Why Does M. Night Shyamalan Have to Suck?

Here's where things get interesting: Shyamalan tried a different approach to The Village and later Lady in the Water, each with their own plot twists (which many attribute to the director/producer/writer using his "one trick pony") in an attempt to shock the viewer and give them some topics for discussion around the water cooler and with friends while diving deep into a driving mythos. Lady was ultimately marketed as "a bedtime story," a concept so alarming it caused Shyamalan to leave Disney over "creative differences" and move the production over to Warner Bros. Granted, each of those films had their flaws, Lady seemingly suffering more than The Village because of the hectic production process.

For those who know me, they know that I look at any film, no matter what it is, for its production and artistic value. After all, if there's poor cinematography, lighting, scoring, acting, dialogue, the movie is for not. Sure, I might judge movies differently than most people, but in the end, I'm still watching and enjoying (or at least, trying to enjoy) the same movie everyone else does.

I took Lady for what it was worth, and following the "bedtime story," it was certainly excellent in fulfilling its promise. It had every element of the stories we'd hear when we were children, wrapped up in bed listening to a loved one lull us to sleep with a far-fetched adventure or anecdote - usually never quite staying up late enough to hear the ending.

Each of Shyamalan's movies are inarguably held up to "The Sixth Standard" (yes, I'm coining the phrase), where each new entry from Shyamalan is held to the same ideals and expectations we've made for ourselves, and each time being disappointed by what we get. I've always lived the motto "if you have expectations, you deserve to be disappointed," and in many cases, I believe that holds true to The Sixth Standard.

Moviegoers and critics alike have formed two camps when it comes to Shyamalan's films: on one side, he couldn't possibly go wrong, and on the other side, he can't get any better and continues to get worse.

I tend to judge and watch each of Shyamalan's movies as separate stories and techniques, because each movie truly should be treated as a standalone film... there are no recurring plots, there are no connections other than a few tribute references and Easter eggs, and there is no franchise of pictures that this could be packaged in other than "The Shyamalan Collection."

With all said and done, when people are boycotting Shyamalan movies and getting up-in-arms with comments encouraging other moviegoers to save their money and to not even rent the video when it's released in stores, why should we hold Shyamalan to The Sixth Standard?

Shyamalan is certainly no stranger to criticism, and like many, he can certainly take his criticism and react: His cameo in The Happening was severely reduced over the larger, key roles he's played in Lady and Signs.

Let's take his movies for what they are, a frequent vacation from reality and a story so unique, it can't be true... or can it? Or do we liken Shyamalan to Rod Serling or Alfred Hitchcock, both whom created stories that weren't widely accepted until much later in history and be done with it?

Do I enjoy Shyamalan's movies? Yes, and I certainly applaud him for taking risks to tell stories his way as opposed to "the Hollywood way." After all, many of the great filmmakers have their own stumbling blocks in their careers... the same can certainly be said of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay, directors and producers of some of Hollywood's biggest hits.

In the end, you can think of Shyamalan any way you please. At least we know he's nowhere near the bottom of the pit Uwe Boll is in.