What M. Night Shyamalan movies do you like?

[Trunk]

What movies of M. Night Shyamalan do you like?

I finally saw The Village. I'd heard terrible things about it, but both the wife and I liked it, AND I knew the spoiler. I know that a lot of people really hated this movie (even though it did very well). Ebert thought it was one of the worst movies of the year.

However, the wife and I disagreed strongly on Signs, which I liked.

Anyway, I'd say I'm a fan of

Sixth Sense
Signs
The Village

And I didn't like Unbreakable at all.

I guess those are his big 4. It seems as if he wrote and directed a movie called "Wide Awake" about a teacher with a good fastball. Throw it in if you want.

[bouv]

I've only seen two, and those are Sixth Sense (whose ending I predicted very early on, but that didn't really make it unenjoyable,) and Unbreakable, which I loved.

A lot of people seem to hate Unbreakable, and say it was too boring, or went too slow, and other similar comments. I think that they heard 'bruce Willis and Samual L Jackson' and thought it would be another Die Hard 3.

Personally, I thought it had good characetrs (especially Sammy L's,) and was a "realistic" superhero movie. I mean, think about it...if some wacko told you that you were a superhero just because you survived a train wreck, would you beleive him? Would you go put on some spandax and call yourself 'The Felchinator'? No, of course not. You'd go on your merry way, but would still have that little bit of wonder...

Anyways, I pretty much refuse to see Signs, because I can't for the life of me think for one second that crop circles are "real," even in a movie where I am expected to suspend my disbelief.

[CalMeacham]

I liked Sixth Sense, his breakthrough film. It was well-handled, with a twist that wasn't trivial or obvious, like a good episode of the old Twilight Zone. I like movies with clever twists, and not merely for the cheap pyrotechnics of momentary surprise. A well-done movie of this sort forces you to re-examine your instincts and prejudices.

I've hated everything he's done since, especially Signs. The stories are often well-told, but there are things in the film that seem pointless or silly or illogical, and the twist, when it comes, is itself trite, and in no way makes up for those defects. It feels like a con job.

I purposely didn't see The Village because of this.

[Anaamika]

Sixth Sense was excellent. Haven't seen any others.

[yellowval]

I recently watched "The Village," too, and must say I was pleasantly surprised. I honestly wasn't expecting much, because of all the bad things that have been said about it. I thought it was really good. I also loved "The Sixth Sense," but wasn't impressed with "Signs" or "Unbreakable." "Signs" is my least favorite.

[Mal Adroit]

I finally saw The Village. I'd heard terrible things about it, but both the wife and I liked it, AND I knew the spoiler.

Same here, same here, and same here! (Er, part about the spoiler, not the wife.)

Though I've had minor issues with each post-Sixth Sense entry, I love them all. With the exception of maybe Alejandro Amenabar, no one's making more intelligent creepers than this guy.

Think part of the reason for the backlash against Shyamalan has been his tendency to promise the traditional horror lover juvenile thrills, which soon morph into a denouement that abandons the shrieks and hits on a more "mature" level. So some people come away feeling cheated. Sixth Sense was the most effective of the bunch because it rocked on every level- as drama, mystery, and of course full-on spookfest.

[SkipMagic]

I enjoyed "The Sixth Sense" because I wasn't expecting a movie with a surprise ending; I just thought it was another ghost story, and so was happily surprised when the ending came.

I loved "Unbreakable" not because of the then-expected surprise ending, but for the journey that led us to it. I thought it was a great portrayal of what would happen to a "real" super-hero. The ending I could leave or take.

"The Village" and "Signs," however, just flat out were terrible. I don't think there was anything worthy in "Signs" (I think it would have been brave and original of Shyamalan to have:
... had Gibson go through all of his troubles with Tribbles and discover that he still had no faith, and that it was the right decision.Alas, that didn't happen.)

The one thing I didn't expect in "The Village," but which redeemed it somewhat for me was when: the mentally disabled guy stabbed that Phoenix kid. The rest of the movie was predictable, but that scene was great because it was surprising.

[Menocchio]

Think part of the reason for the backlash against Shyamalan has been his tendency to promise the traditional horror lover juvenile thrills, which soon morph into a denouement that abandons the shrieks and hits on a more "mature" level. So some people come away feeling cheated. Sixth Sense was the most effective of the bunch because it rocked on every level- as drama, mystery, and of course full-on spookfest.

I agree. Shyamalan's talent (and possibly also the trap he's fallen into) is placing characters into "B-Movie" situations (Ghosts, Aliens with an obvious weakness invade, Superheroes, fairy tales), but treating it deadly serious, and developing the character's reactions to the situations much more than usual sci-fi and horror stuff does. This could annoy both those who just wanted a fun piece of spooky fluff, and those who look down their noses at aliens and monsters.

I've enjoyed all his major films so far. I love him as a director, but I think he could use some help on plotting (he's too fond of the twist ending, we're all looking for it coming, and are thus more easily disappointed when it comes). And for God's sake, man, stop casting yourself in your movies! Walk-ons are fine, a single line, maybe, but more than that is just distracting. Tarantino resisted writing himself into Kill Bill, you can go without too. Alternately, learn to act. Geeze, the corn was more emotive than you in Signs.

[RikWriter]

I liked the Sixth Sense and found Signs well made and scary, but my favorite is still Unbreakable.

[WhyNot]

I've liked all of his movies, although to varying degress. Part of my lurve for Sixth Sense was because at the time it came out, I had been managing a video store for years and every movie with a spoiler had been spoilered for me long before I got to see it. 7even, Crying Game, Usual Suspects - all of 'em. With Sixth Sense, I didn't even know there WAS a twist, much less what it was.

Unbreakable was pretty good. There were some pretty specific reasons I wasn't as thrilled with it, having to do with character motivations, but I don't remember what they are now.

