fredrikgunerius

At the start of his career, M. Night Shyamalan could do nothing wrong. His first three films, The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs were groundbreaking, trendsetting chillers of immaculate cinematic brilliance. His greatest achievement was his consistent ability to create distinctive, chilling atmospheres. At a time when horror was dominated by mechanical, unremarkable fare in which uncreative writers and directors relied on cheap sound effects and jump scares, Shyamalan was a breath of fresh air. His terribly disappointing Lady in the Water two years ago was arguably the first time the director failed to conjure his trademark chilling atmosphere. With The Happening, he proves that he still has the touch.

That being said, The Happening has inherited some of Lady in the Water's weaknesses. The difference is that they are less damaging to the overall effect this time. The acting is uneven, to say the least, and when Shyamalan sticks his camera in the performers' faces for lengthy dramatic effect, it can be hard to take him seriously. There is often a whiff of self-importance in Shyamalan's work - a quality that at times gives The Happening a classic B-movie feel - but what a B-movie it turned out to be! Tarantino would probably have loved the tone he creates here, as we are presented with one of the eeriest thriller premises since... well, since Shyamalan was last in this kind of form. The narrative structure is reminiscent of last year's I Am Legend, but I have no trouble enjoying such spine-chilling, delicately apocalyptic stories two years in a row. Whether a film like this is scientifically accurate is of less importance; what matters is that it is able to present itself as relevant. And even if The Happening lacks the polish of Francis Lawrence's film, it matches it on tension and suspense.

It's difficult to determine whether M. Night Shyamalan's films have become increasingly more ambitious or increasingly less so. With Lady in the Water, you could arguably make a case for both. However, it's almost impossible to believe that Shyamalan, while making this film, sincerely thought he would be able to turn it into a good one.

The only noticeably useful aspect of Lady in the Water is some scattered irony and sarcasm from time to time. But despite this, the film generally takes itself and the narrative far too seriously. That said, it was always going to be hard not to take this narrative too seriously, seeing as it has the subtlety and thematic depth of a story told by a 4-year-old. The Paul Giamatti character is the only interesting one among a lazy lineup, and the massively talented actor touches upon some elements of value, but in the end, what's interesting about Cleveland Heep is not what Shyamalan uses him for.

Instead, Lady in the Water gets itself entangled in its irrelevant story, drenched in an embarrassingly overplotted, stunted offspring of an already clichéd fairytale. The acting ranges from thoroughly unimpressive to downright horrible (please do not look directly at Cindy Cheung while she speaks), and James Newton Howard reaches a career-low in counter-productivity with his bloated score. Shyamalan has now hit rock bottom. The good thing is that it can only go upwards from here.

M. Night Shyamalan, the new master of cinematic enigmas, once again weaves a tapestry of thought and emotion in his latest feature, titled Signs - a suspense movie far removed from the cheap thrills that have become characteristic of contemporary horror. Instead, Shyamalan explores the power of the unseen and creates an alien horror flick that transcends the superficial, delving into the psyche of a man grappling with faith, love, and the primal fear of the unknown.

Signs unfolds on two levels, skilfully orchestrated by a director at the peak of his prowess. On one level, we witness the psychological unraveling of a man facing a crisis of faith, navigating the labyrinth of his inner demons. His resurgence of motivation to live, love, and believe becomes a poignant focal point, lifting the film beyond the realms of mere horror. On another, we are enclosed in an intimate encounter with fear and the unknown, meticulously built up and revealed by Shyamalan.

Shyamalan's brilliance lies not in explicit imagery but in the artful manipulation of suspense and psychological tension. Signs pays homage to the thematic depth of classics like Close Encounters of the Third Kind while at the same time succeeding in creating a palpable horror feel. The absence of explicit visuals is, of course, a deliberate choice which exploits our imagination to conjure our own images of terror. And the film's climax, contrary to convention, is revealed to be a necessary piece in Shyamalan's psychological puzzle, reinforcing his status as one of cinema's most prodigious contemporary talents.