The new Shamalamadingdong movie

[rok]

Unbreakable absolutely had a twist. That is undeniable, but it was a good one. It floored me. Signs also had sort of a faux twist as BT explained. He built the entire movie around it, so it was more of an anti-twist since he messed with the audience's expectations for 90 minutes, and then gave them the opposite of what they expected. The Village had a twist. And Lady in the Water, maybe it didn't have what you would call a twist in the classic sense, but it still kept you questioning reality until the very end, so it was more subtle. I haven't seen anything from M Night after that, so I can't speak to his other movies. I'm just not interested.

Anyway, any movie where there is a basic premise, and the audience spends the majority of the movie questioning that premise, until it is revealed to be true or not toward the end, is by definition a movie with a twist. That probably describes 90% of M Night's films.

And honestly, if M Night wasn't such a narcissistic douche who holds himself in such high esteem, for very little reason, and often casts himself in his own movies, I doubt I would have such a negative opinion of him. He has talent, but he's made some poor choices over the years.

[kbwsb]

Does he come off that way? I read a lengthy article about his life 5-6 years ago, and whatever the polar opposite of narcissistic douche is, that what he came off as.
He may have changed, though.

[rok]

Several reasons to be annoyed by him, just to name a few:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->To understand the Shyamalan phenomenon, turn to his high-school yearbook. In a photograph doctored to look like the cover of Time magazine, M. Night is wearing a bow-tie, cummerbund, tuxedo top, and sneakers. The headlines above the photo read "Best Director" and "N.Y.U. grad takes Hollywood by storm."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Although that last part about O'Donnell crying is ok in my book.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->wrote and directed a movie called Wide Awake (1998) for Miramax. It was the story of a sports-loving nun, played by Rosie O' Donnell, who helps a boy find God after his grandfather dies. The rough cut was too treacly even for Harvey Weinstein (a soft-touch for little kid movies, especially foreign ones), who unleashed a legendary speaker-phone tirade that humiliated Shyamalan and made O'Donnell cry.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->M. Night could not control the audience, however, and he was unhappy with the poor performance of his sophomore thriller, Unbreakable (2000). He vowed to inject more emotion (and box office) in his next effort. Again, Shyamalan made the talk show rounds, promising another twist ending and cultivating auteurish tics such as putting himself in the movie, just like Quentin, just like Hitchcock.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Then there are Shyamalan's directorial calling cards. Each of his thrillers runs exactly 106 minutes. (Asked why, he claims that each time it has happened by sheer coincidence.) As for his own acting appearances, Slate's David Edelstein has said that Shyamalan's Signs cameo was so creaky the director should have fired himself. He's shrouding himself in a counterfeit version of the auteur theory, which says that great directors reveal themselves by their tendencies, their tics. But is a twist ending an auteurist tic or just a way that Shyamalan gooses the audience again and again? There is a fine line between the auteur and the repetitious hack.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://img.slate.com/id/2104567/

And the straw that broke the camel's back for me can be summed up with his own self-annointed role as the central character/chosen one in Lady in the Water as a talented yet undiscovered writer who is left with the task of saving the world. That is a major reason why he was dismissed from Disney, aside from the fact that the film bombed.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Shyamalan cast himself as a visionary writer whose great thoughts would change the world<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%60WATER%27+......-a0148492151

[rok]

From A.V. Club:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-trailer...ive-char,43178/
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The trailer for M. Night Shyamalan's Devil: Five characters in search of a twist
by Sean O'Neal July 15, 2010

In what probably seemed like a real “get” in 2008, Media Rights Capital partnered with director M. Night Shyamalan to create a production company called Night Chronicles, with Shyamalan agreeing to produce—but not direct—one film per year for three years. Today you can get your first look at the offspring of that industry coupling: Devil, a supernatural thriller based on an original idea “from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan” and co-directed by siblings Drew and John Erick Dowdle.

That idea, by the way, comes down to “random strangers find themselves trapped in an elevator,” only to discover that “one of these five people is not who they appear to be.” That’s because they’re the devil. It’s right there in the title. We’re gonna guess it’s probably not star Geoffrey Arend, a.k.a. the guy who’s married to Christina Hendricks, and that it’s probably the woman who smiles and says stuff like, “Do I look like such a threat?” But oh that Shyamalan, always with the twist!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the comments at the bottom. Sometimes the readers are more witty than the A.V. writers themselves, and this would be one of those instances.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=105598:date=Jul 15 2010, 09:59 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 15 2010, 09:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105583:date=Jul 15 2010, 06:38 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 15 2010, 06:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105580:date=Jul 14 2010, 11:13 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 14 2010, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105574:date=Jul 14 2010, 09:14 PM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Jul 14 2010, 09:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Is it bad that I refuse to watch anything new M. Night makes?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

few things annoyed me more than the ending to "The Village" and the second half of "The Happening". But I liked his earlier stuff enough to give him a chance regardless. I won't see "The Last Airbender" because it doesn't appeal to me, but if "The Devil" or whatever this one is gets decent reviews, I'd love to see it.

For the record I loved "Signs" much more than anyone I know.

So there's that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I've liked all of his movies, though I can't really tell you why. I actually understand why people don't like his stuff and i agree, but for whatever reason, I like his stuff. My family does too. We believe we're the only people in the world that have liked every one of his movies, and that includes his own family.

BT, I know we've discussed this in the past, but I forget what bothered you about the ending of "The Village." To me it was fine, except that I saw it coming a million miles away.

And I won't be watching his latest movie because it's just not my cup o tea. There seems to be a similar movie coming out every week.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I thought the movie cheated (SPOILERS).

