Night Shyamalan Films

Post Reply New Topic

I watched "Sixth Sense" again last night, and I still love it, fifth time round, spoilers spoiled and all. I think it is brilliant, about when you suddenly realise your world view has been completely skewed/partial/distorted; about being lonely, frightened, bullied, strange/different, and also visually.

I liked "Unbreakable" too, but have only seen it once ages ago.

I saw "Signs" again a month or so ago, and this time round, not expecting brilliant scary aliens or believable invasion, etc, I got an idea about what Shyamalan might have been trying to say/show, albeit too "messagey" for my taste, about how everything is connected, everything "means" something/has a function somewhere in the scheme of things.

But "The Village" I thought was feeble, lame, badly acted, non-credible, etc, and I haven't even dared to watch "Lady in the Water" or "The Happening" because of that.

What do other people think of Shyamalan?
.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Apr 2009, 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

I really enjoyed The Village, and Lady in the Water. The Happening wasn't all that great to be honest. Overall I find his movies to have a slightly deep sense to them, which i enjoy because most Hollywood movies are devoid of it. I would recommend Lady in th Water. In many ways it is slightly different from the other movies, it is almost fairytale like.

I like his movies Signs, The Village, Sixth Sense and he wrote Stuart Little.

Tbh he annoys me, what with his fancy titles, strange names (The Happening) and the fact that he cameos in every one cos he's no Hitchcock.

I would agree with you about The Village And, I would not recommend that you see Lady in the Water or The Happening for very similar reasons.

All the other movies of his that you mentioned, I enjoyed.

Shamalayan is the only person I can think of who has surpassed George Lucas in starting off with great movies and then going down hill. But Lucas did it for money. Shayamalan did it because he got stuck up. He started taking himself WAY too seriously.

The Village was pretty bad, but it was halfway worth watching. Lady in the Water was AWFUL. I am not going to see The Happening.

I loved Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.

The Sixth Sense: Unfortunately brilliant. (and rewatchable despite the plot being spoilt).
Why unfortunately? well, it's because the poor guy is now being judged by it in everything he does - and he can't live up to the promise.

Unbreakable: Hated it at the movies, waited a few years and watched it again with a fresh perspective on DVD. The point it makes is interesting.

Signs: Really Hated it at the movies, waited a few years and rewatched. It was better but still not brilliant. not terrible either.

The Village: Was told the ending by my wife (Arrrrgh!!) so didn't watch it until DVD. Yes, it was predictable, but I loved it anyway.

Lady in the Water: Watched on DVD expecting crap. It was. Ok execution but not a great idea in the first place.

The Happening: Haven't seen it yet.

His first two films were good, but then he became an egomaniac and did things like appear in his own movie (Lady in the Water) as a writer whose work will change the world.

And in "The Happening", he failed to get a good performance out of two of the best young actors in Hollywood (Zooey Deschanel and Mark Wahlberg). It's unintentionally hilarious, though. Kind of like that awful remake of "The Wicker Man" from a few years back.

I like M. Night's movies, they may have those twists in them, but its how he does his stories,
I would prefer seeing his movies then seeing crap like the new Fast and the Furious or the
latest Jason Statham crapfest Crank High Voltage.

What a twist!

Seriously though, everyone here already nailed it. First two were great, everything since has sucked.

And I don't think it's just because his first two were great that we might judge the other ones so harshly. Signs was just bad, bad, bad, I don't if it was directed by Michael Bay or Spielberg, it was BAD!

Just watched "the happening", so now I can speak with authority, having seen all his films.

I think that one of the big problems is that everyone assumes that there is a twist to his films rather than just taking them for what they are.

The "answer" to "the happening" is revealed within the first 20 minutes of the film opening and much of the rest of the film is action/drama around the consequences with a little exposure to provide a scientific explanation.

His films work so much better if you simply "give in to the moment". Stop looking for the twist and suspend disbelief. Enjoy the way things unfold.

I'm not sure why I'm so defensive of his films, especially since I wasn't overly impressed with anything after his first film.

