If only his screen narratives were as convincing as his internal denial narrative.

Want a good review? Make a good movie.

I really liked Sixth Sense. I know a lot of people say they saw through it immediately. I'm usually pretty good at knowing where a movie is going, but that one had me till the end. Everything since then, meh.

The Sixth Sense was an awesome movie. Unbreakable was also a really great feeling movie. Lots of people seem to like Signs, I found the outcome of that to be pretty pathetic.

But, yeah... I haven't seen anything good since. I haven't seen all of his since mind you, but I haven't wanted to based on the reviews.

Dude. Your movie was shit. Last Airbender was horrendous. I could only stand 15 mins of it before I walked out.

I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.

I think a lot of Shyamalan's problems are that he's focused on a different aspect of the movie than most people are.

Let's look at Signs. That was really the first one, I think, that generated widespread disdain. Signs, IMO, was a good story but a bad movie.

Most people talking about Signs would focus on how stupid it is that aliens would invade a planet that's "infested" with water, if you will, when they themselves are water soluble. They would also talk about how unbelievable the aliens were on screen. The "twist" at the end was also way more predictable than 6th Sense and Unbreakable. I'm not saying these aren't valid criticisms; they absolutely detract from the movie as a whole (and ultimately ruined it for me).

But the underlying story about faith, doubt, destiny, self-worth and discovery is wonderful. This is where I think Shyamalan really shines -- in telling stories about characters who learn/discover things about themselves. This is also what I suspect he is focusing on, sometimes to the point of tunnel-vision. He ends up serving a gourmet meal on a cracked plate and a lot of people spend so much time staring at the crack that they forget to taste the food.

I loved The Sixth Sense. Unbreakable is my favorite film specifically because of the underlying story of destiny and self-discovery. It also happens that I really enjoy both the subtle and not-subtle comic book references, so the surface story appeals to me as well. Signs was a misstep but The Village was a move back in the right direction. Lady in the Water was more like Signs; a good beneath a crappy veneer.

Since then his movies have been fairly ordinary, uninteresting, routine Hollywood affairs. I haven't seen any of them.

More than anything, I think it's become popular to dislike him and his movies. Nobody had a bad thing to say about Sixth Sense until Signs came out and all the sudden everyone claimed to have never liked any of his films.

I wish he would go back to doing what he is really good at but also fix the distractions. Serve us our meals on plates that are worthy of the food they're carrying.

I am a fan of the Airbender anime. He should be shot for what he did to it.

I have never seen the Airbender anime (but plan to), so this was my first exposure to that story world. I found the movie to be bad, but mainly for the acting. I think there was about 3 people that could act in it like Shaun Toub (who was in Iron Man), Cliff Curtis (Live Free or Die Hard, Fracture) and even Aasif Mandvi wasn't too bad. The rest were either outright bad or completely forgettable.

As for M. Night, Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were fantastic, Signs was just OK and I have not seen most of his others. I did see The Village and actually thought it was pretty good. I think that most of the hate is actually just disappointment after his first two and he just hasn't been hitting that quality level since.

I actually quite liked Lady in the Water...Maybe I'll watch it again someday I wonder what I was thinkin.

But yah. Airbender. Wow was that shit. I've seen better on straight to DVD. I think my favorite bit was the romance between that little ice princess and some guy which goes from first meeting, to love at first to her giving her life in about 6 seconds flat. Yes the acting was terrible, but so was everything else. Literally everything...oh the effects were ok!

The Happening was worse tho. Nothing happened. Well some trees shook in the wind and people went suicidal. The End.

Doesn't anyone care about the bees???!?!?

>> ^Jinx:

I actually quite liked Lady in the Water...Maybe I'll watch it again someday I wonder what I was thinkin.
But yah. Airbender. Wow was that shit. I've seen better on straight to DVD. I think my favorite bit was the romance between that little ice princess and some guy which goes from first meeting, to love at first to her giving her life in about 6 seconds flat. Yes the acting was terrible, but so was everything else. Literally everything...oh the effects were ok!
The Happening was worse tho. Nothing happened. Well some trees shook in the wind and people went suicidal. The End.


because audiences have too much ADD to enjoy a story where danger literally surrounds you, but doesn't come in the form of a CGI-alien or explosion... how do you fight plant life? or bacteria? or viruses?

