RichC2

The ads and trailers lack any sense of suspense or interest for me.

HE Pennypacker

I LOVED The Village and will be there on opening night for "Lady." It's good to see that the early word on this film seems to be rather positive.

gryffinmaster

Count me in the "M. Night ain't let me down" crowd. I enjoy all of Shyamalan's work (creatively, stylishly, and narratively) and will be there opening night for Lady in the Water.

Kudama

I was completely surprised at the lack of love for The Village (hello? There was no twist, just cool story with good acting) and absolutely love Unbreakable.

The audience has relegated him to "one note" by their own expectations on his work and they seldom come into his films without preconditions.

lukewarmwater

I'm going to wait for the reviews on this. I went to see the village on opening day not knowing what the reviews said or heard any word of mouth, and it was like watching an hour and a half of a good movie and then getting kicked in the balls the last ten minutes.

Unbreakable was great though.

sethsez

I'd say a story full of plot holes and uneven acting that's further hampered by awful dialog, actually. And even when approached as a bigger-budget episode of The Twilight Zone, it's still hard to get past the fact that Rod Serling already did that kind of story with far more panache and wit.

HE Pennypacker

The plot holes are something I can let slide, especially with a Shyamalan film which has so many other redeeming aspects to it. I find it noteworthy how much nitpicking goes on with his movies, while other films seem to get thrown into the "suspension of disbelief" department.

I can understand the gripes people have with the dialogue, but it did make sense considering what the film was leading us to believe. As far as the acting is concerned, I didn't find it uneven. I'd go as far as to say that some of the scenes with Bill Hurt were incredibly good, not to mention the Oscar-worthy performance of Bryce Dallas Howard.

The Village was absolutely NOTHING like that horrible Twilight Zone episode. is arguably the worst episode in the history of the series. But that is beside the point. I always see people comparing The Village to that episode, but where the hell are the similarities aside ?

sethsez

Well, the thing with Shyamalan is that his films tend to revolve around larger truths that the audience isn't privy to until near the end. This doesn't mean they're all about the twist, but they are at least partially about the mystery and the way everything is balanced. When a plot hole is spotted, it robs the mystery of a lot of its legitimacy. Other movies can get away with plot holes because the tautness of their scripts is not necessarily the main interest, but a plot hole in a Shyamalan movie is like bad dialog in a Woody Allen movie, or dull visuals in an Argento movie.

Actually, this is one of the things that felt cheap to me.

NitroJMS

So how does Lady in the Water end exactly? I have no interest in seeing this film, since I absolutely hated Signs.

Link_182

I can't understand the hatred for M. Night. The guy makes great looking films and uses a thing Hollywood doesn't often use. It's called creativity. The guy takes chances. I guess for some of you, not all of them worked. Which is fine, but you can't deny that the guys a good filmmaker. I think his desire to go for the different and controversial, rather than the safe and easy is refreshing. But if I had to point out a flaw, it's that he thinks out things too much. He wants to make a masterpiece. He's Brian Wilson, and it's probobly gonna make him go crazy.

But really his films are never about what they are supposed to be about. They are about the characters. If you just focus on that, and forget about the water killing the aliens, you'll find some of the most moving films of the last decade.

sethsez

The problem is that he's a far better director than a writer. He tries to create intricate plots that keep the audience on their toes, but too often he falls back on old tropes and cliches that undermine the integrity of what he's trying to do. The Village is the worst at this... his desire to weave an intricate mystery winds up undermining the very basis of his story and characters. He pays so much attention to the details that he doesn't realize how ridiculous some of the big things are, and he tries to juggle so many things that he almost always winds up dropping at least one.

Basically, as a writer his ambition seems to exceed his talent. Sixth Sense worked because the characters were so compelling that any plot holes were easy to overlook, and Unbreakable didn't reach quite as far with its script (and this really worked to its advantage). Signs had an interesting theme that came to fruition in a very lame way that doesn't really stand up to any sort of scrutiny (which doesn't really reflect well on the central theme he's trying to convey), and The Village could barely maintain internal consistency without the audience having to assume that 1) the characters are all just blithering idiots without a lick of common sense, or that 2) Shyamalan considered building a mystery more important than maintaining the integrity of the characters and setting he created (I lean toward this).

I'm hoping Lady in the Water isn't as ambitious as his last two films are, because when he's dealing with a more straightforward story his positive aspects as a writer become more apparant.

Filmmaker

This post should be bronzed. That's the problem precisely and succinctly--he's a phenomenal director, one of the best on the scene (if perhaps a little too fond of "telling" rather than "showing" sometimes), but as a writer, he's abominable. If he could subvert his ego long enough to direct a better writer's material, it could represent cinematic genius.

