I'm a fan of most of his films. In fact, I think Unbreakable is one of my top 10 of all time. But he's totally flipped with this. Creatures from the blue world? how many rustling leaf, dark shadow, hitchcock "show the threat of violence and not actual violence" shots can we deal with. One thing I think is different with movie audiences from hitchcock's time is we want to see variety, we don't want to see the same thing over and over again.

I made myself late this morning watching his interview on the TODAY show-- there's a very cool backstory to this movie. It was actually a bedtime story he told his children, that they couldn't get enough of: "Did you know...that there is a lady who lives in our pool?" He had to make it just suspenseful enough but also not too horrific since they are relatively young, so in his opinion, a child as young as 8 would be able to hang with this.

There's a picture book out for even smaller tykes. :)

He was hilarious, when asked about his proclivity to cameo, he mentioned how he didn't do that in The Village because, "well, everyone was WHITE." He also talked about how he thought he was nervous screening his first film, but that was nothing compared to showing LitW to his children. :) He was so worried they wouldn't like it, after they had inspired it, etc. It turns out they did enjoy it; apparently, they also recognized plenty, since they kept turning around to gape at him, at which point he'd have to gently chide them to "turn around, you're missing it" or something similar. It was all cho tweeeeeet.

Anyway, it's not supposed to be THAT scary, which means that I'm actually going to see it, and the bit with the film critic (which is what they showed a clip of) amused me. That and he's HAWT (he's grown his hair out a bit, compared to the above-featured picture). Be still my dil, y'all.

It's white supremacy. They're trying to keep a brown man down, that's all!

Just kidding. I really like Shyamalan's films. I've hated almost every ending that he's come up with, aside from Sixth Sense, but somehow I find a way to forgive him that.

I do think that there exists among critics a need to thrash someone who is rising quickly. Shyamalan kind of came out of nowhere with Sixth Sense and blew the fuck up.

I find the symmetrical, fairy-tale style of storytelling refreshing. Maybe I'm just escapist, but I think many of us need that kind of escape. And I don't think it's wrong or anti-intellectual to seek it out.

Anna, yes -- I watched the video Shyamalan did for Amazon a few weeks ago. It looks like it's a story about storytelling (an interesting subgenre!).

he mentioned how he didn't do that in The Village

But he did have a cameo in The Village (much as that might ruin his punch line), did he not?

What I find fascinating about Shyamalan is that he's a mainstream filmmaker, but all the reviewers seem to skewer his films as if he made Reservoir Dogs and followed it up with Armageddon. Not to play the race card [oh wait, I'm on SM, why not? ;)], but I do wonder whether this has to do with his ethnicity: Indian= indie?

Indian= indie?

Tell that to Jay Chandrasekhar! Though I guess indie stoner flick could be a sub-sub-genre.

I cannot get over the fact that before Sixth Sense was a certified hit , Night's name hardly got any billing. It was always Bruce Willis in big bold letters.
I say, now, let Night be his crazy self, we need sone divadom badly in H'wood. And his ethinicity, even though it is not overly harped upon - definitely contributes to the befuddlement of the establishment. He is not boxable.

... the plot turns on what happens after the narf—her name is Story—fulfills her mission. [Link]

Manoj and the sea of Stories? Sounds like Haroun homage.

LiTW seems DOA after reading those reviews. My money is on Snakes On A Plane as the summer's best ticket.

Vikram,

Might be -- but this summer the reviewers and the masses have often disagreed with one another.

For the second time this summer, then, my colleagues and I must face a frequently — and not always politely — asked question: What is wrong with you people? [Link]

Applies equally to Krrish.

Amardeep:
I agree that there has been disagreement. But after a snoozefest like "Superman Returns" , I don't think I want to pay $10 to see another whispery overly pretentious Shyamalan ripoff of a Twilight Zone/Outer Limits episode. I liked "Sixth Sense" but nothing he has done since then has lived up to that film.

He was hilarious, when asked about his proclivity to cameo, he mentioned how he didn't do that in The Village because, "well, everyone was WHITE."

That was SO cool :-)

so was he in the village movie or not?

According to IMDB, he was the "guard at the desk"...

so was he in the village movie or not?

I'm quite certain he had a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo in The Village.

Tell that to Jay Chandrasekhar!

Yeah, Manish, I'm not claiming Indian = indie. It just seems like that's how reviewers are treating these filmmakers.

I think he was. Wasn't he the security officer of the park or something?