After that, he didn't DO twists. So I have a whole lot of "Grrrrrr" for people who say his later two movies' twists "sucked." There weren't twists! There were plot reveals, sure. There were unexpected things, sure. But there was no attempt at a "twist" in the Sixth Sense sense, which is a reveal that completely and utterly changes the whole meaning and context of the movie, including every previous scene of dialogue and action involving the main character!

Poor guy. One freaking fantastic movie, and the moviegoing public and critics decide for him what his "signature" is going to be, and then lambast him for not living up to it.

So, ranked in order, here's my M. Night Shamaranking:
1. Sixth Sense
2. The Village
3. Signs
4. Unbreakable

[MrFantsyPants]

I've not seen The Village, but I enjoyed The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. I thought Signs was a big cheap pile-o-crap though. The schmaltzy contrived death of the wife, aliens allergic to water, the stupid plot device with the baby monitor, and the whole timing of the invasion didn't make any senseIt all felt like someone just wasn't trying very hard at all. Plus, the former road warrior playing some strongly religious guy, how believable is that?

[MovieMogul]

My favorite by far is Unbreakable--the only one of his films that I'd willingly sit through again (though I'd characterize only The Village as out-and-out Bad).

[Charlie Tan]

He's an extremely gifted film maker, possibly the best to come out in the last ten years. The problem is..... he's not such a great storyteller. Face it, sixth sense would've been a pretty pedestrian movie, were it not for the twist. His later outings have been enjoyable films, but not stories.

I really like the way he can build up tension, with very small means. The way he lights a scene, the way he let characters actually talk in more than staccato snippets, the way there's time for reflection. He's very good with rythm, picking angles, editing. It's all almost flawless.

Now, if he'd just give up the notion that he has stories to tell and team up with a good screenwriter, we might get some movies that are not only enjoyable on a technical level, but on an artistic level too.

[Rufus Xavier]

I loved Sixth Sense.

I liked Unbreakable.

I hated Signs, though I'd be willing to see it again. I have a feeling that part of the problem was that it couldn't possibly have lived up to my expectations when I saw it originally.

I haven't seen The Village, but I intend to.

[HPL]

In my order of preference.

1. The 6th Sense.

Great movie. Nice twist.

2. Unbreakable.

It took me a long time to see this, but I liked the idea of a "realistic" superhero, not to mentiion the modern "supervillian" motif.

3. The Village.

Well Made and solid, but didn't really grab my attention like the above two.

4. Signs

There were so many things I disliked about this film I'll not try to choke the hamsters repeating it all. And it's really sad because it had a lot of potential.

[HeyHomie]

In order:

1. Sixth Sense. IMHO, one of the best horror movies anybody ever made.

2. Signs. Really creepy and fun to watch.

3. The Village. Unfortunately, some movie review website posted the spoiler in the first sentence. Still enjoyed it, even though I went into the theater knowing the spoiler.

4.Unbreakable. Absolutely did not like this movie. I can't place my finger on why; it just didn't give me anything.

By the way, what's the "twist" in Signs? It seems pretty straightforward to me.


1. An ex-priest lives on a farm with his brother (who, btw, is about 25 years younger than him; WTF?).

2. Crop circles appear. Everyone is incredulous.

3. We learn that the priest left the priesthood, losing his faith when his wife dies in a car accident.

4. We learn that the priest's son has asthma.

5. We learn that the brother was a talentless minor-league baseball player back in The Day.

6. It seems obvious that aliens are going to invade.

7. Aliens invade.

8. The family waits it out in the basement.
8a. A couple of near misses.
8b. The boy has an asthma attack.

9. Just when we think we're in the clear, an alien shows up.

10. Brother uses his baseball skill to kill the alien.

11. The father saves the son's life.

12. The priest regains his faith because God spares the boy's life.


I don't see a twist in there. :confused:

[Trunk]

I don't see a twist in there. :confused:
I don't think there was a twist, but just that he hung all these seemingly pointless threads out there and then they all coincidentally were needed for survival at the end, like "God works in mysterious ways" if that's your bag.

The details are foggy, but Beyond the baseball bat, there was something about what his wife said, and there was the thing with the little girl and the water.

What I didn't like about Unbreakable was this. . .


Sam Jack was convinced that since he was so fragile, there must be someone out there who was unbreakable.

WHAT? WHY? Since when? What's the logic?

And, so, he found him but then what? He was just happy he found him?


That movie seemed to me to just be an exercise in creating a twist then shoehorning a plot into it.

Although, it's hard to criticize Unbreakable for that and then say that I like Signs.

I thought The Village and Sixth Sense both had more of a "built from the ground up" feel instead of a top-down feel.

Sixth Sense was best of all, because I thought it stood on its own as a creepy movie, and one that went somewhere without the twist. All the rest just exist to serve the twist, kind of.

[Lochdale]

Unbreakable is the best superhero movie I have ever seen. Great characters, great development and the last 10 minutes of the movie is just chilling.

Sorry you didn't get Jackson's characters motivation but if you read comics then you would understand imho.

[Stonebow]

Seen them all....liked 'Sixth Sense', loved 'Unbreakable,' 'Signs' was tripe, and 'The Village' was okay.

I just get the feeling that this guy is better suited to writing for The Outer Limits or Tales from the Darkside than working on feature films.

[Miller]

I've liked all his movies, but each one less than the previous. The Village was... well, it wasn't easy to like. I'm feeling very hesitant about his next movie, what ever it turns out to be.

I agree, though, that Signs and The Village did not have twist endings.

[CandidGamera]

I really liked Unbreakable.

The Sixth Sense I found trite and predictable, and generally 'blah'. It's watchable, though, based on the strength of the performances.

I haven't seen the others.

[ianzin]

Enjoyed Sixth Sense.

Thought Unbreakable was a nice premise built into a very poorly executed movie.

