M. Night Shyamalan... What Happened?

[Chief Rum]

Seriously.

Today, his latest comes out, The Last Airbender. And what a shock, all of 9% on Roten Tomatoes with over 100 reviews. This guy is starting to out-Boll Uwe Boll, and that takes some doing.

I am trying to figure this out, what happeend to this guy. We have seen career arcs where bad directors start bad and stay bad (Boll). We have seen actors start well and stay good (Scorses). We have seen guys start relatively poorly but get better (Eastwood), and we have seen guys who are inconsistent (Ridley Scott).

But has anyone started his career at the pinnacle with a film nominated for Best Picture (Sixth Sense), and produced other work that was solid (Unbreakable, Signs), and then just completely fell off the Earth in the quality he was producing?

It's actually really funny, too, just how downhill it all is. Sixth Sense was terrific. I personally think Unbreakable is the best movie he's done, but I would guess the general public views it behind Sixth Sense. I think most would put Signs a little behind Unbreakable. Then The Village was a good step down in quality--some good scare moments and an interesting setting, but kinda boring and the "twist" plot device was starting to wear thin. Then Lady In The Water, which was pretty bad. Then The Happening, which I understand to have been even worse. And now The Last Airbender--a movie with a given setting and characters from the show, so that he couldn't mess that up--seems to be his worst yet.

How do you go from Oscar nominated to looking up to Uwe Boll in 13 years?

I don't understand how a mind that could produce some terrific watches in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable could possibly give his nod of approval to his last three projects without throwing up.

It's just weird.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

He should never have passed on Crime Stinks: The Smell of Penetration (He Nose the Truth).

[stevew]

sportsguy33

Stephen A. Smith reports that M. Night Shyamalan and David Kahn are joining forces to create the worst basketball movie ever.

This tweet made me lol

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Seriously.

Today, his latest comes out, The Last Airbender. And what a shock, all of 9% on Roten Tomatoes with over 100 reviews. This guy is starting to out-Boll Uwe Boll, and that takes some doing.

I am trying to figure this out, what happeend to this guy. We have seen career arcs where bad directors start bad and stay bad (Boll). We have seen actors start well and stay good (Scorses). We have seen guys start relatively poorly but get better (Eastwood), and we have seen guys who are inconsistent (Ridley Scott).

But has anyone started his career at the pinnacle with a film nominated for Best Picture (Sixth Sense), and produced other work that was solid (Unbreakable, Signs), and then just completely fell off the Earth in the quality he was producing?

It's actually really funny, too, just how downhill it all is. Sixth Sense was terrific. I personally think Unbreakable is the best movie he's done, but I would guess the general public views it behind Sixth Sense. I think most would put Signs a little behind Unbreakable. Then The Village was a good step down in quality--some good scare moments and an interesting setting, but kinda boring and the "twist" plot device was starting to wear thin. Then Lady In The Water, which was pretty bad. Then The Happening, which I understand to have been even worse. And now The Last Airbender--a movie with a given setting and characters from the show, so that he couldn't mess that up--seems to be his worst yet.

How do you go from Oscar nominated to looking up to Uwe Boll in 13 years?

I don't understand how a mind that could produce some terrific watches in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable could possibly give his nod of approval to his last three projects without throwing up.

It's just weird.

Cocaine. It's one hell of a drug.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Malificent

Cocaine. It's one hell of a drug.

Heh... I have actually considered drugs or some sort of addiction like that as a possibility. I can't think of too many internal things that could result in this, so an external factor like drugs would make a lot of sense.

Of course, then, it's rather curious that movie studios will still be willing to give him tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.

[Matthean]

I think his ego got in the way. I'm not saying the movie is wonderfully directed, but he produced and wrote the script for the movie and every single review I have seen mentions how badly the script is done. This failed for a number of reasons. I know people will jump on the race issue, but that's like jumping on Twilight for sparkling vampires. To focus on that is to ignore the far greater issues. The animated series is done. If I was going to do A:TLA movie, I would be calling up some of the writers from the series and begging them to give me a screenplay.

