i dont know man - i guess i just never really paid any attention to the names of movie directors. i mean, apparently i have seen some of his movies but I don't recall ever hearing his name attached to any conversations about those movies

like, when people mention 6th sense it is always to make gay I SEE DEAD *insert clever word* jokes

edit: i did not hear about this person until this morning when my gf said "it is by this famous guy called M Night sha... umm... shalamayan??? something like that" and I said "what.. i cant hear you i think the reception is bad" but then it turned out the reception was fine and I just had never heard of any director with such a weird name (heh. like I'm one to talk....)

Why do people assume that all his films have plot twists - because they don't. All of Night's films convey a deeper theme/message but they all don't rely on a gimmicky twist to do so. No wonder people are disappointed with so many of his films. People hated the Village because of them expecting it to be a horror thriller - instead they got a thriller that had the balls to change itself and evolve into a romance midway through. People hated Lady in the Water because once again they expected monsters but instead got a fairy tale about finding one's purpose in life. You'll never be able to satisfy people - especially critics of Shyamalan because they're all expecting the next Sixth Sense and fail to view each film as a separate entity, which is sad because they miss out on the deeper aspects of each film.

It's really best to go in with a clean slate for his films - that way your expectations won't cause you disheartment because the film doesn't play out the same way you intended it to in your mind. Regardless, I find all his stories original and refreshing, especially compared to all the drivel that Hollywood puts out with countless remakes, empty action flicks and cgi-fests.

What are you talking about.

First of all it's a completely legitimate reason to hate a movie if it was billed in the advertising materials and such as A SUSPENSEFUL HORROR THRILLER and you get there and it's actually a mediocre attempt at a romance slash drama with poor acting and -WHOOPS- a gimmicky twist TURNS OUT THEY WERE IN THE PRESENT DAY THE ENTIRE TIME too bad everyone saw it ahead of time.

All of his movies have a shitty gimmicky twist. Name one that doesn't have a shitty gimmicky twist. Sixth Sense's good twist doesn't count.

So to move on to why people 'hate' those movies:

The Village had an incredibly obvious twist, poor acting, a lame plot, and a phenomenally mediocre climax which didn't generate tension at all, plus I think people went into it expecting a TENSE THRILLER and came out with a MEDIOCRE PIECE OF SHIT. If you'd went to see The Bourne Supremacy and it was about his attempts to get elected to the local town council would you be pissed? yes because you paid to see a spy thriller and what you got was a movie that wasn't even really in the genre you expected to see and what's worse it was incredibly mediocre.

there is nothing wrong with playing with the audience's expectations but it's another thing entirely to lie in advertising about what the film actually is to cover up how mediocre it is.

Lady in the Water sucked because it was vague, poorly developed, the characters were weak, the monster was mediocre, the plot was incredibly weak (here's a hint : when you're coming up with some sort of MYTHOLOGICAL CREATURES IN PRESENT TIME storyline don't just make up nonsensical shit that has nothing to do with actual mythology just to purposefully be OH SO VAGUE AND MYSTERIOUS or at the very least don't just throw together stuff that makes no sense for no real reason [why ][/why]).

there's a difference between undeveloped vagueness and mysteriousness and shaymalan doesn't really seem to get that.

even paul giamatti couldn't save that movie.

just because people didn't like it doesn't mean they didn't like it because... WHOAH they wanted to see monsters!!! stupid..heh....sheeple...they didn't like it because it was a bad film that made almost no sense.

you keep on talking about how shaymalan has deep themes in his movies that are SO MUCH BETTER AND DEEPER than the shit hollywood puts out. well jesus christ man i don't know what you're talking about at all because shaymalan's themes are all incredibly elemental shit just wrapped up in oh my...mystery and vagueness and OH GOD!!totally wasn't expecting that plot twist!! that a lowlevel film student could have come up with.

m. night shaymalan is exactly what is wrong with hollywood. dumb directors turning out the same old shit that is getting increasingly critically slammed because they just want to hit the same gold over and over without actually taking any risks. I don't see how shaymalan is innovative or fresh, he gets greenlit because producers want him to catch audiences with the same 'it's a thriller...with a plot twist' thing.

also if you have to go into a movie expecting the director to play with your mind!!no matter what the film is he's a gimmicky director.

See above. I mean, it's one thing to say that a particular film wasn't interesting or creative but to completely shoot down a person saying that they don't have an ounce of creativity in them is kind of harsh.

kind of harsh? so the fuck what? this isn't CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM i'm looking to give here. the man has made millions off this so-called skill of his and i have been unable to find one shred of redeeming creative worth in his work. what do you want me to do? bookend everything with BUT HE TRIES REALLY HARD AND FOR ALL I KNOW COULD BE A DECENT HUMAN BEING?

