In a cinematic world that was all too tightly embracing slasher gore for cheap scares, M. Night Shyamalan came out of virtually nowhere and reeducated us all in the art of fright. In his major motion picture directorial debut, Shyamalan crafts a nearly perfect mystery thriller that knows all the right strings to pull. The depth and range of emotions that he manages to pull from his actors and the quality product that he produces with this film leaves little doubt as to why he was being hailed as the next Alfred Hitchcock.
Bruce Willis stars as a child psychologist trying to help a young boy with a peculiar dilemma. The boy, named Cole (brilliantly played by Haley Joel Osment), has a secret that he is too scared to reveal to anyone. Slowly, Willis earns the boy's trust and he begins to help Cole conquer his demons. Along the way, there are plenty of jolts and classical scares.
Instead of overusing blood and gore that teen horror flicks had come to rely on for chills, Shyamalan crafts a genuinely creepy tale that knows what scares us most- the unknown and the unseen. Some of the scariest moments in the film come while we’re anticipating something to happen. Shyamalan really has a handle on how to manipulate the subtle surroundings that cause our own minds to scare ourselves silly when we’re alone in the house.
And not enough can be said about Osment’s Oscar-nominated performance. It must be psychological, but seeing a child frozen with fear is itself terrifying. Had the film been about an adult suffering the same problems as Cole, it wouldn’t have been nearly as successful. The inclusion of children as an element of terror works almost like clockwork.
If you can’t tell, I’m being very protective of the film’s big secrets because I don’t want to spoil it for anybody. Sure, it was made nearly 10 years ago, but this film is so ingenious that I’m not willing to risk spoiling it. It’s seriously that good.
The fantastic and shocking story makes the film worth watching. The symbolic and significant use of color, camera angles and imagery that you’re likely to miss the first time through make it worth repeat viewings. The chills and thrills may not work as well your second or third time through, but it’s unlikely that you’ll ever forget the first time you saw The Sixth Sense.
Unfortunately, Shyamalan had hit-or-miss success with his later films. His unparalleled success with his first major film really set the bar unfairly high and few have been able to give him a fair shake since, but no one can take away the greatness he accomplished with this film.
Without fail, this film finds itself onto virtually every list of the best romantic comedies or chick flicks that gets written. Needless to say, I was leery of watching it, me being the chick flick detractor that I am. But I was on my honeymoon and I gave my wife full freedom in selecting a film to watch. While it is a so-called “chick flick,” it also gets listed on many top comedy lists, so I had some hope. What I got was the best of both worlds.
Let’s face it- chick flicks are inferior by nature. They are typically paint-by-numbers stories of unrealistic love in unrealistic situations. When Harry Met Sally eschews all of that and makes something of itself. For starters, it’s an R-rated romantic comedy. This means it is willing to go the extra mile to be bold in its story telling and its content. It is also tremendously funny while also being brutally honest and shows the side of love that makes us terribly vulnerable and fragile creatures.
The story begins, as the title proclaims, when Harry met Sally. After the last day of college, Sally is headed off to New York City to make something of herself. One of her friends has a boyfriend named Harry who lives in NYC so she agrees to give him a ride home. Sally is almost immediately turned off by Harry’s view of male-female relationships, which is basically that men and women cannot be ‘just friends.’
Throughout the rest of the film, Harry and Sally are continually crossing paths a few years after their past encounter and their love lives are examined each step of the way. The tension between them eventually gives way to friendship. They awkwardly try to avoid expressing any interest in each other, but it is incredibly obvious to us viewers that each is developing feelings for the other like a snowball rolling down a hill.
Without spoiling too much, Harry and Sally end up realizing that they are in love with each other, but both have been hurt before by love and try to rationalize and dismiss their feelings to prevent such vulnerability again. This is one of the reasons that the film is so unique. It forces the viewer into confronting their own vulnerability in regards to love, which sometimes has the unique side-effect of making the film a tad uncomfortable to watch because it’s so darn realistic.
A lot of the relationship humor is dead on and wildly funny. Billy Crystal’s deadpan delivery serves the material well and Meg Ryan adeptly plays a woman who takes the notion of love very seriously and thinks that most of the mushy gushy stuff is possible, if not plausible. Both have their worlds shattered by different situations and circumstances and they learn valuable lessons from each other. The audience can pick up a few tips from this film as well. While it is a romantic comedy, there is plenty to take away from it as an examination of romance in America.