And well, if there is someone out there who really hasn't seen the movie yet, there is no point in seeing it now, is there?

Vat? Pay 450 rupees to go see a movie about a village? I can stay home for free.

According to IMDB, he was the "guard at the desk"

On the DVD there is an alternate ending in which MNS has a longer scene. One of the benefits of skipping the theatrical release...

"how many rustling leaf, dark shadow, hitchcock "show the threat of violence and not actual violence" shots can we deal with."

a lot, if it's hitchcock himself. more than half a century later and you can (well i can) still watch a hitchcock movie over and over even though i know the plot. plus he had far more charismatic actors to work with.

have only seen unbreakable, and thought it was ok. unfortunatley it didn't really make me want to run out and watch sixth sense. he appears to have a lot of talent but doesn't seem to have got it quite got it all right yet. whatever happened to his plans to direct life of pi? i think he should branch out and do a variety of genres insead of sticking to one.

anyone seen the latest pirates movie and is it worth going to see?

Also, Shyamalan had a fairly significant role in Signs as Ray Reddy. I think he wants to do the Hitchcock thing - some presence/ role in their movies.

I think he is a one-trick pony. I have enjoyed his movies, mildly.

Whose God,

1--He gave up the chance to direct The Life of Pi, and also apparently, the last two Harry Potter movies (apparently there's some question about the status of those still).

2--You should really see the other movies before commenting on his skills as a whole. I'm not guaranteeing you'll love them, but there's a certain conceptual unity in his work that's rare among commercial directors today. But you may be right about the possible value of branching out and doing some silly action movies (especially if he's serious about modeling himself on Steven Spielberg).

3--Pirates 2: the film equivalent of a chicken with its head cut off. It does have a bit of a desi theme, though, with an Indian actor (San Shella) in a bit part and a number of references to the East India Company.

One thought about the Hitchcock comparison: he benefitted from the fact that he got the chance to make several of his greatest movies twice -- first in black and white in England in the 1930s and 40s, and then again in Hollywood, in color (and w/a big budget), in the 1950s and 60s. Some of the films people talk about with Hitchcock (as in "The Man Who Knew Too Much") were actually remakes of films he had already made! And: Hitchcock generally didn't write the scripts of the films he directed. And also: he had a directorial career that spanned 50 years, and included 66 films (only 10-15 of which are considered 'great').

i'm back from the abyss...

the village was horrible... and m. night was the park ranger in the film as his cameo... (a brown park ranger?) anyhoot,
i don't think that any of his films have been as suspensful or as interesting as the 6th sense.. the village was one of the worst movies i've ever seen.. heck i guess the entire premise in the first 5 minutes and snoozed through the rest of it... and painfully so...

oh well.. not going to watch this one either... don't care if he's brown or not...

I'm happy for Shyamalan's success, but when is he going to drop his policy of having no desis in his movies (except himself)?

amardeep, thanks for the succinct review of pirates! it's nice to actually go to a theater for the experience of seeing a movie with others but there's so little these days to tempt one. i have been meaning to rent sixth sense but never really get around to doing so. i did think unbreakable was highly watchable in parts. i'm surprised he dropped life of pi. he seemed so enthusiastic about filming in his birth place. i think he should direct more movies not always based on his own scripts based on what you wrote in your post.

i have seen both versions of "man who knew too much," and pretty much every hitchcock movie that i know of. first the doris day/stewart one and then the 1934 version. both were good, although it was odd not to hear day sing que cera cera in the older version. a few years ago managed to get some of hitchcock's earliest and less well-known films such as jamaica inn. it's interesting to see how far he went after those really early black and whites.

A N N A, happily, don't think we'll be ogling the same men with the same bad intentions... I rolled my eyes when I saw him when the Today show did the tease before the commercials saying that he was up next. Gawd, he's let the hair grow longer and fluffy and had highlights (bleachhhh), looking like Saif Ali Khan in the early part of Hum Tum. And what's with the jewelry, oy!

Reijimon, good one.

I liked Signs the best, maily because of Mel and Joaquin (esp Joaquin), and the humor (I seem to remember tin foil hats), found the others same old-same old, and skipped The Village for that reason. I'll be waiting for the Lady in the Pool to appear on HBO someday.

Am relieved he let go of Life of Pi, though it would have been interesting to see if he cold do something different.

Reijimon, Sarita Choudhury has a significant role in this one, at least. And at least one reviewer complained that the apartment complex in Lady in the Water was actually too multicultural.

