I think Sixth Sense was probably his best film, but I liked Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village a lot too. (that's right, i said The Village)
Anyone have any news about that new Lady in the Water movie he's making?

I agree that he broke the band -- and the mold -- with THE SIXTH SENSE. I was completely blown away -- and completely fooled -- by this. A great job. I think his work is going in a downhill direction, which, I guess is not hard to do when you compare his post SIXTH SENSE output to that film. UNBREAKABLE and SIGNS were ok, but I thought THE VILLAGE was tired and worn out. Unlike SIXTH SENSE, I wasn't fooled by THE VILLAGE'S gimmick and that probably had a lot to do with why I didn't like the flick.

Who am I kidding, sixth sense is definitely his best film...
Signs seemed really good right after I saw it, but after that it was pretty much unmemorable, so i guess it wasnt that great. i liked unbreakable's twist at the end a lot, but it was kind of slow, which is probably one of the (many) reasons why it wasn't the caliber sixth sense was. And, regarding the village, i'm probably in a small minority, but i stand by my support of it. It was also pretty slow, and the dialogue didnt flow as well as it could of, but it really made me think about the whole good vs. evil thing, or how people feel about the unknown, plus I liked william hurt's performance a lot.
Also, i think it's pretty cool how M. Night makes small parts for himself in his movies.

quote:

LordSmoogsbottomIII posted:

And, regarding the village, i'm probably in a small minority, but i stand by my support of it. It was also pretty slow, and the dialogue didnt flow as well as it could of, but it really made me think about the whole good vs. evil thing, or how people feel about the unknown, plus I liked william hurt's performance a lot.

I can understand and sympathize with your interpretation and appreciate of the film. What really bothered me was the trailers, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that led me to have certain expectations of the movie when I begin to watch it that were dashed and not met by the time I was through. It took me about half the movie to figure out what was going on but by then it was too late to begin to appreciate what the director really had intended. I'm just sorry that I didn't have an opportunity to see this movie with a fresh set of eyes, unpolluted by the advertising promotions.

Shyamalan has talent to burn, but conceptually, he's really starting to feel like a one "trick" pony...be nice to seem him try his hand at something that didn't rely on a gimmick ending.

We'll have to see how his 2006 effort, Lady in the Water turns out. Sounds a bit of a different direction for him.

quote:

What really bothered me was the trailers, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that led me to have certain expectations of the movie when I begin to watch it that were dashed and not met by the time I was through. It took me about half the movie to figure out what was going on but by then it was too late to begin to appreciate what the director really had intended. I'm just sorry that I didn't have an opportunity to see this movie with a fresh set of eyes, unpolluted by the advertising promotions.

I really liked that trailer, the way it ended with joaquin taking the first step into the woods, but it probably got a ton of peoples' hopes up that the movie would be something its not. Most people in the aol forums put it under the "horror" movie section, which is totally incorrect if you ask me

M. Night Shyamalan's work has been declining in quality ever since his HUGE, and great, debut, the Sixth Sense. Also, it seems like he's always trying to top his genious twist of his debut in order to please the public, and has failed his past three times. Though, one great thing about Mr. Shyamalan is that his characters, settings, and conflicts change with each movie. Hopefully his new picture will restore him back to his "aftermath of Sixth Sense" time of praise.

quote:

M. Night Shyamalan's work has been declining in quality ever since his HUGE, and great, debut, the Sixth Sense. Also, it seems like he's always trying to top his genious twist of his debut in order to please the public, and has failed his past three times. Though, one great thing about Mr. Shyamalan is that his characters, settings, and conflicts change with each movie. Hopefully his new picture will restore him back to his "aftermath of Sixth Sense" time of praise.

Yeah, no way is he ever going to make an ending as good as sixth sense, but i think he deserves a small applause for effort. This next lady in the water film looks like its gonna be different, and hopefully it will help him break the "twist ending" streak and expand his repetoire (spelling?). Also, im pretty sure he does it intentionally, but i noticed he uses some actors for more than one movie> Willis in Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, Phoenix in Signs and the Village, Howard in the Village and Lady in the Water, possibly paul giamatti again in his sixth movie?

Say what you want about some of his movies being better than others, I'll still go see whatever he makes. Even though his story-telling skill is stronger in some movies, the man seems to have some kind of connection to the collective unconscious which is interesting even when the story is poorly told.

quote:

Say what you want about some of his movies being better than others, I'll still go see whatever he makes. Even though his story-telling skill is stronger in some movies, the man seems to have some kind of connection to the collective unconscious which is interesting even when the story is poorly told.

