What do you think about Night as a director/screenwriter?

In my opinion, I think he is really good. To me, his movies are so different and unique that it makes me like his movies somewhat. I don't really pay much attention to other directors because they don't really have a unique aspect, sometimes, in their films. They probably do, and they probably don't. That's just my opinion.

What do you think about him?

__________________
"'How many more of you are there?'" - M. Night Shyamalan

his movies always keeps you in tension and you never know what is going to happen next and the end is always unexpected.Аs you know some movies have quite provident endings but that doesn't count for Shyamalan

__________________
I'm in movie heaven

What exactly do you mean? I'm not trying to start anything like that, just so you know.

That's a very broad question, but in my opinion I think he is very talented and has a unique style from any other film. His ideas are genius and completely original. His stories are deeply moving, powerful, and inspiring. He is the kind of storyteller that we need in the film industry. I can't wait to see more of his ideas come to life.

The indian is a frickin' genius.

Each of Night's shots is wrapped in perfect mise-en-scene. His motifs thorough, his themes, complex, and his characters, engaging. Thanks to his amazing attention to detail I get something new out of his films everytime I see them. Like the fact that the first few times we're introduced to glass in Unbreakable we see his reflection before we see him. I just saw Signs yesterday and noticed the importance of open doors as a motif. In the last shot when gibson closes the door to his bathroom, the embossment on the wooden door isn't the normal 4 squares pattern akin to the winXP logo you usually see. No, the proportions were skewed to create a CROSS. I was stunned. So brilliant. never spoken about. and there it is, a giant cross in the middle of frame summing up everything the film is about.

I trust Shyamalan. Lady in the Water will be brilliant even if moviegoers are too daft to ever realize it.

I am really looking forward to this movie, although the trailers seem to have revealed too much IMO. I am sure there is a twist, and it is my own fault for watching the trailer, but some films I close my eyes and hum the natinal anthem to while they are playing. I feel like I should have in this case too. The first teaser trailer I saw would have been enough. I just wonder if it was Shyamalan's idea or the studios?. Oh well I am sure it will be decent film anyway, I just do not like it when trailers are spoilers.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Honestly I like him because I know that the product is going to be enjoyable. I don't consider him to be great, and I only consider one of the movies that I have seen of his (I have seen: Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village) to be very good and that would be Unbreakable. Signs and The Village, even though they aren't that great, still are enjoyable to watch.

__________________
"As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-From Identity

Wow, you're right. Check it out below, everybody.

If you don't mind, SevenEleven, I'd like to add this little tidbit to the main site at some point.

Attachments

 

I'm beginning to think that The Sixth Sense being good was just an accident.

If you're going to criticize Night on a forum devoted entirely to him, and populated by fans of him, you really ought to elaborate somewhat. As it is, it sounds like you're just trying to provoke people.

I'm sorry, did the thread title ask a question? I must have been dreaming.

Don't ask the question if you don't want answers. Jesus Christ. "Provoke" people? You mean like fanboys who want every answer to an honest question to be happiness and rainbows? No, not really. I've spent enough time on the Xbox Forums to know what happens when you provoke additional myopia.

As for the location of this thread, my apologies, but I had no idea there even WAS a separate forum. I just check new posts using that handy dandy "New Posts" button. Maybe you've seen it.

Yes, it did. How does this change what I said about elaboration? You're criticizing a director on a forum of his fans, and you're doing it without any explanation or elaboration whatsoever. You're allowed to do that, sure, but it's not adding anything to the discussion.

Yet again, it's not that I don't want answers. It's that I want insightful ones, rather than off-the-cuff criticisms. And please, don't even attempt to classify me as a fanboy; numerous posts of mine (as well as my review of The Village) easily show how absurd the idea is.

Really? The completely different layout didn't give it away?

What different layout? All I had to miss was a bar at the top, and even there it shows these forums as being part of the movieforums directory.

Listen, it's not like I want to sit here and bicker with anyone. I don't buy the elaboration thing-- I didn't see anything that said I had to say why I didn't like him in 30 words or less. I typically just run through the forums, going from post to post. I gave my honest answer and then went on to the next topic. I'm sorry if that smelled of provocation, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

If you want a detailed explanation, I'm not sure what I could do to appease you. This, as with many things here, just comes down to a matter of taste. I enjoyed The Sixth Sense immensely, but I became increasingly disappointed with every subsequent release. Unbreakable's ending felt self-indulgent, as if M. Night was gloating about how special and unique his little creation was. I particularly despised the nonsensical relationship to the statistic about how many comic book readers there are.