As for when he might do a fully desi-themed movie. One simple answer is, he did -- "Praying With Anger."
It's an open question whether he could do such a film now and have it be mainstream on the scale of these other films. Personally, I don't think it's possible. (In Hollywood, Indian == Indie, as others have already pointed out.)

Amardeep, I agree that to a large extent in Hollywood Indian=indie. But I think someone with the stature of Shyamalan could make a film about virtually anything and people would go see it. Sure, it's hard for an up and coming director to get anywhere in Hollywood with a desi-themed movie; but Shyamalan has already made it big. What's his excuse?

If he wants to make movies about White people his whole career, that's certainly his perogative, just as it is my perogative to call him on it.

OK I wish everyone would leave my boy Manoj alone. I LOVE HIM. OK I hated Unbreakable. Wait I take that back. I simply didn't get it and it annoyed me. I never saw the Village after reading a spoiler by mistake. I'll catch it on HBO at some point. I did however love Sixth Sense and Signs. Oh I so loved Sighs. It simply spoke to my belief in coincidence or really just karma. I mean I was really taken by it. I had never really seen a commercial movie that appealed to me. And green men from outer space...wow that was like a whopper for me. Aliens and a belief system all in one...loved it. Everyone just leave him alone!!

Unbreakable was great. It was straight out of Eastern Daoist philosophy. Opposites are intertwined, connected, and at some level depend on each other. Also, I note this to everyone, it was the first movie that really humanized the superhero figure, much much before it was trendy, like in spiderman 2 and batman begins.

But gimme a break, this guy is at the least self serving, and at the most downright pompous and arrogant. To put some story he made up to his kid on the screen and expect an audience to swallow it, hook line and sinker?

He's gonna be John Stewart's guest tomorrow on the Daily Show.

If he wants to make movies about White people his whole career, that's certainly his perogative, just as it is my perogative to call him on it.

I don't care if he makes movies about spotted blue lizards his whole career. What I do care about, however, is that the movies he (or anyone) makes are good -- interesting, entertaining, intelligent.

I'm so over this idea that a minority writer has to work on certain topics, or someone will take it upon themselves to "call him on it." What are you calling him on exactly? His success at writing and filming stories that connect with millions of people all over the world?

I'm so over this idea that a minority writer has to work on certain topics, or someone will take it upon themselves to "call him on it." What are you calling him on exactly? His success at writing and filming stories that connect with millions of people all over the world?

Unfortunately minority directors/actors always face the "selling out" label. Spike Lee was accused of it when he broke from his usual "message" themed movies to do "Inside Man" (though it did in some ways convey his messages in a more subtle way.) I would like to see MNS direct a story written by someone else (his weakpoint is writing a cohesive story) and easing up on the clunky contrived cameos. He has the style and skills to do an intelligent non fantasy "Usual Suspects" type of thriller /character film.

Amardeep, I'm calling him on avoiding including desis in his films (at least the films of his which I've seen). My problem is that the White people in Hollywood generally avoid putting desis in films, unless it's to make fun of us, so when a desi director like Shyamalan comes along and makes it big, I am a bit miffed when he decides to follow suit and avoid us like the plague. I consider it a sellout. Yes, let him make good movies, it obviously is of no significance that they are all about White people, right?

I just wanna add to what I just said and emphasize that I'm not a Shyamalan hater, I understand it's hard for desis to achieve any level of success in Hollywood and I'm very happy for him. I just take issue with what I described in my previous post.

Shyamalan is a "sellout" because he's a desi director who doesn't use desi actors and/or tell desi stories? What's the alternative? If he makes a film for & with the community just to "keep it real," he's just as much a sellout, artistically, as he's still catering his image to his audience, not himself.

Here's something to think about: Would The Sixth Sense--with its whole afterlife psychology--have been interesting as a movie about desis freaked out by dead people [who, as someone pointed out, deal with the afterlife as a matter of religion and natural belief, and not as nightmare]? And what about Unbreakable? How would the [very American] black/white archetype be dealt with with just desis? Or, if The Village were filmed in a village in India, how would the historical backdrop of eighteenth-century spirituality in the States (which includes, quite prominently, witch trials), be integrated?

If the guy thinks in white, so be it, he's an American and only ever represented a realistic American demographic in his films (which is, I think, a key element in everything except The Village: the average and/or everday getting tweaked & twisted). But, he's hardly avoiding desis in his films--the guy jams himself in scenes in such incongruous, self-conscious ways that its hard not to notice him as both director and, an Indian American surrounded by white Americans.