Some would say Signs was drivel. I disagree. I think it was tedious, laboured drivel, that simply wasn't worth watching. Having cranked his plot into action, he didn't have an ending and he knew it. And the CGI was awful, even by the standards of awful CGI.

Village... haven't seen and don't particularly plan to. He broke my trust with the last two, so I'm no longer interested.

Incidentally, I attended a special advance screening of Signs in London for all the 'real' circle-makers. Quite a fun event, laid on for free by the UK distributors. On the whole I don't think people were terribly impressed.

[FilmGeek]

I like them all.

I'm curious who couldn't see the motivation of Sam Jackson in Unbreakable? Were you not listening? That's my only problem with the movie, it's laid out for you in NO uncertain terms. I usually have a terrible time figuring out characters motivations and I had no problem with Unbreakable.

Signs scared the crap out of me, so it gets my vote.
Sixth Sense is 1. Beautiful and 2. well crafted.
Unbreakable is unbelievable in every way, but I still enjoy it.
The Village has some of the best performances by its leads that I've seen in years. Bryce Dallas Howard is spectacular, as is Joaquin Phoenix.

They each have their flaws, but the cinematography is always amazing. Roger Deakins (O' Brother Where Art Thou) (my personal hero) shot the Village, Tak Fujimoto (Philadelphia, the Manchurian Candidate remake) did Signs and The Sixth Sense, Eduardo Serra (Girl With a Pearl Earring) shot Unbreakable.

The work of the cinematographer adds an amazing amount to these films, especially Sixth Sense and the Village.

[Ephemera]

Sixth Sense was excellent. Haven't seen any others.

Same here. I have the other three on my Netflix queue though.

[Talon Karrde]

I like all of his movies. Signs is probably my least favorite.

From this thread, I realized that there are some similarities between Shyamalan and Tarantino. There are major differences too, but the similarities are interesting:

Both include a lot of tributes to older films/directors from the same genre. Think of the opening credits/title screen from any Tarantino movie and then look at the opening of Signs.

Both take familiar stories and attempt different takes on them.

Both try to have a deeper level beyond the surface. The difference here is that Tarantino is much more subtle. Shyamalan has a problem now that his movies don't really work on the surface level much at all, so you don't have to go digging to find the real meaning and people feel that he is only trying to make a point, not a good movie.

Both have a lot of fans and detractors.

[bouv]

Trunk:



I think the motivation is clear:

He has a genetic deformity that makes him weak, and frail, as do lots of people. If a genetic deformity can make one man frail, can it not make another strong?

As to causing the accidents, well, I think that the years of being bitter about his condition combined with doing nothing with his life except read comic books, and top that off with not yet having found someone who is his 'opposite' jkinda drove him a bit mad and VERY determined to prove his theory correct.


Besides, it has the best last line of any movie, ever.

"They called me...Mr. Glass."

[CynicalGabe]

I like:

Signs (funniest movie I've ever seen, my and my friend laughed trough the whole film)
The Village
The M. Night home movies on the special features are awesome!

Have yet to see Unbreakable or Sixth Sense.

[WhyNot]

I like them all.

I'm curious who couldn't see the motivation of Sam Jackson in Unbreakable? Were you not listening? That's my only problem with the movie, it's laid out for you in NO uncertain terms. I usually have a terrible time figuring out characters motivations and I had no problem with Unbreakable.

Ah! Thank you! Now I remember what made me less enthusiastic about Unbreakable than the others; The motivation of Sam Jackson's character: it's laid out for you in NO uncertain terms. I like a little ambiguity in my movies, because I love to figure out character's motivations and play mental games with multiple interpretations of things. I had a little problem doing this with Unbreakable because it was wound up so tightly, with no room for interpretation.

YMM, obviously, V.

But I still liked it. It was just not my favorite favorite of some of my favorite movies.

[John Mace]

The Sixth Sense was great. Worked well on several levels.

I liked Signs, but I think you have to watch it as a haunted house movie, not a Sci Fi movie.

Never saw Unbreakable.

I just watched The Village over the weekend and was very disapointed. The twist was kind of silly, and I had figured it out early on in the film (not the exact details, but close enough).

[Gangster Octopus]

He's an extremely gifted film maker, possibly the best to come out in the last ten years. The problem is..... he's not such a great storyteller. Face it, sixth sense would've been a pretty pedestrian movie, were it not for the twist. His later outings have been enjoyable films, but not stories.

I really like the way he can build up tension, with very small means. The way he lights a scene, the way he let characters actually talk in more than staccato snippets, the way there's time for reflection. He's very good with rythm, picking angles, editing. It's all almost flawless.

Now, if he'd just give up the notion that he has stories to tell and team up with a good screenwriter, we might get some movies that are not only enjoyable on a technical level, but on an artistic level too.

You wrote what I wanted to write!

Maybe get Kevin Smith, who cannot direct his way out of a paper bag, but can certainly write, to team up M. Night.

[Misnomer]

I pretty much rank them in order of release: my favorite is The Sixth Sense, followed by Unbreakable. I found Signs to be watchable, and not bad, but I haven't purchased my own copy and probably won't. Haven't seen The Village yet, but I'd like to; for some reason I think that I'll enjoy it more than the last one.

[Trunk]

Well, if Mr. Breakable's motivation is just "I'm a miserable old crank and kill people until I find a guy who is my opposite, if such a guy even exists, and he must by my faulty logic, or at least logic understood by a small subset of the move-going audience, and then say "hi" to him", then I guess I do get it.

I think that FilmGeek is right about some of the appeal of Shyamalan's movies. The Village was, what I'd call, a beautiful movie. The season, the trees, the costumes, the lighting, the colors. I liked the understated acting, and the "proper" way of talking. And, there were may scenes of just a unique tone, some scary, some touching, some uncomfortable. It was excellent just for all it's pieces. I think I had a similar reaction to [b]Signs[b/].

