• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

M. Night Shyamalan Films

Incidentally, what was the purpose of the crop circles in Signs? Why were the aliens actually making them in the first place?

That question gave me an excuse to see Signs again for the second time in a year, as I couldn't precisely remember.

re: the point of the circles, there's two mentions of their purpose.


(at 46 min)
Merrill (pretty wired from spending so long watching television): "There's a theory about the crop circles. They could be some kind of some kind of landmark, visual mapping system, so they could navigate, coordinate."

(at 1:04 min)
Morgan (talking about latest lights in the sky, on television): "They're appearing at or within one mile of crop signs"
Merrill: "They _were_ for navigation. They made a map."

.. so I guess the crop circles are guides for where the aliens will land, but it's not made particularly clear.

Every time I see the film it creeps higher up my favourites list, maybe into my top ten now.
 
Interesting. I'm sure you're right. But it does beg the question of how these aliens managed to successfully navigate across the galaxy, yet can't find their way around a small planet without making patterns in fields of corn.
 
Interesting. I'm sure you're right. But it does beg the question of how these aliens managed to successfully navigate across the galaxy, yet can't find their way around a small planet without making patterns in fields of corn.

Yes, and also how they attacked cities, if they needed to land within a mile of a crop circle. It's a film I love for its depiction of family, faith and fear (and television), but it does lack logical rigor in terms of the aliens.
 
Never mind the navigation, why did the aliens show up on Earth if they're allergic to water? Planet's covered in the stuff, life here is mostly made of it, etc.
 
It's a film I love for its depiction of family, faith and fear (and television), but it does lack logical rigor in terms of the aliens.
100%. It isn't in my top 20 but I still watch it for those reasons. Cherry Jones', Joaquins' and the kids' performances are downhome believable. One of my favourite bogeyman moments in film right here:
Bn-x2BYIEAAoKbk.jpg


Merrill: "Are you sure this is Lionel Pritchard?"
images
 
Split: Dissociative Identity Disorder figures in this film, the main character suffers from it and has 23 different identities. On one level this film is about a guy with D.I.D. who kidnaps three girls. But on another its about the complexities of D.I.D. and a psychiatrist who is trying to get her colleagues to appreciate that it is more than just a disorder, that peoples body chemistry may change according to the identity which is in control. The kidnapped girls encounter three different identities of their captor and these personae warn them that a new personality is coming - The Beast.

Much of the film takes place in cramped underground rooms and corridors lined with pipes so a fine air of claustrophobia is maintained. Some scenes of outright horror and gore but the terror is mainly psychological. 8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4972582/
 
I often feel I'm in the minority, actually enjoying Shyamalan's films.
 
I often feel I'm in the minority, actually enjoying Shyamalan's films.

I think his ego started writing cheques his talent couldn't cash, but he seems to be learning from past mistakes and may well be on his second wind, career-wise. As I've said before, Unbreakable is an excellent commentary on superheroes and personal potential in general, I'd say it's his best film. More like that, please.
 
I think his ego started writing cheques his talent couldn't cash, but he seems to be learning from past mistakes and may well be on his second wind, career-wise. As I've said before, Unbreakable is an excellent commentary on superheroes and personal potential in general, I'd say it's his best film. More like that, please.
I thought 'Unbreakable' far better that 'TSS', the former I think his best work.
 
I thought 'Unbreakable' far better that 'TSS', the former I think his best work.

I was at a disadvantage with TSS because I knew the twist before I watched it, but even so I thought I'd have worked it out (the restaurant scene was a bit obvious). But it's a very sleek looking film, he has a nice eye.
 
I think I'm the only person who enjoyed "Lady In The Water" :)
 
I liked "The Happening" (a bit of a Stephen King vibe to it), but thought "Signs" was rubbish. "Sixth Sense" I found OK, but either knew or guessed the twist (can't remember which now). Mind you, I guessed the twist in "The Village", too, but quite enjoyed that one.
 
You might well be!

:D I liked the main characters - neither glamorous nor sexy but heroic, nonetheless, and the subversion of the normal fairy tale tropes.
 
:D I liked the main characters - neither glamorous nor sexy but heroic, nonetheless, and the subversion of the normal fairy tale tropes.

Pity about the director casting himself as the not at all self-aggrandising saviour of the universe and having the type of person who points out the flaws in his plotting get torn apart by a big monster. Suggests "Night" may have had issues... let's hope he's over that.

Anyone seen The Last Airbender? Don't think anyone liked that at all.
 
Another vote for the awfulness of the trailer.

I wish the film was, instead, a Memento-esque story about making sense of reality from a fractured (D.I.D.) perspective, rather than person with D.I.D. as horrorshow villain, which all feels rather 1970s.
 
They always have such promise in the trailers, then turn out to be a mystifying mess...

Or is it just me?
 
Back
Top