I'm not saying I don't understand your point, but I do think its unfair to call him a sellout just because he doesn't use Indians in his films, especially when none of the films call for such casting. If anything, he's tried hard to sculpt a thematic identity in Hollywood, oftentimes at his own expense, and that alone should define him as anything but a sellout.

Personally, I think he needs to shift his perspective (after Signs, things that go bump-splash in the night are redundant), and step out of the supernatural and into the everyday he worlds he keeps freaking out with aliens, dead people, things in the forest, Ron Howard's daughter...

"Sometimes, when reviewers don’t have a lot of obvious criticisms to make, they find ways to hate the film anyway.”

How true, of all critics, film or otherwise. But it’s sad that

“Lady in the Water seems like might become one of those films.”

because of two reasons.

First, the movie has the heartbreakingly underrated Paul Giamatti, who proved in ‘Sideways’ that Greek God good looks are not a pre-requisite for great acting.

Second, the movie’s plot, which is about

“…a Philadelphia apartment-complex maintenance man, who discovers a young woman named Story in the swimming pool (and) eventually learns she is a water nymph who has come to ‘the world of man’ to deliver an important message.(link)”

seems to do what Shyamalan says he wants to do: aspire to a higher thing.

I keep thinking of Night as the next Hitchcock. Hitchcock was not always warmly received, nor were his movies, and he certainly made some that were not great, but always entertaining, and I think that that's going to be Night's legacy, sadly he's going to have to wait 20 more years to see it happen.

Paul Giamatti, who proved in ‘Sideways’ that Greek God good looks are not a pre-requisite for great acting.

But he does look like a Greek god. Ever heard of Silenus? Dionysus' teacher and companion. Maybe they had this in mind when they were casting Sideways.

And (TMI, I know), I once stood next to him (Giamatti, not Silenus) at a urinal at Film Forum.

How true, of all critics, film or otherwise. But it’s sad that

“Lady in the Water seems like might become one of those films.”
because of two reasons.

First, the movie has the heartbreakingly underrated Paul Giamatti, who proved in ‘Sideways’ that Greek God good looks are not a pre-requisite for great acting.

Oh, please. Critics have done nothing but praise Giamatti throughout his entire career.

In fact, it was the critics who lavished him with their critics' awards for 'Sideways' when the Academy ignored him.

I keep thinking of Night as the next Hitchcock.

maurice -

the fact that Shyamalan happened to catch mel gibson stumble upon the set of "Aliens vs. Children of the Corn" on film did not make (Signs) for a Hitcock-caliber movie, my friend.

please refer to section II-56 Sub-section 9A of the You So Didn't Go There edict of movie legends for further clarification in this matter.

Regards,

AC

i'm surprised he dropped life of pi. he seemed so enthusiastic about filming in his birth place.

WGiiA,

Night's dropped out of _Life of Pi_ because he is known for his last-minute plot twists, and _Life of Pi_ has its own last-minute plot twist. He felt that if he did the movie, everyone would expect a plot twist, which pretty much ruins the whole point of a plot twist. Sorry, I forget where I read that.

I think Night has had only one great movie (Sixth Sense), one good movie (Unbreakable) and the rest have been terrible. By terrible, I mean a definite waste of time and money.

Is it me or has every movie that has come out this summer just completly horrible. That pirate movie has no business being a success.

I think Shyamalan is one of few “auteur” directors in the world today. I’m a big fan of his filmmaking. I’ve enjoyed all his movies — even if some of his stories are a bit corny. He has a vision for his art and is willing to fight to get it done without compromising.

I’ve been reading the barrage of negative press on Night and wondering why. The NYT had two articles bashing him mercilessly in the space of a few days — just based on the book. There’s another bad review in the New York Magazine calling him shallow and narcissistic. Others point out the story or myth of Lady is unbelievable, etc. What amuses me is that these are the same people who don’t have a problem with the myriad of films and books that are being released everyday that are devoid of any creativity, originality or vision. I don’t even see a reason for the NYT to review the book because it’s hardly a literary masterpiece — unless the intention was just to bash Night.

I haven’t seen Lady yet, but I doubt it can be worse than any of the other commercial movies that are playing in theaters. They’re all either sequels, remakes of the same old story, or have predictable storylines and plots.

