HORROR MOVIES 101

M. Night Shyamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shyamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming.  Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs.  Is M. Night Shyamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he an antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture?

Re:M. Night Shayamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

I feel like Shammy has been living in the wake of popularity generated by The Sixth Sense, which was a legitimately good film.  Signs was well greeted, but I've been noticing that there has been a lot of fallout since it was initially released, with a lot of spoofing and derision of the film's many plot flaw, which were initially glossed over.  Unbreakable was pretty good, at least a B- effort, so I feel like that helped keep up the Sixth Sense hype factor as well. 

I recently saw Lady in the Water and I have to say, it was awful.  The storyline was terrible, the acting was terrible, there was no development and it was one of the cheesiest 'thriller/suspense' films I have ever seen--apologies to anyone who may have liked it, but it sucked.  Shammy should never, ever be allowed to be in one of his own films again. 

Shammy's films have become very formulaic, with some big reveal/twist that you KNOW is coming.  Once you get the Shammy formula down, you sit anticipating the big plot twist, and its no longer fun.

I will confess to having not seen his latest, and The Village, but having seen the rest of his films--I don't feel like I really need to.

Phantasma-gore-ia:

After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming.  Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs.  Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture?

Re:M. Night Shayamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

It's been so hit and miss with him, mostly misses lately.  I thought Lady in the Water was atrocious but my best friend who likes a lot of those magical etheral movies just loved it. 

Now in the Happening I couldn't believe how HORRIBLE the acting was, which I have to blame on the direction - you know, let's be wide eyed and disbelieving and talk really slow throughout the movie...BUT I have to say that I liked a lot of individual scenes in the movie.  There were parts of it that were really cool, the ending was a bit cheesey but I thought overall it wasn't too bad. 

I am going to be the optimist here and say that he has a couple more really good films left in him but I am hoping he will surprise us again with something different.  So we will see.   I think they are letting him still do what he wants because even when the movies are "bad" they still bring in quite a bit of money. 

June

Phantasma-gore-ia:

After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming.  Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs.  Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture?

Re:M. Night Shyamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

Thanks for the replies so far and your honest opinions about whether or not Shyamalan's star is indeed going out or if he might still have some fighting spark left.

I have to say that the concept of The Happening and a number of the key scenes were especially twisted and authentically frightening from a visual and psychological piont of view.  That gives me enough reason to believe that if he keeps exploring rated-R, adult level filmmaking that he will dial in on a real nail-biter and one that may help to resuscitate his reputation and put him back on top.

Re:M. Night Shyamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

I'm hoping so.  I think part of the problem may be the fact he got heralded as the new Hitchcock-ian master of psychological thrillers.  This is a wild guess-but I think he probably feels a bit boxed in by it and maybe restricted in his explorations... at least, thats the feeling I get from his films and their predictable 'plot twist' (I loved when Southpark lampooned his trademark twists).  I always feel that there is a problem when a director becomes THAT predictable.  Hitchcock had a lot more variation in his flms with a lot more pyscho-torment and more interesting and unsual (and believable) antagonists.  Just my 2 (rapidly depreciating) cents.

Phantasma-gore-ia:

Thanks for the replies so far and your honest opinions about whether or not Shyamalan's star is indeed going out or if he might still have some fighting spark left.

 

Re:M. Night Shyamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

   I liked  Signs  a lot and  The Sixth Sense  wasn't that bad.   The Village  was pretty creepy but ENTIRELY predictable!   I saw that ending coming from about 100 miles away!  I have yet to see "Lady In The Water"...   or   "The Happenning" ...

Re:M. Night Shyamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

I don't think there's much to think about here, in my opinion. Shyamalan (or as my mother likes to call him, "shyamalama-ding-dong") had already outstayed his welcome when "Lady in the Water" came out (anyone else see the lame accompanying picture book?), and "The Happening" was just a joke. It seems this guy thinks he's the next great director--I guess all that buzz about Hitchcock that came out around "The Sixth Sense" went to his head about as fast as a hit of heroin--and, actually, I think this may be the case. However, I wouldn't compare him to Hitchcock. Not in the least.

If anything, this guy is a George Lucas. He's got concepts, yes, as well as a good visual sense. But can he write? No. Can he accept the fact that he can't write? No. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Re:M. Night Shyamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

indieabby88:

I don't think there's much to think about here, in my opinion. Shyamalan (or as my mother likes to call him, "shyamalama-ding-dong") had already outstayed his welcome when "Lady in the Water" came out (anyone else see the lame accompanying picture book?), and "The Happening" was just a joke. It seems this guy thinks he's the next great director--I guess all that buzz about Hitchcock that came out around "The Sixth Sense" went to his head about as fast as a hit of heroin--and, actually, I think this may be the case. However, I wouldn't compare him to Hitchcock. Not in the least.

If anything, this guy is a George Lucas. He's got concepts, yes, as well as a good visual sense. But can he write? No. Can he accept the fact that he can't write? No. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Abby, I couldn't agree more.

I would add that his "style" is self-replicating.  He doesn't bother exploring, only allows himself to keep doing the same damn thing he did last time.  But he's running out of ideas.

Regarding his plot twists, the fact that it has become a trademark, the fact that we as the audience expect them to happen, give an overtone of condescension.  It's like he's holding it over our heads that he knows something we don't, and it's gotten to the point where even watching a trailer for a Shyamalan movie makes you feel like you're stupid for not getting the twist.  By extension, if you don't like the movie, then you just don't "get" it.  This makes his movies (which are pretty difficult to like to begin with) even harder to enjoy.

That and the gaping plot holes.

[obligatory]Yes, we're aliens who are allergic to water, and it's quite likely that we're only here on Earth to consume its resources because we've already consumed all of our own, so we chose to come to this planet whose most abundant resource is water, so that we could die naturally just standing around in humidity.[/obligatory]

In brief, Shyamalan's a hack, always has been, always will be.  None of his movies have blown me away just yet (though his first two popular ones were bearable), and I would be flat-out stunned if any future movie of his ever did.

Re:M. Night Shyamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

It is my opinion that referring to Shyamalan's work as "psychological thrillers" is a giant mistake. 

Shyamalan's focus is not on a story, it's all about the message he is communicating with the story. He doesn't really care how outrageous the story is, and the more outrageous it is, the better, as long as the message is communicated effectively. 

If you found the stories to be predictable it doesn't really matter. The point is, what did you think about the message he was telling you? 

Does everything happen for a reason? Or is everything coincidence?

If we shut out the world, the evil people, can we make ourselves safe?

Of course these are my interpretations of the idea he was communicating. And I watch his films because I enjoy to his portrayals of the message he is communicating. It gets me thinking.

I think Shyamalan is largely misunderstood, and it may have something to do with where he is from, and how people perceive the purpose of his films.

I would say he is still a relevant talent. :)

Re:M. Night Shyamalan: Relevant Talent or Played-Out Bore?

Both are valid questions, and good ones at that, but its time that either he move onto other questions after a half dozen films, or he explores the questions in new, meaningful ways.  I honestly feel his treatment of the questions you brought up is condescending at best, and almost demeaning to the audience in the blatant conclusion drawn by each film.  I feel as though each film ultimately arrives at the same conclusion, and answers a question he's already answered before.  Maybe I'm just too jaded and cynical however?

rjsprague:

Shyamalan's focus is not on a story, it's all about the message he is communicating with the story. He doesn't really care how outrageous the story is, and the more outrageous it is, the better, as long as the message is communicated effectively.

Does everything happen for a reason? Or is everything coincidence?

If we shut out the world, the evil people, can we make ourselves safe?