[RendeR]

To be perfectly honest, he's never been that great. He had great material to work with in those first 2-3 films and as you can see from your own comments the directing level went down with each one.

I think he lucked into great stuff first thing and then his real talent, or utter lack there-of, has come out since then.

The guy sucks.

[JediKooter]

My suspicions have been confirmed...

[Pyser]

yeah, render, but he wrote that "great material" himself.

so explain that.

[RendeR]

Fraud.

[RendeR]

But seriously, who hasn't seen the writer who has a fantastic first short story or novel, who then can't come close to matching it ever again?

Sometimes people are just 1 trick ponies. He is one of them. he had a story with a great twist at the end, then he re-wrote it for more movies because everyone threw money at him to do so.

Ick.

[Chief Rum]

Seems too simplistic. While he did re-use the twist tactic in his next three movies after The Sixth Sense, there was more to the quality of those movies than just a story re-told.

For instance, the superhero dynamic in Unbreakable was very well done, the atmosphere was perfect for the movie and the actors didn't over-act (which can be a problem when your movie features Samuel Jackson and Bruce Willis).

In Signs, the basement portion of the mvoie was very well done and spooky, very Hitchcockian, not showing things and letting the viewer's imagination fill in the blanks. The philosophical stuff Gibson's character was struggling through, while heavy handed, was well-written and worked within the story. The scense which interject short bits of humor were well-timed to alleviate what is otherwise a very tense movie.

While The Village is the definite first step down, it, too, has some redeeming qualities. The atmosphere is really well done here as well, and there are some strong jump out of your seat moments (like when Bryce Dallas Howard realizes that the "monster" is almost right next to him, very creepy).

I mean, you don't do all that without having some ability. That's what makes his most recent efforts even more confusing.

[RendeR]

When all else fails, the simplest answer is generally the right one.

[cthomer5000]

Insistence on writing his own movies. Step back, adapt some good material and roll.

I realize he has adapted something for the new movie, but this is the type of movie that I think is pretty likely to be a critical bomb no matter who directed it. Card games/anime series are tough to adapt to two-hour movies.


He needs to surround himself with a few people who will tell it like it is.

[MJ4H]

I've only seen one of his movies all the way through. Unbreakable. And it is one of my favorite movies. Sixth Sense, Signs, Lady in the Water, The Village, all aborted watches. Couldn't get through them.

I love that scene in Unbreakable where he slides the newspaper article about his hero deed across the table to the kid. One of my favorite movie moments.

[flere-imsaho]

The NYT reviewer does, I think, a good job of explaining why Shyamalan mis-executed on pretty much aspect of the movie, in a genre (Sci-Fi/Fantasy) that's already tough to get off the ground successfully: http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/07/01...tml?ref=movies

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by RendeR

When all else fails, the simplest answer is generally the right one.

Your explanation flies in the face of most evidence though, really. So it's not that simple in this situation.

The first film was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, among others. This doesn't happen by accident. So even if you think he sucks, that is a pretty miraculous first full-length effort.

This also wasn't just some art-house film that the critics carried, it was a commercial success with moments that have become part of pop culture. It was one of the rare films that succeeded critically and commercially.

Unbreakable is a divisive film. I think it's a pretty fantastic, save for a pretty awful ending (as in like only the last 2 minutes).

Signs and The Village both made plenty of money, and met with the same mixed reviews.

I've had more than my fair share of discussions about this guy and his career, and I think he's just proven himself to be right on the margin.

If person A decided they didn't like movies 2,3, and 4, then they think he sucks. If I like movies 2,3, and 4 while admitting their faults, I think he's an above-average director who has only recently made some poor movies.

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Seems too simplistic. While he did re-use the twist tactic in his next three movies after The Sixth Sense, there was more to the quality of those movies than just a story re-told.

