Shutter Island

“Shutter Island,” released in 2010, starts working on the viewers with the first musical number under the Paramount logo’s mountain, even before the film starts. They’re worrying and pessimistic. So is this film. This is Martin Scorsese’s recreation of the scary shivering fear we feel when horror movies are about something and don’t release every tension with action scenes.

In its own way it’s a haunted house movie, or make that a haunted castle or fortress. We’re told that Shutter Island is a remote and rocky island off Boston, where a Civil War-era shelter has been turned to a prison for the criminally insane. Roger Ebert said in his review, “We approach it by boat through lowering skies, and the feeling is something like the approach to King Kong's island: Looming in gloom from the sea, it fills the visitor with dread.” To this island travel U.S. marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo).

It's 1954, and they are tasked to investigate the disappearance of a child murderer, played by Emily Mortimer. There seems to be no way to leave the island alive. The disappearance of one prisoner might not require the appearance of two marshals unknown with the problem, but we never ask that question. Not after the worrying walls of the prison ascend. Not after the marshals are guided to the office of the prison medical director, Dr. Cawley, played by Ben Kingsley with that hostile likability he has mastered.

We can see that Teddy has no idea what he’s getting himself into. Teddy – such a harmless name in such a dark setting. Scorsese, working from a novel by Dennis Lehane, seems to be telling an easy enough story here. The woman is missing, and Teddy and Chuck will look for her. Ebert noted, “But the cold, gray walls clamp in on them, and the offices of Cawley and his colleagues, furnished for the Civil War commanding officers, seem borrowed from a tale by Edgar Allan Poe.”

Scorsese the sculptor chisels away at reality little by little. Flashbacks show Teddy’s PTSD in the decade since World War II. Ebert said, “That war, its prologue and aftermath, supplied the dark undercurrent of classic film noir. The term "post-traumatic shock syndrome" was not then in use, but its symptoms could be seen in men attempting to look confident in their facades of unstyled suits, subdued ties, heavy smoking and fedoras pulled low against the rain.” DiCaprio and Ruffalo both perfect this look, but DiCaprio makes it appear more like a hopeful costume.

The film’s main effect is on the senses. Everything comes together into a scary foreshadow of sad secrets. How did this woman escape from a locked cell in a locked ward in the old shelter, its walls thick enough to handle cannon fire? Why do Cawley and his evil colleague Dr. Naehring, played by Max Von Sydow, look to be hiding something? Why is even such a nice person as the deputy warden, played by John Carrol Lynch (Margie’s husband in “Fargo), not really convincingly friendly? Why do the methods in the prison cause flashbacks to Teddy’s memories of helping to release a Nazi death camp?

These types of questions are at the core of film noir. The hero is always flawed. Ebert noted, “Scorsese showed his actors the great 1947 noir "Out of the Past," whose very title is a noir theme: Characters never arrive at a story without baggage. They have unsettled issues, buried traumas. So, yes, perhaps Teddy isn't simply a clean-cut G-man. But why are the others so strange? Kingsley in particular exudes menace every time he smiles.”

There are exciting visuals in “Shutter Island.” Ebert mentioned, “Another film Scorsese showed his cast was Hitchcock's "Vertigo," and we sense echoes of its hero's fear of heights. There's the possibility that the escaped woman might be lurking in a cave on a cliff, or hiding in a lighthouse. Both involve hazardous terrain to negotiate, above vertiginous falls to waves pounding on the rocks below.” A possible hurricane is approaching. Light appears out of the sky. The wind sounds sad. As they say, it is a dark and stormy night. That’s what the movie is about: atmosphere, worrying omens, the destruction of Teddy’s confidence and even his identity. It’s all done with flawless directorial work. Scorsese has fear to suggest, and he does it with many ways.

Ebert admitted, “You may read reviews of "Shutter Island" complaining that the ending blindsides you. The uncertainty it causes prevents the film from feeling perfect on first viewing. I have a feeling it might improve on second. Some may believe it doesn't make sense. Or that, if it does, then the movie leading up to it doesn't. I asked myself: OK, then, how should it end? What would be more satisfactory? Why can't I be one of those critics who informs the director what he should have done instead?”

Ebert continued, “Oh, I've had moments like that. Every moviegoer does. But not with "Shutter Island."” This movie is everything, even the parts that don’t appear to work. There is a human habit to note carefully what goes before, and make logical conclusions. However, what if you can’t understand exactly what went before? What if there were things about Cawley and his eccentric staff that were hidden? What if the movie lacks a reliable narrator? What if its point of view isn’t omniscient but disjointed? Where can it all lead? What does it mean? We ask, along with Teddy.

This is another movie that will mess with your head when you see it. However, everything comes together in the end, and when the final reveal is made, you can understand everything. I will dare not give away the twist, but you should see it when you get the chance. My cousins were watching this movie one night on Netflix, but I chose not to sit with them for some weird reason. Then a few years later, I went back and watched the film on Netflix when I was exercising, and I loved this. I bet people watch this movie back-to-back with “Inception,” since they are both in the same vein of weird films. Check this out if you haven’t, you will love it, I promise.

Alright everyone, we have now come to the end of “Halloween Month 2022.” I hope everyone enjoyed this month, seeing how I did do more reviews this month then I had thought. Just a lot of horror movies I ended up seeing to fill this month out with. Happy Halloween. Make sure to go out trick-or-treating, but be safe tonight. I will see everyone next month for the next set of reviews.

Glass

Despite not being based on a comic book, “Unbreakable” is usually considered one of the best superhero movies of all time. “Split,” however, was a solid enough psychological thriller that just so happened to take place in the same realm thanks to an unexpected end-credits scene which left everyone spinning. Now can bringing these “franchises” together for a collaboration of this really work? Apparently, it does and in a way which should make fans of both movies very happy.

“Glass,” released in 2019, takes place three years after “Split” and a good fifteen years or more after “Unbreakable.” Josh Wilding said in his review, “Despite that, it takes no time at all to get reacquainted with David Dunn's world and where we find him here feels...right. Honestly, it's hard to say much at all without delving into spoiler territory but M. Night Shyamalan's screenplay is solid from start to finish and while the filmmaker's patented big twist is bound to be divisive, it's also going to leave viewers with a lot to talk about for a very long time to come. Ultimately, it feels like the filmmaker chose to end this story in a way he saw fit regardless of what fans wanted and that's really all we can ask from an honest storyteller.” No matter where you stand on liking or hating it, having David Dunn, Kevin, and Mr. Glass all on screen simultaneously is greatly effective and leads to some moments you will never forget.