When Harry Met Sally is anything but typical. Putting two comedic forces like Rob Reiner and Billy Crystal together yields tremendous results. The leads are on the top of their respective games and the supporting cast hits their mark wonderfully. Being a romantic comedy though, the film does make a few stretches and presents a love story that is almost too remarkable to believe, but it still is head and shoulders above virtually all of its peers in the genre.
You wouldn’t normally expect much from a film that features David Bowie as a stretch pants-clad antagonist, but winning charm abounds in Labyrinth. The combination of Jim Henson’s endless puppet creations, some entertaining musical numbers and a decent story add up to create a whimsical fantasy tale that can be described only as unique.
Labyrinth is about a girl named Sarah (a young Jennifer Connelly) who is in love with literature and fantasy. She desperately wishes to get away from her life, particularly her fussy half-brother whom she has to babysit. Thinking the fantasy tales she reads are not real, she accidentally banishes the tike into another world, where he is being held captive by the Goblin King (Bowie).
The Goblin King lives at the center of a giant labyrinth, a maze of stone walls covering countless acres stretching in all directions. Sarah is given 13 hours to work her way to the Goblin King’s castle at the center of the labyrinth. If she makes it to the center, she and her half-brother can go back to their world. If she fails in her quest, the boy will be the Goblin King’s forever.
During her journey, Sarah meets many interesting characters, ranging from a tiny little caterpillar to a gigantic hairy beast. Some of the creatures want to help her find the castle while others are out to prevent any possibility of success. Still others are just there to add a dash of spice and color to the otherwise dreary labyrinth. Each character has different features and are different sizes, creating any number of logistical issues for the puppeteers and the actors alike.
Some of the creatures are large enough to have a person inside them to move them around, but for the most part, Bowie is left with only an infant to interact with, a testament to his acting chops. It can’t be easy projecting and evoking emotion while dealing with lifeless puppets and people buried underneath bizarre costumes.
Perhaps that difficulty does show through in the final product. Jennifer Connelly was young when she made this film and it is possible that her inexperience hindered her character at times. I would be more likely to attribute any weakness to the slightly silly concept of the story and several instances of visual effects and blue screen trickery that aged quite poorly (if it even looked good back in the day).
For me, Labyrinth is somewhat of a guilty pleasure. It’s not a bad film at all, but it’s not exactly something people would normally jump out of their seats to see. It’s got a solid cult following and I can understand why. Labyrinth showcases Jim Henson’s mastery and imagination with dozens of fantastical creature creations ranging from cute and cuddly to downright grotesque. The music is fun and catchy and the film never overstays its welcome.
Then again, it does feature David Bowie as a stretch pants-clad antagonist. :-P
One of Rodgers & Hammerstein’s first movie-musicals, Oklahoma! paints a love story over the backdrop of the Old West. There is luscious scenery and delightful songs, but it comes up a tad short as a total package. That isn’t to say that it’s not enjoyable.
Laurey (Shirley Jones- aka Mrs. Partridge) and Curly (Gordon MacRae) are a stubborn pair who gradually realize they love each other. Both like the other’s attention initially and enjoy flirting and teasing each other and over time they realize that they mean more to each other than they had ever let themselves accept. The antagonist to all this is Jud (Rod Steiger), the surly farmhand who has had his eye on Laurey for some time, exhibiting stalker-like tendencies even.
Determined to have Laurey for his own, Jud takes advantage of Laurey and Curly’s flirty feuding and asks her to the box social. She agrees to spite Curly, but immediately regrets the decision because she has always been a little creeped out by Jud. At the box social there is a bidding war between Jud and Curly for Laurey’s picnic basket (really a feud over Laurey herself). Tension invariably gives way to a happy ending and a raucously good song.
Most of the acting is pretty good. The Ado Annie character, despite her admitted wild behavior, is actually quite bland and uninteresting. Because all the men are dressed up like cowboys and farmers, it is a little difficult to keep some of the supporting characters straight, but that’s all fairly amenable.
Good music and good songs abound in this classic film. The songs reflect the lifestyles and mindsets of a simpler time and the people struggling to make ends meet as farmers and ranchers. The music seems to flow right out of the grain, through the wind and into our ears. Rodgers & Hammerstein really have their songwriting polished at even their earliest stages of the movie-musical game.