So why is it that critics and some people so critical of a director who is original and unique? Maybe because they just don’t understand why someone who’s where he is would want to make films that are a little different and quirky and not follow the same old tired blockbuster formula like Ron Howard, et. al. There’s also some jealousy because he seems to have an unwavering vision of what he wants and isn’t afraid to demand it — which not one would expect from a brown person. In fact, I do find a tinge of racism in many of the articles. It’s almost like, “Dude, for a brown guy you’ve done well for yourself so why are you dissing studio executives and movie critics? Why can’t you just join the team play the game?”

I’m an anti-establishment guy myself so I’m rooting for Shyamalan to win.

If you like Dylan, you’ll be glad to know that Night is a big fan of Dylan and Lady has three covers of Dylan in the soundtrack. Cool.

"Sometimes, when reviewers don’t have a lot of obvious criticisms to make, they find ways to hate the film anyway.”

As we can see in the comments section, the inverse is true for avid Night defenders. Seek for invisible reasons to denounce the critics.

Rejimon:

when a desi director like Shyamalan comes along and makes it big, I am a bit miffed when he decides to follow suit and avoid us like the plague. I consider it a sellout.

He started out with Praying with Anger, made entirely in India with entire Indian cast, which I thought was honest and courageous. Almost all his other movies are totally indian in spirit. 'Sixth Sense' with its restless ghosts is obviously Indian. Only Indians/Japanese believe your soul (atman) doesn't rest if something bad happen to end your life. 'Unbreakable' had the parents still sticking together thru an empty marriage. How Indian is that! And he broke stereotypes by appearing as an Indian dope dealer. 'Signs' was all about premonition, spirituality and extended family.
The Village does not seem to have any Indian influence. But it is my favorite Night film, after Signs, for content. I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood with all the children out in the streets knowing everyone. Now I'm in a gated community and so isolated, I've taken to blogging. I stay in touch with my friends and family who are very strict about privacy that many of them still refuse to discuss personal things in our private blog because they are afraid of 'infiltration'. Someone might discover the recipe for our secret chicken curry. The people I do run into here are so uniformly boring, I want to go back to University, become a starving artist or turn gay. Night's Village really addresses these issues. People hiding from their fears by gating themselves and restricting their lives without really escaping what they fear. And that is Universal.
The Lady in the Water might not be what people want to see from the maker of Sixth Sense. It will definitely seperate the thrill seekers from the movie-lovers.

Night takes himself far too seriously. What's up with his name? Did he wake up one morning and suddenly decide that everyone should call him Night. That's as ridiculous as deciding to call yourself Sting.
His movies are predictable and just silly. The most embarrasing thing is his cameos; the dude can't act.

Night takes himself far too seriously. What's up with his name? Did he wake up one morning and suddenly decide that everyone should call him Night. That's as ridiculous as deciding to call yourself Sting.

It's common enough for desis in Hollywood to change their names to either be more catchy or to be more Anglicized. Two prominent examples are Kal Penn and Ben Kingsley.

See article titled "M. Narcissus Shyamalan" in the New York Magazine. Scathing.
http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/17661/index

SunsetPrkBklynMassive, you'll find that I already linked to it in my original post. I thought Edelstein was a little over the top there, showing off a bit too much.

I actually dig his Night name... personally though, I'd pick Danger just so that I can tell everyone that Danger is my middle name. ;) hehe

I've heard two stories for "Night"; the first is that he had become very interested in Native American culture and took the name in honor of their naming conventions, the second is that it's a college nickname. I've heard the latter explanation more often and if it's true, I think it's a bit cruel to mock it as "ridiculous". What's up with that, indeed.

As for the necklace that someone disparaged upthread, it was a gift from his Father and is inscribed with Sanskrit words. His Dad wanted him to wear it for "protection", which, again, I won't belittle because that's no different from my Mother wanting me to wear the Orthodox cross her Father purchased for me...

His movies may not be universally brilliant and soul-nourishing, but I think some of the crit that gets lobbed his way is...shit.

ragging on Sting AND M.Night? I'm leaving.

I like most of Shyamalan's work. Yes hes a local philly boy which makes the locals happy. His family is down to earth too. My husband treated his grandfather in a Chennai hospital (just a regular nice grandpa type) not demanding any extra attention. He was there right after Sixth Sense came out. I always wondered about families of celebrities...I guess the down to earth ones never change..thats good

To put some story he made up to his kid on the screen and expect an audience to swallow it, hook line and sinker?

A good story is a good story, regardless of who he made it up for.

His full name is Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan, hence the "Night".
Nelliyattu is a Malayalee family name.

