

for M. Night the twist ending is dead, especially when you can see it coming within the first half hour.

Well, you've convinced me. Let's stone him.

I for one have enjoyed all of his movies. I even enjoyed watching SS more than once. If all you look for from his movies are the "twists" then I can see why he'd disappoint you. I'm pretty dim when it comes to figuring movies out so I was surprised at SS's ending, but that wasn't what made it interesting. It was about watching what having this gift was doing to the kid.

Heaven forbid someone should make films so that they are liked.

Nice way to start an argument.

M. Night's movies are famous for the twists, but where I think he excels is in his dialog and interactions between actors. I love the scene in Signs where they're boarding up the doors, and Mel stops to tell his his kids about the days they were born.

I've loved all his movies, except The Village. Maybe that one looked good on paper, but I chalk it up to him just having a bad game. Everyone's allowed a bad game, right?

I've always loved Shyamalan's ability to pick the right music for a scene.

Perhaps the "Swing away, Merrill" sequence in Signs was a bit too much tell and not enough show, but by God the underlying score was magnificent.

There are easier ways to be liked. You obviously haven't a clue what it's like to make a movie and the backbreaking torture required to pull one off. Working your ass off non stop for a year, sometimes 2 or 3 just to be liked by a bunch of nobodies? Destroying yourself mentally and physically just to be liked by a bunch of nobodies? If all he was interested in was being liked, why are his films so good? He obviously has talent and is merely using it and expressing himself. Where's the ego in that?

Believe me, there are easier ways to make money and be liked.

You've just described a scenario typical of every major director you idiot. Why did Spielberg stop making arty films like Sugarland Express? Because they don't make any money. Is he an egomaniac too?

I just love how the Shyamalan haters keep mentioning his ego and not his films. Every director has an enormous ego, why aren't you pissing on them?

You armchair critics fucking make me wanna puke.

Damn right!

After listening to the soundtrack often, I decided to watch the movie again, and the scene this time did come off a little weaker than I remembered. But you're right. The score to that scene makes it one of my faves.

Oh yeah, Colt45, make sure you tell us how you really feel.

Yeah, I get a little heated about that sometimes because he's such an easy target. I didn't like Unbreakable and thought Sixth Sense was overrated, but Signs is one of my all time favorite films.

I love Signs too. I'm forever arguing with those who moan about the aliens because the aliens are entirely incidental. The story is concerned with grief, and one man's struggle to overcome it.

SS has a lot more going for it than its stupid twist (I was told it beforehand and still enjoyed the movie) but people only focus on the end. Stupid twist doesn't change the fact that everything leading up to it is a nice, thoroughly creepy PG-13 horror movie.

Unbreakable I can barely remember seeing.

Signs is a damn fine movie if you turn it off right before they leave the basement at the end; maybe that's becuse I don't give a shit about someone finding his faith, coupled with my childhood fear of aliens and alien abductions. So I could be biased like that, but I see it as an alien invasion movie, and a scary one at that.

The Village I'm pretty sure was an inside joke between M. Night and himself, laughing his way to the bank with all the money he got from the stupid lemmings who shelled out eight bucks each for that piece of crap. At least the score was good though.

Good call. And the Herrmann-esque opening theme for Signs had me from the get-go.

I shall say this again. Signs is story about grief and salvation. One could swap the aliens for say ... on-the-run bank robbers and the message would be exactly the same.

That's what I keep hearing, but aliens are neat and scary so I don't much care about that. Besides, all the shit about the water and baseball bats is just too stupid I can't bring myself to watch the end anymore.

The water and baseball bats are genius because of the simplicity. That's what makes Signs (and most great films for that matter) so great. Keep it simple.

Then I don't understand why they couldn't have taken that axe up with them. That'd be even simpler, and more fun to watch too.

I enjoyed The Sixth Sense very much, I think Unbreakable is excellent, I think Signs is
okay, and I haven't yet seen The Village. I think the guy is undeniably talented.
Having said that, I was really turned off by that Buried Secret fake documentary.
That's three hours I'll never get back. I mean, really, a three-hour commercial
for a movie disguised as a shitty documentary. It's awful. Has anyone else seen
that piece of crap?

I haven't seen that, but the reports of what it was, admitedly, ticked me off. Even so, I love his three middle movies.

*Edited after reconsideration*

Fuck that. He has a raging ego. I can't count how many directors, much less writer/directors, I respect and whose work I admire who have out of control egos. He attempted an incredibly boneheaded publicity stunt (from what I've heard). I can't hold that against him if I won't hold it against other directors I admire. And that list is too long to put here.

I do think that Unbreakable is one of the best Superhero movies ever made actually, but i dont think his other films are actually all that good.
I enjoy watching them a whole lot, but i dont think they are very good. He has a formula, he is sticking to it, it works, people like it...whats the problem?
If you are going to start throwing stones at shit directors lets start with someone who is SHIT. Shyamalamading-dong isnt shit he is just annoying.