in a movie that is hard... the brain dead way (pun) is to use zombies... then we can alleviate some of that ADD with boo scare factor

literally people have to stop going to his films expecting summer blockbusters... and have to start looking at the characterization more... he's not aiming for highbrow, and too many lowbrow seem to go to his movies and get pissed... he wants you to invest a bit into the movie, not just be taken for a pants wetting ride

the same people (i've found anyhoos) who detest his movies, find Hitchcock to be boring as well... I'm not saying MNS and HC are on the same level... but there's definitely some stylistic overlap...

you get out what you put in... if you have nothing to put in, there's plenty of summer blockbusters to for you... you can drool over Megan Fox (or her replacement) and then drool over how cool the transformers look and come out feeling like you spent your money well... but hardly as though you've been challenged as a viewer... beyond eye strain I suppose

I usually find that M.'s movies grow on me. Very funguslike and creepy. I like them.

Dude... if Hitchcock, Kurosawa, and Kubrick are your teachers, then perhaps you need to become a more attentive student!

Their movies don't SUCK as a matter of principle.

Hi M. Night!

>> ^packo:


because audiences have too much ADD to enjoy a story where danger literally surrounds you, but doesn't come in the form of a CGI-alien or explosion... how do you fight plant life? or bacteria? or viruses?
in a movie that is hard... the brain dead way (pun) is to use zombies... then we can alleviate some of that ADD with boo scare factor
literally people have to stop going to his films expecting summer blockbusters... and have to start looking at the characterization more... he's not aiming for highbrow, and too many lowbrow seem to go to his movies and get pissed... he wants you to invest a bit into the movie, not just be taken for a pants wetting ride
the same people (i've found anyhoos) who detest his movies, find Hitchcock to be boring as well... I'm not saying MNS and HC are on the same level... but there's definitely some stylistic overlap...
you get out what you put in... if you have nothing to put in, there's plenty of summer blockbusters to for you... you can drool over Megan Fox (or her replacement) and then drool over how cool the transformers look and come out feeling like you spent your money well... but hardly as though you've been challenged as a viewer... beyond eye strain I suppose

>> ^shponglefan:

I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.


incorrect, sixth sense was ..... decent and he's been recycling the same damn formula over and over again because he's a one trick pony

and his obsession with (fucking ill executed) twist endings is ultimately his downfall. put another way, i was able to pick out who the devil was in "Devil" on the fucking trailer alone, it was blindingly obvious

>> ^packo:

>> ^Jinx:
I actually quite liked Lady in the Water...Maybe I'll watch it again someday I wonder what I was thinkin.
But yah. Airbender. Wow was that shit. I've seen better on straight to DVD. I think my favorite bit was the romance between that little ice princess and some guy which goes from first meeting, to love at first to her giving her life in about 6 seconds flat. Yes the acting was terrible, but so was everything else. Literally everything...oh the effects were ok!
The Happening was worse tho. Nothing happened. Well some trees shook in the wind and people went suicidal. The End.

because audiences have too much ADD to enjoy a story where danger literally surrounds you, but doesn't come in the form of a CGI-alien or explosion... how do you fight plant life? or bacteria? or viruses?
in a movie that is hard... the brain dead way (pun) is to use zombies... then we can alleviate some of that ADD with boo scare factor
literally people have to stop going to his films expecting summer blockbusters... and have to start looking at the characterization more... he's not aiming for highbrow, and too many lowbrow seem to go to his movies and get pissed... he wants you to invest a bit into the movie, not just be taken for a pants wetting ride
the same people (i've found anyhoos) who detest his movies, find Hitchcock to be boring as well... I'm not saying MNS and HC are on the same level... but there's definitely some stylistic overlap...
you get out what you put in... if you have nothing to put in, there's plenty of summer blockbusters to for you... you can drool over Megan Fox (or her replacement) and then drool over how cool the transformers look and come out feeling like you spent your money well... but hardly as though you've been challenged as a viewer... beyond eye strain I suppose


from someone who finds hitchcocks approach fascinating, shyalaman is a fucking dumbass

as far as The Happening and Hitchcock are concerned, the difference is this: The Birds made me scared of birds, Psycho made me scared to take showers (and of my mother, strangely enough), Rear Window made me paranoid as hell towards my neighbors......The Happening? ya, still not scared of plants....in fact, fuck plants, stupid plants, being all.....planty

he can try and be hitchcock all he wants but he's always gonna fall desperately short

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm with you on this one. I would prefer to watch the worst Shymalan movie over the best Michael Bay flick. Somehow Bay gets a free-ride for his CGI splooge fests. At least M. Night's movies focus on story over special effects. And also - Sixth Sense was a *sensational* movie - he gets a lot of credit from me for that one. >> ^shponglefan:

I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.