I guess it's because M. Night is one of the few people who has the guts to make ORIGINAL films. Most of the others are concentrating on Sequels, Remakes and Rip-offs (things which are more or less copies of films without being remakes or sequels- eg: all the recent road killer flicks).

Sure, we can see the origins of some of M. Night's ideas but in general, they're pretty original.

i like the sixth sense, the village, and signs.
i heard the happening is an awful movie tho???

The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were good movies, to my mind... ever since, the quality of his films have declined and been reliant on weak devices, poor structure.


M.

I keep hearing about his films but I never watch them, except for the Happening. For his first R17+ film it was enjoyable.

The Sixth Sense is one of my all time favorite movies. Honestly, it ought to be one of those movies that you watch twice - the 2nd time to see everything you missed the first time through since you didn't know about the ending. But its one of those I could watch thousands of times.

Unbreakable I think I only saw once or twice - it was an ok movie but I guess as someone not very much into comic books, I didn't 'get it' as much as I might have. So for me, paled next to Sixth Sense.

I thought Signs was better than Unbreakable, but still way short of The Sixth Sense. I really liked the ending, the way it all tied together - like there was a larger plan in play. But everything about the aliens was a little hooky - like maybe it didn't need over the top special effects to tell the story, but it did need a bigger effects budget.

Haven't seen any of his other films. I really looked forward to The Villiage and Lady In The Water, but never saw them after reading the reviews.

The Sixth Sense - Excellent.

Unbreakable - Good, but M. Night really ruined it by not having a soundtrack (this movie's a great example of how having a bad or no soundtrack can destroy a movie that would otherwise be excellent).

Signs - I know that there are some pretty stupid plot holes in it, but I love this movie, mostly because I have a massive fear of aliens (thanks to E.T.), so this movie scared the hell out of me. It also resulted in a pretty funny incident. The morning after I first saw the movie, I had to leave for work at 3:30am. I walk out to my car, there's no one around, and it's pitch black outside. Right when I was about to open my car door, a damn deer jumped out of the bushes about five feet from me. I felt like I had sh*t out my heart afterwards.

The Village - It was only a "meh" the first time, and I've never wanted to see it again.

Lady in the Water - I didn't see it, after my experience the Village and the critical panning it recieved. My mom saw it and absolutely hated it.

The Happening - Refused to see it, as did my mom.

Yes, that's what keeps me interested in his work, and in his career.

I just watched "Unbreakable" again, and although it's very watchable, ( unlike "The Village" ), I think the ending is glib, ( as if he lost faith in the story, in his characters, and what they might have had to tell if he'd let them live a bit longer ), and went for a "neat" twist to tie it up. I think he spent too long on presenting/narrating the "discovery" of the "talent", and not enough time on seeing what happens to talent if it is uncovered and used exclusively to justify one's life.

If Mr Glass represents the need to find meaning in life, a purpose to one's life, at any cost, then it seems as if the embryonic talent, Sentryman/Bruce Willis, that it discovers after years of searching, turns its back in disgust and censure at the end. *** Is Shyamalan really suggesting that is what talent does if it is sought after as justification for one's life? It isn't satisfying to end a film with a moralistic message like that. There is a whole "relationship" between talent and the need for meaning which is abandoned there, sadly for the film, ( and disastrously perhaps for Shyamalan's art ).

The idea that looking for meaning/purpose to one's life is necessarily destructive is very interesting, but not at all proven; it might make a good debate in the PPR forum! The odd thing is that he contradicts this message in "Signs". He is obsessed in that with "meaning/significations", but now the urge to find them is ok, is glorified.

I think that it is this kind of "moralising" which diminishes "Unbreakable", spoils "Signs", and ruins "The Village". I wonder if he is passing through some sort of self-censuring/punishing and righteous/"grandiose" process as a result of insights into his own behaviour which provoked guilt/remorse. I hope he comes out of it soon, because I also think he is an original, still capable of great things.

*** Interestingly, you could say that that is what has happened to Shyamalan's talent! It has got all "superior" and self-righteous, distanced itself from what is breakable, human, etc. Those things which made/make "The Sixth Sense" so beautiful/perfect.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 23 Apr 2009, 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.