Are you talking to me or people in general? cuz i see whatever he makes too. some will be better and some wont be quite as good, but none of his movies have been a waste. they're all definitely worth seeing. and i definitely agree with the last comment, his movies all seem to touch on human nature or emotions, which is sometimes uncommon in movies.

Sometimes he's a bit obvious. The best example I can think of is in "Signs"--Mel Gibson's character is a priest, or minister (can't recall) who's lost his faith after some bad happenings.

Shyamalan shows this with some pretty heavy-handed symbolism. In a camera shot that really draws attention to itself--"Look at the mise en scene!! It's important!! Look right HERE!"--Gibson walks past the outline of a cross on the wall, where a crucifix presumably once hung.

He's learned a few tricks from the movies and directors he likes, but those tricks jump right off the screen to the point that it's like, "OK, there's some Kubrick..now here's some Hitchcock..and now, of course, some Spielberg.."

Well, it looks like M. Night is in career free fall. His new film LADY IN THE WATER has received some of the worst reviews of the year. I have seen all four of M. Night's films with increasing decreasing returns, but it looks like the well is dry with this one. He has hit bottom.

quote:

ChrisFromAstoria Posted 27 July 2006 11:17 AM

Well, it looks like M. Night is in career free fall. His new film LADY IN THE WATER has received some of the worst reviews of the year. I have seen all four of M. Night's films with increasing decreasing returns, but it looks like the well is dry with this one. He has hit bottom.

The discrepancy between the very negative professional reviews and the more mild and somewhat positive reviews of the lay public suggest to me that perhaps there is a reverse bias going on (which I agree I am also guilty of because it was one of my major complaints about this movie) where it's ok for a respected actor to turn director but it's more of a pronounced selfish act to star (at least co-star) in one's own movie that one is directing (director turned actor). There are cameos by directors but rarely a pronounced presence. My constant thought that this character is also the director interfered with my actual ability to accept the character and judge his performance.

I have not seen Lady in the Water yet, but I will… as a rental. I’d really like to see Shyamalamadingdong direct… and ONLY direct his next film. The movies he’s made have an incredible sense of mood and mystery. He is talented, but he suffers from a bloated ego.

A part of me wonders if he’ll ever show some level of humility by A) not casting himself in his next movie and B) allowing a professional writer to develop his next screenplay.

I think he creates his movies, not so much for the art, but for the acclaim he receives from his fans. The premise for making the movie, Lady in the Water, is a bedtime story he told his children. Only a fan would appreciate such an amateurish basis for a movie. The problem is that there are too many M. Night fans… and not enough fans of pure cinema.

When I look at a crumpled candy wrapper on the ground, I see garbage. But if M. Night dropped the wrapper, in the eyes of his fans, the wrapper is something to behold. Just because the guy is popular, doesn’t make his stuff great. Brittany Spears, anyone?

I thought "Sixth Sense" was a masterpiece, and I even enjoyed "The Village" on some level, but after "Lady in the Water" he needs to be pulled from the bottom and given CPR.

I find M. Night to be just barely decent at what he does.

All of his movies seem to be "original," for the sheer sake of BEING original. They have no artistic side, and their plots are inconsistent.

As well, he seems to make his plots dependent on the movie "twists," (Which you normally have to wait through the entirety to find out.) With movies such as "The Usual Suspects," and "The Crying Game," the twists were still very well done, yet the plot was not centered around them. I find that if you would remove the movie twists out of the plots of Shamylamalama's movies, the movie would be left as a boring piece of rubbish.

For example, in "THe Village," I had anticipated the twist from the very beginning, but even so, that was the only aspect that even made it slightly above par. The plots of the "Sixth Sense," and "Unbreakable" were mildly better but still nothing worth aknowledging.

I liked The Sixth Sense, though I knew pretty quickly what was going on. Two things gave it away for me.

I haven't liked anything he's done before or since. I find him too egotistical, too. He's not Alfred Hitchcock and, in my opinion, never will be his equal.

True, but how could anybody else be Hitch?

Shama-lama-ding -dong is a hack fo' sho'.
Just look at the way he repeats the same shots at the beginning of 6th Sense, unable to lift himself out of a limited vision.
He often chooses poorly framed and badly executed scenes to focus on , and ultimately creates out of balance disasters.