For instance, the superhero dynamic in Unbreakable was very well done, the atmosphere was perfect for the movie and the actors didn't over-act (which can be a problem when your movie features Samuel Jackson and Bruce Willis).

In Signs, the basement portion of the mvoie was very well done and spooky, very Hitchcockian, not showing things and letting the viewer's imagination fill in the blanks. The philosophical stuff Gibson's character was struggling through, while heavy handed, was well-written and worked within the story. The scense which interject short bits of humor were well-timed to alleviate what is otherwise a very tense movie.

While The Village is the definite first step down, it, too, has some redeeming qualities. The atmosphere is really well done here as well, and there are some strong jump out of your seat moments (like when Joaquin Phoenix realizes that the "monster" is almost right next to him, very creepy).

I mean, you don't do all that without having some ability. That's what makes his most recent efforts even more confusing.

All my joking aside, I'm completely with the Chief here. I completely agree with his analysis.

Lady in the Pool completely stank, but I was willing to forgive him for that, because it seemed like a vanity project. But The Happening, which should have been right in his wheelhouse, was just miserable. For a movie named "The Happening", nothing actually happened. No action, no character development, no layered themes, nothing.

I constantly joke that he was replaced by a pod person at some point after the Village. Christopher Nolan has now taken his spot in my collection of directors whose work I will see regardless of the content. It saddens me a little. Regardless of a public consensus of his talent level, his earlier films really entertained me - they just perfectly hit what I like in a movie. And now he might as well be Uwe Boll.

[FF]

it's an insult to uwe that you would compare m. night to him

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by FF

it's an insult to uwe that you would compare m. night to him

That is true. Uwe Boll does have a much longer track record of making completely crap films. Sorry, Uwe.

[sabotai]

I thought Lady In The Water was his best movie (not saying I thought it was a great movie). I thought the Sixth Sense was "good" but didn't like it nearly as much as everyone else. The other 2 movies I saw of his was Signs and The Village. I hated both.

And The Sixth Sense was not his first movie, it was his third.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The NYT reviewer does, I think, a good job of explaining why Shyamalan mis-executed on pretty much aspect of the movie, in a genre (Sci-Fi/Fantasy) that's already tough to get off the ground successfully: http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/07/01...tml?ref=movies

They missed a number of things within the list of what was wrong with the movie. You would be hard pressed to make me think M. Night actually watched the series versus just having his kids explain it to him and him going from there.

[ace1914]

Loved Sixth Sense. I thought that he did a wonderful job of telling the story and maintaining good misdirection.

I loved Unbreakable and Signs was pretty good as well.

As others have said, the Village was total crap and the ending was pretty predictable.

The Happening was well directed but I think the story didn't really seem to have a true direction. It was OK, I guess. Has anyone actually seen Last Airbender?

[JonInMiddleGA]

This particular movie had pretty obvious suckage potential from the get-go. The story itself, or the overall presentation of it, has been well established by the animated series & there's just nothing about it that seemed likely to work IMO.

Beyond how badly M.N.S. can fuck something up, is there really a big audience for a movie (remake of 80's classic notwithstanding) with an action hero that's roughly 11-12 years old? And while that description isn't the entirety of Aang's character in the series, it's still a significant element of it alongside the various coming of age sub-plots. It just didn't seem like something that was going to translate well to the big screen & apparently it didn't.

[Danny]

I really enjoyed Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. And I also agree that Unbreakable is my favorite of the three. I have not seen any of his other movies as I heard them were all bad, so he is still 3 for 3 in movies of his that I have seen

[Cringer]

Funny, I have liked (not loved) every M. Night movie though I put Unbreakable as one of my least favorite.

I will see this, if anything at least for the special effects. My daughter and I have been waiting for this and hopefully it makes it to film #3 because I want to see the final battles of the cartoon series in live action/cg.

[PraetorianX]

MNS has certainly gone downhill a lot in recent years.

I think Shyamalan perhaps needs to take a step back let somebody else do some writing either for or with him for a couple of movies at least and let him get back to what he's best at. Directing. From his earlier movies (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs) the thing I liked best was his direction and the atmosphere that the movie had.