Though James McAvoy was excellent in “Split,” he really gets the chance to show here, showing off an even wider range of personalities and stealing the show in every single scene he’s in. Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson also pick up where they left off and occupy these characters every bit as much as their other famous characters (John McClane and Nick Fury are obviously two of the most famous examples). Series newcomer Sarah Paulson is absolutely fantastic as well and as she has a far more amount of screentime than Anya Taylor-Joy, meaning she’s “Glass’” female protagonist. Well, we’re lucky to have her as she brings a lot to this movie and stands out in an otherwise male-dominated cast.

As a film, “Glass” works really well. Wilding said, “The performances are strong and it's great fun from start to finish with some unexpected moments and a twist which, as I mentioned, is bound to split opinion. The three leads chew the scenery and shine when on screen together but the biggest downside here is perhaps the final act. Budget constraints mean a finale which is teased from fairly early on never becomes a reality.” Things also start to get a little confusing and rushed at this point and it’s hard not to think back to large comic book events and the way they so often finish with a final problem which doesn’t really live up to what came before. However, in the end, this really is more a little more enjoyable than “Unbreakable” and a movie which finally takes full advantage of “Split’s” clever story.

Well worth checking out, “Glass” may not be the “Unbreakable” sequel some fans were wanting but it definitely doesn’t disappoint and is really enjoyable.

My brother and I saw this together and we liked it. Critics seemed to smash this movie saying it was bad, but I didn’t think that. I thought everything came together really nicely, although the way it ended was not one that I liked. However, it was still nice to see the personalities of Willis, Jackson, and McAvoy clash in this film. See it if you have seen the previous two movies and give it a chance. Don’t listen to the critics, judge the film for yourself.

Well, that ends “M. Night Shyamalan Month,” but that doesn’t mean that Halloween Month will also end. Stay tuned on Halloween Day to find out what I will review to finish off the movie with.

Scream (2022)

Last night, I made the mistake of torturing myself with the new “Scream” movie, which came out in January. As all of you may recall, I am not a fan of this series. How is the new sequel, which came out a decade later?

Way back in 1996 when the first “Scream” movie was released, which was 26 years ago, the idea of films and TV shows referring to themselves had a lot of currency.

Jim Schembri said in his review, “This imbued the new Scream horror franchise with a bit of pizazz, thanks chiefly to Scream writer Kevin Williamson who, two years later, would gift us with the self-referencing smash-hit TV show Dawson’s Creek.”

Schembri continued, “At that time we were also in the middle of the Seinfeld sitcom phenomenon, which pushed the art of meta-referencing to new extremes, pushed again by the show’s co-creator Larry David in his ultra-meta comedy series Curb Your Enthusiasm.”

The director of the first “Scream” Wes Craven, who passed away in 2015, also hit a level with the meta form two years prior with “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare.”

Schembri noted, “So the novelty of self-referencing has long since waned, requiring skill and wit to justify its presence, as we’ve seen with Curb.”

There’s no skill or fun in evidence anywhere in the fifth installment in the “Scream” franchise, a terrible slasher film that gives yet another painful example of meta done poorly.

Schembri noted, “Replicating with remarkable exactitude the travesty of Matrix Resurrections, the new Scream film continually winks at the audience about how self-aware it is about cruddy, cash-in sequels that serve up to loyal fans of the franchise a thin, lazy version of what came before – then does exactly that.”

It would be passable if there were a fair number of scares in the film, or maybe any scares at all, but the film is exactly the type of boring, repetitive, predictable slasher sequel it says it won’t be. It constantly talks about the cliches of the slasher genre but fails to go above them or giving anything original or fun.

The story continues the timeline of the franchise. Taking place again in the fictitious town of Woodsboro, Ghostface, the knife-killing masked murderer in the black cloak, is back on murdering kids working its way through the teenage cast.

Going back to the town’s history of horror, Sam Carpenter (Melissa Barrera) looks at the attack on her sister (Jenna Ortega) by Ghostface, who in this sequel is very tech savvy about phone cloning and bypassing security systems.

Possible reasons are looked at, blame is made constantly as the cast reference on the meta movie references to what happened in earlier films, repeated scenes and dialogue with, it has to be said, a really ordinary performance standard.

Schembri is right when he says, “It’s wearying watching such a singularly dumb movie constantly trying to out-smart itself, hitting a new nadir when it quips about how sequels of sequels of sequels have nothing original to offer.”

For every one of its smart meta-nonsense about genre tropes, we still get so much sub-standard slasher scenes here: streets are apparently quiet from teens when Ghostface is on the loose, the omnipresence of security camera suddenly breaks, at one point Ghostface even appears to have super powers. It’s filth, very F-grade.

Members from the original film’s cast come back to reprise their characters. There’s David Arquette, Neve Campbell, and Courtney Cox, who is difficult to recognize.

Schembri ended his review by saying, “Indeed, it’s telling how, given all the film’s supposed self-aware snarkiness nobody dares make any remark about how different Courteney Cox looks after all that rejuvenating facework, and how her mouth looks as though it has been attacked by bees.”

This is the absolute worst in the franchise. No one is likable, the motive is just completely ridiculous, and the cliches are just noted early on. You want to know what is worst: there coming out with a sequel next year! Why!? What is so likable of this franchise that they need to make another sequel!? Stop it already! I know there is a fan base to this franchise, so they might enjoy it, but if you’re not a fan, like me, then don’t see it. However, if you want to watch it, you can see it on Paramount+ if you have a bundle with Showtime, or you can just watch it on Showtime.

Thank you for joining in on this review. Stay tuned Friday when I finish off “M. Night Shyamalan Month.”

Misery

Today while exercising, I finished watching “Misery,” released in 1990, on HBO Max, and I will let everyone know what I thought about this movie that I first heard from the Nostalgia Critic when he did his Top 11 Scariest Performances video.

Stephen King has an uncertain but indisputable intelligence for being able to find horror in everyday situations. Roger Ebert said in his review, “My notion is that he starts with a germ of truth from his own life, and then takes it as far as he can into the macabre and the bizarre.” Take “Misery,” for example, the story of a writer who finds himself a prisoner of his self-proclaimed “No. 1 fan.” The writer has not finished a novel to her approval, and show she has him in her house and he is writing under a very painful and violent deadline.

Ebert mentioned, “I can only imagine what some of the more peculiar fan letters of a writer like King must read like, and perhaps one of them even suggested this story.” “Misery” is about a writer named Paul Sheldon, played by James Caan, who has been using his talent for years with a series of romantic historical novels about a character named Misery, who after great successes and labors has finally been killed off. Having killing the character he had come to hate, Sheldon stays in a Colorado lodge to write a “real” novel, and when he finishes it, he puts it into his car and leaves a mountain road in a blizzard, loses control of his car, and ends up injured and in a snowstorm.

He might easily have died, but he’s rescued by an abrupt, resourceful woman named Annie Wilkes, played by Kathy Bates, who gets him out, takes him home, nurses him back to health, and then is outraged to learn he has killed off Misery. That will not still well, and she holds her favorite writer while he writes a sequel bringing Misery back to life.