@xxovercastxx

I'm perhaps less of a hater than others posting, but really I only feel that Shammy has two good movies and maybe not in the order that everyone else seems to think:

I thought Unbreakable was a bit meh. Everyone seemed to love it, but I have a real hard time with movies that end with text (with the possible exception of historical movies and even then I'm never a huge fan of text as a way to tie up a film). In Unbreakable's case though, I found it even worse because they were glossing over really important stuff. I feel like that movie could have worked amazingly for me if they tacked on another 45 min where Sam Jackson actively became the bad guy. To me he ended that movie right at the point where it got interesting.

Then came Six Sense. It was good, but the major problem I have with it is that it is a two view movie. I never want to see it again. You see it once to get "fooled" by the twist and then you watch it again to catch all the little things... oh look, he's wearing the same set of clothes the whole time, oh look, nobody except the little boy talks back to him, oh look, he's dead. Don't get me wrong, this is one of his two good movies, but I feel like the dependency on the twist is the movie, you remove that and there is nothing really to it.

Which brings me to Signs. I actually think this is his best movie specifically BECAUSE it would have worked great without the twist. The buildup is masterful. The fear of what you DON'T see if perfect in this film. The sound editing and music were fantastic. Mind you, I'm a sucker for aliens, but this movie really pushed my buttons in a good way right up until the end. There was a review I read around the time that came out that really summarized it: this is like Jaws with aliens. You don't see them much for most of the movie and then the last third they are trapped on a boat (house) with the baddies circling outside ready to pick them off. As for the twist, I actually didn't mind it, and I didn't care about the water thing. The only thing that heavily concerned me was that Shammy was suddenly showing an almost cartoon-like dependency on this whole "twist" thing.

And there is where I fall in line with everyone else: it seems like he can't make a movie (aside from Airbender to which he didn't write the fundamental plot) without some sort of hidden twist. The Village, the Happening... again it would have been really interesting to see what he could have done with these movies if he had just played them straight.

It is kind of sad to watch him in this video though. To say that someone "didn't get" The Last Airbender is kinda ludicrous. It was painful on so many levels that I strongly feel he can't hide behind the whole "its for kids" thing. All I have to say to that is: Pixar. Anyone who panders to kids and doesn't challenge them with a movie good enough for adults to enjoy just shouldn't be making movies.

Then again, if Uwe Boll can keep making movies, I'm not surprised Shammy keeps getting bank rolled for his films. I just hope one day he can realize that he has the talent for a good buildup without the need to turn it all Twilight Zone at the end. I feel like the whole world is yelling that at him but he isn't listening...

at the request of BoneRemake (because my "m night shyalaman is an idiot" rebuttal wasnt long winded enough =P):

sixth sense was "meh" for the following reasons:
"These souls who for whatever reason are not at rest are also not aware that they have passed on. Theyre not part of consciousness as we know it. they linger in a perpetual dream state; a nightmare from which they cannot wake." this may sound familiar. it may sound familiar as the general premise of The Sixth Sense and central to the "twist" (if you could even call it that) ending.

it may also sound familiar as a line from Poltergeist, and also being the central premise of the conflict resolution.
speaking of poltergeist, the open cabinet drawers scene in sixth sense is directly lifted from the moving chairs scene in poltergeist. you may call this an homage, i call it half-assed hackery.