"Shyamalan was born in Pondicherry, India[2], and is of South Indian heritage: His father, Nelliattu C. Shyamalan, a physician, is a Malayalee, and his mother, Jayalakshmi (called Jaya), an obstetrician and gynecologist, is a Tamil [3]. In the 1960s, after medical school and the birth of their first child, Veena, Shyamalan's parents moved to the United States. Shyamalan's mother returned to India to spend the last five months of her pregnancy with him at her parents' home.

"Shyamalan spent his first six weeks in Pondicherry, and then was raised in Penn Valley, Pennsylvania, an affluent Main Line suburb of Philadelphia. He attended the private Catholic grammar school Waldron Academy, which his parents chose for its academic discipline [4], followed by The Episcopal Academy, a private Episcopalian high school in nearby Lower Merion. Shyamalan went on to New York University's Tisch School of the Arts, in Manhattan, graduating in 1992.... [read more]"

To put some story he made up to his kid on the screen and expect an audience to swallow it, hook line and sinker?

Yes, who thought that would be a good idea?

Thanks, Manish. Rockstar rebuttal.

Sometimes, when reviewers don’t have a lot of obvious criticisms to make, they find ways to hate the film anyway. How true, of all critics, film or otherwise.

Dear MG: That referred to 'Lady in the Water' and MNS and not to Paul Giamatti.

Dear gq: I do agree that there's an element of standing-up-for-one-of-our-own involved here.

Critics have done nothing but praise Giamatti throughout his entire career.

Probably because (1) he is a good actor and (2) he is so ugly that the critics can identify with him. ;)

Dear Mr Kobayashi,

Very intersting sense of humour; I really like it. Do you have a blog, or do you only comment on SM?

And I once stood next to him (Giamatti, not Silenus) at a urinal at Film Forum.

Very impressive, indeed. ;)

Dear Manish: Rockstart rebuttl indeed.

I think he should branch out and do a variety of genres insead of sticking to one.

I don't care if he makes movies about spotted blue lizards his whole career. What I do care about, however, is that the movies he (or anyone) makes are good -- interesting, entertaining, intelligent.

I was fascinated by the discussion about whether Shyamalan should branch out into other genres. Maybe, he would; maybe he wouldn't. Either way, it wouldn't be an easy decision. I have an (intereting?) theory about it.

When you are good at doing something, but not as good as you would want to be, you keep on trying out variations of doing that specific something in slightly different ways, until you hit the perfect variation. I think that's what has happened to Shyamalan.

He is generaly acknowledged to be good at a genre of movie-making, the fairy-tale horror movie with a twist ending, if you might. However, given his aspirations towards something higher and his evident narcissism (which, I have a feeling, is tempered by awareness), he probably isn't quite satisfied with his oeuvre. Therefore, he makes movies which are similar in the feel, if not in the plot itself.

I think that he will make a few more such movies until he (thinks that he) has perfected the 'Shyamalan twist'. And then, he will probably feel free to make an action movie with a twist, or a twisted variation on the screwball comedy.

SPOILER ALERT

Therefore, he makes movies which are similar in the feel, if not in the plot itself

I guess that's my issue, his plots are beginning to overlap a tad too close. But the Shyamalan twist, by his own admission, has never been the intended story conclusion. He's always wanted audiences to go "oh, oh! that's what that was" then forget about it the next second and get back into the stories true conclusion, and ultimately the true theme.

Sixth Sense - Doc is really dead, but story isn't about whether he's dead or not, it's about him reconciling his two passions, his wife and his profession.

Unbreakable - Sam Jackson killed everyone to find David Dunn, but story isn't about who killed those people, it's about Elijah discovering his purpose in life, despite having a debilitating disease.

Signs - Wife says "swing away" and Merril swings away at end to kill alien with water, story isn't about aliens invading a town, it's about rediscovering faith after you lose it in the worst possible way.

Village - monsters are fake, real story: Love is that potent force, causing you to withstand your worst fear. (I'm a little iffy on this one, because narratively it's a bit of a mess, act 1 and act 2 have different protagonists)

This differs from say, the usual suspects (which is a fantastic movie), where the entire movie poses the question
"Who is Keyser Soze?" and the twist answers it.

Yes, who thought that would be a good idea?

We'll see when the box office numbers hit.

I watched the premiere today. It's not supposed to be a scary movie. He made this movie for his 2 daughters so it's kids friendly.( I am surprised Disney wouldn't want to make a movie like this) Movie has few classic Shymalan moments of suspense but mostly it's a great bed time story :)
At the premeier Night said that this movie is his "ET" although world may be too cynical to appreciate this kind of a story now.
Nevertheless, this is the story he wanted to narrate and he did just that.
As any of his other movies this one too is about having faith or believing in something/someone!
P.S. Both Night and Sarita Choudhary did justice to their roles. But, Paul was just brilliant!