The one thing I had trouble with was how long some of the songs and musical numbers went on because of randomly-placed dance pieces. I can understand that girls get excited while dressing up for the big social event of the year, but do we really need a couple minutes of ballet from the youngest of the farm girls? The dancing is good, but it slows down the pace of the film and I did get a little bored with it.
Another very bizarre segment is during a dream Laurey has about what it would be like to be married to Jud. It’s trippy and dark. I couldn’t tell if it was supposed to be some kind of stylistic artsy expressionism or just something weird enough to contrast against the light fluffy farm life. It involved lots of red lighting, a little burlesque dancing and some interesting set designs.
On the whole, Oklahoma! is a pretty good little film. It’s got a decent story and lots of fun music. The use of on location filming in addition to the soundstage work was a nice touch and really helped me feel like I was in a real world. It’s the first collaboration for Rodgers and Hammerstein and I think that shows through in places. The excessive amount of dance numbers and mishmash of styles here and there show a creative team in the early stages of refining their talents and searching for something new, exciting and entertaining. For the most part, they found it and it translates well onto the screen.
I am a big fan of Superman: The Movie and I can at least appreciate what its three sequels tried to offer. Therefore, I was very wary of this film. There is a good reason why it took so long to make another Superman movie- it will ultimately be compared to Richard Donner’s outstanding 1978 classic. While Superman Returns is appreciable in its own right, there is just no comparison to be made.
Superman Returns takes a very unique approach to the Superman legacy. Instead of a brand-new origin story film (which worked quite well for the Batman Begins) or picking up where Superman IV left off, Returns completely disregards the events of Superman III and IV. Even though Superman: The Movie took place in the 1970s, Returns plays it off as only being 5 years since Superman II. There’s a very modern setting with very modern dangers.
Superman at some point decided to go back to his home world of Krypton. Finding nothing there, he heads back to Earth. All this time away occurs over a period of five years. Since then, the world has changed. America (and the world) has grown used to not having Superman around to protect them. Lois Lane even wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning article called “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.”
Kal-El is shocked to see that no one really misses him, so he tries to ease his way back into society as Clark Kent. Friendly faces are glad to have Kent back but he’s still shocked at how much things have changed.
But not all things have changed though. Lex Luthor, played very well by Kevin Spacey, is out of jail. Since Superman missed Lex’s trial and wasn’t able to testify against him, Lex got off scott free. He has married a sweet old lady who dies and leaves millions of dollars to him on her deathbed. He uses this money to track down Superman’s abandoned fortress of solitude in the arctic and steals all of the information crystals therein.
While experimenting on the crystals, Luthor discovers that the crystals grow enormously when placed in water. He hatches yet another diabolical real estate scheme- by placing these crystals in the ocean, he can create a massive new continent that will destroy other parts of the world, thus making him the most powerful landowner on Earth. By encasing the crystals in kryptonite, he can ensure that Superman will be powerless to stop him, as his new continent will weaken the Man of Steel.
Superman battles against Lex and a number of other small-time crooks along the way. There are flashy fight sequences and lots of CGI to showcase some of Superman’s power. Seriously though, we did not need a super-slow-motion sequence showing a bullet shattering off of Superman’s eyeball. While it all makes sense to use the CGI to show off the Man of Steel’s skills, it all seems a little unnecessary at the same time.
Superman also has to face his demons with Lois Lane. She’s moved on, had a kid and is engaged to another guy. They sort of patch things up, but it’s left kind of in limbo. Turns out, the kid belongs to Superman and he will likely be just as “talented” as his dad.
Lex Luthor puts up a good fight, but it is Superman we’re talking about here, remember?
Superman Returns is good in that director Bryan Singer didn’t attempt to make the film a carbon copy of the kitschy originals or take it off into a bold new direction. The problem is that by trying to treat the Superman legacy with respect, Singer creates a fairly bland story. Maybe the young actors (Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth) need more time to come into their roles, but something felt off there. There wasn’t the same kind of feel-good chemistry between Lois and Clark as there should have been.
The plot was also kind of flat as well. Yes, Luthor comes up with a way to create all kinds of destruction and Superman thwarts him. It’s time-honored Superman, but it’s not fresh. Superman Returns is watchable and features fresh faces and flashy graphics, but something is missing from the heart and spirit of this film, which is what makes Superman what he is and what makes a Superman movie worthwhile.
