A prime example of why I don't like Shyamalan's films

Rating: 2/10 (15 January 2005)

Alternate summary: "Sometimes, I can be a little slow"
I'm writing this review after seeing "Unbreakable" for the first time in several years. My daughter liked it so I bought the DVD and was never too impressed with it. In the intervening years, I've had the opportunity to see all of M. Night Shyamalan's films and I've discovered he rates high on my least liked director and writer lists. Why it's taken me this long to realize this can only be attributed to my own inattention, or perhaps to the fact that nothing he's ever done has interested me enough to pay attention to who did it.
There are people whose films I like. There are people whose films I admire. There are those whose I like, but don't admire, and vise-versa. A handful I both like and admire. To balance this, there are people like M. Night Shyamalan whose films I neither like nor admire.
Shyamalan is an auteur who seems to think he's being profound and clever when all he's being is ponderous and tedious. His films always have a "surprise" ending which, when it arrives, is either not much of a surprise (e.g. "The Village") or I'm long past caring (e.g. "Unbreakable").
Pity - this film has the germ of an interesting idea in more capable hands. However watching it, I find myself actively fighting alternating fits of boredom and impatience. I find myself wanting to yell at the screen, "If you have a point to make, make it!" Pared down to an episode of the The Twilight Zone or Outer Limits, this could have been interesting. As it is, it's only annoying.