Do you honestly think he's worse than say, Uwe Boll in terms of creativity and directing?

tough distinction to make, really, because both are absolutely terrible. but naturally uwe boll wins because he is unintentionally hilarious, which is WAY MORE than i can say for this crackpot.

Please elaborate. Which characters in particular did you find the most artificial and overacted?

i'll answer your question another way and say that i've never encountered a genuinely believable or interesting character in any shyamalan film. there's whole lot fucking more to characterization than SHE'S A STRONG WILLED WOMAN OVERCOMING A DISABILITY AND THE LOSS OF HER CHIHUAHUA TO RABIES

I'm most familiar with the Village since I've seen it multiple times, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on some of those characters.

i had seen more than enough of m. night shyamalan before i even got to the village

I find it hard to envision what completely worthless is exactly.

without value or sophistication. no visual element i've ever seen in any of his films added anything of any creative significance to his work. you're looking for some EXAMPLE HERE and i just don't have one because his films really have NOTHING. just actors reading his boring words.

If everything he's ever directed is visually worthless, what sort of films are visually worth something so that I could see what kind of "visual" scale you are using?

i really do not care how unknowledgeable about film you are and will continue being in the future.

i'll be completely blunt with you and say that i don't believe my simply suggesting films to you would do any good. i think i would really need to show you films and sit you down and EXPLAIN them to you in detail, which is obviously something i'm not even vaguely interested in doing. i say this particularly in light of the fact that really explaining aesthetics and presentation of film is a rather complicated process, so i'd have to sit for a while coming up with films that really show what filmmaking is all about. again, i just don't care.

Hundley, did you like The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable?

I'm asking because I thought those were genuinely well-constructed movies with interesting plots and characters (especially Mr. Glass in Unbreakable). I didn't like any of his other works, I just thought those were fairly good.

i feel like a faggot because i liked the village. all of my friends made fun of me when i said that so i guess the genuine consensus is the village sucked. i just really digged the whole LOVE STORY part at the end even though the entire movie was marketed as a horror flick.

basically i think anyone who appreciates the film medium and has experienced the entirety of it would agree that having a message is dumb if the stuff surrounding the message is bad, which with MNS it almost always is.

The characters/plot/etc in this movie are so subpar to just about any decent "those other" movies that are out there...I'm not going to lie...my and my friend left the theatre half way through, simply because the movie was that bad. I give MNS a chance every time (I've seen every film of his, only like Sense & Unbreakable) so don't say I hate on him either. Even Boll's done an excellent movie, so I give MNS the benefit of the doubt.

He needs to focus less on message and more on the things surrounding it. A message is meaningless if the person you are delivering it to is disinterested/sleeping/gone.

Hundley, did you like The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable?

no

I think his "bad" acting was intentional... Both he and his wife were portrayed as children in the movie. For example, when the vice principal visits his classroom he starts jumping around and hiding behind students, not to mention how he jokingly attacked the pretty boy's nose. Alma herself is introduced acting in a childish fashion - the phone rings and she just looks at it with bewilderment and stares at it - hoping it will go away. That short scene really introduces how she handles her problems - by avoiding them and pretending they're not there. She even hides her own emotions from others, including her husband. As the film goes on she really begins to open up to herself and her husband. The happening essentially causes them both to mature as people.

whoah... thats a deep char'

ahahaha 'intentional bad acting'

ase i thought you said you lived in massachusetts not under a giant rock

how have you never heard of m night shymalan!

It's understandable.  You see, I've done extensive scientific research in order to prove my hypothesis that, as a director loses face, his name becomes more prominent on the poster.  Let's look, shall we?



The Sixth Sense wasn't his first directoral debut but at the age of 28 Shyamalamamalamalam had a film that got nominated for 6 oscars and some 50+ wins of various crap which, regardless of how you feel about the movie industry, is a great accomplishment.  Nowhere do we see his name on the poster (except the tiny writing near the bottom).



Next comes Unbreakable which did well but not nearly as well as 6th sense.  Riding on the success of his previous film, his name is displayed under the title and people around the world finally know who the fuck actually directed 6th sense (because I sure as hell didn't nor did I care!).



Then comes Signs, no longer carrying a "by the 6th sense guy" and simply saying M Night Shayamalamb.  Notice the size of his name has increased and it now comes before the title.



Now most people call this The Village but I try my best to correct them.  It's actually pronounced M Night Shyamalan's The Village.  You can't forget the M Night part because it's the exact same font as the title and the size is practically the same.  Needless to say, The Village was the most overrated movie of the year and started the whole WHAT A TWEEST meme.

And let's not forget the lack of casting.  Each of the other posters tells you who stars in the movie and their names are atleast larger than Shalama's but this film is literally advertising the fact that it's by fucking SHYAMALAN!  More than half the film poster is an advertisement that he's the director, WTF is this??  How did this fly past marketing???