The fact that the payoff was less than some expected was almost secondary in The Village. I do think that after Sixth Sense, people want to leave one of his movies going, "That was great. He really got me," but maybe you need to look at his movies in a different way.

Maybe I need to see Unbreakable again. I only saw it once, like the day it came out. Perhaps I got caught up in the wrong mindset.

[Mal Adroit]

Dismayed and scratching my head more than a little at all the Signs haters out there. That flick was suspenseful and creepy throughout, well acted, well written (as all of Shyamalan's stories are), and genuinely moving. I can't fault you if you found the ending or--if you want to be so reductionist as to label it a "message"--trite, since taste is subjective, but damn. You gotta be pretty jaded to have problems with such a beautiful denoument.

P.S. to bouv: I liked the "Mr. Glass" line myself, but two friends I saw it with nearly burst out laughing when Jackson delivered it- they just thought it was beyond corny. Like an old-time movie villain shaking his fist and crying, You're no match for me, Bendable Boy! I saw what they were saying, but like you, I still thought it was a killer line. Goes to show how polarized people are when it comes to Shyamalan's stuff.

Actually this whole thread is testament to that!

[Trunk]

Dismayed and scratching my head more than a little at all the Signs haters out there. That flick was suspenseful and creepy throughout, well acted, well written (as all of Shyamalan's stories are), and genuinely moving. I can't fault you if you found the ending or--if you want to be so reductionist as to label it a "message"--trite, since taste is subjective, but damn. You gotta be pretty jaded to have problems with such a beautiful denoument.

Not to mention actually complaining about the CGI. Could you miss the point MORE? You're not watchng Spiderman.

[JohnT]

Signs, Unbreakable, Sixth Sense
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Village.

In that order.

[don't ask]

The only 2 good movies he has written:

The Sixth Sense
Stuart Little

[aruvqan]

Am I the last person in america who doesnt pay attention to the directors when picking movies? I had no clue that the dude did all of the movies, I jsut get the popcorn, and watch movies. I am roughly aware that there are specific directors, but I want to be entertained, not vote on a damned Oscar fergoshsakes. I dont care if tarrentino is making a action flick or the care bear movie, as long as it is entertaining.

[Trunk]

Am I the last person in america who doesnt pay attention to the directors when picking movies?
I doubt it, but for me, it's the overriding factor in establishing -- at the very least -- my initial interest in a movie.

Scorcese is the reason I went to see "Aviator". Eastwood is the reason I'm going to see "Million Dollar Baby", and the reason that, beyond all understanding, I saw "Space Cowboys".

With the reviews "The Village" got, I would never have seen it if it wasn't Shyamalan, but since I know he can be so polarizing (as are many good directors) I was still intrigued to see it.

[WhyNot]

Am I the last person in america who doesnt pay attention to the directors when picking movies? I had no clue that the dude did all of the movies, I jsut get the popcorn, and watch movies. I am roughly aware that there are specific directors, but I want to be entertained, not vote on a damned Oscar fergoshsakes. I dont care if tarrentino is making a action flick or the care bear movie, as long as it is entertaining.
Do you pay attention to the manufacturer when you buy a car? I'm sure there's some good Fords out there, but I've always been a Chevy gal. Same thing for movies. I've learned what I like and who I click with and those are the movies I'll tend to pay the big bucks for to see in the theater. Ones I'm not crazy about I don't waste my time or money. Ones I'm not sure about, I'll wait for Netflix. Sure, it's not a $20,000 investment, but my time is valuable, and even $10 is hard to come by sometimes.

Knowing that I've never seen a single Wes Anderson film that doesn't make me want to gouge my eyeballs out with a spork means I have an extra 2 hours and $10 by not seeing The Life Aquatic. Do I miss a good one occasionally? Probably. I still haven't seen Pulp Fiction, because I haven't liked anything else by Tarantino. Maybe I'll rectify that via Netflx soon.

When I was younger, I didn't have favorite directors - I had favorite actors and that was about it. Now I appreciate what a director and a cinemetographer and a screenwriter and even a costume designer bring to a movie. I'll never miss a movie that Catherine Martin (Moulin Rouge) costumes, simply because I love to look at her work. Plus, she picks projects I like. I suspect we'd get along well over a cup of tea and a book of fabric swatches. Now, I just hope she never does a film with Wes Anderson, or I'm sunk! :D

But I also pay attention to buzz and reviews and Dopers, and I'm prepared to swallow my pre-conceptions and see something I thought I might not like. And sometimes, I'm pleasantly surprised. Catch Me if You Can did not entirely suck.

[HPL]

Dismayed and scratching my head more than a little at all the Signs haters out there. That flick was suspenseful and creepy throughout, well acted, well written (as all of Shyamalan's stories are), and genuinely moving. I can't fault you if you found the ending or--if you want to be so reductionist as to label it a "message"--trite, since taste is subjective, but damn. You gotta be pretty jaded to have problems with such a beautiful denoument.


I wanted to like "Signs". I thought it could have been very creepy. It certainly laid the groundwork fairly well.

Unfortunatly, it's hard to be afraid of "Idiots from outer space". Aliens who travel millions of miles to attack a planet that mostly posionous to them, and don't even bother to bring any weapons in case some human decides to lock them in a pantry.

Not to mention that the bit at the end where his faith is restored only makes sense if you believe that there's no other possible way he would have thought of the idea of SWINGING THE FRICKEN BAT AT THE ALIEN without remembering the "prophetic" last words of his late wife.

So it doesn't really work as a Sci-Fi movie or as a movie about faith, in my opinion.

[Ephemera]

aruvqan: I'm the same way but only to an extent. I know the most well-known directors and some of their styles but once you get outside those dozen or two, I couldn't tell the difference.