I haven't seen his more recent stuff, it didn't really appeal to me and I hadn't heard anything good about any of it. With that in mind, I could be wrong, but one of the main complaints I've heard is that they were poorly written.

Perhaps Shyamalan just needs to go back to the basics and refind his form. I realize of course that he wrote the earlier films too. Just think he may be trying to do too much.

I think comparing MNS to Uwe Boll is harsh though. I mean, has Boll ever actually made a decent movie? Ever?

[stevew]

In the Name of the King was freaking awesome. I don't think anyone but a true craftsman(boll) could have done that movie.

[Daimyo]

The graph of his rottentomato.com scores over time is awesome:

M. Night Shyamalan - Rotten Tomatoes Celebrity Profile

[k0ruptr]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The graph of his rottentomato.com scores over time is awesome:

M. Night Shyamalan - Rotten Tomatoes Celebrity Profile

lol that is awesome, its like something some random internet person created to make fun of him, but not. haha

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

hungry guys work harder. when you're nobody your passion is your life. you spend all your time cultivating and refining your work/songs/ideas.

pre pulp tarantino
the matrix guys
every band ever (more or less)
etc.

success means contracts, budgets, deadlines etc. idea turnaround is much less and expectations are much greater.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

hungry guys work harder. when you're nobody your passion is your life. you spend all your time cultivating and refining your work/songs/ideas.

pre pulp tarantino
the matrix guys
every band ever (more or less)
etc.

success means contracts, budgets, deadlines etc. idea turnaround is much less and expectations are much greater.

That sums it up for me, like a one trick musical act you have your entire life to write that first album, book or movie. Then fame, money, accolades and expectations all kick in and there is nowhere to go but down if your creative well is not that deep, or your ego gets too big.

[Groundhog]

M. Night Shyamalan was killed before Signs, and replaced by Crab People.

[FF]

Originally Posted by stevew

In the Name of the King was freaking awesome. I don't think anyone but a true craftsman(boll) could have done that movie.

do you really believe this? i havent seen this but i truly do believe uwe is seriously misunderstood.

dont get me wrong, im not trying to place uwe in the light of a genius or anything, but his points about michael bay et al are spot on IMO.

m. nights direction is fine, but he got lucky and struck gold with his sixth sense script and now we are seeing his true talents at work

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm gutted - I LOVED the last airbender cartoon and was hoping the movie would do it justice ..... will still probably see it though at some point, probably tv now.

[boberot]

My kids watch the Avatar cartoon, and I have to say it is really well done. It doesn't insult the intelligence of the kids watching it and manages to stay above the generic lowbrow pulp of kids cartoons these days. So, we had hope for the movie as well.

As far as M. Night, I thought Sixth Sense through the Village was acceptably entertaining, but The Happening is the only movie I can remember that was laugh-out-loud awful -- the only thing that kept me from leaving the theater after 30 minutes was the unintentional comedy and the utter magnificence of it's failure.

[evil homer]

saw the movie with my 10 year old son yesterday. we were really looking forward to it since we love the TV show. the dialogue was very simplistic and the acting very wooden. sokka made hayden christensen's performance in the star wars prequels seem oscar worthy. the effects were well done, but that was about the best part of it. my son was also disappointed, and it takes a lot to disappoint a 10 year old when they go into something looking for it to be good.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by FF

do you really believe this? i havent seen this but i truly do believe uwe is seriously misunderstood.

dont get me wrong, im not trying to place uwe in the light of a genius or anything, but his points about michael bay et al are spot on IMO.

m. nights direction is fine, but he got lucky and struck gold with his sixth sense script and now we are seeing his true talents at work

it was sooooo bad it had to be good. Liotta turns in porno level acting.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

M. Night Shyamalan was killed before Signs, and replaced by Crab People.

CRAB PEOPLE
CRAB PEOPLE
CRAB PEOPLE

[Glengoyne]

I had fears of this when only a couple of weeks ago I saw the dreaded "M Night Shaymalan" tag line on a beloved franchise. It was the same disappointment I had when I discovered in the theater that Tim Burton was directing the second Batman movie. I nearly got up and left, and wished later that I had followed my instincts.