The world thinks Sheldon is dead. We follow the search for him, which consists of his literary agent (Lauren Bacall), the local backwoods sheriff (the late Richard Farnsworth), and the sheriff’s wife (Frances Sternhagen). They are basically the only other actors in the movie, which develops mostly as a two-person cast between Caan and Bates.

They make an interesting team. Ebert noted, “Caan, who has been hyper in some of his recent performances, is controlled and even passive here, the disbelieving captive of a madwoman. Bates, who has the film's key role, is uncanny in her ability to switch, in an instant, from sweet solicitude to savage scorn.” Some of the things Stephen King makes her do to Paul are so shocking that they could be a trap for an actor – an invitation to overact. However, she somehow stays convincing inside her character’s insanity.

Ebert said, “The material in "Misery" is so much Stephen King's own that it's a little surprising that a director like Rob Reiner would have been interested in making the film. Reiner has started with literary properties before - among them King's "Stand by Me" and William Goldman's "The Princess Bride" - but his strength is in putting a personal stamp on his films (which also include the cross-country romance "The Sure Thing" and the fake documentary "This is Spinal Tap").”

What he does with “Misery” is basically just respectful – he “brings the story to the screen,” as the saying goes.

It is a good story, a natural, and it grabs us. However, just as there is almost no way to make mistakes, so there’s hardly any way to bring it above a certain level of inspiration. Ebert credits, “Many competent directors could have done what Reiner does here, and perhaps many other actors could have done what Caan does, although the Kathy Bates performance is trickier and more special. The result is good craftsmanship, and a movie that works. It does not illuminate, challenge or inspire, but it works.”

Apparently, Stephen King wrote this novel as a response to fans who wanted him to continue to writing his signature novels when he tried to branch out and wrote a fantasy. Even though I never read the book, this film scared me when I watched it. I knew parts of the movie, but when I saw the whole movie, I felt the impact that Paul was going through being stuck in Annie’s cottage. This is every celebrity’s nightmare: to be held prisoner by their obsessed fan. Kathy Bates won an Oscar for this movie, and she deserved it. Also, the ending is just one of the best and most satisfying in film history. This film was one on my list of films I wanted to see, but I had never gotten around to it until this month. Now that I have seen it, I can finally say that I have seen this amazing film. You only need to see this film once, and it will stay with you forever. However, if you see it more than once, great. Check it out if you haven’t, if you have an HBO Max.

Thank you for reading this review tonight. Stay tuned Friday for the finale of “M. Night Shyamalan Month.”

Split

Within the process of watching an M. Night Shyamalan film, there is a parallel and simultaneous process of looking for its unavoidable twist. This has been true of every film the writer-director has made since his surprise debut, “The Sixth Sense,” almost two decades prior. We thought: How will he surprise us? What clues should we be looking for? Will it actually work this time?

Christy Lemire said in her review, “Increasingly, with middling efforts like “The Village” and “Lady in the Water”—and dreary aberrations like “The Last Airbender” and “After Earth,” which bore none of his signature style—the answer to that last question has been: Not really.” Which makes his 2017 film, “Split,” such an exciting return to his originality. A rare, straight-up horror film from Shyamalan, “Split” is an exciting reminder of what a technical master he can be. Every one of his brilliant camerawork is shown here: his lifelong, loving tribute to Alfred Hitchcock, which includes, as always, making himself have a cameo. And the twist – that there is no Big Twist – is one of the most thankful returns of everything.

Lemire said, ““Split” is more lean and taut in its narrative and pace than we’ve seen from Shyamalan lately.” Despite its almost two-hour running time, it feels like it’s constantly moving forward, even when it flashbacks to provide perspective.

Lemire described, “It’s as if there’s a spring in his step, even as he wallows in grunge.” A lot of that has to do with the masterful performance from James McAvoy as a kidnapper named Kevin fighting about two dozen split personalities.

From OCD maintenance man Dennis to playful, 9-year-old Hedwig to moralistic, British Patricia to flashy, New York sharp-dresser Barry, McAvoy brings every one of these personalities to life in undeniably shallow yet entertaining ways. Lemire noted, “There’s a lot of scenery chewing going on here, but it’s a performance that also showcases McAvoy’s great agility and precision.” He has to make changes both big and small, sometimes in the same vein, and it’s a largely engaging display to see.

His portrayal of this disturbed person is darkly funny but also unexpectedly sad. Kevin is evil regardless of which personality in control, but the primary childhood trauma that caused him to create these personalities out of defense clearly still hurts him as an adult. Lemire said, “Flashes of vulnerability and fragility reveal themselves in the film’s third act, providing an entirely different kind of disturbing tone.”

However, first there is the kidnapping, which Shyamalan does in resourceful, fascinating way. Three high school girls get in a car after a birthday party at the mall: pretty, loquacious Claire (Haley Lu), Marcia (Jessica Sula), and shy, laconic Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy), who was invited along out of guilt. However, they quickly see the man driving them isn’t Clarie’s dad – it’s Kevin, who wastes no time in knocking them unconscious and dragging them back to his improvised, underground lair.

Repeated visits from Kevin, with his different personalities, gradually make it clear that their caper has multiple personalities. Only Casey, who becomes the trio’s smart leader, has the guts to talk to him. Lemire noted, “As she showed in her breakout role in “The Witch” as well as in “Morgan,” Taylor-Joy can be chilling in absolute stillness with her wide, almond eyes—as much as McAvoy is in his showiness.” She makes Casey more than your typical horror protagonist to cheer for, mainly with the help of quietly suspenseful flashbacks that show how she got her survival instincts. Her co-stars aren’t given nearly as much characterization or clothing, sadly.

However, we also get a greater understanding of Kevin’s condition through the daily sessions he (or one of his personalities) schedules with his psychologist, Dr. Fletcher, played by Betty Buckley. A leading researcher in the field, she believes having dissociative identity disorder is actually a reflection of the brain’s wide potential rather than a disability. Their conversations, while superbly tense, also give a welcome source of kindness amongst the brutality.

They help us put together the pieces of this puzzle – which is actually a few different puzzles at once. There’s the question of what Kevin wants with these girls. There’s the question of how they’ll escape. However, the main scary element of this entire situation is how the different personalities interact with each other – how they manipulate and intimidate each other – and whether there’s an even more scary force getting strength.

West Dylan Thordson’s score and a smartly scary sound design help make “Split” an uncomfortable experience from the beginning. However, the movie sways a little toward the end with some devices and coincidences, and it goes in directions that feel a little abusive – as if it’s drenched childhood abuse for cheap thrills. Lemire said, “I’m still wrestling with how I feel about it, but I know I walked out with a slightly icky sense, even as I found the film engrossing both technically and dramatically.”