I've never felt satisfied with an MNS film. Signs really pissed me off. The idea that these aliens can be killed by water, when they've come to a planet where 70% of the surface area is water, where there is rain, sleet, snow, is laughable.

No more laughable than journeying to a world whose environment is 100% lethal i.e. the Moon.

I don't remember seeing the aliens in Signs wearing space suits.

And I don't remember wearing SCUBA gear the last time I was on a boat.

Mate, if you are going to start poking holes in plots that involve aliens from other planets, you might as well abandon most of Science Fiction.

At least he isn't Uwe Boll.

It looked good in a kids book that he may or may not have swiped from too (not sure what happened to this court case).

I liked Sixth Sense, was a breath of fresh air in cinema, and I really liked Unbreakable, its his only movie I've got on DVD, Signs was very effective but also flawed, and Village was just lame, and as Taxihunter has said, looks good on paper, or to me looks good in novel form, which is why its funny that there's a childrens book with the exact same plot already out there (I like the post 9/11 commentry in Village, the themes and symbolism are all fine, but the execution was flawed).

He's getting flak, and I've given him some too lately, but I dont think we should attack him with pitchforks just yet, lets see how his next movie is before writing him off for good. He's a very competent director whatever happens, its just his writing that has lately been a bit less than great.

And twist endings are so mid to late 90's, cut it out already!

THE SIXTH SENSE was okay, but I haven't liked any of his movies since, and I didn't see THE VILLAGE. I also think he should stop putting himself in his films. It was tolerable when he was doing the cute 'Look, I'm like Hitchcock!' shtick at first, but he was ridiculous in SIGNS. After that, I decided to avoid any more of his movies.

I like his films. I've defended them. Certainly the pitchfork cries of 'hack' and 'talentless egomaniac' are a touch overheated - maybe, as Geoff poins out, his films are really character dramas pretending to be horror and sci-fi genre films, which can annoy the hell out of genre fans.

I like the tone of his films, quiet and calm. I like that there are really no 'baddies' in his films, just decent ordinary and mostly intelligent peole struggling with pain and loss. I'm willing to forgive a lot of The Village's faults because of that atmosphere he brings.

I don't think his sea nymph in the swimming pool film is going to change anyone's minds about him though. It seems, from what littel we know, as if he's using his same high-concept bag of tricks. Also, i'm not sure if Paul Giammatti (who i think is the preferred casting at the moment) is going to shine if he's made to talk in a slow calm controlled voice the whole way through.

Hitchcock did light hearted caper movies too, M: why not try a comedy?

Night is pretty young and has plenty of time to do comedies if he chooses. Right now he's good at what he does and is sticking to it, like Spielberg in his Jaws-era. I think doing The Village was Night trying to stray a bit (even though the formula was pretty much the same) and it blew up in his face so he's going back to his roots.

Remember, Night writes his own scripts, so his films tend to be more complete works and there's much more at stake then say Hitchcock who hires writers... though Hitch had lots of input in the writing process, he was more of a guide than the author.

I think all the Night hate stems from people knowing what he's up to and being successful at it. Night can be a little excessive with the ego, but most director's are. Though Night is much more visible because of his stamp and success so he's an easier target. Let's not forget the Spielberg-Jaws-Academy Award fiasco where he brought in a news camera crew to his office to watch his reaction to the nominations, being POSITIVE he'd get a director nod for Jaws. It blew up in his face when he wasn't and he was humiliated on national television. Taught him a lesson. Maybe the negative reaction to Night's documentary will set him a little more straight.

At the end of the day, he's young, successful, good at what he does and makes shit loads of money (not to mention has a smoking hot wife). I'd have a raging ego too.

I don't dislike him, and I don't dislike his movies because of his success. I just think he's a mediocre director who needs to hire a cameraman who doesn't have parkinson's disease.

I think Clarke made a good point about something I don't really like about his movies that's always played up. The way they're character dramas dressed as genre pictures, but at the end of the day, they're still genre pictures. ALIENS is essentially a character study and a study of catharsism but it wears its genre conventions and connections on its sleeve, whereas Night's movies are always touted as 'thrillers' compared to horror, which SIXTH SENSE was, or sci-fi, which SIGNS was. Of course, that's sometimes the general Hollywood convention to do that too, so it might not be all his fault.

Parkinsons?

You'd rather they be more conventional and straightforward? I think it's great he's turning genre stuff on its head. It's ONE FILMMAKER playing with it, don't you have countless other genre films to love? What's the harm in one guy doing something different?

It's not his fault. He has to sell these expensive movies somehow. At least he's creative about it with the lack of floating heads on the Signs posters and not centering on "MEL GIBSON!" in the ads.

Sigh. I don't think he's doing anything new with the genres he's going with particularly. But that's not what I meant. What I mean is what I went on to talk about, i.e. the whole issue that a film becomes more legitimate when it's a "thriller" than a "horror." That's what kind of bugs me. I'm not especially talking about marketing. I'm talking about the way these films seem to be brought across as a whole, but then again, it's probably not specifically his fault.