Honestly, I think M Night was doing something right with this movie.  No longer was it M Night's THE WHATEVER but simply A FILM BY M Night.  Oh, and this is his only film WITHOUT A TWIST... actually, that's the twist.  There is no tweest!

Then it crashed in the box office and failed big time.  It's a shame because this movie probably had the best casting out of all of his films but it just goes to show you that without a good director all you have are pretty faces reading lines off a script!



Finally, we come to The Happening.  It's disgusting that he actually separated his name and title but they're both of equal sizes.  Any advertiser will tell you that the eyes are immediately drawn to the first thing at head level and surely enough, WRITER/DIRECTOR M NIGHT SHABALABABOOB is the first thing you see.  The trailers are even worse because every one of them pretty much sells the fact that it's Shyamashiva's first R rated movie.  When your selling point is that the film is rated R, something is wrong.  Really wrong.

Case in point, Shamamma needs a lesson in humility.  I can almost guarantee that if people didn't know he was the writer/director behind a film, it would be universally well liked.  I should put that theory to the test someday.

Which was that?

Heart of America.

looking at that poster, i can't help but think it's very misleading to call it a sixth sense.  sight sound smell taste touch TALKING TO DEAD PEOPLE.  it's not really what you'd expect it to be you know?  you'd think it'd be some form of telepathy or limited spacial awareness that goes beyond hearing/sight.

I guess you can say that talking to dead people (spirits) is a form of telepathy or maybe you need to possess a special sight to see dead people so 6th sense?

My first impression of The Happening was that its title alone sounds bad.  I don't care to sit in a theatre for however long it is just to find out what it's about or why.  Unlike his previous movies, which were actually interesting to hear about on some level, a movie about people just losing the will to live just doesn't seem like a very captivating plotline.

Truthfully, the only movie of his that I actually saw was Signs.  It was ok except for that annoying little brat who was yelling at Gibson throughout the invasion.

I thought that the title was awful (w...what's happening/??? ​) but the trailers made it pretty obvious it wasn't about people LOSING THE WILL TO LIVE so much as everyone going crazy and committing suicide and murder.

I'll agree with Mateui that Shyamalan is a good director.  But I can see where everyone else disagrees on mostly everything.  I don't watch his films ever expecting to get what is initially presented -- I actually half-figured out the Village within the first ten minutes, after looking how the elders were acting so...  unlike everyone else.  Then thinking of the Village, I thought, "Alright, well maybe he meant it as a twist with it being a Village in some apocalyptic world or something."  Something.

Anyway, if you go in expecting a specific genre of movie from Shyamalan, you'll be sorely disappointed.  I don't know whether to call him a hack or a good writer or what.  If you take in the movie as a movie -- of which there are many genres -- then it's not very difficult to appreciate his work for what it is.  The writing can be cheesy sometimes ("Hit a home run, Jack" or whatever from Signs) and just plain out... ridiculous, overall, the movies are all delightfully suspenseful.  I think some people get pissed off later because the suspense was all for naught, since there was nothing to be afraid of anyway or worry about -- with maybe the exception of Signs -- damned aliens...  who apparently never took a stroll in the rain...

However, if you go expecting a transforming story, good suspense, evolving characters...  I think you can enjoy his films for those things.  If you go in with the mindset to watch something brilliant like Pulp Fiction or something simple like Iron Man/The Incredible Hulk, you'll be sorely disappointed.

I can understand everyone's frustration with the movies -- I see it too, but sometimes to enjoy something, you need to look beyond the obvious flaws and appreciate it for what it is at its base.

Also, if you think Shyamalan does terrible movies, check out a movie called "eXistenZ."  I'm surprised Jude Law's career survived this movie.  I think the only thing that movie had going for it was that it was so stupid it was funny -- not even a B movie.

--Terin

eXistenZ wasn't bad at all dude, what the hell.

You have to be kidding me.  "I've never been penetrated before..."  Right when they're inserting a bioport right above his ass.  The characters were beyond dry and poorly acted.

Memorable quotes such as...

"YOU CHANGED MY LIFE"
and
"You changed my life, and now I'm about to change yours."

That movie was so terrible.  I laughed all the way through it -- it's probably my favorite movie that sucked.  Great to laugh at.

Plus, the controller for the "game" was more or less a giant nipple or something.  The way they started making out with their bioports, and inserting foreign objects into them...  That shit was so gross.  Then, add in the fact that it was more or less the Matrix.  More or less that entire movie had homosexual sex jokes the entire way through, with poorly-developed dialogue, terrible acting, and a loose story.  Every like five minutes they would be somewhere COMPLETELY different.  It's like the movie was just some random thought someone crapped out, added some more crap they pooped out at another time, and started molding it into something.

The movie had like a 70% on Rotten Tomatoes, but I don't understand why.  Is there something I missed?  Was the directory intentionally going for the homosexual references, terrible dialogue and the like, or what?

--Terin