Still, it’s exciting to see Shyamalan on such confident ground once more, all these years later. Make sure you stay in your seat until the last minute to see what other tricks he may have up his sleeve.

Although now I think everyone knows what the twist is, you should still see this. My brother and I saw this one day since he wanted to watch it, so I checked it out, and we both liked it. If you haven’t been a fan of Shyamalan’s work that he released prior to this, this film will make you like him again. See it and be scared when you watch it.

Next week, we will look at the third film in this trilogy, in the conclusion of “M. Night Shyamalan Month.”

The Village

“The Village,” released in 2004, is a giant inaccuracy, a movie based on a story that cannot support it, a story so see-through it would be laughable were the movie not so deadly serious. Roger Ebert said in his review, “It's a flimsy excuse for a plot, with characters who move below the one-dimensional and enter Flatland. M. Night Shyamalan, the writer-director, has been successful in evoking horror from minimalist stories, as in "Signs," which if you think about it rationally is absurd -- but you get too involved to think rationally.” He is a director of great skill who tells stories out of moods, but this time, sadly, he went way off.

Ebert admitted, “Critics were enjoined after the screening to avoid revealing the plot secrets. That is not because we would spoil the movie for you. It's because if you knew them, you wouldn't want to go. The whole enterprise is a shaggy dog story, and in a way, it is all secrets. I can hardly discuss it at all without being maddingly vague.”

Let us say that it takes place in an unknown time and place, surrounded by a forest that characters never go to. The clothing of the characters and the absence of cars and telephones and everything else suggest either the 1980s or an Amish community. Ebert said, “Everyone speaks as if they had studied "Friendly Persuasion." The chief civic virtues are probity and circumspection. Here is a village that desperately needs an East Village.”

Ebert continued, “The story opens with a funeral attended by all the villagers, followed by a big outdoor meal at long tables groaning with corn on the cob and all the other fixin's.” everyone in the village does everything together, apparently, however it is never very clear what most of their jobs are. Some farming and baking goes on.

The movie is so dull, it’s afraid to raise its voice in its own presence. That makes it boring even during scenes of shameless melodrama. We meet the patriarch Edward Walker, played by William Hurt, who is so careful in everything he sounds, as Ebert puts it, “like a minister addressing the Rotary Club.” His daughter Ivy, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, is blind but spirited. The determined young man, Lucius Hunt, played by Joaquin Phoenix, petitions the elders to let him take a look into the forest. His widowed mother Alice, played by Sigourney Weaver, has feelings for Edward Walker. The village idiot, played by Adrien Brody, Ebert said, “gambols about, and gamboling is not a word that I use lightly.” There is a good and true man, played by Brendan Gleeson. And a bridegroom who is afraid his shirt will get wrinkled.

Surrounding the village is the forest. In the forest live evil, dangerous beings who dress in red and have claws of twigs. They are known as Those We Do Not Speak Of (except when we want to end a description with a preposition). We see Those We Do Not Speak Of only in small signs, like the water-fixated aliens in “Signs.” They look better than the “Signs” aliens, who looked like large extras in long underwear, while Those We Do Not Speak Of look like their costumes were made at summer camp.

Watchtowers guard the border of the village, and flares burn through the night. Not to fear: Those We Do Not Speak Of have arrived at a peace. They stay in the forest and the villagers stay in the village. Lucius wants to go into the forest and requests the elders, who are shocked at this request. Ivy would like to marry Lucius, and tells him so, but he is so deep and sorrowful, it will take him another movie to get enough courage to deal with her. Still, they love each other. The village idiot also has a crush on Ivy, and sometimes they hop together.

Something terrible happens to somebody. Ebert admitted, “I dare not reveal what, and to which, and by whom.” Edward Walker decides unwillingly to send someone to “the towns” to bring back medicine for whoever was injured. Off goes his daughter, Ivy, the blind girl walking through the forest filled with Those We Do Not Speak Of. Ebert noted, “She wears her yellow riding hood, and it takes us a superhuman effort to keep from thinking about Grandmother's House.”

Serious violin hymns fill the sound track. It is autumn, cloudy and chilly. Girls find a red flower and bury it. Everyone speaks in the passive voice. The energy has been taken from the characters. Ebert describes, “these are the Stepford Pilgrims.” The elders have meetings that the younger ones are not allowed. Someone finds something under the floorboards. Wouldn’t you just know it would be there, exactly where it was needed, in order for someone to do something he couldn’t do without it.

Eventually the secret of Those We Do Not Speak Of is revealed. Ebert is right when he says, “To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore.”

Then keep on rewinding the film until we’re back the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward to where we rented the movie and watch the money charged go back to our credit card.

I don’t think I need to give away what the twist ending is, because I think everyone can tell, even if they never saw the film. My brother had told everyone what the twist was to the film, and when I saw it, I couldn’t believe that after my brother had revealed it, I decided to watch this garbage film. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how anyone can like this film. I know people probably predicted early on what the twist was going to be, and I know the reactions range from “I knew it" to “I CAN’T BELIEVE THIS STUPID TWIST!” Just avoid this film at all cost, it is one of the worst Shyamalan movies ever.

Friday, we’re going to talk about a film that brought Shyamalan back to being likable in “M. Night Shyamalan Month.”

Halloween Ends

Last night, I saw “Halloween Ends,” which was released in theaters and on the paid tiers of Peacock for 60 days, two days ago. How is this conclusion to this continuity of the franchise? Let’s find out:

The legacy of the “Halloween” franchises cannot be understated. After John Carpenter’s original film was released in 1978, it created a surge to the horror genre unlike any film made prior. While influence from “Black Christmas” and “Psycho” was noticeable, the unique visuals and subject matter opened the door for slashers to be introduced into the mainstream. More than forty years later, the effects of “Halloween” are still impactful to this day. This made the release of David Gordon Green’s 2018 reboot a must-watch. Seeing how well received it got was amazing. The 2021 “Halloween Kills” was not met with the same acclaim, but continued to tell the story of Green and collaborator Danny McBride. The final film in their trilogy was released, and “Halloween Ends” will definitely be a troublesome one for years.

Picking up four years after the events of “Halloween Kills,” Laurie Strode (Jaime Lee Curtis) and Alyson (Andi Matichak) have been moving forward. After the murder of Alyson’s parents, the two finally found some peace in Haddonfield. One day, Laurie meets fellow outsider Corey Cunnigham, played by Rohan Campbell, being ganged up by high schoolers one day. Laurie brings Corey into Alyson’s office for medical attention, and the two young adults start a relationship. However, as Corey and Alyson begin to get closer, Laurie begins to see signs from her past. With Michael Myers still out there, there is reason to worry in Haddonfield.