his color reference as hints are just too obvious. theyre vague and ambiguous at first, but once you start noticing em it becomes plainly clear. as for the whole "twist" BRUCE WILLIS IS DEAD OMG YOU FOOLED ME YOU OLD TOSSER i felt it took away from the movie. when i originally went to see the sixth sense with my dad i went to see a tense psychological thriller that would chill me. and for the first 20-30 minutes or so, it did not disappoint..... until my dad and i figured out willis was dead (the "i see dead people" scene gave it away for us). we were dumbfounded at first, wondering what in the hell this had to do with furthering the plot, but we didnt need to wonder anymore once the movie became about bruce willis being all emo about being dead. and the big reveal at the end, considering we already knew, really just made us both scoff. simply put, it was a pretty scare and intense movie when it was about the boy, then it became boring and stupid when it does a 180 and becomes about bruce willis. thats my opinion anyway, tomaytoe-tomawtoe

now having said all of that, there is one, and only one thing, i like about shyalaman: his vision as a director. He's not a genius or anything, but he's pretty damn good. he has a real knack for framing, tone, and pacing. probably the only thing i like about sixth sense was his ability to add tangible tension through masterful pacing and mood setting.
....i take that back. theres two things i liked about sixth sense. the overall directing, and the anniversary dinner scene. that scene really did add an ambiguity to the whole dilemma of willis being dead. on one hand the scene must play out as an emotionally drained wife frustrated (and even pissed off) at her husbands increasing distance. simultaneously she must convey a mournful widow still in grief over her husbands death on their anniversary (and the anniversary of his death if im not mistaken). that scene is legit. but credit must be given to the actress and her portrayal more so than shyalaman because she nailed it beautifully.

whether he makes shitty films or not, sixth sense rocked the boxoffice and gave him some arguably deserved limelight. but his subsequent films proved that he is a one trick pony. his movies became exponentially more and more transparent, more and more boring, and more and more stale, lacking anything of substance. (with the exception of Signs arguably. i personally didnt love it, but i kind of liked it and its a solid enough film if you disregard the shit ending) the fact that his handle of "the twist ending filmmaker" is a passive aggressive insult shows this.

m night shyalaman as a filmmaker just.......sucks. theres really not a better or more concise way to put it. as a director, however, he really does shine......which brings us to devil, a movie in which he wrote and produced but did not direct. so basically the one thing he's actually good at, he didnt fucking do in that movie........and it shows.....its utter shite. at the risk of sounding pretentious, the twist ending (cuz you know theres fucking gonna be one, its a shyalaman movie for christ sake) is so limp and stupid, you can figure it out just from watching the damn trailer (i did).

and as far as the michael bay (barf) comparisons, i think the only difference is this: michael bay knows what he is. he knows exactly what kind of movies he makes. In cinema, motion pictures come in two forms: Films (art form) and movies (entertainment). Michael bay makes the latter, and he knows it, and everyone who watches his movies knows it. shyalaman makes movies masquerading as film. seriously, when your go to device is the plot twist, and you have one in each and every one of your god awful movies, they really lose the "surprise" appeal which utterly defeats the purpose of it in the first place and thus, deserves to be mocked

there, that a thorough enough rebuttal for ya, you crusty bastard? =P

>> ^dag:

I'm with you on this one. I would prefer to watch the worst Shymalan movie over the best Michael Bay flick. Somehow Bay gets a free-ride for his CGI splooge fests. At least M. Night's movies focus on story over special effects. And also - Sixth Sense was a sensational movie - he gets a lot of credit from me for that one. >> ^shponglefan:
I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.



while i dont contest your points on michael bay (but really tho, someone has to make the dumbed down, cgi porn, movies that will appease the average movie goer) couldnt one argue that shyalaman was more or less given a free pass to shill out essentially the same movie in a different package over and over and over again. he makes sixth sense, its a smashing success, he's hailed as among the best new filmmakers at the time, everyone and their mom wants to finance his next movie....i dont see a difference

you know, he really is kind of the nicholas sparks of the film industry

he cites hitchcock and kubrick and in the same breath claims we "dont get him" cuz of cultural differences? american film goers "got" kubrick (mostly). american film goers "got" hitchcock. so whats your fucking excuse again?

M. Night: 'It's ok if the critics dislike my films because the audiences do.'

No, your movies often lose money you unrepentant ****.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Well how about the free pass that Bay gets to make the same rock-m-sock-em robot movie over and over. God, if I never see another Transformer again in my life I'll be happy.

