The major problem M. Night Shyamalan has had to face in recent years is exactly what he strikes out against through this film: being typecast, erroneously and viciously, by the production companies who steward his pictures and by the critics who go into his films expecting something ordinary and then bashing him needlessly because he ended up giving them something completely unexpected. Isn't that the point of film-making - to try new things, to think outside the box, and most importantly, to tell new, original *stories*?
I was so hopeful when the initial advertisements trumpeted this film as a "bedtime story". Why Warner Brothers abandoned that direction and went with the more conventional thriller angle (which this film, by all means, is most definitely NOT), I'll never figure out; if they had continued with the "bedtime story" idea, it would have played better with a movie-going public that's led around blindly by the pied piper that are the movie critics. Are there moments in the film where a strong suspension of disbelief is required? Sure, but isn't it that way with any bedtime story that you might tell your kids?
What I'm ultimately saying is that the critics looked past the big picture to nitpick on the small details, as if they're trying to top Shyamalan's admittedly arrogant attitude out of spite. (It's true that by casting himself in the role of the writer whom Story inspires to change the world, that he's opening himself up to those kinds of attacks - but can you really fault him when his performance is as strong as anyone else's in the film?) This is a wonderful *story* with many layers that will reveal themselves upon repeat viewings, and a more intelligent piece of entertainment than other films that will earn more at the box office (like Click) or received more praise from the critics (like the Clerks sequel) could ever dream of being.
Thanks, Night, for once again making the movies something more.
I was so hopeful when the initial advertisements trumpeted this film as a "bedtime story". Why Warner Brothers abandoned that direction and went with the more conventional thriller angle (which this film, by all means, is most definitely NOT), I'll never figure out; if they had continued with the "bedtime story" idea, it would have played better with a movie-going public that's led around blindly by the pied piper that are the movie critics. Are there moments in the film where a strong suspension of disbelief is required? Sure, but isn't it that way with any bedtime story that you might tell your kids?
What I'm ultimately saying is that the critics looked past the big picture to nitpick on the small details, as if they're trying to top Shyamalan's admittedly arrogant attitude out of spite. (It's true that by casting himself in the role of the writer whom Story inspires to change the world, that he's opening himself up to those kinds of attacks - but can you really fault him when his performance is as strong as anyone else's in the film?) This is a wonderful *story* with many layers that will reveal themselves upon repeat viewings, and a more intelligent piece of entertainment than other films that will earn more at the box office (like Click) or received more praise from the critics (like the Clerks sequel) could ever dream of being.
Thanks, Night, for once again making the movies something more.
Tell Your Friends