Alan French said in his review, “The story of Halloween Ends seems primed for Rob Zombie levels of reception. The way the story unfolds, Green and McBride seem keen on shaking up the franchise. However, this also leaves many purists on the outs. To some, Halloween is dependent on copious amounts of Michael Myers, and Halloween Ends does not play bring this aspect about in a traditional sense.” Myers lurks over the film in about every scene, but the shape does not always take on the role of primary villain.

At the same time, Green and McBride continue to find the themes they’ve made to look at since the 2018 reboot. A lot of this “Halloween” forces Laurie Strode to look at her character’s strengths and weaknesses. French said, “She seems to have moved on, but there’s a lingering question of paranoia to the detriment of her other relationships. Curtis once again delivers an introspective and haunting performance, one that easily ranks amongst her best in the franchise’s history.”

French continued, “That paranoia and fear does not stay with Strode, but instead has infected all of Haddonfield. After the dozens of deaths at Myers’ hands in Halloween Kills, the cast is almost entirely reset.” Besides Curtis, Matichak, Kyle Richards, and brief cameos from Will Patton, the rest of the ensemble changes completely. This gives “Halloween Ends” with a challenge of covering the path for new characters in the supposed finale of the franchise. This becomes a burden on the film, and slows down the pace so much.

The majority of the story comes through Corey, and your connection to him as a performer will definitely make you to not like this film. French said, “While he seems sincere early in the film, his ability to maintain his charm dissipates. While this seems to be an intentional choice of the filmmakers, it also hurts our ties to our perspective for most of the movie. If anything, they put their finger too heavily on the scale, and the red flags stunning obvious to everyone except a single character. Playing a Romeo and Juliet story arc does work, and left this critic cold.”

French continued, “Additionally, the setup required to deliver this story eats up more than half the film. In many ways, this feels like a showdown that would have been welcomed as Part 2 of the trilogy, while Kills feels more like the epic conclusion.” Instead, those wishing to see a faceoff between Michael and Laurie should be shown “Halloween: H20,” which gives this part of the story in more exciting ways.

There will be many who like the direction and shared questions that “Halloween Ends” looks at. However, for the conclusion of this franchise and Curtis’ sendoff for Laurie Strode, there are some legitimately confusing decisions. French said, “The kills and violence that does cross the screen makes for some extremely entertaining and wild moments.” Sadly, the final film is a messy, unfocused conclusion to the forty plus year franchise.

This was really a mixed bag, confusing film. Why focus more on Corey and his relationship with Alyson, and not have Michael in the film that much. Isn’t this supposed to be a “Halloween” film, why is he not the main focus? However, if this is supposed to be the final film in the franchise, the way it ends is the most satisfying. It doesn’t end the way everyone thinks, but the way it does is fine enough. If you want to check it out and don’t want to go to the theaters, see it on Peacock, since it will be there for 60 days.

Thank you for reading my review today. Look out tomorrow for the next installment in “M. Night Shyamalan Month.”

Signs

“Signs,” which promised to be 2002’s season’s thoughtful action flick, ends up having few thoughts and no thrills. Mick LaSalle said in his review, ‘Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan ("The Sixth Sense "), the picture is characterized by murky cinematography, dull stretches and a halfhearted sci-fi plot that shamelessly borrows from "The Wizard of Oz" and "War of the Worlds."”

Shyamalan’s goals were worthy. “Signs” is the best evidence to show a director trying to bring back a classical style in filmmaking. LaSalle noted, “Just look at his opening: He starts with a formal title sequence, with the credits all up front, while a Bernard Herrmann-type score, heavy on the strings, thrums and jolts the audience. Shyamalan is trying to be Alfred Hitchcock, and why not aim high? He's a 31-year-old director with one terrific thriller already under his belt. Hitchcock is who he should be going after.”

However, in “Signs,” Shyamalan depends on nonsense. The style may be likable – for example, the first two shots are nicely done, and each has a little surprise. However, it doesn’t take long to realize that with this story of an alien invasion, shown from the point of view of a family of farmers, Shyamalan is not coming from a place of inspiration or freedom. LaSalle said, “This is fill-in-the- blanks moviemaking -- a little spiritual crisis here, a little familial bonding there, a little uplift here -- and all of it amounting to little more than nothing.”

Mel Gibson is fine, but he is also part of the problem. He plays a former Protestant minister who left the church after his wife was killed in a car accident. LaSalle said, “Directed to suppress his familiar ebullience, Gibson turns in an assured performance of repressed pain and rage. But in a movie so muted to begin with -- in its lighting, set design, action and mood -- Gibson just becomes part of a bland mosaic.”

At least Shyamalan brings us right in. It’s early in the morning, and farmer Graham Hess, played by Gibson, wakes up due to strange sounds. He jumps up and runs through his cornfield, where he finds huge amounts of flattened stalks. This either could be a prank or aliens. (Looks like no one thought of an alien prankster.) When these signs start appearing on farms all over the planet, people start to worry. Then, when spaceships appear all over the skies, people catch on. An invasion is going to happen.

There are many ways to make an alien-invasion movie. For instance, look at the large, warm, mindless-enjoyment way in “Independence Day.” LaSalle noted, “Shyamalan tries a different tack, which won't be copied by any time soon -- the small, sour, marginally less-mindless, dreary way.” The farmer, his two children (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin) and his younger brother (Joaquin Phoenix) spend a lot of time watching CNN. They could be anybody. Shyamalan puts the audience in the house with these people and leaves us there. Soon we want to leave them.

The reason why we want to leave is not because of tension, but restlessness. The story tells us of something amazing going on outside, but forces us to stay inside a house with apparently few lights on, because we can barely see the characters. LaSalle mentioned, “It doesn't take long to realize that Shyamalan is building toward some epic showdown, in which the family sits huddled, while aliens try and try to crack through the boarded-up windows.”

Shyamalan is asking everyone to believe a lot. LaSalle noted, “The aliens travel a billion light- years to get here and forget to bring a bomb, a pickax or even a ball-peen hammer.” They want to take over the universe. Are you serious, this cliché again?

LaSalle noted, “The excuse for all this bad science fiction is that Shyamalan is more interested in tracing the former clergyman's spiritual evolution. But the filmmaker stumbles on two key points. First, there's the hill-of-beans factor. With humankind in a battle for survival, the minister's problems don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy universe. Second, there's the sheer absurdity of it all. Shyamalan wants us to believe that an alien invasion might actually work to increase a doubter's religious faith. If anything, it should push him irretrievably into the abyss.”

Shyamalan appears in a brief cameo, and he looks uncomfortable. Hitchcock was always seen in his movies, but he never said anything. This is an approach worth copying. Shyamalan might think about borrowing another page from the king and letting other people write his screenplays. LaSalle said, “It might free him from earnestness and open up his sense of experimentation.”

Hitchcock knew no one has to be a master at two things. Just being in charge of one type is a project worth a career. This film has moments that may scare sensitive audiences.