I've *at least* mildly enjoyed every Shymalan flick I've seen. (although I have not seen the Airbender movie) My point is that a lot of Directors get a free ride. I wouldn't say that Shymalan is one of them. In fact he seems to be mercilessly mocked and ridiculed. Probably because he puts himself out there - and comparing himself to Hitchcock doesn't help. He's eccentric - and I like him.
>> ^smooman:

>> ^dag:
I'm with you on this one. I would prefer to watch the worst Shymalan movie over the best Michael Bay flick. Somehow Bay gets a free-ride for his CGI splooge fests. At least M. Night's movies focus on story over special effects. And also - Sixth Sense was a sensational movie - he gets a lot of credit from me for that one. >> ^shponglefan:
I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.


while i dont contest your points on michael bay (but really tho, someone has to make the dumbed down, cgi porn, movies that will appease the average movie goer) couldnt one argue that shyalaman was more or less given a free pass to shill out essentially the same movie in a different package over and over and over again. he makes sixth sense, its a smashing success, he's hailed as among the best new filmmakers at the time, everyone and their mom wants to finance his next movie....i dont see a difference

>> ^dag:

In fact he seems to be mercilessly mocked and ridiculed.

and very rightly so.

>> ^dag:

Well how about the free pass that Bay gets to make the same rock-m-sock-em robot movie over and over. God, if I never see another Transformer again in my life I'll be happy.

What's wrong with you? Don't you want to see a car chase on a freeway again?

With cars flipping over?

Come on, we all love cars flipping.

On freeways.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

That's what was missing from Citizen Kane - freeway car flips. Michael Bay should do a remake.>> ^spoco2:

>> ^dag:
Well how about the free pass that Bay gets to make the same rock-m-sock-em robot movie over and over. God, if I never see another Transformer again in my life I'll be happy.
What's wrong with you? Don't you want to see a car chase on a freeway again?
With cars flipping over?
Come on, we all love cars flipping.
On freeways.

>> ^chilaxe:

M. Night: 'It's ok if the critics dislike my films because the audiences do.'
No, your movies often lose money you unrepentant .


That's actually not true. Even his lowest grossing movie (Lady in the Water) made its budget back, if only barely, and is the closest thing he's made to a financial flop.

As much as everyone hated Airbender, it made over $300 million worldwide. The Happening, his next most derided movie, made over $160. So as much as everyone hates him, we're still seeing his movies.

@Sarzy

My understanding is that marketing budgets tend to be roughly equal to production budgets, so double the listed production budget to find the true cost of the film.

A "profitable" movie in Hollywood means earning a lot more than for example a 15% return on investment after 3 years (5% per year) of transferring the money because the ROI has to compensate for that there's substantial risk involved.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Sarzy
My understanding is that marketing budgets tend to be roughly equal to production budgets, so double the listed production budget to find the true cost of the film.
A "profitable" movie in Hollywood means earning a lot more than for example a 15% return on investment after 3 years (5% per year) of transferring the money because the ROI has to compensate for that there's substantial risk involved.


Well, notwithstanding the vagaries of profitability in the studio system, I think it's generally accepted that -- broadly speaking at least -- a movie is considered successful if it makes back its reported budget.

But even by your stricter definition of what constitutes a successful movie, with the exception of Lady in the Water, all of Shamalan's movies pass that test.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^chilaxe:
@Sarzy
My understanding is that marketing budgets tend to be roughly equal to production budgets, so double the listed production budget to find the true cost of the film.
A "profitable" movie in Hollywood means earning a lot more than for example a 15% return on investment after 3 years (5% per year) of transferring the money because the ROI has to compensate for that there's substantial risk involved.

Well, notwithstanding the vagaries of profitability in the studio system, I think it's generally accepted that -- broadly speaking at least -- a movie is considered successful if it makes back its reported budget.
But even by your stricter definition of what constitutes a successful movie, with the exception of Lady in the Water, all of Shamalan's movies pass that test.


Titanic grossed almost 2 billion.....whats your point?

>> ^smooman:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^chilaxe:
@Sarzy
My understanding is that marketing budgets tend to be roughly equal to production budgets, so double the listed production budget to find the true cost of the film.
A "profitable" movie in Hollywood means earning a lot more than for example a 15% return on investment after 3 years (5% per year) of transferring the money because the ROI has to compensate for that there's substantial risk involved.

Well, notwithstanding the vagaries of profitability in the studio system, I think it's generally accepted that -- broadly speaking at least -- a movie is considered successful if it makes back its reported budget.
But even by your stricter definition of what constitutes a successful movie, with the exception of Lady in the Water, all of Shamalan's movies pass that test.

Titanic grossed almost 2 billion.....whats your point?


My point was just that Chilaxe was wrong about Shyamalan's movies losing money. I wasn't commenting on the quality of his movies at all.