This film suffers from a case of toomuchitis. It is a prime example overindulgence in cinema and it brings the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy to a far from satisfying conclusion.
Lord Beckett, now in possession of Davy Jones’ heart, uses Jones to track down and kill as many pirates as possible. The pirates, of course, are not happy about this and sing a creepy pirate song to summon the nine pirate lords to council together to take action against Beckett. The only problem is that Captain Jack Sparrow is one of the pirate lords and is, well, dead. Sort of. He is trapped in Davy Jones’ locker, so his friends and associates band together to rescue him.
To do this they need to steal a map from Sao Feng, a pirate lord from Singapore. There is lying, stealing, action and adventure that all starts out the film making very little sense. It is very hard to figure out what is going on and it is even more difficult to try and piece together the plot as it is dispensed piece by piece throughout the film. Deals are made and broken; agreements are made and abandoned; and it’s all so long and confusing that it barely makes any sense.
The first hour focuses on rescuing Sparrow from Davy Jones’ Locker, which features Jack commanding a ship crewed by multiple versions of him. This essentially drives Sparrow and the audience a little bonkers. One Jack is enough, thank you very much. Their escape is bizarre and long-winded.
The story next moves onto all the swindling, double-crossing, deal-making and fighting. None of the double-crosses and the numerous sub-plots play out as well as Disney hoped they would. Instead of an inspired tale of twists and turns, I was left to ask “Huh?” far too frequently for any movie.
It’s sometimes hard to tell what is driving the characters as well. Are they acting upon old information we were supposed to remember from the first two films or is there something new going on? Speaking of characters, several supporting characters have reduced roles and either fade to the background or are rubbed out of the story completely.
Most of the visual effects are pretty good, but there is a sense of “been there, done that” in At World’s End. It’s hard to make naval battles look fresh and original in the third installment of the series, and the music falls back on familiar themes and never really hammers home the action with fresh beats or twists on the old familiar score.
So, in some ways, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End suffers in excess, but those same examples of excess are also examples of not enough. While the film is nearly 3 hours long, there’s not enough action or cognizant story to make it all worthwhile. While there is an overabundance of neat CGI work, there’s not enough character and emotion behind it all to make you care one way or another about the characters.
The final two insults come at the end of the film.
First, Will Turner (played by Orlando Bloom) is killed by Davy Jones. Will gets some semblance of revenge by stabbing Jones’ heart, thereby taking over as captain of The Flying Dutchman, but as captain he may only step foot on dry land once every 10 years, royally screwing up any kind of happy ending for Will and Elizabeth (Kiera Knightley). It’s a very dour way to conclude your story. Evidently there is a clip at the end of the credits that undoes all of this, but that seems to fly in the face of all the information given to us in the film.
Secondly, it’s left somewhat open-ended. Jack is cast off the Black Pearl yet again but he first steals a map pointing the way to Florida and the supposed location of the fountain of youth. This leaves the door open for Disney to make yet another Pirates film should they choose to do so. This essentially leaves us like the first installment left us- with some form of resolution, but not enough to go home and be completely satisfied and assured that the tale is over.
To be frank, At World’s End does a poor job of wrapping things up from Dead Man’s Chest because it adds too many new things to the mix to iron out evenly at the end. It is too long, too twisty-turny and spends too much time reveling in Jack Sparrow because it thinks that is what we want.
If you have only seen the first installment, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, stop where you are. Parts 2 and 3 will only dilute the fun and satisfaction of the original.
Taking the story of a popular toy line and turning what was formerly just a cartoon series into a live-action movie is a bold proposition. For as long as I can remember, there was always interest in bringing the Transformers to the big screen, but the logistics of doing so often caused much trepidation on the part of the studios and filmmakers. This always led to the abandonment of the project. Always, that is, until Michael Bay came along.
The answer is a resounding YES! Transformers brings all the explosive, noisy fun you were hoping for and wraps it up with a bow of fantastic special effects. And then there’s more! I was very surprised and impressed by how seriously the story was treated without going overboard into melodrama. You really do get a sense that the fate of the world hangs in the balance.
Shia LaBeouf leaves no doubts about it- he has matured into a real actor and has broken away from the kiddie stuff that got him into the business. He more than convincingly portrays a less-than-popular high school student trying to make sense of the life and death struggle between two warring races of alien robots, the Autobots and the Decepticons.
