Shyamalan a ding-dong

I disagree because I don't think any of his movies have been sh*t. Some have been better than others, but I don't think he's made a 'bad' movie yet (I still can't comment on the current movie).
But the movie-going public gets inundated with repetitive, poorly made pablum because, as much as people complain about 'How can Hollywood keep turning out this crap,' that's really what the movie-going public wants.
People will lineup to watch a bad movie, knowing it's going to be bad, to see explosions or other special effects. They lineup to see bad movie sequels because they liked the bad-movie original. Then they complain about how dumb the sequel was, yet go back for the third installment a year later.
Bad movies get made because people want them, because bad movies seem familiar. It's the same reason people will travel across the country or around the world and eat at a McDonald's instead of try something different.
Sh*t tastes like sh*t, but at least it's familiar.

 

What I've found is that most people, when expressing their dislike for M. Night's movies, have less of a problem with the actual films and more of a problem with him.

I've met the guy once. He's a smug dick. He's not sauronolopack or anything, but it's more than obvious that he thinks highly of himself. And it's very, very easy to allow your feelings for him to sway your feelings about his movies.

But if you can forget who's making the movies and the hype that he creates around them and just watch the damn things, most people come away with a level of appreciation for his work. No, it's not great, mind-bending work. But it is a different approach to filmmaking and a different approach to story telling. It doesn't always make the movies significantly better, but at least he's trying.

 

Indeed.

I just wasn't shocked by either Sixth sense (overrated! clap-clap-clap-clap-clap!) or Unbreakable. As something of a massive comic geek in my youth, I especially chuckled when Samuel L. jackson's character banged us over the head with the "twist" at the end of Unbreakable. Which I found to be a pretty compelling movie at times. I actually hoped the twist ending was that on his first attempt to be a hero, he drowns in the pool.

Imagine my disappointment when he made it out.

 

I thought Sixth Sense was an original, beautifully directed flick, and yes, I was surprised by the twist - we can't all be so brilliant as to have seen that one coming.

If we were to drive out all the cocky, smug people from the creative fields, we'd miss so much. It takes all kinds, no?

 

Not only that, but it often takes a level smugness to even attempt a different approach, much less pull it off.

 

Funny thing about that, CI, is Disney held their nose during the making of "Sixth Sense." They stopped holding their nose long enough to sell off the domestic and foreign rights to the flim, just keeping a domestic 12.5% distribution fee.

This little stroke of genius cost the company the lion's share of about $350 million.

 

The guy's movies are interesting, even when they're not home runs.
They're not interesting as in intellectual. 'Signs' and 'The Village' tried to be overtly thought-provoking, but neither was intellectual or even pseudo-intellectual.

 

Ah, one of these hindsight geniuses who saw it coming.

God.

 

Those movies (BTW, Rush Hour and Lethal Weapon's inclusion is just ridiculous) are what they are. Geared for 13-year-old boys.

MS is an incurable, arrogant disease.

 

I thought his Amex ad was better than all but one of his movies.

 

Why is it ridiculous to include 'Rush Hour' and 'Lethal Weapon'? They're cop buddy movies. Regradless of whether the movie is done well — 'Lethal Weapon' — or done poorly — 'Bullet Proof' — it's the same, derivative stuff everybody has seen a million times.
Shyamalan might be arrogant. I don't know. I've never met him.
He's neither a disease nor incurable, though.

 

What was Lethal Weapon a takeoff of?