Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando were in the same movie together

Signs (2002, M. Night Shyamalan) was enough for me. I’d had it with Shyamalan. At the time I concluded that it was merely a Twilight Zone plot that could’ve been told in 20 minutes so why would I be expected to sit through an entire movie for? The Village (2004) and Lady in the Water (2006) were proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But then there was Split (2016), which led me to give the dude another chance. I caught up on all I’d missed: Unbreakable (2000) was my own fault for not having watched sooner, and probably Shyamalan’s best; and others I don’t feel worth mentioning. Still nothing.

      But then yet again I found myself compelled to return to that style of his one day when I gave Servant on Apple TV+ a shot in 2021. Maybe it was the casting, the atmosphere, the premise, the domestic gothic foundation, or some wonderful blend of it all, but I reinvested my esteem in the Shyamalan style. I learned that what once initially provided my basis for faulting his movies—over-stretched Twilight Zone plots—is now the very thing I enjoy most about them. Because after all, who says that has to be a bad thing? And obviously in addition to the Twilight Zone riffs, there’s his trademark dysfunctional wounded families, children featured in main roles, traumatic backstories, twist endings, and mix of sci-fi and horror. 

     The canon should be The Sixth Sense (1999), Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, Lady in the Water, The Happening (2008), and Old (2021).

 

As much as I would love Old were it simply a horror movie about a group of seemingly healthy, young, fit tourists plagued by a mysterious onset of hyper-advanced aging they’re powerless against, Old is more than that. 

     Along with The Happening and Servant, beyond their cool Twilight Zone vibe, Old has that ominous wtf tension built in. And considering how seldom a movie can be this disturbing, dark, and weird while still being PG-13 only speaks to its effectiveness of tone. What’s brilliant about Old is that it takes this group of people who seem harmless, or normal, maybe even good, and by subjecting them to be crushed with their own inescapable mortalities by aging years in minutes, succeeds in revealing hidden truths about themselves. Or it could be said that the narrative pits what we know or think about each other based on knowing someone for a short time vs. a lifetime. It’s that contrast that’s intriguing. 

 

07/24/2021 AMC North Dekalb Mall 16

Decatur, GA

DCP

Glass, first name: Mr.

The Sixth Sense (1999, M. Night Shyamalan) is one of those movies that conveniently serve as a director's first film, even though it's not (I think Sarris came up with this idea, describing Preminger's Laura (1944)). Okay, I'm too lazy to bother researching what Shyamalan did before it and just don't care to ever watch them. But The Sixth Sense was immensely satisfying when I discovered it, with the benefit of not having its twist spoiled before I viewed it. The Sixth Sense belongs in a very small group of films I categorize as puzzle gimmicks. A cursory list of my puzzle gimmicks:

• The Usual Suspects (1995, Bryan Singer)
• The Spanish Prisoner (1998, David Mamet)
• Memento (2000, Christopher Nolan)

The distinction here is that while typically my criteria for evaluating a movie is based on: plot, character, genre, dialogue, and setting, the puzzle gimmick on the other hand feels about as intellectually stimulating as a pulp brain teaser sold in supermarket checkout aisles. These movies also compel you to wait for a twist ending to get a key that unlocks the mystery, which is why I call them gimmicks. Going back as far as I can remember when I've been at a friends place and been in a position to pick a movie to watch, a puzzle gimmick is a safe bet.

But after The Sixth Sense, came Unbreakable (2000) and I thought it was one of the most boring premises I'd ever heard and avoided it. As I imagined it: a guy can't break. So, let me guess? He gets hit by stuff but doesn't get hurt? Pass. Then Signs (2002) and The Village (2004) made me so bored I was angry. Henceforth I would refer to Shyamalan as a hack with one good movie who had subsequently stretched out narratives The Twilight Zone could have executed in 20 minutes into 2 hour atrocities.

Then 10 years later I decided to give Split (2016) a shot. Split was intimate, haunting, bolstered by the disturbing backstory of Anya Taylor-Joy's character as motivation to fight back, MPD villain, and an out of nowhere Shyamalan twist. It was better than I expected. I don't like to put down an entire body of work by a reputable director without actually having seen it, so after Split I had a week where I tracked down Unbreakable, engrossing character-driven dark modern take on superhero genre, Lady in the Water (2006), cheesy Twilight Zone reject, The Happening (2008), weird misfire gratuitously violent life affirming grown-up romance with a hippie twist and his only R rated movie, The Last Airbender (2010), After Earth (2013), boring kids movies and The Visit (2015), a throwaway Goosebumps.

Regrettably, I allowed myself to be hooked by Split's twist into...

Glass (2019, Shyamalan) is conceived as a sequel to Unbreakable and Split. However, while Unbreakable deftly does something new with the superhero genre and Split establishes its own formidable foothold alongside it with the psychological horror genre, Glass is nothing more than an amalgam of its predecessors that comes off as a disappointing forgery.

The advertising campaign depicts another gripe I have, which is having these three superheroes in the same mental institution and treated. And almost the entire movie takes place at this hospital. It sounds like a bad sitcom pitch and not where this universe should be evolving to. Unbreakable had his own movie; Split had his own movie; now baited with the tease of Sam Jackson's badass quote, "the name's Glass, first name: Mr.," and more importantly the title, I expected this to be Glass's movie. Alas I was duped. What's Mr. Glass's superpower? Superhuman intelligence. And he's a villain, right? So what do I get to see in Glass? He like hacks a computer.

Also Willis isn't compelling in his role because we already saw Unbreakable. We don't need a whole act that feels like exposition in case you haven't seen that movie. Same with McAvoy. The novelty of James McAvoy switching between a 9 year old boy, sophisticated matron, and a bunch of others that are forgettable in comparison was great in Split but why watch the exact same material again?

And the Shyamalan twist is so poorly conceived in Glass that Split loses the esteem I once paid it in retrospect. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are cool. And McAvoy's talent at portraying multiple characters is impressive, but not as enjoyable for me as Sellers in the Kubrick comedies.

I just realized Stanley Kubrick made comedies. I knew about Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964, Kubrick) since I was a kid. But I only just recently read Nabokov's Lolita again and watched Kubrick's Lolita (1962) then realized he adapted it into a comedy. The book is disturbing, dark, taboo, insightful, empathetic, romantic, and horrific, but not funny. The movie is nonstop awkward hilarious, and significantly due to Peter Sellers playing multiple roles.

Which brings me to my closing to simply put it that although I am negatively criticizing James McAvoy's portrayal of multiple characters as a novelty, I must admit my affinity for Sellers in Lolita and Dr. Strangelove where I find his performances virtuoso, worthy of repeated viewings, and sublimely comedic while also dramatically transcendent.