I can't say my annoyance has ever been drawn to the camerwork in any of his movies. What problems do you have with it, Charles?

It was mostly in UNBREAKABLE really. I was really distracted through that whole flick because the camerawork just seemed awful. Maybe it was the guy's intention, but I found it horrific to watch.

I can understand people's negative reactuions to him; He loves to be the face of his movies, which inevitably attracts criticism directly to him, he is first in line for accolades as well as trashing. This is both egotistical as well as refreshing in that he takes his work as more than just a film, but as a reflection of himself. Speilberg and others maybe learned to back of and let films be judged as entertainment, while Shyamalan needs to grow into this approach. I'm sure he needs a lot of growth, becoming so sucessful so quickly doesn't always mean you are ready to handle the spotlight.

As far as his movies go; I really enjoyed the Village more than his others, but I was expecting a "horror" but instead really found a drama with dark undertones, a James Newton Howard score that is beautifully written and matches the emotion of the movie, and an overall look at people's fears and emotions that a standard horror flick would not develop. Some of it's corny, some of the story leaves questions unanswered, holes in the legitamacy, but I don't think his aim was to patch together a totally believable story as much as it was to show the human interactions. Unbreakable was the same, he wasn't trying to make a spiderman or hellboy movie with action and super powers galore, but a look at humans and their emotions/abilities to do good and evil.

Maybe I'm too liberal with the praise, but I for one enjoy all his character development, emotions, cinematography and story telling ability even though I look at the aliens or other tools he uses to facilitate the story as less than believable or imaginative. I love horror above all other movies, and Shyamalan's stuff is not horror to me, but still very good stuff,, though the studios and marketing people take that angle to try and pump up his movies at the box office.

I love the camerawork in all his movies, especially Unbreakable (so many great shots, the opening with no cuts until 5 minutes later, the one of Bruce being told he survived a train crash in the background, with a dying person in the foreground, blood seeping out of a wound, etc, etc).

I think what is irking alot of people (or just me) is the formula or template of his films, there is the now officially boring 'twist' at the end, and the horror-lite thriller genre traits among other things. I really think he should branch out and try different genres, or at least keep trying to best himself with each effort. I've been less impressed with his films from Sign onwards, I hope the trend doesnt continue with this mermaid story or whatever it is, but we'll see...

The guy is a complete one hit wonder in my book. Unbreakable was a great little thriller. Frankly there was not one thing in the movie that I did not like, from the story to the performances and camera work etc. The rest of his filmography ranges from interesting but dull films(Signs, the The Sixth Sense) to almost unwatchable tripel(The Village). I don't hate the man but I really think he may be the most overrated mainstream director ever.

One hit wonder? I don't think so. He's obviously very talented but is using the same bag of tricks. He just needs to pound those scripts into the pavement before starting production. That's his biggest problem. He spent 17 drafts trying to find Sixth Sense and it shows. He took a long time crafting the script for Signs and it also shows.

Like Lucas, he doesn't spend enough time on the fucking writing, which is where the real filmmaking is. If you don't have a rock solid foundation, how can you expect to construct a stable building?

I very much liked "Sixth Sense" and "Signs", thought "Unbreakable" was mediocre, and that the "Village" was ruined by a unbelievable main plot premise. I simply could not buy it, and that ruined the movie IMHO.
I think the Shylmalan has to be wary of "surprise endings" from now on. The one in "Village" blew up in his face and since the film depended on it working it deep sixed the whole film.
I think the guy has talent, but he goes to the "Twist Ending" well too often.
One problem he has is that if people are expecting a twist ending, it is harder to pull one off, and people have come to expect a twist ending in a Shylaman film, ironically making it harder to pull off.
I thought it was a step ahead for him when he did not have a twist ending in "Signs", and a huge step back when he went back to that well in "Village".
I agree that Howard's music was one of the strong points in "The Village", maybe the strongest thing about the film.

I really don't get the point of attacking the guy for his films. Leave him alone and take the pressure off of him. He's probably under enough pressure as it is with his next film, if the box office fails to show again he might have trouble getting funding for anything he makes after.

And I think he's stuck in the spotlight right now and may not want to be. Studio's and the general public have labled him as the twist ending guy and at first he went along with it because it sold tickets, but now he's finding out how boxed in he really is. Probably realizing that no matter what kind of film he makes the studio will still market it as from the director of Sixth Sense and Signs rather than try to maket it on it's story alone. Which means that even though his next film may not be a thriller, the thriller crowd will be the first to see it and start the word of mouth on it.

This guy's made four straight big budget studio films in which nothing ponderously happens, and THE VILLAGE was a literal insult, one without the balls to end with, "Stupid fucking white people." I'm done with him.

I suggest you look up the correct usage for the term literal.

No, no, I'm pretty sure I meant what I said.