Most of the writing is very sharp and surprisingly dramatic. LaBeouf’s character (Sam Witwicky) buys a car that turns out to be an Autobot (the good guys). At first it just seems like the car is full of quirks, but when the Decepticons (the bad guys) attack him, the information starts to roll out. Witwicky’s grandfather discovered the Decpticon leader, Megatron, frozen in the ice of the Arctic Circle. Not all the systems were shut down though, as Megatron etched the coordinates to a powerful energy source onto the man’s glasses.
The glasses are now in the hands of Sam and posting them on eBay almost literally brings the battle to his front door. The energy source they both seek is the All-Spark. It is so powerful that it can be wielded for creative or destructive purposes. The Autobots are for the former; the Decipticons, the latter.
There are plenty of battle scenes, as the Decepticons clash with both humans and Autobots, causing much drama, suspense and destruction. Most of these action sequences involve the Transformers shifting from the vehicular forms into full-fledged robots, which is almost always seamless and breathtaking. For much of the film, these transforming sequences do not look fake. The Transformers really look like they exist side by side with their human counterparts.
I really only have a few quibbles with this otherwise solid film. First, the acting and writing goes over the top when the Sector 7 folks show up. John Turturro is way out of line and I honestly thought he was a Decipticon hologram. Frankly, I wish he would have been.
Also, while the transforming sequences were spectacular to look at, I took issue with the size and weight that these Transformers possess when they are in the robot forms. They are very tall and appear to weigh a lot, as running and slamming into things creates a lot of damage to the ground and buildings. Maybe they could have done a bit more comparable physics research but this is mostly excusable.
The All-Spark is almost a MacGuffin in that it motivates the Transformers to do what they do and is the central item that the conflict occurs over. But, it appears very late in the film and is gone so quickly that it almost feels anticlimactic. Then again, this is the toy/cartoon resolution that I should have been expecting, so it too is excusable.
My final quibble is with the music. Much of the orchestral music is beautiful and dramatic and works very well to compliment the action. But sometimes during battle sequences, the filmmakers ditch the dramatic score and throw in modern rock tunes. To be fair, this decision helps keep the film mindful of its core audience (kids, teens and kids at heart), but it did pull me out of it just a tad.
All in all, this was a very impressive film. So many things could have been overdone or underdone, but just about everything was hit just right. The story was treated seriously enough for adults to enjoy but kept fun enough to keep the younger crowd on the edge of their seats. Awesome effects, dizzying camera work and sharp acting make Transformers something to remember.
This isn’t just a popcorn pleaser. If you’ve still got a kid somewhere inside you, check this one out.
You may be asking yourself, “Didn’t he already write a review for this movie?” The answer to that question is yes. And no. I wrote a review for the 2001 street racing film of the same name. This film titled The Fast and the Furious is the original. The recent movie just bought the rights to use the name and is totally unrelated to this relatively decent thriller.
John Ireland stars as Frank Webster, a man who recently broke out of jail while serving time for a murder he didn’t commit. At a small-town gas station and road stop, Webster takes a young woman (Connie) and her sports car hostage. With the police in pursuit, they enter the car in a border-crossing rally race that will allow him to get away to Mexico.
Along the way sparks fly between Webster and Connie. She continually tries to escape towards the beginning and does her best to irritate him. By the end of the film they share a mutual romantic interest in each other. They dodge the police, some of Connie’s suspicious friends at the rally race, and other cars during his frantic race for freedom.
While The Fast and the Furious was made as a B-movie, it does have a few merits to speak of. The filming of the race sequences is done quite well and involves some very good stunt driving. The action is tense and keeps you on the edge of your seat as well.
Otherwise, the script is weak (as can be expected from a B-movie) and the acting is a little over-the-top sometimes, but it all adds up to a pleasant 70 minutes in front of the TV screen. The filmmakers weren’t trying to win any Oscars here and they pull off just about all they set out to do.
There is no comparison between The Fast and the Furious and the 2001 film of the same name. This film is by far better, but still nothing too special. Some moviegoers will recognize many of the films elements from the 1994 film The Chase, which is strikingly similar, but not a true remake since The Fast and the Furious was released on the B-market and never made any serious Hollywood rotation.
Who would have ever thought Robert De Niro could leave you in stitches and gasping for air? Well, we know he can do that physically, especially given his filmography, but Meet the Parents shows a side of De Niro that very few could have expected to see. The man knows comedy and is one of the driving forces behind the success of this film.