[Danny]

Wow, the man wrote Stuart Little, did not know that.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

That sums it up for me, like a one trick musical act you have your entire life to write that first album, book or movie. Then fame, money, accolades and expectations all kick in and there is nowhere to go but down if your creative well is not that deep, or your ego gets too big.

Careful, I said this in less polite terms and got told its "too simple an answer".

[Coffee Warlord]

I don't know why everyone thinks Signs was a good movie. Most ridiculous aliens, possibly ever.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Careful, I said this in less polite terms and got told its "too simple an answer".

Wow, aren't you a sensitive little baby. So sorry I didn't have the exact same opinion as you. Can I PM you when it's okay for me to slightly disagree with your opinion in the future? Thanks.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Wow, aren't you a sensitive little baby. So sorry I didn't have the exact same opinion as you. Can I PM you when it's okay for me to slightly disagree with your opinion in the future? Thanks.

Naw...just ask him in a public forum. Everyone's response just makes my day.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Naw...just ask him in a public forum. Everyone's response just makes my day.

Will do.

[RendeR]

No Rum, not sensitive, just pointing out hte hypocrasy that runs amok here. One person says something one way, people jump his shit and beat down his opinion. Someone else says the EXACT SAME FUCKING THING in a more polite manner and no one says word 1 about it.

So for you M. night apologists:

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

It was the same disappointment I had when I discovered in the theater that Tim Burton was directing the second Batman movie. I nearly got up and left, and wished later that I had followed my instincts.

Probably doesn't matter, but you do realize that Tim Burton also directed the first Batman movie, right?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Seems too simplistic. While he did re-use the twist tactic in his next three movies after The Sixth Sense, there was more to the quality of those movies than just a story re-told.

They aren't "twists" they are "catches" -- there's consistently be a catch in all of his stories. A plot twist is something that changes the direction of the story that keeps you guessing what comes next. Shyamalan's stories consistently have a catch that is usually revealed only at the end. The success of the story telling is based entirely on whether the viewer sees the catch coming.

Anyone whose storytelling is based entirely on gimmicks isn't much of a story teller. Take The Sixth Sense vs. The Usual Suspects. I've watched The Usual Suspects a dozen times and it's always a good view even though you know what's coming, and you still can't catch all the lies and twists. The Sixth Sense had all the subtlety of a two-by-four to the head. You can watch it once and if you don't see the catch coming, you might be able to watch it again to see what you missed. But there's no depth or story to it -- just really obvious clues.

He's a one-trick pony. I would forgive that if he wasn't also a pompous overbearing ass. That Sci-fi fake documentary nonsense a few years ago pretty much sealed the deal on that.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RendeR

No Rum, not sensitive, just pointing out hte hypocrasy that runs amok here. One person says something one way, people jump his shit and beat down his opinion. Someone else says the EXACT SAME FUCKING THING in a more polite manner and no one says word 1 about it.

Actually, you are a sensitive baby and we all know it. Don't pretend otherwise. This crap here just proves it even more.

"Jump his shit", I guess, is my response and cthomer's response to your earlier post, where we both thought your response was too simple to explain what was happening. Not sure how that's taking your opinion and throwing it away. Both responses were reasoned and detailed responses. There was no vitriol thrown at you by either of us. All we did was disagree. And it wasn't even like 100% disagreement either. It was more like, well, we see your point, but we think there's more to it than that.

Am I required to respond in similar detail and saying the same things every time someone repeats something to avoid being a "hypocrite" in your eyes? Apparently so.

Maybe next time you should take a little time to actually read what I and cthomer wrote and not immediately leap into your Persecution Complex.

Like Robin Williams says in Good Will Hunting, "It's not about you!"