Alright, here's my prediction. And we can make whatever claims about the unjust treatment Night is receiving at the hands of the critical community. But after the film has come out, return to my prediction and see if the following has come to pass.

I'm hearing about some of the reviews that have yet to be published/posted, and I know someone who went to a screening. And I'm predicting it will be among the worst reviewed films in history. I'll go further: Shyamalan's sanity will come into question.

Word is, it's certainly a very daring film to put out there. It has a very innovative look, there are no stars to speak of from an audience's standpoint, and the screenplay is supposedly nothing but endless exposition. But many critics won't appreciate it, and neither will many audience members. In a sense, Night really lucked out with The Village. Despite the critical drubbing, it made a goodly profit and a modest fanbase has emerged in support of it. Maybe it took a year or two, but it happened. And in time a significant fanbase may emerge for Lady in the Water as well. He is working with Christopher Doyle who is perhaps the greatest cinematographer alive today, and any of Doyle's films is worthy of further examination. And like The Village, Lady in the Water is supposed to be wholly allegorical, but what this allegory is, exactly, will be lost on most people upon immediate impact (except that there clearly is one, and that's going to compound the resentment). In time, some people will come to understand and apprectiate the movie as some already have with The Village... but in this case it will take MUCH longer, and probably too long for Night to recover from. Maybe you can gamble on the goodwill of critics* and audiences by producing one dumbfounding is-it-a-masterpiece-or-is-it-a-fiasco? film. But not two of them, or at least not two in a row. And apparantly, the role Shamyalan cast himself in is going to be a MAJOR point of contention.

On the other hand, bad reviews haven't stopped The Da Vinci Code, The Break-Up, the new Pirates movie and Adam Sandler's recent suck-fest from being hits, so anything can happen. And perhaps enough critics will come to his defence. Another ET may be too much to hope for, though.

*And by the way, these critics everyone is thrashing are the same ones who helped establish Night's rep in the first place, giving him good reviews for all his major studio films except The Village. In fact, it was the critics and the media who proclaimed Night "The Next Spielberg" a few years back, gracing him with a cover story on Newsweek Magazine. Maybe Night is being unfairly knocked down. But they're the ones partly responsible for propping him up so high in the first place.

"*And by the way, these critics everyone is thrashing are the same ones who helped establish Night's rep in the first place, giving him good reviews for all his major studio films except The Village. In fact, it was the critics and the media who proclaimed Night "The Next Spielberg" a few years back, gracing him with a cover story on Newsweek Magazine. Maybe Night is being unfairly knocked down. But they're the ones partly responsible for propping him up so high in the first place."

mg: This is not true at all. If you recall, all the critics bashed Sixth Sense — until, based on word-of-mouth, the box office numbers went through the roof. In fact, I think all his movies have had more bad reviews than good ones. In the end, it's been ticket sales which have been responsible for his success — nothing else. The hype has always been that he somehow doesn't deserve being put on the same level as Spielberg and Hitchcock.

I predict that Lady will be a money maker too.

Gawd! Check our rottentomatoes ...... Lady gets 20%, same as You, Me and Dupree and just a little more than the horrible Little Man...... Superman gets 77! Unfair!

Still.a.fob, that out of only 10 reviews, and a couple of the people who've weighed in are small timers ("emmanuellevy.com" ?!). I'm sure the final approval rating will be low, but it won't stay quite this low as more people see it.

There's also an interesting defense of his work as a whole in the Village Voice this week.

Gawd! Check our rottentomatoes ...... Lady gets 20%, same as You, Me and Dupree and just a little more than the horrible Little Man...... Superman gets 77! Unfair!

Given that it has only 3 "Cream of the Crop" reviews, it's a little unfair to compare LitW with other movies that have already come out. But I agree, it doesn't bode well.

mg: This is not true at all. If you recall, all the critics bashed Sixth Sense — until, based on word-of-mouth, the box office numbers went through the roof.

No, what YOU just said is incorrect. On Rotten Tomatoes, The Sixth Sense has 83% positive reviews. And nearly all of those reviews are published on or before the day the film is released. Box office had nothing to do with it. Critics don't bo back and rewrite reviews in their newspapers a month after a film's opening.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sixth_sense/

How about a link that works? :)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sixth_sense/

Yo!
Stop by the Tir Na Nog sometime!

re: #60

Very intersting sense of humour; I really like it. Do you have a blog, or do you only comment on SM?

