Monday, September 09, 2002
Saw M. Night Shyamalan's Signs this weekend. I couldn't decide if I liked it or not afterwards. Well, that isn't actually true. I can safely say that I liked it. In fact I think it's safe to say that I really liked it. But when asked my opinion about the movie, or how I would rate it against my favorite movies, I have a hard time coming up with my own independant feelings about it.
That's because I view it as an instant classic. Classic movies, like Psycho or Casablanca aren't criticizable in my opinion. You aren't allowed to like or dislike them. You watch them to learn, and to appreciate the film-making/entertainment art. For instance, I don't like Psycho, but when I watch it, I start understanding more about how films are supposed to be shot. It's compelling. It's interesting. You can't tear your eyes away from it because it's a directing/cinematography masterpiece. You don't have to like it in order to be able to appreciate the mastery involved.
And that's how I feel about all of Shyamalan's movies. I can't even sort out which one of his movies I like better than the rest. He's a brilliant storyteller and an excellent director. I'd rather watch any of his movies for the fiftieth time rather than watch the Lifetime movie of the week that's in theaters now.
I think I'm beginning to understand why film experts started comparing him to Hitchcock after Sixth Sense. He definitely deserves the nod.