Signs had photography that just felt soo wannabe Hitchcock with those plodding medium shots. I enjoyed the movie, but its ending, too, reeked of the smarmy self-satisfaction of a writer who doesn't know much about restraint.

The Village was a painful experience in almost every way. I pretty much wanted to cry out in agony for Sigourney Weaver--one of my favorite actresses, forced here to do cheeseball, pseudo-puritanical dialogue. Adrien Brody? Joaquin Phoenix? Even more so. It wasn't enough that I could figure out the film roughly 15 minutes in; I had to sit through excruciatingly slow and tedious "period" melodrama, much of which is put to shame by something as fakely urbane as Brotherhood of the Wolves.

Judging by the reviews, I have a feeling that M.Night has taken Lady in the Water to the next level of patting himself on the back for false sentimentality, didacticism, and poor stylistic choices. Most of the reviews seem to arrive at a consensus that he cares more about putting something new on the screen than about how to make this newness plausible or even affecting.

So, in all, I'm beginning to think that Mr. Shyamalan--who looked so promising by the end of The Sixth Sense, like a living ode to Rod Serling-- has pretty much achieved success by accident. It seems that it was only a matter of time before his imagination ran wild and his sense of moviemaking could not catch up.

See, that's exactly what I wanted. Thought out and specific. Naturally, I disagree with plenty of it, but that's the idea, isn't it? Discussion.

There's a new header, and a new logo, and new links on a new navigation bar.

I'll take you at your word, of course, that you weren't trying to provoke. But if you put yourself in the shoes of a fan, who comes here to talk about Night, and who's already being inundated with self-absorbed critics panning Lady in the Water (for all the wrong reasons, despite some legitimate complaints), I think it's easy to see how one could feel slightly provoked.

What felt self-indulgent about it, to you? It tied things together rather well, I thought. I also don't think the opening titlecard (which I felt was unnecessary, as well) should have any kind of effect -- adverse or otherwise -- on one's judgement of the film. It's quite easy to disregard and could just as easily be concerned one of the credits.

Also, at this point I feel compelled to mention that a disproportionate number of criticisms related to Night's films have to do with him as a person. So often, it's some comment about how good he "thinks he is" or how something is "egotistical" or "self-indulgent." Discussions about his movies so often become discussions about the man himself.

Well, it was somewhat "wannabe Hitchcock," but it chose a hell of a director to imitate, and it imitated him well, mixing plenty of new ideas in. It certainly wasn't lacking in originality.

Also, I don't follow what you mean about the ending lacking restraint. To me, the entire movie was about restraint. It would have been tremendously easy to let it devolve into a typical alien-invasion story, but he resisted, keeping the focus on the family, and making the "personal" sci-fi film he said he wanted to make.

I reclutantly agree here. Not to such an extreme extent, but at base I was quite disappointed by The Village and feel Night outsmarted himself with it. I think he was torn between making the period love story he wanted to make, and satisfying the expectations of his more casual fans, and ultimately never really committed in either direction.

There may be some truth to that, though I don't know that that's entirely bad. Originality really is lacking these days, to the point at which, even with the flaws Lady in the Water had, it simply needs to be seen. It's so strange and different that it's worth a look. He may have gone too far this time, but generally speaking, I think erring on the side of originality is a good thing.


Personally, I think Unbreakable and Signs were both entirely worthy follow-ups to The Sixth Sense. At some point after Signs, I think he may have started to overthink his projects.

Not that I entirely blame him; he'd had two huge hits and one modest hit that had grown a cult following. The man was nominated for Best Director with what was basically his first major effort. What do you do when you can't seem to fail? When you've got success down to a science? You get fancy, I think.

I also think we'll see a return to his more enjoyable, more commercially-viable form next time around.

It simply wasn't necessary. If the film had ended quietly, it would have matched the psyche of its hero, a quiet person brought out during a rather odd incident to do something extraordinary. And I would have bought it, wholesale. But M. Night succumbed to the desire to do "the twist," and it seemed painfully extraneous at best. Also, I'm sorry, but I burst out with laughter at the "They called me... MR. GLASS!" line. I can chalk that up to Samuel L. Jackson's poor delivery, but M. Night IS the director of such acting, no? It didn't match any of the previously subdued acting. It was as if someone switched Unbreakable's ending with that of a different film; perhaps people go for such jarring switches. Personally, I felt it was definitely the wrong direction in which to go. As for the title card, again, it reeked of self-importance. No one cares how many comic book readers there are, Mr. Shyamalan. It doesn't add any gravitas or context to your story.