[aruvqan]

Do you pay attention to the manufacturer when you buy a car? I'm sure there's some good Fords out there, but I've always been a Chevy gal. Same thing for movies. I've learned what I like and who I click with and those are the movies I'll tend to pay the big bucks for to see in the theater.

When I was younger, I didn't have favorite directors - I had favorite actors and that was about it. Now I appreciate what a director and a cinemetographer and a screenwriter and even a costume designer bring to a movie. I'll never miss a movie that Catherine Martin (Moulin Rouge) costumes, simply because I love to look at her work. Plus, she picks projects I like. I suspect we'd get along well over a cup of tea and a book of fabric swatches. Now, I just hope she never does a film with Wes Anderson, or I'm sunk! :D

But I also pay attention to buzz and reviews and Dopers, and I'm prepared to swallow my pre-conceptions and see something I thought I might not like. And sometimes, I'm pleasantly surprised. Catch Me if You Can did not entirely suck.
Hm, looking out in the field I see a small collection of VWs [abandoned by a previous roommate when he couldnt come up with the cash for his last month rent - anybody want a camper van or squareback, or 71 not a super beetle? reasonable cost, you come and get them=)] 2 subarus [one is a parts car for the other] a pair of scouts [one mine, one mrArus that is being scavenged for parts to fix mine] a yugo, our dearly departed minivan[got in an accident, we haven't gotten rid of it yet because it has some parts that a friend wants for his mini] a spare jeep belonging to our roomie, mrArus chevy s10 and my vw jetta. In my life I have owned a nash metropolitan, a ford mustang, a dodge omni, a yugo, a fiat 128 spider, a mid 70s ferrari, a TVR vixen and I would commit murder for either a matra-simca bagheera, an abarth scorpioni or a jensen FF. I would consider committing bodily mayhem for a GTO in good condition, or a no shit cobra [mid to late 60s vintage] and I would sacrifice my mother to the demon of your choice for a bugatti=)

I listen to music ranging from early medieval bar songs [carmina burana NOT by Orff] through Gregorian chants, Mozart, Eno's Ambience music, japanese No theater, Spike Jones, PDQ Bach, Beatles, BeeGees and Rammstein. About the only stuff I dont like is fairly modern country, bubblegum pop, and pablum-oid boy and girl bands, and J-Lo can rot in hell as far as I am concerned, sharing an office cubicle with Madonna and the Spice Girls.

I watch movie trailers, and if it doesnt look interesting I wont bother trying to see it, unless/untill it comes on cable and is on when nothing else is on and I am too lazy to change the channel. I will make an attempt to see movies by particular actors that I find interesting [either through skill or looks] but I can say that other than Hitchcock, I tend to be blissfully unaware of most movie makers other than acting staff. I do tend to see what movie critics say about movies, and *in general* they have the exact opposite opinions of movies than I do and if they detest it, and consider it a waste of film, I will probably enjoy it.

Like I have said elsewhere, WTF is the deal with Porklipz Now and GodFather? *Why* do people worship those to movies? About the only 2 scenes worth watching in Porklipz Now are the helos with Ride of the Valkyries and the snake and nape run. My preferred version of Godfather is The Freshman...

[Askia]

I haven't seen The Village all the way through yet, but I was bored with what I did see. I was probably in the wrong mood to watch it.

I've liked the other M. Shymalan movies though none quite packs the punch as well as The Sixth Sense.

I agree that Unbreakable had a great concept that suffered from poor execution. Well, not so much "poor" as "incomplete"... see, every superhero/action movie has a final clash between hero and villain once the villain is revealed. So basically, having revealed himself to David Dunn, Elijah Price should have had one more convoluted plot to spring. This didn't happen, so after the reveal we have NO final confrontation and the hero just ... calls the police off-camera...? No, no, no, no, no. At least have Elijah fly off the handle about David not playing fair or threaten the city with an easily averted disaster or something. For a movie steeped in superhero conventions and presenting itself as an intelligent adult take on superheroes to miss this critical point struck me as a cop-out and deeply unsatisfies.

That said, I thought the build-up and reveal were all very good. Samuel L. remains one of Hollywood's few actors who can convincingly portray a compelling hero/antagonist.

[Mal Adroit]

I agree that Unbreakable had a great concept that suffered from poor execution. Well, not so much "poor" as "incomplete"... see, every superhero/action movie has a final clash between hero and villain once the villain is revealed. . . For a movie steeped in superhero conventions and presenting itself as an intelligent adult take on superheroes to miss this critical point struck me as a cop-out and deeply unsatisfies.

I think if some kind of classic confrontation had been staged, the film would have teetered into traditional comic-book movie territory, and I'm guessing that wasn't at all the kind of film Shyamalan was trying to make. The idea at least as I perceived it was to come at the whole superhero concept from a completely fresh angle,* so that you don't even realize you're watching a superhero's "awakening" until the end of the film. It's unfortunate that you came away from it unsatisfied, but . . . if you didn't know it was a superhero movie going in, and if it aimed to work on this entire other level (the human element--or rather, finding out you're not exactly human) how could you turn around and start faulting the film for not following a traditional formula? Final clash between good and evil, etc.

*Cinematically, anyway. Alex Ross's Marvels attempted a similar kinda thing.

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

My list :

1. Unbreakable
2. The Sixth Sense
.
.
.
3. The Village
.
.
.
.
.
.
0. Signs

I really wanted to like Signs, but I found it much too preachy.
I didn't like Unbreakable the first time I watched it, but found myself thinking about it a few days later.
On second viewing I discovered that it was a very deep and moving beginning of a superhero-saga.
You have to realise that it is only the opening act to really appreciate it.
The Village was okay, but I really cannot stand Joaquim Phoenix.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I just recently watched The Villiage, and I thought it was horrible. Nothing about it was particularly scary or suspenseful. The twist was fairly apparent and relatively far fetched.

