“The 6th Sense” was the first movie in a long time that absolutely floored me!  How could all the clues have been there in the open all along and I still missed it!?  And he did it again with “Unbreakable,” setting M. Night Shyamalan as one of the my favorite producer/directors.

“The Happening” completely destroyed my opinion of Shyamalan.  The guy produced a gory, crappy movie to communicate a message… and the message was stupid!

Don’t waste your money on this crappy film, unless you are a serious granola-eating, tree-hugging, anti-human eco nut…. I should have watched “The Incredible Hulk”

I heard an interview with Shayamalan about this film the other day and I couldn’t bring myself to listen to the whole thing, it was just so bad. His message seemed to be basically a thumb in the eye at scientists to say “you don’t know as much as you think you do”. From what I heard in the interview, he clearly has a very poor understanding of the scientific method and science in general. Before I heard the interview I actually had this movie on my Netflix list so we would get it when it came out on DVD in 6 months or so. After hearing the interview I deleted it. That may seem a bit narrow minded but I can’t see the point of watching a movie that has a message about science from an individual who doesn’t understand science.

The message in “Signs” wasn’t so hot, either—“There are only two kinds of people; those who believe everything happens for a reason, and those who don’t…”

As far as “Sixth Sense” goes, I wasn’t impressed by the infamous “twist ending”, since I went through the whole movie skeptical of the boy’s alleged power to see ghosts.  I just kind of shrugged.

macgyver - 15 June 2008 08:59 AM

I heard an interview with Shayamalan about this film the other day and I couldn’t bring myself to listen to the whole thing, it was just so bad. His message seemed to be basically a thumb in the eye at scientists to say “you don’t know as much as you think you do”. From what I heard in the interview, he clearly has a very poor understanding of the scientific method and science in general. Before I heard the interview I actually had this movie on my Netflix list so we would get it when it came out on DVD in 6 months or so. After hearing the interview I deleted it. That may seem a bit narrow minded but I can’t see the point of watching a movie that has a message about science from an individual who doesn’t understand science.

Actually, I didn’t disagree with the very little that was said about science and scientists.  It is very true that we really don’t KNOW much.  We have ideas which explain the observations we make, but quite a few of those things are things that we really CAN’T know.

Sorry Kelex, but when one of the first lines of Dialogue from the scientist in the film is They are just theories as part of a screed on how there are greater truths than the scientists know about. It is an ID film and clearly the first hour is an attempt to show the creationist view on environmental concerns (a punishment from god).

I can’t comment on the remaining hour or so as I walked out - first time in my life - I walked out of a film.

Expelled ain’t got nothing on this load of rubbish.

Kelex - 16 June 2008 04:41 PM

Actually, I didn’t disagree with the very little that was said about science and scientists.  It is very true that we really don’t KNOW much.  We have ideas which explain the observations we make, but quite a few of those things are things that we really CAN’T know.

I disagree with this although “much’ is a completely relative term and may mean something very different to you than it does to me. In the interview I heard ( I think it was on the sciam podcast) he gives the impression that scientists really don’t know anything and that virtually anything we think we know could eventually turn out to be wrong. I don’t think he has any understanding about the way the scientific process works. He seems to think uncertainty in any given area means there is uncertainty in virtually all areas and that everything is open to speculation, which really isn’t true.

There are certainly science fiction movies out there with much worse science in them than this one, but the difference is that most of them don’t take themselves so seriously. This movie ( and again I haven’t seen it. I am only judging by what the director said about his own film) tries to send a message which I think is uninformed, and is coming from someone who doesn’t understand the subject. Hopefully most of this goes over the head of Joe public, but it may reinforce a feeling among a segment of the general public that scientists really don’t know anything. That’s a dangerous and misinformed message to be sending at a time when the public is electing people who have to make important decisions on a number of critical issues that hinge on what science does or doesn’t “know”. Its not a subject to be handled by a movie director who clearly doesn’t understand the material. Then again its just a movie and not much different then letting someone as clueless as Ben Stein expound on the “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory and the relative “strengths” of ID.

Interesting review HERE.

The film seems to be a deliberate podium for “intelligent” design.

It was better than the Hulk. What a waste of Edward Norton’s talent.

I saw the movie, and when I wasn’t disgusted with the lapses in reality (an event that is airborn but is “gone” in a second?!?!?), I was horrified at the dialogue.  Who wrote it?    I didn’t walk out, but wish I had.  Now I’m glad M. Night turned down Spielburg’s offer to pen the 4th Indy Jones movie, although that was just as silly.  I mean, really, aliens???

So, amgriffin, is that Nanny Ogg I see as your avatar?

worst film I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a clockwork orange