So I'm relaxing (sobering up) on a fine Sunday morning when what do I see on UPN (latterly CW)? this movie. I wasn't interested in it for the first few minutes, and then I saw Shyamalan's name come up on the credits as writer and director. Like any self-respecting movie connoisseur I grabbed the remote intending to change the channel to any other paid advertisement that would have been more worth my time.
Maybe it was laziness, maybe part of me was interested, maybe I felt bad about considering Shyamalan a hack after only watching and not enjoying one and a half movies of his (Sixth Sense and the end of the Village), but I watched it and it was great. Humor? Strong dialogue? Emotion? Utter lack of pseudo-intellectuality? This doesn't sound like Shyamalan!? What the (exp. del.) happened to this guy? M. Night Shyamala tackled a simple and realistic story and it worked, no ghosts, no superheroes, no aliens, no giant porcupines, and no water-nymphs, just a boy going through what boys go through, pure existential crisis (or in another word, "puberty") Of course it's also his lowest-rated movie on IMDb (not counting "Praying with Anger") which shows you something about the modern world.
So, my world was turned on its head. My brother always said "every good director will make a bad movie, and every once in a while a bad director might make a good movie" but I never expected something halfway this decent to come from Shyamalan. My new open mind concerning Shyamalan was soon re-shut when I read about his dissatisfaction with the movie and his lack of total freedom with the project. "Whew, what a relief. I was starting to think you weren't some story-driven, twist-crazed, formulaic egotist and were rather a guy who has trapped himself in his own image. Good to know I can still hate you. Oh, and liking the color red (symbolizing death in this movie, too, don't you know?) doesn't make you a genius or an artist, but making a movie (like this) that doesn't rely on plot twists to sustain the audience's attention, is a step in the right direction." For every one interested in a good cry, this movie takes some low-blows to get you there, but I'll be darned if they don't do the trick.
Maybe it was laziness, maybe part of me was interested, maybe I felt bad about considering Shyamalan a hack after only watching and not enjoying one and a half movies of his (Sixth Sense and the end of the Village), but I watched it and it was great. Humor? Strong dialogue? Emotion? Utter lack of pseudo-intellectuality? This doesn't sound like Shyamalan!? What the (exp. del.) happened to this guy? M. Night Shyamala tackled a simple and realistic story and it worked, no ghosts, no superheroes, no aliens, no giant porcupines, and no water-nymphs, just a boy going through what boys go through, pure existential crisis (or in another word, "puberty") Of course it's also his lowest-rated movie on IMDb (not counting "Praying with Anger") which shows you something about the modern world.
So, my world was turned on its head. My brother always said "every good director will make a bad movie, and every once in a while a bad director might make a good movie" but I never expected something halfway this decent to come from Shyamalan. My new open mind concerning Shyamalan was soon re-shut when I read about his dissatisfaction with the movie and his lack of total freedom with the project. "Whew, what a relief. I was starting to think you weren't some story-driven, twist-crazed, formulaic egotist and were rather a guy who has trapped himself in his own image. Good to know I can still hate you. Oh, and liking the color red (symbolizing death in this movie, too, don't you know?) doesn't make you a genius or an artist, but making a movie (like this) that doesn't rely on plot twists to sustain the audience's attention, is a step in the right direction." For every one interested in a good cry, this movie takes some low-blows to get you there, but I'll be darned if they don't do the trick.