I’m sorry, but I’m in the same group as Doug Walker where I feel this film started Shyamalan’s downhill slope. This movie is not well. No one is talking right in this movie. The adults talk like children, the children talk like adults. Why would Phoenix run out into the field screaming, “I’m mad, angry, crazy, don’t mess with me!” That’s something a child would say. Especially the description they give the police officer that the suspect was a high jumper, and that’s it. Why would the daughter keep asking for glasses of water complaining one is contaminated, another the dog licked, another has a piece of hair in it, and the son says to record over the daughter’s ballet rehearsal for a news segment to show their children? Who says those things? AND THE ALIENS’ WEAKNESSES ARE WATER AND WOOD!?!? THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GETTING THROUGH PANTRY DOORS!?!?!? DID YOU READ THIS SHYAMALAN!?!?!? WHY WOULD THEY INVADE A PLANET MOSTLY CONSISTED OF WATER!?!?!? WHAT WERE YOU ON WHEN YOU MADE THIS!?!?!? Charlie Sheen even questioned this in “Scary Movie 3,” which he said it best there. With Gibson saying the aliens have trouble with pantry doors clearly states why this film does not work. I’m sorry, but avoid this one at all cost because it is something that should only be played in an asylum.

Well, it’s not over here. Monday, I will discuss another Shyamalan film that is so crazy, everyone doesn’t like in “M. Night Shyamalan Month.”

The Munsters

Today, I finished watching “The Munsters” reboot, which came out on Netflix two weeks ago. I just would like to point out that I never saw anything “The Munsters” related, but my brother said that they were the polar opposite from “The Addams Family.” Where “The Addams Family” was a family that looked normal but wasn’t, “The Munsters” didn’t look like a normal family, but they were. Now we have this reboot that Rob Zombie made. I have listened to a couple of Rob Zombie’s songs and I love them, but his movies are hit and miss. I only saw his “Halloween” remakes, so you know what I think of those. However, how did he do with this reboot?

For better or for worse, Rob Zombie’s feature-length version of “The Munsters” is just what you would think. Alyse Wax said in her review, “It’s not quite as bad as I expected… but it’s not great. Based on the 1960s TV show of the same name, it still maintains much of the classic goofiness and kitsch, but with an extended length that is tiresome.”

An “origin story” for the newbies, the film starts before Lily (Rob Zombie’s wife, Sheri Moon Zombie) meets Herman (Jeff Daniel Phillips). She is still living in her Transylvania castle with her father, the Count, played by Daniel Roebuck (old school fans will know him as Grandpa). She goes on a date with Mr. Orlock, played by Richard Brake, who unsurprisingly looks like Nosferatu, but he doesn’t impress Lily in any way. Meanwhile, a mad scientist, Dr. Wolfgang (Brake), and his wretched helper Floop (Jorge Garcia) create a Frankenstein’s monster-looking being, whom Floop names Herman Munster (“Like the cheese”). He was supposed to be created with the brain of the smartest man in the world (Laurent Winkler), but instead, he was created with the brain of the dumbest man in the world, his brother Shecky (Phillips), a terrible stand-up comedian. This explains Herman’s non-stop inventory of dad jokes.

Anyway, Wolfgang shows his creation off on TV, Lily sees Herman, and it’s love at first sight. She goes to find him at a club, where Floop is trying to turn him into a rock star. It is love at first sight for Herman as well, and after a series of romantic dates, the two get hitched. Before the wedding, however, Lily’s troublemaker brother, a werewolf named Lester (Thomas Boykin), shows up and gets Herman to sign over the deed to the castle to pay off his gambling debts to Zoya (Catherine Schell), a gypsy who used to be married to the Count.

Wax noted, “And that’s about it. There is no real conflict. There are no stakes. I have a lot of problems with this as a “movie.” It just kept going. The ending felt so abrupt. It’s the kind of thing that you don’t realize is so bereft of conflict or twists until you are summarizing it, and you get to the end and realize that you are still basically describing what, in most films, would be act one.”

“The Munsters” could have easily been shorter. It’s filled with lots of superfluous scenes, many of which are short and poorly edited to make a trembling narrative. For instance, there is a part where the Count tries to create the perfect man for Lily when he doesn’t like Herman, but he messes up the spell and makes a chimp-man. The whole scene is about five minutes, with no payoff and no point. Wax said, “The whole Zoya/Lester side story feels like it was forced in to give a reason behind the move from Transylvania, but without any real payoff. And frankly, I don’t remember Lily ever having a brother Lester in the TV show. I assume this was to set the story that she has the DNA to have a werewolf baby when she and Herman eventually have Eddie… but it doesn’t actually account for where the werewolf DNA to have Lester came from!”

Wax continued, “Forgetting all the narrative mumbo-jumbo and structural things that we normally look for in a film, there are some good things about The Munsters.” For instance, it is visually beautiful to look at. Ever scene is filled with neon lights of blue, red, green, and purple. Not thinly, either. These colors work for the over-the-top set design, with every corner of every scene filled with scary props or smart signage. Under almost anyone else, it would be overwhelming, but somehow, Zombie makes it all work. Maybe it is all the colors. It makes everything seem almost like a comic book.

Wax admitted, “I found Sheri Moon Zombie as Lily to be fine; nothing special, but not terrible. Daniel Roebuck was similarly fine as the Count; he wasn’t as jokey as TV’s Grandpa. The true standout, however, was Jeff Daniel Phillips as Herman. He was as goofy and doofy as the Herman I grew up with on TV, and he had dad jokes that made me laugh out loud. He was the perfect Herman Munster.” A special shout-out has to be made for horror queen Cassandra Peterson, who was enjoyable as the Munster’s realtor, and Dee Wallace who had a small part as a TV announcer. Original cast members Butch Patrick (who played Eddie) and Pat Priest (who played Marilyn) had voiceover cameos in the film as well.

In the end, “The Munsters” is not a good movie. However, it is great feed to put on in the background of a Halloween party. It is best when used as a visual delight. Something you may only want to see a couple of minutes of dialogue from, but in the end, it’s best left as background pictures.

I didn’t really like this when I saw it. Some of the lines and parts had me scratching my head thinking what they were doing. I don’t think this should have been done the way it did, but I didn’t make this. I think I will easily forget about this movie, since it didn’t leave an impact, so check it out if you want on Netflix.

Thank you for joining in on my review today. Stay tuned Friday for the continuation of “M. Night Shyamalan” Month.

Unbreakable

At the center of “Unbreakable,” released in 2000, is a simple question: “How many days of your life have you been sick?” David Dunne, a security guard played by Bruce Willis, doesn’t know the answer. He is barely speaking to his wife Megan, played by Robin Wright, but like all men, he believes she remembers his life better than he does. She tells him she can’t remember him ever being sick, not even a day. They have this conversation briefly after he has been in a train accident that killed every passenger on there, but left him without a broken bone. Now isn’t that bizarre.