I thought that the anecdotes that were revealed through the movie, about crime and gun violence, were pretty anachronistic, and led to me anticipating the "big twist" fairly early on.

I do agree with SkipMagic about that scene being particularly surprising, but at the same time: he is shown kneeling over him and repeatedly stabbing the guy, yet he's gonna live with a few medicines from an amazingly well-stocked medical supply fridge at some guard shack?

Also: Who the hell sends their blind daughter on a hike through the woods, essentially alone? Why would they even send the two other guys along, when it would make it particularly difficult to keep the secret afterwards? Why wouldn't William Hurt simply go himself?

As for Shyamalan, I think he spent himself on The Sixth Sense. I found [u]Unwatchable[/i] to be exceptionally plodding, and gave short shrift to the coolest part, the idea of someone coming to understand and come to grips with superhuman powers. I was disappointed that we only get to see him use those powers once. I also found the conflict between Willis and his wife pretty contrived and distracting from the rest of the story.

Signs was just silly. The aliens were silly looking. The "Your wife is severed in two and stuck to a tree, but is alive as long as we leave her be" was silly. The foreshadowing of the water and baseball bat stuff was silly, and the ability to swing a bat didn't strike me as particularly unique. These aliens were pretty much wimps - trapped in kitchen cupboards, done in by baseball bats, and water. Not much scare nor suspense in that one either.

[Mal Adroit]

The aliens were silly looking.

With ya there. We never actually should have seen the aliens. The characters finally seeing them would have worked, and our watching their horrified reactions. But no makeup/special effects guy can create an entity that begins to approach what our imaginations were concocting at that point.

And those Roswell wannabes were just craptastic.

[Mal Adroit]

Oh, and Hentor (minor point):

I don't think Adrien Brody was stabbing Joaquin Phoenix in the chest after he fell; I'm pretty sure he was just punching at him then like a little kid would.

Yet your point is well taken.

[Tangent]

Am I the last person in america who doesnt pay attention to the directors when picking movies?

Many, many movies are released without promoting the director's name to try to find an audience.

But there are a small number of directors whose movies are marketed based largely on the director's name and reputation. Spielberg and Scorsese are probably the two most recognized American directors, because of their consistent quality and success. One of their names attached to a picture is almost a guarantee of box office success.

Some directors are well-known for having a particular 'style' to their films. Tim Burton's movies are always promoted using his name so that fans of his style will know that this movie might appeal to them.

The same goes for Shyamalan. After the huge success of The Sixth Sense, he instantly gained (undeservedly, IMO) that name-recognition status. All of his subsequent movies were HEAVILY marketed as 'M. Night Shyamalan' movies. I'm really quite surprised that you could have seen Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village without knowing they were all films 'by M. Night Shyamalan.' It was thrown in your face with every commercial and every poster promoting those movies.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I love me some monster movies, and I love me some fantasy movies, and I love me some good movies. Eternal Sunshine and City of Lost Children are among my all-time faves--so it's not that Shyamalan fails to live up to my genre expectations.

It's that he cheats.

The tombstone in the first shot of the village? Totally bogus, served only to fool the audience. Bad form.

And throughout the movie, people behaved in completely unrealistic fashions. Not even aesthetically pleasing fashions, or fashions that are plausible yet stupid. They were unrealistic. It was enough to make me pull my hair out.

The cinematography was gorgeous, the concept was great, the moral dilemma at the heart of the movie was fascinating; the fact that it had so much going for it made its ultimate failure all that much worse for me.

Daniel

[Hentor the Barbarian]

One other aspect that cued me to the big surprise of "The Villiage" that I have to ask others about:

I am no expert on the history and design of watchtowers, but the slope-legged construction of the watchtower just felt far too modern. I recall one scene where it sat in the background of the shot for a while, and the effect on me was akin to seeing jet contrails in an old western. Was this just me?

[Trunk]

Yeah, somehow I think that was just you.

It's an odd criticism.

First of all, they are in modern times, so they would know how to design such a thing. That takes care of that part.

Second of all, the point was they were returning to simple clothing, houses and activities to avoid modern conveniences and temptations. I fail to see how sloping the legs on a watchtower really would subvert that. It's not like they had a radio.

They weren't just doing it for the sake of mimicking the old days.

And, what would be the problem anyway? They were trying to raise children in that environment. Unless one of the kids found a book on "watchtower design in the 20th century" I don't exactly figure the jig is up.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Yeah, somehow I think that was just you.

It's an odd criticism. Thanks for your insightful comments.

My issue was not so much (if at all, but I'm sure I just wasn't clear enough) about the internal logic or justification of the thing, but from a viewer's perspective about the fact that it gives away the big switch. This is kind of why I likened it to jet contrails in an old western, you see.

Perhaps you could argue that M. Night meant for it to be a tip-off. Fine, for whatever reason, I'll buy that.

But thanks again for your contribution.

[WhyNot]

My issue was not so much (if at all, but I'm sure I just wasn't clear enough) about the internal logic or justification of the thing, but from a viewer's perspective about the fact that it gives away the big switch. This is kind of why I likened it to jet contrails in an old western, you see.
"Do not try to explain the switch, that's impossible. Instead only try to realise the truth; there is no switch."

i.e. there are dozens of "give aways" early on in the movie. The style and finish of the box holding the photos and newsclippings, for example. The colors of the textiles, the smoothness and thinness of the glass in the windows, the lack of a smithy, the carpentry techniques, even the make of the broom used to sweep the porch. The very existence of an "outside" so different as to have radically different and better medicine that the elders know about but do not bring into their village. There are so many "give aways" that I see it as further evidence that there was no switch, nor was there ever intended to be a switch.