And understandably so. He touts his own talent at the expense of not being able to pay dividends. But, personally, I do no such thing. My opinion of him as a human being has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a director. If that were my typical logic, my favorite director would not be Spike Lee, whom I consider to be a rather trashy human being. Likewise, I have levied many of the same criticisms found here against some of Spielberg's movies, and I find him to be both an extraordinary human being and a very talented director. I must also say that I don't find Shyamalan to be without talent; it seems to be there, but he also seems to lack the pragmatism to truly tap it. I'm simply not sure what went so very right with The Sixth Sense--a film that was melodramatic at times, yes, but also a finely crafted piece of cinema.

True, you could do worse, but it wasn't necessary for the film. I would rather see a director continue to carve his/her own angle than borrow that of another.

And the family is where he should have kept it. The circular "trick" of coming back to the wife's dialogue, showing the alien, the ridiculous water idea (the Earth's atmosphere has water in it!)... I could have done without all of it, and from what I've heard of others, they could have as well. What I enjoyed so much about that movie is that, when possible, it didn't cross the thresshold into sci-fi. As with his other films, the movie is about ordinary people faced with the extraordinary. Restraint would mean keeping the film in that realm, and not succumbing to a desire for the wacky, sci-fi "payoff."

I disagree slightly; I think it was his desire to make an extraordinarily *pointed* political commentary--pretty much as the conceit of the entire production--that derailed the film. Commentary is best when subtle, I believe. It felt extremely forced in The Village, and the lack of compelling characterization did not help.

My opinion is that no one should be applauded for creativity alone. It is how you choose to wield such creativity that defines you as an artist. There are many movies that I find creative, yet I do not bestow praise upon them. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one example.

It reminds me of the story of the woman who paid $20,000 for a large blank canvas that she considered to be a piece of art. I don't disagree that it very well might have been art--potentially. It simply lacked the chiseling of a paintbrush.

I think you're right. If LITW turns out to be a financial disappointment, as the early info indicates, he'll probably have to regroup and brainstorm for a bit to come up with something that satisfies his creative impulses *and* the studios' desire for cold, hard cash. It'll be interesting to see how he does it.

That is how i perceive m night Shymalan.

I love the way he can affect the human psyche, his stories
capture your imagination the minute you start watching one of his films.

They have a child like quality that brings out the big kid in you, but the monster in the closet is always there too.

Mr S you are nothing short of true genius.

I agree with WarpedStrawberry it is a very broad question. Yet to answer the best I can I must say that M. Night Shyamalan is unique and likes to go against the mainstream, but that isn't all. Here is a man who wasn't even born here (raised in America, yes)and yet he manages to capture what we as Americans really want. Do we all dream of a safer place, a happy one with meaning, one were everyone has a purpose, were everyone comes together and such? Of course we do but who has the guts to really risk a lot just to show people that things can be different? M. Night Shyamalan. I am not saying he does that alone, but we must give him credit. This man is trying to bring back something that America has lost and other things that America has never known before. It is in the thought of this that we are truly amazed that there is something mysterious and different and yet all the same, found in everyone's hearts. That may sound cliche, but it is the truth. Why, then are things not different? Because there are those people who don't believe in that, they don't want it that way maybe it is too big of a change, but isn't that what M. Night wants? Maybe not, but it really does make one wonder and think hard about a man from Pondicherry, India who as a little kid dreamed of being a director. He is amazing and a true inspiration.

kyrsten

I respect his work. Maybe I'm out of the mainstream myself, but The Village is one of my favorite movies. I thought Lady in the Water was a cleaverly done and refreshing movie that took a true artist to create. If you look at these movies superficially, you won't be nearly as impressed as if you look for the meanings underneath. I'm impressed that he makes movies the way he wants, even though they may not appeal to the masses. I hope he continues. He's one of the only directors whose movies I'll pay to see without question. I hate filth and foul dialog in a movie just for filth and foul language sake. Every other movie out there now has it, because it's expected. It's a cheap way to get people in, and it shows poor taste. If you can't make a good movie without it, you aren't cleaver enough to make a good movie. It seems Shyamalan has a one up on his competition to me. He can make a good movie without all the junk. Like I said, I guess I'm out of the mainstream, but so be it.