The question originally came to him in an unsigned note. He finds the man who sent it. This is Elijah Price, played by Samuel L. Jackson, who owns a high-end comic book store with a priceless stock of first editions. Elijah has been sick for practically his whole life. He even had broken bones when he was born, being diagnosed with osteogenesis imperfecta. He has spent a long time looking for an indestructible man, and his logic is simple: “If there is someone like me in the world, shouldn’t there be someone at the other end of the spectrum?”

This film by M. Night Shyamalan, is in its own way as quietly exciting as “The Sixth Sense.” Roger Ebert said in his review, “It doesn't involve special effects and stunts, much of it is puzzling and introspective, and most of the action takes place during conversations. If the earlier film seemed mysteriously low-key until an ending that came like an electric jolt, this one is more fascinating along the way, although the ending is not quite satisfactory. In both films, Shyamalan trusts the audience to pay attention, and makes use of Bruce Willis' everyman quality, so we get drawn into the character instead of being distracted by the surface.”

Ebert said, “The Jackson character is not an everyman. Far from it. He is quietly menacing, formidably intelligent, and uses a facade of sophistication and knowledge to conceal anger that runs deep: He is enraged that his bones break, that his body betrays him, that he was injured so often in grade school that the kids called him "Mr. Glass."” Why does he want to find his opposite, an unbreakable man? The question waits behind every moment.

Ebert noted, “This story could have been simplified into a -- well, into the plot of one of Elijah Price's old comic books. Shyamalan does a more interesting thing. He tells it with observant everyday realism; he's like Stephen King, dealing in the supernatural and yet alert to the same human details as mainstream writers.” For instance, how interesting that David’s wife is not simply one more bystander wife in a thriller, but a real woman in a marriage that seems to have run out of love. How interesting that when her husband is saved in a crash that kills everyone else, she bravely decides this may be their opportunity to try one last time to save the marriage. How interesting that David’s relationship with his son, played by Spencer Treat Clark, is so strong, and that the boy is taken along for important scenes like the first meeting of David and Elijah.

In “Psycho,” Alfred Hitchcock made audiences think the story was about Janet Leigh’s character, and then killed her off a third into the film. No one gets killed early in “Unbreakable,” but Shyamalan is skilled at distraction: He involves everyone in the private life of the comic book dealer, in the job and marriage problems of the security guard, in stories of wives and mothers. The true subject of the film is well-guarded, despite always in front of us, and until the end, we don’t know what to hope for or fear. In that way, it’s like “The Sixth Sense.”

There is a theory in Hollywood currently that audiences have shorter attention spans and must be distracted by nonstop comic book action. Ebert noted, “Ironic, that a movie about a student of comic book universes would require attention and patience on the part of the audience. Moviegoers grateful for the slow unfolding of "The Sixth Sense" will like this one, too.”

The actors give performances you would expect in serious dramas. Jackson is not afraid to play man it is hard to love – a sour man, whose intelligence only adds irony to anger. Willis, so often the main focus of mindless action films, reminds everyone again that he can be a subtle actor, as quiet and mysterious as actors we expect that type of thing from – like John Malkovich or William Hurt. If this movie were about nothing else, it would be a full picture of a man in danger at work and at home.

Ebert admitted, “I mentioned the ending. I was not quite sold on it. It seems a little arbitrary, as if Shyamalan plucked it out of the air and tried to make it fit.” To be sure, there are hints along the way about the direction the story might go, and maybe this movie, like ‘The Sixth Sense,” will play even better the second time – once you know where it’s going. Even if the ending doesn’t completely succeed, it doesn’t cheat, and it comes at the end of a rarely fascinating movie.

As you could see from this review, you might be able to see why people who saw this were split about it. However, when I saw it as a kid, I personally thought this movie was fascinating. Like how Doug Walker stated, I liked that idea of what if superheroes existed. What if there was someone who was nearly indestructible and another person who was fragile and weak or wanted to take on this person? That seemed like an interesting idea, and like “The Sixth Sense,” I was shocked by the twist ending of the film. I didn’t expect it to end the way it did, but when I saw it, I was just amazed. See this if you haven’t because I think you will like it.

Stay tuned Friday for when I talk about a film that I don’t like but everyone else does in “M. Night Shyamalan Month.”

Hocus Pocus 2

Today, I saw “Hocus Pocus 2,” which came out on Disney+ a little over a week ago. How is it compared to the first one, which only hinted at the fact that there could be a sequel? Let’s find out.

How crazy at nostalgia being so common, such an idea for movie industries to actually do, that “Hocus Pocus,” a movie from 1993 that looked like a made for Disney TV movie, has now been brought back with a sequel. Leo Brady admitted in his review, “Yours truly is guilty of perpetrating that nostalgia. Truth be told, I watch Hocus Pocus with my wife every Halloween night, but in many respects it’s the kind of movie that wouldn’t need a sequel. The reason is because the original is fine without anything else added to it but since this gained steam after Gen-X-ers and Gen-Z’s started watching it on Freeform or talking about it on Twitter, we now have Hocus Pocus 2, premiering on Disney+.” It’s a cheaper looking production, with undoubtedly entertaining skills of the trio protagonists of witches, and a plot that redoes the original. The expectations should not be high because they never were, but “Hocus Pocus 2” is not memorable enough, nor exceeds the original to explain its enchanting fruition.

The beginning brings viewers back to old Salem, with sisters Winifried (Taylor Paige Henderson), Sarah (Juju Brener), and Mary Sanderson (Nina Kitchen) were just teenagers, and the orange haired Winifried has turned 16. Winifried’s resolution to the old-fashioned customs of Salem leads to the sisters being banished. This is also when they discover the power of witchcraft from a mysterious Witch Mother, played by Hannah Waddingham, introducing the magical book of spirits and with their sisterly bond they could become their own coven. Obviously, this would eventually lead to the events of the first “Hocus Pocus,” but now 28-years later and the Sanderson sisters sill have a place in Salem.

The new group of high school kids are Becca (Whitney Peak), Izzy (Belissa Escobedo), and Cassie (Lilla Buckingham), but with getting older the traditions of Halloween change. Boys are damaging the friendship, Cassie chooses to party, while Becca and Izzy stay with the Salem Halloween festival run by Cassie’s father who is running for mayor (Tony Hale), and visit the magic shop of Gilbert (Sam Richardson). As you would think, this is when the girls receive a new mysterious candle from the magic store owner that their lighting of the candle leads to the resurrection of Winifred (Bette Midler), Sarah (Sarah Jessica Parker), and Mary (Kathy Najimy) and now the night turns into a mission to stop the Sanderson sisters from bringing disaster on Salem.