Ironically, this will be the first time Greg has ever met Pam’s parents, so first impressions are a must. Naturally, everything goes wrong. After losing his luggage (and the ring) due to airline incompetence, Greg endures a series of awkward encounters with Pam’s family, her sister’s future in-laws, her ex-boyfriend and even the family cat.
Greg bumbles and fumbles his way through the weekend trying to impress Pam’s stern father. While he is said to be a florist, Jack Byrnes is really a retired CIA operative and deadly serious about everything he does. De Niro’s dead-on approach makes the character perfectly balanced between being kind of creepy and hilariously over the top. Stiller’s trademark goofiness shines through as well, especially in the scenes where his goofiness is forced to be restrained, heightening the awkwardness. Whether it was a decision made by the actors or the director, it was a wise choice.
The concept of Meet the Parents adds weight to the humor. Meeting a significant other’s parents for the first time is almost always a nervous time. The film compounds the pressure by having Greg asking permission to marry Pam, another nerve-wracking situation. All this pressure is something many people can relate to, which is an asset to any film and especially to comedies.
With a great majority of audiences knowing what it’s like to meet important new people, a connection is made between the characters and the viewers. We end up embracing these strangers on screen and welcome them into our hearts and minds as friends. We end up cheering for them and with them and we also groan and sympathize when things go awry yet again. In the end, we all get the absurd triumph we’re expecting, but it doesn’t seem obvious to us. It’s a hard fought victory for our team and we leave the theater or living room we watch the film in with a smile on our faces.
While Meet the Parents is not a tour de force of funny, it provides for plenty of laughs and makes for a darn good time at the movies. It is definitely worth seeing.
There’s really nothing I can say about this film that hasn’t already been said before. Raiders of the Lost Ark launched the Indiana Jones series and solidified both Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg as Hollywood titans. It is a near-perfect blend of action, romance, humor and drama.
Raiders of the Lost Ark sets itself apart from many other adventure films because the main character, Indiana Jones, is a scholarly archeologist. He’s not just a smug, dashing hero- he’s also a brilliant researcher who knows his stuff. The inclusion of real artifacts into the tale is a big plus. Looking for the much fabled Ark of the Covenant provides for both archeological and religious information that is both interesting and enlightening. This rare blend of education and entertainment is the driving force behind the success of the film and its sequels.
Harrison Ford was in the middle of the Star Wars saga when he did this film and it proved his worth and acting chops, as he plays the debonair yet gritty Dr. Jones to perfection. He makes the character his own and does so in a believable fashion. The supporting cast also does a tremendous job in their respective roles, creating one thrill ride of a film that is great from start to finish.
While a few of the special effects show their age nowadays, Raiders of the Lost Ark pushed the envelope back in 1981. The stunt work is very carefully choreographed and the script wastes no time advancing the action and the storyline simultaneously. This is such an enormous benefit that many Indy clones and knock-offs fail to pull off. Instead of shifting focus from the action and the information, Raiders of the Lost Ark keeps its sights on both sides of the equation the whole way through.
It is because of this that the film is so darn engaging and fun. Jones is too charismatic not to like and the quest for the Ark is too interesting and important not to care about. Viewers become heavily invested in the characters, the action and the purpose by the end of the film, which all makes for a triumphant picture. The addition of John Williams’ legendary score helped solidify Raiders of the Lost Ark as one of the most important and memorable films of all time.
As goofy and unlikely as some of the action and decisions may be, you can’t deny this tour de force. It is one of the rare great films that can be watched and enjoyed endlessly, no matter how many times you have seen it before. Raiders is one of my all-time favorite movies, but my rating is certainly not tainted by subjectivity. This film is hailed by many critics, actors, directors and (most importantly) movie goers as one rapid-fire thrill ride that’s sure to please (it was even nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars!).
I made sure to make this one of my milestone movies and it is a more than worthy addition to this site.
In a cinematic world that was all too tightly embracing slasher gore for cheap scares, M. Night Shyamalan came out of virtually nowhere and reeducated us all in the art of fright. In his major motion picture directorial debut, Shyamalan crafts a nearly perfect mystery thriller that knows all the right strings to pull. The depth and range of emotions that he manages to pull from his actors and the quality product that he produces with this film leaves little doubt as to why he was being hailed as the next Alfred Hitchcock.