A plot reveal, sure. Something that would make the main character go "WTF?" But I don't get how any of the viewers wouldn't see it a mile out. It's a more interesting movie to me if I know more than she does. Heck, I realized the so-called "switch" you're talking about when I saw the previews!

I suppose one could choose to interpret these things as directorial weakness, but I prefer to see them as clues and stylistic choices. It actually makes more sense than to assume the entire town was flawlessly planned and executed without an anachronistic hitch.

The same could be said of the choice in The Sixth Sense to have a red object in the screen every time a dead person is around. Is that a flaw or a clever device that most people didn't "get" until watching it the second time around?

[HPL]

I do agree with SkipMagic about that scene being particularly surprising, but at the same time: he is shown kneeling over him and repeatedly stabbing the guy, yet he's gonna live with a few medicines from an amazingly well-stocked medical supply fridge at some guard shack?



The Doctor said he treated the wound, but it had become infected. That's why they needed the medicine, because apparently they don't have penicillian.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

A plot reveal, sure. Something that would make the main character go "WTF?" But I don't get how any of the viewers wouldn't see it a mile out. It's a more interesting movie to me if I know more than she does. Heck, I realized the so-called "switch" you're talking about when I saw the previews!Wow. You're good. My only question is why, then, did you put it in a spoiler box?

[mazinger_z]

I agree that Unbreakable had a great concept that suffered from poor execution. Well, not so much "poor" as "incomplete"... see, every superhero/action movie has a final clash between hero and villain once the villain is revealed. snip What Moody Bastard said. This is a different take on the superhero movie. I had the benefit of having absolutely no idea what to expect when watching this movie. From the few previews I saw, I thought it was going to be about a mystery. I just wanted to show my friends that Shyamalan was a hack. (I was a bit underwhelmed by Sixth Sense b/c I felt lied to. "Hide the ball" is not good directing/writing/explaining...etc.) Boy, was I wrong!

As others have explained above, his logic (good comic book logic at that) was that he was on one end of the spectrum, highly fragile. On the other side of the bell curve had to be someone (nighly) indestructible. Since he has not seen or heard of this person, he had to find him.

I love the way he twisted the motiffs around. In order to unleash the greater good in the world, Mt. Glass had to become evil. Good and Evil are not clear concepts. They are realistic. In comic books (particularly Golden Age), evil is doing something cartoony, like stealing all the money, or trying to take over the world. The heros are actively trying to put a stop to the villan. In this movie, the "evil" Mr. Glass was trying to make the world a better place by finding the Unbreakable man, his exact opposite. Bruce Willis wasn't trying to save anyone. He was just trying to keep down a job and keep his family together. Sorry, this isn't very thought out and I have to leave. But, hopefully, you see my point.

The only thing I didn't like about Unbreakable was Willis' precog and mind reading powers. Where did that come from? What does being Unbreakable have to do with that? I guess it's opposite of Mr. Glass who is psychopathic -- from what my psychologist friends tell me is, where one sees people and things as the same, that the psychopath has nothing but objective value considerations for everything; e.g. everyong and everything is a "thing" (a widget), and the relative worth is only equal to what enjoyment the psychopath can derive from it. Mr. Glass does not value human life, since he will easily burn down a hotel, blow up a train, etc. to find his goal. To him, blowing up a building, people in it or not, is all the same as long as accomplishes his goal. I guess you could say he is transparent that way. ;)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

There are so many "give aways" that I see it as further evidence that there was no switch, nor was there ever intended to be a switch.
So why the date on the tombstone?

Similarly, when watching Ever After, should I have taken such things as the protagonist's perfect teeth as a give-away that it was actually set in modern times, and that the whole Rennaissance setting was supposed to be a sham?

And can you explain to me why there was both a lack of a smithy and a lack of modern-style tools that would preclude the need for a smithy? They were using old-fashioned tools, the type that wear out and break and dull easily, the type you need to have a blacksmith around to fix.

I ain't buyin it.

Daniel

[WhyNot]

Wow. You're good. My only question is why, then, did you put it in a spoiler box?
:confused:'Cause the spoiler box isn't for me, it's for other readers. Like I said, I've had nearly every movie spoiled for me, and I hate it. I am very extravagant with my use of spoiler boxes, because I'd hate to be responsible for ruining someone else's experience, and only they can judge how much they want to know ahead of time. Maybe they want to feel just as clever as I did by noticing everything I spoilered without reading it on a message board first. It's not always about preserving a twist or a switch, it's about respecting a person's choice of experience.

Some movies/shows, I want to know everything ahead of time. I read spoilers, script leaks, rumors and wild-assed conjecture. Then again, there's some TV shows I won't even watch "Next week on..." or look in the TV Guide to see who's guest starring because I want to be totally surprised. So when someone posts a "Guess what! Peter Ustinov is going to be on The O.C. next week!" without a spoiler, I get really irked. When in doubt, spoiler! is my mantra. That leaves the choice up to each viewer.
So why the date on the tombstone?
Can't justify that one. Didn't like it myself. That felt forced and odd.
Similarly, when watching Ever After, should I have taken such things as the protagonist's perfect teeth as a give-away that it was actually set in modern times, and that the whole Rennaissance setting was supposed to be a sham?
Why would one do that? It wasn't Rennaissance, it was fantasy. And yes, there are plenty of indications that it's a fantasy, the presence of Leonardo being the main one.
And can you explain to me why there was both a lack of a smithy and a lack of modern-style tools that would preclude the need for a smithy? They were using old-fashioned tools, the type that wear out and break and dull easily, the type you need to have a blacksmith around to fix.
Hmm. Never really noticed the tools. I'll have to watch it again and get back to you. My only WAG is that they hit the Williamsburg circuit hard and bought out all the period tools, so they had plenty of spares in storage. They must have been storing something else in all those sheds!