Brady mentioned, “There are unfortunately more cons than pros in Hocus Pocus 2, but the pros do keep things moving smoother than I expected.” One undeniable fact is that Midler, Parker, and Najimy still work well off of one another and have the talent to put on a good show. There’s a combination of original songs and a cover of Blondie’s One Way or Another that lets viewers see that great theatrical energy from all of them. However, the cons exist in the usual issues that new revivals – like “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” or “Space Jam: A New Legacy” all have. Brady noted, “The story is a retread of the original, the visuals are often plastic, looking as if shot on sound stages in back lots of Hollywood, while the various jokes land on cringe more than funny. It’s obvious that the three Sanderson sisters are from a different universe and now everything seems out of place.”

Writers Jen D’Angelo, David Kirschner, and Blake Harris are well aware that inviting everyone back to Salem is about celebrating the witches again, but that’s also done in service of nostalgia, and not of an original story. The direction from Anne Fletcher is serviceable in the reality of straight to streaming movies and that in the end becomes the main damage in “Hocus Pocus 2.” Brady commented, “A blatant and hideous co-sponsoring with Walgreens is the film’s funniest and most pathetic moment. Hocus Pocus 2 also finds a way to make the typically masterful work of Doug Jones- returning as zombie Billy Butcherson- seem obsolete to the amounts of plastic scenery that surrounds him. I wouldn’t call Hocus Pocus 2 a complete failure.” It’s nice to see Midler, Parker, and Najimy give some song and dance numbers. There’s just not enough of it to bring out the right stuff.

Overall, I just found this to be ok. It’s not as good as the first one, but then again, I wasn’t really a fan of the first movie. I only saw it because my siblings were saying they saw it and enjoyed it, and after seeing the Nostalgia Critic review this for his “Nostalgia-Ween” a few years back, that’s when I decided to check it out. These movies are not something I would see every October around Halloween time, but if you do, great. I just don’t think this sequel was needed and I think after seeing them once, I won’t need to see them again. Check it out if you would like to on Disney+, but if not, you’re not missing much.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow for the continuation of “M. Night Shyamalan Month.”

The Sixth Sense

Welcome back to “Halloween Month.” For this year, I will look at films that were directed by M. Night Shyamalan, a directed that I feel peaked too early with his sudden twists at the ending. Let’s get started with the first film he directed, “The Sixth Sense,” released in 1999.

This isn’t a thriller in the modern sense, but more of a ghost story of the type that succeeded a long time ago, when ordinary people glimpsed hidden dimensions. Roger Ebert said in his review, “It has long been believed that children are better than adults at seeing ghosts; the barriers of skepticism and disbelief are not yet in place.” In this film, a small boy seriously tells his psychologist, “I see dead people. They want me to do things for them.” He appears to be right.

The psychologist is Malcolm Crowe, played by Bruce Willis, who is shot one night in his home by a burglar, a man who had been his patient years earlier and believes he was falsely diagnosed. The man then turns the gun on himself. “The next fall,” as the caption informs, we see Crowe has recovered but probably not in spirit, as he takes on a new patient, a boy named Cole Sear, played by Haley Joel Osment, who shows some of the same problems as the patient who shot at Crowe. Maybe this time he can get it right.

The film shows us things adults do not see. When Cole’s mother, played by Toni Collette, leaves the kitchen for just a second and comes back in the room, every door and drawer is open. At school, he tells his teacher “They used to hang people here.” When the teacher thinks how Cole could possibly know things like that, he reassures her, “When you were a boy, they called you Stuttering Stanley.” It is Crowe’s job to speak to this boy and help him if helping is what he actually needs. Maybe he is calling for help. He knows how to say “From out of the depths I cry into you, oh Lord!” in Latin. Crowe doesn’t really believe the boy’s stories, but Crowe himself is suffering, partly because his wife, once so close, now appears to be having an affair and doesn’t appear to hear him when he talks to her. The boy tells him, “Talk to her when she’s asleep. That’s when she’ll hear you.” Using an “as if” approach in therapy, Crowe asks Cole, “What do you think the dead people are trying to tell you?” Ebert mentions, “This is an excellent question, seldom asked in ghost stories, where the heroes are usually so egocentric they think the ghosts have gone to all the trouble of appearing simply so they can see them. Cole has some ideas. Crowe wonders whether the ideas aren't sound even if there aren't really ghosts.”

Bruce Willis often sees himself in fantasies and science fiction films. Ebert answers, “Perhaps he fits easily into them because he is so down to earth. He rarely seems ridiculous, even when everything else in the screen is absurd (see "Armageddon"), because he never over-reaches; he usually plays his characters flat and matter of fact. Here there is a poignancy in his bewilderment.” The film opens with the mayor giving him a citation, and that moment marks the beginning of his professional decline. He goes down with a type of doomed dignity.

Haley Joel Osment, his child co-star, is a very good actor in a film where his character possibly has more lines than anyone else. He’s in most of the scenes, and he has to act in them – this isn’t a role for a cute kid who can stand there and look solemn in reaction shots. There are fairly involved dialogue moments between Willis and Osment that require good timing, reactions, and the ability to listen. Ebert noted, “Osment is more than equal to them. And although the tendency is to notice how good he is, not every adult actor can play heavy dramatic scenes with a kid and not seem to condescend (or, even worse, to be subtly coaching and leading him). Willis can. Those scenes give the movie its weight and make it as convincing as, under the circumstances, it can possibly be.”

I’m with Ebert when he said, “I have to admit I was blind-sided by the ending. The solution to many of the film's puzzlements is right there in plain view, and the movie hasn't cheated, but the very boldness of the storytelling carried me right past the crucial hints and right through to the end of the film, where everything takes on an intriguing new dimension.” The film was written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, whose previous film, “Wide Awake,” was also about a little boy with a supernatural ability. He mourned his dead grandfather and demanded an explanation from God. Ebert admitted, “I didn't think that one worked.” “The Sixth Sense” has a type of calm, sneaky self-confidence that allows it to take us down a strange path, enchantingly.

I think everyone probably knows the twist ending in this, but if you don’t, then you should see the movie because I cannot spoil it for you. As the first Shyamalan film, this took everyone by surprise and everyone loved it. When you see it, you will know and love it too. When my brother saw it, I remember him walking up to us exclaiming how shocked he was with how the film ended. My sister had spoiled the ending for me, but not in grave detail. What’s funny is that my brother asked me once if I saw him covered in blood or with any wound marks, and I told him no. My sister let me know that he was still in shock about the film. When I saw it as an adult, I really enjoyed it.

Interesting fact: Bruce Willis learned to write with his right hand in this movie, and he is left-handed. See this film if you haven’t because you will really like it and will thoroughly find yourself invested in the film the more you watch it.

Stay tuned next Monday when I talk about the next film that people are split on, but I liked it when I saw it in “M. Night Shyamalan Month.”