Paul Giamatti is the ONLY reason I want to see this. Because I think Shyamalan is a hack. He made the 6th Sense,which was fantastic of course, but then, Unbreakable, sucked, Signs, sucked, The Village, sucked.

Hes just always trying to recreate the feeling of the 6th Sense. Everyone one of his movies is this giant long leadup to some big twist at the end, and that twist has just been a stupid twist in everything since the 6th Sense.

And I hate to tellya, I already know what this movie is about and what the twist is going to be, and its more of the same.

It's very demeaning to reduce his movies to simply one twist. Since Sixth Sense they've relied on a lot more than the twist and have built on characterisation and plot.

Unbreakable is perhaps my favourite of his films.

None of them sucked unless you were sitting there expecting a huge twist and nothing else. Walking into the cinema shouting "I want a big surprise"!

I completely respect your opinion, I was just stating mine.

Its just what I think, Unbreakable, was a good film, but there was a big twist at the end, that [spoiler removed - although you should all know it! - Richard], I found the ending kind of a letdown after what up to that point was a great and superbly acted film. Signs, didn't really go anywhere at the ending, and The Village's twist is [spoiler removed - although you should all know it! - Richard]. I've seen big parts of the leaked script for Lady in the Water, and there is yet another similar you didn't see that coming twist at the end of it.

Again, just my opinions, and I fully respect yours. Not everyone feels the same way about a movie or a director.

Here we are again about having 'correct movie opinions'. No pun intended, of course not everybody will like the same films, or will look at it in the same angles.

'Unbreakable' is my favorite Shyamalan film, I am not sure exactly why but I really enjoyed it. The Sixth Sense was ruined for me by Drew Barrymore after she spoiled the plot of it in her film '50 First Dates'. As for signs which was not about aliens, but more of redemption was also quite good and even if they had been saying nasty things about The Village, the performances of both Phoenix and Dallas Howard truly made it a very good watch.

As for this next outing, I also cant wait, I will prolly still watch it even if Paul Giamatti wasnt cast, although I love that guy!

I loved 6th Sense and really admired Unbreakable, but it seems to me that M. Night's been pigeonholed ever since. Partly of his own doing and partly because Hollywood only wants to sell something familiar, he's now "forced" to make Big Twist Ending films when he's probably capable of doing a lot more.

As for this trailer, I thought it went on too long and only gave us everything we'd expect and nothing at all new: Unseen-Beast-POV shots, dramatic raining, whispered lines full of ominous portent, etc. I was bored.

And did I see this correctly - is M. Night now putting his cameo into the trailer?! Pretty pretentious, ego-driven move, that.

I watched the trailer a couple of times and it definetly has my interest. Not only because of Giamatti, but also for the ghostly tale impression. It likely might not end up that way in the end, but I'm intrigued to see what the film is all about.

I really enjoy M. Night's films, even The Village, which I think if it was marketed differently it wouldn't have pissed so many people off.

Burbanked - I think you are correct in seeing a cameo of M.Night in the trailer. However, I don't understand why you think that's a "pretty pretentious, ego-driven move...".
It doesn't particularly bother me seeing him (if that is him) in the trailer. Perhaps you feel directors should keep themselves out of the movies they make? I'm curious, if you care to explain?

Unlike with the Village, Shyamalan seems to be telling us more about the superficial story in this trailer. I'm not a fan of trailers giving away too much, and Shyamalan has typically avoided it, so that makes me wonder what more will be beneath the surface...not in the twist-ending sort of way, but in the subtler theme of the movie. Aside from that, when you look at the performances that he gets out of actors (and granted, he picks some great actors), who wouldn't want to see Giamatti and Howard in any story he directs?

I get you xpgeek, but Filmstalker is about discussion, so I'm not just going to let your comments go without starting one - and look what we've started!

If we didn't discuss anything there wouldn't be half the comments there are and we'd never interact, and that's a big part of this I love.

I think there's way more to Shyamalan, and I think Burbank hit it quite well. We're not only expecting the big twist surprise, but he's also now pushed to deliver it. Yet without a twist, or a successful twist, the films he's done really do stand up as a whole.

Do we have to compare him against other directors and writers to see how original and strong his writing and directing is? Half the films out the same year as Unbreakable couldn't come close to the film before any twist revelation.

I feel this weeks feature may just have been discovered!

Oh, and I meant to say that I've just seen the trailer, and I quite liked it. I like the fact that everythings looking far more sinister and dark than the story suggested.

Meli - the director cameo is a fun bit of "hey, look, it's fill-in-the-blank" that has a rich cinematic history and I'm all for it.

But M. Night likes to give himself really important cameos in his movies - where he shows up and provides critical exposition or plot-turning Moments of Significance. It always strikes me as a little silly and a bit of a narrative cheat having the movie's creator suddenly popping up and telling us things about the plot. For my money, it tends to take me right out of the movie. We end up looking for the cameo, not looking for characters saying lines and acting like real people.

Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of solid, believable character actors who can fulfill the same function - and do it better. This isn't unique to M. Night; Tarantino is guilty of it as well.

It's just my opinion, of course, and it's perfectly okay for a director to have an ego - if anything it's a prerequisite. I just want the ego to service the movie rather than the other way around.

Just saw the trailer now and LOVED it! I better watch the trailer again and look for the cameo thing.

Hey Burbank - I completely understand your opinion and on a part agree with what your saying. I have felt many times that cameos are a distraction, not particularly with M. Night's films, but many others.

I think with M. Night's films, after Six Sense, I expected him to be in the movie at some point and didn't honestly look for it. He doesn't particularly distract me, but I agree that the knowledge he brings could easily be delivered by another actor.

It would seem that not only does he like/try to deliver a twist, but he also likes to plop himself in his movies. I wonder if deep down he once wanted to be an actor?

I'd never really looked at Night's cameos too deeply until Burbanked spelled it out up there. The only one I'm questioning myself over, because frankly I can't remember the dialogue, was Unbreakable. But yes, the others have been very important - either by character or message (Signs was a character, the guy who killed the wife, Village was the message, filling in the blanks for what happened). Burbanked has a good point here.

He's not the first to do cameos, Alfred Hitchcock was famed for it. Simplest of all - walking the dog by the pet shop in the early scenes of The Birds.

On the twists, Richard's right, if that's what you go in expecting, then the rest of the film will be playing second fiddle to the twist itself. I felt like that with Signs, which didn't have a twist as such, it was turning people's weaknesses into strengths, which I did like on several levels.

Oh, he's doing another film is he? ;-]

Appreciate the compliment, Lee.

Not to beat this point so firmly into the ground, but in Unbreakable M. Night was a man whom Bruce Willis mistakes for a drug dealer because his powers have failed him. Perhaps not exactly a plot-spinning part, but still more important than walking by a pet store.

Ahh, that's right Burbanked. I vaguely remember the scene outside the stadium, just couldn't remember the significance.