The Last Airbender

[Jim H]

I thought I'd start this topic, as based on the reviews it belongs here.  Unfortunately, it looks like I'll be seeing this one in a group tonight. 

Right now, it's at 6% on rottentomatoes.  I think I like Roger Ebert's headline best.

"The Last Airbender: Let's hope it is"

I'll report in on this one in about a day.

[Trevor]

Please do let us know, Jim.

I'd never heard of anything about this before, so when I saw the title a few months back, I thought it was about a guy who could bend the world's air with air from his backside. 

[The Burgomaster]

How many more chances is M. Night Shyamalan going to get before everyone realizes he was a flash in the pan and really has no talent?

[ulthar]

How many more chances is M. Night Shyamalan going to get before everyone realizes he was a flash in the pan and really has no talent?

From the studios' perspective, the problem is the same old one faced in regard to every other no-talent hack that is releasing Hollywood movies: they make money.

Numbers for his movies THE SIXTH SENSE and after:

THE SIXTH SENSE:  budget 40 million, 600 million gross
UNBREAKABLE:  budget 73 million, 249 million gross
SIGNS:  budget 72 million, 408 million gross
THE VILLAGE:  budget almost 72 million, 256 million gross
LADY IN THE WATER:  first loss since THE SIXTH SENSE; budget about 75 million, 73 million gross box office
THE HAPPENING:  budget 48 million, 163 million gross

Considering LADY IN THE WATER had a marketing budget almost equal to its production budget, it really lost money (even after DVD sales factored in).

So, the dude makes money.  It would be right in a just universe, but there you go.  The critics HAVE realized he's a no-talent hack, but the ones spending $$ may never make that connection.  For a lot of folks, movies are 'mindless entertainment,' where in this case, the emphasis is on "mindless."

[InformationGeek]

Oh dear oh my!  I am a gigantic fan of the animated series which this movie is based off of and I want to see it badly.  However, this sounds very bad and I could be heading in for some trouble when I see it.  Yeah, I'm still going to see it.  I really want to still so I can see if it is good in my point of view.

[Vik]

The sixth sense and Unbreakable were good movies though.

[akiratubo]

I'm not going near The Last Airbender or ANY Shyamalan movie.  I saw The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and The Village and they all SUCKED.

Three strikes, yer out.

[ulthar]

The sixth sense and Unbreakable were good movies though.

That's certainly a matter of debate, subject of course to personal taste.

I thoroughly enjoyed THE SIXTH SENSE the first time or two I saw it.  After that?  Meh.  For me, one of the marks of a 'good movie' are sustained enjoyment over multiple viewings...in my case multiple can easily be dozens.  THE SIXTH SENSE just does not stand up over time...for me personally, at least.

On the other hand, I hated UNBREAKABLE.  The twist was obvious and that rendered the whole story a waste of time.  The premise held promise, but for me, the execution failed miserably.

Shyamalan's major draw-back, in my opinion, is that HE thinks HE is a GREAT director.   On the youngish up-and-comer list, I think Omar Naim is 10,000 times better, but that's a name few would recognize.  There's Hollywood justice for you...

[Jim H]

ulthar, I'm curious why the twist in Unbreakable made the whole movie a waste of time for you.  I thought it rather perfectly brought the film whole circle (with Elijah now mirroring David), though I find the ending text kind of obnoxious.  Just like to hear your thoughts.

Main reason I'm posting here is the people I went to the theatre with basically chickened out in front of the extremely negative reviews the film has been getting.  Which is understandable.  So it looks like I won't be seeing the movie for a little while, at least. 

We saw Knight and Day instead, which I found passably enjoyable with a weak ending.

[ulthar]

ulthar, I'm curious why the twist in Unbreakable made the whole movie a waste of time for you. 

I've only seen it once and truthfully don't remember much about it.  It just did not make much of an impression on me, and I remember thinking at the time I saw it that it was a waste of time ... for ME, as I just did not get into it.

Part of it was that I thought it was a REALLY cool premise for a movie, but felt quite let down by it.  I cannot be more specific because I just don't remember, but I do recall thinking when I actually saw the twist unfold on screen that it ruined the movie for me.

