This time he's done it.... sadly not quite

Rating: 7/10 (21 November 2003)

I'm delighted to see that Shyamalan is indeed learning, evolving, and seems to have the right kind of ambition.
I'm among those who disliked the 6th sense, because I found it too manipulating, full of cliches and contrived acting. And awful Hollywood syrup music (heeewwww!). But I recognized a talent, as the story was great and some of the direction aspects were very interesting and refreshing.
I was looking forward his next opus, hoping this guy would improve, but obviously "Unbreakable" was mainly an attempt to make another hit, and despite the -once again- great story, it was quite a boring movie.
This time we have something really interesting.
First, we have the first really frightening movie since a loooong time.
I wouldn't watch it alone, and very few movies have this effect on me. And no, the 6th sense was not one of them.
Secondly, we have a tuneful, tasty and intelligent direction, that does not insult my intelligence by loudly pinpointing everything that matters. No, one actually has to be patient, observe and think about what's happening. This is meditative direction. I like it so much. Outstanding pace, served by a brilliant visual composition and perfect editing. The narrative is not "illustrated" by the movie like in 99% of modern productions, the narrative IS the movie and vice-versa. Aaaaah.
This is where Shyamalan's ambition is clear, as this kind of direction is not aimed at the brainless and shallow modern audience. No, he wants to please those who think, who observe, who actually take the time to get into the narration and fill the gaps. Those who read books, or look at decent movies. So he's trying to escape the commercial hype around his first opus. Great.
Then there is the acting direction. This is very clever stuff. OK he's been borrowing a lot, mainly from Kubrick (Shining) and the Coens (Fargo). Nevertheless, this work is really impressive. And miracle (;-)), Gibson actually played the game! Thanks God, he did! Maybe he was not really aware of what Shyamalan was doing with him, who cares as the result is here for us to enjoy. Phoenix was a pretty clever choice as he's a natural for this kind of stuff. He does know what it's about, and fills exactly the right space. I'm curious to see what will be Phoenix's next works. I think he should meet Cronenberg sometime.
So Shyamalan seems to have made his choice: to be an artistic director, there with the Coens, Kubrick, Cronenberg, Lynch and others. Well he has good chances to succeed. But it seems he still has to gain more independance.
Because I can't believe that he actually thinks that the way he uses music is near to adequate (from an artistic point of view). Please. The best parts are the ones without any music, and thankfully there are plenty of them. Good. But when there IS music, a much better one would be needed. We have lots of good movie composers nowadays, just pick one.
And I can't believe that this incredible happy ending, with its pedestrian, dull moral subtext, is what he intended with this story that until then was packed with dense, clever, subversive subtext. I HOPE he did not. I HOPE he's going to gain more independance and become a real free artist. Then when he talks about faith, he'll do it HIS way until the very end of the story.
I know there are a lot out there who'd love him to keep on making soapy, sweetened, viewer-friendly flicks like "the Sixth Sense", but I'm among those who are expecting much more quality, challenging stuff from such a talented person. Would "Signs" be... a sign that it's going to happen? Have faith ;-)!