Not sayin' it was a perfect movie. Never have. Just sayin' I don't think it was intended to have a Sixth Sense style twist.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Why would one do that? It wasn't Rennaissance, it was fantasy. And yes, there are plenty of indications that it's a fantasy, the presence of Leonardo being the main one.

It claimed to be a fantasy set in the Rennaissance. If you don't like that, though, should the good teeth in From Hell led me to believe it wasn't supposed to be happening in Victorian England?

Hmm. Never really noticed the tools. I'll have to watch it again and get back to you. My only WAG is that they hit the Williamsburg circuit hard and bought out all the period tools, so they had plenty of spares in storage. They must have been storing something else in all those sheds!

Not sayin' it was a perfect movie. Never have. Just sayin' I don't think it was intended to have a Sixth Sense style twist.

Even if they bought out all the period tools, the community is still not sustainable without a smithy or without a large supply of *modern* tools. Eventually they're going to run out, and that kind of contradicts the central conceit of the movie--specifically, that the elders have thought this thing through. (Had I been them, I would've used modern tools and brought along a large supply of antibiotics).

As for the movie's not intended to have a twist, you're incorrect: I read an interview with Shyamalan during the movie's filming in which he was practically wetting himself with pride over the movie's twist and over the hush-hush secrecy about the twist. The director and writer intended a twist.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Hmm...in this interview, he doesn't wet himself at all (http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/08/11/m_night_shyamalan_the_village_interview.shtml)

How conscious are you of needing a surprise twist in each of your movies?

The surprise for me is, I didn't have it in the last movie [Signs], and people think I did have it. That's the way stories come to me, they come to me very naturally like that. If this was a story about me and someone else, I would be withholding information about them immediately. The negative thing about the twist is that it's all people are occupied with; all the gentleness in the movie is being overshadowed by the flashy cousin in the sequined vest taking centre-stage. I approach it as a novelist, in terms of saying: "I'm writing my next murder/mystery." Agatha Christie can write 30 of them, but this is a very different artform. I love my stories being multi-layered, and coming at it from different angles, so that you don't understand the film's true emotional motivation until the very end. It isn't about a plot reveal but the true emotional expression at the end of the picture.

See, the way he describes it here, I think it would've been great: I think there was a great movie buried in [i]The Village's[/b] cheats and non sequiturs, and this is a good description of it. I wish I could find the previous, extremely smug interview that so annoyed me.

Daniel

[Khadaji]

I really liked Sixth Sense
I kinda liked Unbreakable
I was bored through Signs
I didn't see The Village

[Miabella]

I've seen all 4 movies and enjoyed them all.

1. The Sixth Sense- I really enjoyed this, but I don't think it has stuck with me.

2. Unbreakable- I think this may be his most interesting piece. Nevermind the twist at the end (which I thought was pretty cool, btw), the whole family dynamic of people who have just grown cold and given up was realistic and moving. I think I'm going to rent this one again this weekend.

3. Signs- I thought that most of the movie was very scary and suspenseful, and I loved the characters as well. I did think the last 10 minutes were a bit lame, but that's not enough for me to indict the entire movie.

4. The Village-I just saw this one for the first time last night. I had been eager to see it when I first saw the trailer, but then I read all the awful reviews and accidentally got spoiled. So I wasn't expecting much when we rented it. However, I ending up liking it despite all that, and I believe that I would have liked it more if I hadn't been spoiled. It was a strange little movie, but I still think it was interesting and entertaining.

[Askia]

Moody Bastard and mazinger_z. Once I began realizing this movie was exploring superhero mythos from a real world POV, I probably began deconstructing the movie even while I was watching it. To me, Unbreakable isn't really about the birth of a superhero so much as it is an exploration of what creates a super-villain. The reveal at the movie's climax after all, has to do with the revelation of Elijah Price being the twisted, singular mastermind behind the Philadelphia disasters and (in his mind) validating his place in the world.

Some new information reinforces my feeling that the ending was deliberately abrupt. According to the Tivia section imdb.com, Unbreakable was originally planned as the first of a trilogy. Had I known this earlier, i might have been a little more charirtable in my opinion about the movie's ending (It still sucks, but I could have lived with a delayed confrontation between Dunne and Price.) Unfortunately, the film's lackluster success all but guarantees there won't be any follow-up films. But I do wonder what other aspects of superhero mythos Shyamalan would have explored had the trilogy happened. Costumes? Kid sidekicks? Team-ups? Rogue galleries? Secret headquarters? The mind reels.

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

I thought I had read the same somewhere, but understood that he didn't want to literally make a trilogy, just the first part of it.
I don't think he ever really intended to make the second and third installment.
I myself had no problem with the ending.
Maybe a bit abrupt, but it is the first part of a non-existant trilogy. :D

[maikai]

Aliens who travel millions of miles to attack a planet that mostly posionous to them This didn't bother me. The way I figure it, if there's no water on their home planet they wouldn't know that it will harm them. That's just an assumption, of course.

[Trunk]

And can you explain to me why there was both a lack of a smithy and a lack of modern-style tools that would preclude the need for a smithy? They were using old-fashioned tools, the type that wear out and break and dull easily, the type you need to have a blacksmith around to fix.

How do you know they didn't have a blacksmith and a forge?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

How do you know they didn't have a blacksmith and a forge?
I don't: I was responding to Whynot's statement that there was no smithy.

Even if there were a smithy, you're still not going to have a sustainable community without some source of new metal, and probably without a source of coal to fuel the smithy (I know you could do it with wood, but that gets even more difficult).

I harp on this point because it's where my ideal change would've happened to the movie: I think that everything else should've been the way it was, except that the characters should've been prominently using modern tools, with brand names visible in close-up shots. The movie would've then switched from having a "Guess what--IT'S IN MODERN TIMES! BOO!" twist to having a "What the hell's going on here?" vibe. And I would've much preferred the latter.

Daniel