Also, as for Lou Lumenick, it is pretty much a forgone conclusion he is only out to bash Night unfairly. In his comments earlier he said "his movies since Sixth Sense aren't very good." Unfortunately for Lou, MetaCritic has Lou listed as the critic with the highest praise of "Unbreakable" and he also gave "Signs" a positive review. Actually, for "Unbreakable" he went ahead and said:
[QUOTE]"The Sixth Sense" was no fluke. Unbreakable, writer-director M. Night Shyamalan's dazzling reunion with Bruce Willis confirms he's one of the most brilliant filmmakers working today.
…for "Signs" he said:
[QUOTE]A beautifully crafted, white-knuckle, roller-coaster ride of old-school filmmaking — the kind that believes that the less you show, the better.
Sounds to me like Lou isn't too sure about just what exactly he thinks.

There is a strange and disturbing campaign which I have been noticing against him and which Brad here has voiced so well. Take the dvdbeaver review for Unbreakable blu-ray. The critic after praising the film singles out an "incident" which he saw in "The Making of". Shyamalan here is apparently scolding his staff for not being able to find an original sound cue. The critic goes on to call him arrogant and says that Shyamalan seemed to be behaving as if he invented sound cues. This is quite strange. Kubrick was also supposed to be tough on his crew, so much so that many even refused to work with him after one experience but he is remembered for his films and not how he behaved on the set. How Shyamalan deals with his crew or how he takes work from them is between him and his crew. If they feel wrongly treated they can walk out anytime.

Critics are quick to point out three major "problems" with Signs. "Why would the aliens allergic to water come to a water dominated planet?" and "The aliens are so crude" (the third is the presence of Shyamalan himself, but Brad has already talked about it). The second "problem" is the answer to the first one here. We never see these aliens with any of the sophisticated gadgetry which we have some to expect extra-terrestrial creatures due to their romanticized depiction in popular media. They are supposed to be crude.And that made them all the more scarier to me.

Similarly, in "Lady in the Water" no one doubts Paul's character because it is supposed to be a bedtime story. Would you say "There is nothing called a witch" if someone were telling you one about a witch? Maybe, Lou does. "The Village" is a beautifully made film and a potent political comment. All his films have inherent logic of their own.

That is not to say that his films don't have flaws. They do. But the positives are more overwhelming.

The Happening looks great and I am eagerly looking forward to it.

SaraMichelle said: It is amazing to me how we all conveniently keep forgetting about "Wide Awake." That one was pretty darn horrendous, far worse than "The Village" ever was.

How is it amazing? NetFlix doesn't even have the movie available. Am I supposed to do my best to find a movie just to bash it? It's not convenience, it's inconvenience and unfortunate.

Defamer tried to call me out in their effort to prove they have zero ability to understand what they are reading above a third grade gossip rag level and said that I was a Night lover, where in fact I am a person that judges a movie based on what I see. Truly the Defamer article is one of the most poorly written examples of reading comprehension I have seen in some time considering they put words in my mouth and distort the message.

Perhaps S.T. VanAirsdale at Defamer should also look up the word "previous". It means to come before, as in when I say "all of Night's previous five films" that does not mean previous seven films. I emailed him to see if he would correct the error, yet, no dice. He prefers to misquote. Oh well, hopefully he has a seat with Lou Lumenick at the screening of The Happening and they can pre-judge it together.

"The Happening" looks like a really good film and is one of my must-see movies of this year no matter who says what.

Great article, Brad by the way.

Personally, though, I don't know how two stinkers out of six qualifies a guy for so much anger. Even with their flaws, every picture the man has made shows technical skill far beyond that of so many other so-called directors who rarely – if ever – get called out for being egotistical hacks to the extent this guy does. I get that he doesn't help himself at all sometimes with how he approaches the press and his responses to questions, but if a director wasn't confident in their abilities then who the heck would want to hire them to make a multi-million dollar Hollywood movie in the first place? Just think how much of a better place in the world it would be if Dennis Dugan ("You Don't Mess with the Zohan") or Brian Robbins ("Norbit") faced the kind of intense scrutiny he does.

Personally, I think the image on the dart board for Night started to materialize when Time Magazine named him the next Spielberg, I think during all the press build up for "Signs" (and some of his comments certainly didn't help). If that didn't make him a target then I don't know what did.

On a side note, the guy's American Express commercial is absolutely classic, easily one of the best ever crafted by a Hollywood filmmaker for the company.

The Village is okay in my book. Interesting but frustrating at times.

But you're right. M. Night is public enemy numero uno for a lot of bloggers and critics these days. 2 bonafide blockbusters critics, fan boys and regular folks (on the whole) liked in Signs and 6th Sense. 1 decent-sized hit that critics and fan boys ate up in Unbreakable. 2 movies most people didnt care for in The Village and Lady in the Water. 2 out of 5 movies that people don't like for the most part and he is talked about like he raped people's mothers. Ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as some of the arguments people have for disliking him.

You basically proved to me that you have pre-judged The Happening and that Bob Balaban's performance in Lady in the Water did bother you. I don't know what more there is to say.

I am not going to start some kind of blog war, which is what you appear to be doing by replying on your blog as opposed to here. If you wish to discuss this further and without making grand proclamations, then reply here not on your blog, I would be open to actually hearing a real reply as opposed to simple jabs. However, I don't expect you to return. Oh well.

And what's the deal with ignoring Wide Awake for the M. Night-athon:)

Saying a film is great or crap before you've seen it just based on your dislike of 1 person is just stupid. I said earlier this week I'm staying away from that Ritchie film that has madonna in it, thats because I expect I'd find it crap but I can't say it is, I just make the choice not to watch it.
And saying Night is an egomaniac without having properly met him is also ridiculous. Brad allready pointed the cameo/roll thing out perfectly.

I just don't get how people get so opinionated beforehand. Just like people exclaiming Tarantino's next thing is a gift from god even before they've seen it. His fans are so fanatic he could wrap his morning stool sample in tinfoil and they would pay to see it.
The same kind that would still complain about Night if he actually did save the world.

I prefer to take it one film at a time. See it first so I have a reason to say something 's so bad it would make a maggot throw up.

Let's hope the Happening is a huge box office succes so everyone can then see how overpaid some critics are.
At least Brad takes the time to ad some pictures and an nice layout.