First of all, I guessed the ending before I saw the movie, but Shyam cheated. One of the first scenes shows them burying a kid, and the date on the tombstone say 1870 or something like that. Since they were carrying on this charade for the kids, the kids would have absolutely no concept of what 1870 or 2005 meant, so there is no reason to keep up the pretense that they are really living in the 1800's.

Secondly, it became embarrassing. When Ron Howard's daughter is talking to the park ranger, using her old timey English, she came off as an annoying Civil War enthusiast.

Lastly, I know the exact moment I started to hate the movie. When William hurt opens his closet door to show (I think) River Phoenix something, I was literally on the edge of my seat. When that something turned out to be a monster costume that basically invalidated everything that had already happened, I started getting very pissed.

The thing I loved about Signs was that he actually followed through on his premise. For the whole movie you are led to believe that aliens are invading, and instead of having Mel Gibson end up collaring one of the Pritchard boys (and telling them to suck his cock because he deserves it) and finding out the kid has been making the crop circles to fuck with them, Shyamalan actually ended up doing an alien invasion movie. Yes, the idea that an alien culture that is allergic to water is stupid coming to a planet covered in water is dumb, BUT I was able to overlook it because I loved the rest of the movie. "The Village" didn't earn that from me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


See, I agree with all of that, especially the about the date on the grave. I agree with everybody that doesn't like him. For whatever reason, I'm able to get past all of that.

There's just something about his movies that I like.

As for "The Lady in the Water", my whole family liked it. We all knew it was kind of dumb, but we liked it anyway.

[kbwsb]

Roc, aren't all of those quotes from the Slate article "The Case Against M. Night Shyamalan?"
I mean, think of the title of that article...does anyone think you're going to get a fair and balanced portrait?
I urge you to read the following article, which is kind of a different take on the director (and is actually titled "A Different Take.")
It paints him as a kind of nerdy, innocent fellow, a good dad, a good son, a good husband....the kind of guy who makes all his films in his hometown of Philly, so as to be close to his family and old friends. The kind of guy who donates $1.5 million so that a sociology group can try an experiment where they beautify a 5-block area of the worst ghetto in Philly, hoping it might have a "pay it forward" effect.

This article came out at about the same time as the Slate vivisection that you quoted from ('04-ish), so he may have changed and "gone Hollywood" since then...I don't know. But he seems pretty interesting in this write-up:

Good article

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=105721:date=Jul 15 2010, 10:48 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jul 15 2010, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Roc, aren't all of those quotes from the Slate article "The Case Against M. Night Shyamalan?"
I mean, think of the title of that article...does anyone think you're going to get a fair and balanced portrait?
I urge you to read the following article, which is kind of a different take on the director (and is actually titled "A Different Take.")
It paints him as a kind of nerdy, innocent fellow, a good dad, a good son, a good husband....the kind of guy who makes all his films in his hometown of Philly, so as to be close to his family and old friends. The kind of guy who donates $1.5 million so that a sociology group can try an experiment where they beautify a 5-block area of the worst ghetto in Philly, hoping it might have a "pay it forward" effect.

This article came out at about the same time as the Slate vivisection that you quoted from ('04-ish), so he may have changed and "gone Hollywood" since then...I don't know. But he seems pretty interesting in this write-up:

Good article<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read the entire thing, and that's clearly a fluff piece. It doesn't change my mind at all, and again, his MO in Lady In the Water (which wouldn't come out for 2 more years) and how he has followed that up negates just about all of the good karma that he had built up prior to that point. Anyway, I'm kind of done with this discussion. It feels like it isn't a fair fight anymore. Time to move on to something new.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->From the slush pile of M. Night Shyamalan comes Devil, a silly horror-thriller about a group of people trapped in an elevator with Satan incarnate. It’s Agatha Christie meets Final Destination as one of them picks off the others, one by one, whenever the elevator car loses power. (The effects are always the same: A dark screen, followed by a sound roughly equivalent to unsecured luggage kicking around in a large trunk.) Who could it be? The smarmy salesman (Geoffrey Arend) who oozes contempt for everyone else? The beefy security guard (Bokeem Woodbine) on his first day on the job? The pretty blueblood (Bojana Novakovic)? The kindly old lady (Jenny O’Hara)? The glowering mechanic (Logan Marshall-Green) with a suspicious hoodie? Place your bets now, because the devil can take many forms, and it won’t make a lick of sense in the end anyway.

To be fair, Shyamalan didn’t write or direct Devil; he’s only credited with the story, and for developing the project under his “Night Chronicles” production banner. To be accurate, though, Shyamalan’s authorial pawprints are all over the film, from little things like the Philadelphia setting and the overlay of existential angst to more obvious hallmarks, like the gimmicky premise and cavalcade of nonsensical third-act twists. The difference here is that Shyamalan and company have added a quasi-religious component to insult believers and non-believers alike: There’s a reason these five people have been corralled in the elevator of doom together, and according to the narration, we know this because a suicide precedes the gathering, and the final death takes place in front of a loved one. Because that’s how God operates.

Devil’s low-grade hokum would be hard enough to stomach without the spiritual component; confining half the action to a small space where everyone’s a suspect mostly results in characters looking shifty and shouting accusations at each other. But casting the Almighty as the puppetmaster is a bridge too far. With Devil, Shyamalan likens himself to God: a master of destinies, someone with a grand plan for all of us, someone who works in mysterious ways that we can’t comprehend. <b>Perhaps someday, in the greatest twist of all, Shyamalan will be remembered as the Hitchcock of the early 21st century. Until then, movies like Devil will be misunderstood as schlock.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

[rok]

Now I must watch this for comedic value alone.

[veryzer]

Dammit! I thought that looked good too.