Brent L

Filmmaker, I almost never agree with anything you try to defend on here, but I can't disagree with you there. I think he's a fine director, but his writing is, and always has been, horrible. I think he could do some amazing work if he joined up with a fantastic writer. The two could become something of a team and release any number of interesting films.

I don't know how you fill about Charlie Kaufman, but I'd like to see Shyamalan direct one of his screenplays, if only just once to see how it would go.

Anyway, no matter who he would work with, it would have to be a situation where Shyamalan had limits as to what he could change and things like that. I'm sure he could take a fantastic screenplay and totally screw it up by adding just a few of his "personal touches".

Life of Pi may or may not be what we're looking for in this respect, since I do believe that Shyamalan had quite a bit of input into the screenplay. Heck, last I heard he is listed as a co-writer on it. I don't know how much truth there is to that though.

fumanstan

I'd like to see a spoiler for this movie as well. I've enjoyed his other work, although i don't have any intention of seeing this one in the theater. Anyone wan to spill the beans as to how this one ends/plays out?

james2025a

Shyamalan is someone that doesn't deserve to be where he is. Admitted that i did think that the Sixth Sense was ok....but i saw the big twist coming as soon as Brucey got shot at the beginning of the film and found it rather straight forward film making from then on. Unbreakable was better, but still didn't really do as much as it could have. Since then the guy has done nothing of any interest IMO. Signs was awful. And the Village was one of the worst films i have ever seen. I guessed the ending of that film simply from watching the trailer it was so transparent. From what i haveread about the guy, he is full of his own importance and as Clint would say "Is a legend in his own mind."

The sooner people stop giving this guy (along with Uwe Boll and Paul W.S Anderson) money to make movies the better.

Dan1boy

really. what a jerk-off !!

HE Pennypacker

What an absolutely ludicrous comment. How anyone can relegate Shyamalan to the likes of Boll and Anderson is beyond me. I'll have to think twice before taking anything you say in the future seriously. I understand the dislike some people have for his films, but to make such outlandish comments is utterly absurd.

Cygnet74

having spent roughly 30 days working with Night, i can tell you that going in i had the same preconceived notion as you. but quickly realized that what people misinterpret as a massive ego is just a guy who is very confident in his ideas about storytelling and filmmaking. and that's not the same thing. he turned out to be very cool, very down to earth, and very aware that he is giving ammunition to all his critics by continuing to take roles in his movies. but that he's not going to waste his time by trying to appease them. he's just going to continue telling his stories in the best way he knows how and in the manner that he most enjoys while bringing them to life.

james2025a

The two directors i mentioned are just pure trash...i admit. But my problem with Shyamalan is that he has managed to gain A list director status without providing the goods. I think it takes more than one film to make a director. At least with Uwe Boll and Anderson i expect shit as thats all they ever produce and all that people expect. People always seem to expect greatness from Shyamalan's films and then get dissappointed when they see the end result. His films have gotten worse each time and i find it remarkable that people are still willing to give his films a chance. Once bitten, twice shy as they say. Now i can see that people commend him on the way his films are made in comparison to his writing abilities. Again i do not see anything that is special or that we havn't seen before. I admit that he uses a good cinematographer.....but at the end of the day you can't polish a turd. I think you needed to se my point in view in context.

Cygnet74

he attained A-list because his films make bank and because his name is a marketable "brand". joel schumacher is a-list, michael bay is a-list. not because their movies are good, but because they could simply list their box office performance on their resumés to continue working. shyamalan's films have made a cumulative worldwide gross of just over $1.5 billion. that's all you need in this industry to keep working. nobody cares how good the films are, just how much money they make.

and the rating you put on his film as each getting successively worse is a subjective critique that can't be argued, nor should it be used as proof of anything. for me, I'd rank them as Unbreakable, Lady in the Water, The Village, Sixth Sense, Signs. and im sure a million other people will value his films a million other ways.

btw, he's worked with four different cinematographers on his last five films.

james2025a

Well i understand that people can get by in the industry by having films make money...but your rationale that no one cares how good a film is but how much money it makes is rather wild. Scorsese is a classic example of someone who's box office is never onfire. He generally makes very good films that have limited audiences. I don't think that studios keep on giving him money to make these films because they are going to make a fortune from them. He is someone that has genuinley used his talent to prolong his life in the directors chair. He has made his name bankable because of the quality in the films he makes. Shyamalan IMO cannot say the same.

By the way, Joel Schumacher as an A-list director....that brought a smile to my face.

Filmmaker

Ah, shucks, you're gonna make me blush...

Cygnet74

you can find an exception to any rule, james. but generally, studios look at the bottom line. and executives whose decisions put their jobs on the line are more likely to hire a proven cashcow over an artist that takes risks. again, that's the general rule.

by the way, as good as he is, scorsese's name isn't "bankable", just recognizable.

it is unfortunate.