I think that was my own personal 'ah ha' moment that we all have the Shyamalan is not the director he thinks he is...and that we are 'supposed' to think he is.

[Jim H]

ulthar, I'm curious why the twist in Unbreakable made the whole movie a waste of time for you. 

I've only seen it once and truthfully don't remember much about it.  It just did not make much of an impression on me, and I remember thinking at the time I saw it that it was a waste of time ... for ME, as I just did not get into it.

Part of it was that I thought it was a REALLY cool premise for a movie, but felt quite let down by it.  I cannot be more specific because I just don't remember, but I do recall thinking when I actually saw the twist unfold on screen that it ruined the movie for me.

I think that was my own personal 'ah ha' moment that we all have the Shyamalan is not the director he thinks he is...and that we are 'supposed' to think he is.

I think Shyamalan is a good director who needs some producers overseeing him and reigning in some of his more ridiculous ideas, and forcing him to focus on what is actually important.  I like to compare him to Frank Miller (the comic writer/artist) who used to write really good stuff, but the more creative freedom he got (as his sales improved) the worse his output became.  Sometimes constraint leads to better stuff, not to mention yes, I think he became very arrogant and too confident in his own abilities. 

At least, that's my theory.  I'm not sure how else to explain such a dramatic fall in quality in such a relatively short period of time.  I mean, you can even look at his ability to direct actors - he's gotten consistently worse performances out of similarly capable actors as his career has gone on.  And the feel of his works are similar enough that I don't think there is some kind of "ghost direction" going on or anything.

[Flick James]

ulthar, I'm curious why the twist in Unbreakable made the whole movie a waste of time for you. 

I've only seen it once and truthfully don't remember much about it.  It just did not make much of an impression on me, and I remember thinking at the time I saw it that it was a waste of time ... for ME, as I just did not get into it.

Part of it was that I thought it was a REALLY cool premise for a movie, but felt quite let down by it.  I cannot be more specific because I just don't remember, but I do recall thinking when I actually saw the twist unfold on screen that it ruined the movie for me.

I think that was my own personal 'ah ha' moment that we all have the Shyamalan is not the director he thinks he is...and that we are 'supposed' to think he is.

I think Shyamalan is a good director who needs some producers overseeing him and reigning in some of his more ridiculous ideas, and forcing him to focus on what is actually important.  I like to compare him to Frank Miller (the comic writer/artist) who used to write really good stuff, but the more creative freedom he got (as his sales improved) the worse his output became.  Sometimes constraint leads to better stuff, not to mention yes, I think he became very arrogant and too confident in his own abilities. 

At least, that's my theory.  I'm not sure how else to explain such a dramatic fall in quality in such a relatively short period of time.  I mean, you can even look at his ability to direct actors - he's gotten consistently worse performances out of similarly capable actors as his career has gone on.  And the feel of his works are similar enough that I don't think there is some kind of "ghost direction" going on or anything.

Not a bad theory. I'll have to think on that one. I don't quite understand the M. Knight thing either. It's been offered that he is just a flash in the pan. I don't know if that's the case. I thought Lady in the Water had some serious flaws and didn't turn out well, but there were things about it I liked, and appreciated what he was trying to do. Another possible theory, and one I'm just offering and don't know if it's a very good one, but he strikes me as a borderline brilliant filmmaker, and that would come across much better if her were doing lower budget independent films rather than big budget Hollywood vehicles. Look at The Sixth Sense. I thought it was a fine film, and if you took away Bruce Willis it's essentially a medium to low budget thriller with some good filmmaking elements and no real big-budget production values or special effects. So, my theory is he's not a hack flash in the pan but a good indy filmmaker who shouldn't be making big budget movies.

[Vik]

I think he has talent but he has been influenced too much by Hollywood.

[The Burgomaster]

The sixth sense and Unbreakable were good movies though.

UNBREAKABLE was good until Shyamalan got to the ending . . . and realized he didn't HAVE and ending . . . so he just threw some captions on the screen providing a half-assed explanation of the movie.

[Dave M]

I think he keeps trying to be a writer/director when all he's actually good at is directing.