Thanks for the props, Gaurav.

All I am is a brain in a vat hooked up to the North Dakota server.

And the enforcer of a shadowy crime empire.

Did anyone see him on the Daily Show yesterday? He really had no substance in describing his film or for anything else for that matter.

agree. no substance, though he didn't have much of a chance with jon stewart doing most of the talking. still, night came off like a brown swingers/entourage hollywood type, all the way to the mannerisms and the haircut. not really surprising since that really is the dominant type in hollywood.

And the enforcer of a shadowy crime empire.

And the world hotdog-eating champion.

I contain multitudes.

Fyi: There was an Ain't it Cool screening of Lady in the Water earlier in the year. The reviews were so terrible that Warners pulled the second of two screenings to 'retool'....

Gawd! Check our rottentomatoes ...... Lady gets 20%, same as You, Me and Dupree and just a little more than the horrible Little Man...... Superman gets 77! Unfair!

Still.a.fob, that out of only 10 reviews, and a couple of the people who've weighed in are small timers ("emmanuellevy.com" ?!). I'm sure the final approval rating will be low, but it won't stay quite this low as more people see it.

There's also an interesting defense of his work as a whole in the Village Voice this week.

There are now 58 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and the grade is only 26%. And even that is probably grade inflation, because the Salon review that's considered 'fresh' is clearly 'rotten'. And another one of the 'fresh' reviews is mistakenly for... Monster House?

And however nice the Village Voice defense is, their movie critic is one of the vicious nay-sayers.

Sorry, but stick a fork in it.

gq, Ok, I surrender: looks like we're having Grilled Flop for dinner!

Manola Dargis at the NYT has measured praise: "watchable".

The film is still probably doa.

And here's a defense of his work in Slate.

He needs all the help he can get at this point. But Slate is another publication (if you can call online sites "publications") where the reviewer panned the film.

Had Lady in the Water received better notices, you wouldn't see any defences. No defence would be necessary. But sometimes this is what happens when we put all our hopes into one horse. He may stumble one too many times. What's needed is more American Desi filmmakers. Night isn't and shouldn't be the be-all and (especially) end-all.

I'll say one thing that MNS nails very well, almost all the time, is the score and sound design for his films. James Newton Howard and Hilary Hahn did a fantastic job in the Village, it was nominated for best score, but lost to finding neverland.

I think that the 6th sense was his best work. I think he is a little full of himself right now and is trying to be the next Speilberg, without the numerous successful films.

The main problem with Night (I wish he never chose this ridiculous name, what's wrong with Manoj?), is that he is not a good writer. On the other hand he is an excellent director. He creates a wonderful sense of mood and motion in his movies that is positively captivating, but the stories/scripts are very mediocre and amateurish. Has any one watched the Sixth Sense again, and paid attention to the script? The twist ending was essentially the whole movie. My suggestion to my sepia brother would be to stick to directing, and leave the stories, scripts, and even acting to the professionals. And that's OK, one cannot be good at everything! This way he can select the best stories and scripts the world has to offer, and do what he really does best, directing.

To put some story he made up to his kid on the screen and expect an audience to swallow it, hook line and sinker? Yes, who thought that would be a good idea?

Apparently, some very misguided people that try kid stories for live action.

A couple of nights ago, Craig Ferguson made fun of Shyamalan's movies on his show, saying how all the characters in his movies whispered their lines, and he wanted to ask them to speak up.
All in good fun, I suppose, but what bothered me was that Craig Ferguson kept saying "Shalaman". He could have made some effort to get the name right considering he was mocking the guy's work.

I love M. Night Shyamalan's movies. My favorites are Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense. To me The Village was both critique and possible apologetic for shield-you-from-the-world conservative and religious extremism. While it showed how far a group would go to hide the outside world, it also gave a weighty explanation. Not a justification, just an explanation.

Signs was a restored faith in the midst of catastrophe story, and The Sixth Sense, while definitely a spiritual exploration that possibly involves Shyamalan's Indian and Catholic heritage/background, still has two basic themes: "there are spirits living among us and only a few can sense them" plus "ghosts have unfinished business".

then again, those themes circle back to the question of their philosophical roots, right? So then perhaps at its root, it is all spiritual/metaphysical. hmm...

just my offthecuff opinion :)
:: efrain