In adapting Paul G. Tremblay's horror novel about a home invasion with apocalyptic implications, M. Night Shyamalan challenges mainstream audiences. But only to a point.
That Shyamalan is “drawn to high-concept ideas like a floating cartoon character to pie on the windowsill” made me laugh out loud.
Shyamalan remarkably good at conjuring up dread, and it terrible shame he only seem to write or adapt stories that stomp all over fine line between clever and stupid. Me would have liked to see him direct one of Harry Potters, where he could provide atmospherics and brisk storytelling but not actually have to be one to tell story.
Anyway, it has been joy to see Bautista grow as actor over last few years, and me excited to see him start to get roles with more depth. That being said, me also sad he not seem to want to do more Guardians of Galaxy, as he always kills it as Drax.
I was shocked when I saw the trailer that anyone would attempt to adapt this, so it is not surprising (though disappointing) to hear they have ran from Tremblay’s ending. I can’t imagine there is any change that would fit the story or feel satisfying. Perhaps this is why there has been little to no mention of the novel in the advertising? I will probably still see this to check out Bautista who is always compelling.
Without wanting to spoil the book or movie for anyone who's interested, does Shyamalan balk from the mid-novel death?
Tbh the only Shyamalan I’ve seen all the way through is THE VISIT which I found light but effectively creepy. So if I do see this it’ll probably be just for Big Dave who I sincerely love as an actor to the point when I saw his big return story/retirement match at Wrestlemania 39 against HHH, I was really disappointed because he was just...a Big Scary Muscly Guy. He can do so much more!!!
I wonder if Bautista's performance would supplant John Cena's in Trainwreck as my favourite by a wrestler. As it is in a Shyamalan picture I am unlikely to find out.
Looking forward to this one - even though M. Night is pretty hit-and-miss for people I have found most of his recent work to be far more interesting than the vast majority of stuff that’s put in theaters. Huge Old and Glass fan right here.
Isn’t this sort of the same scenario as the end of Cabin in the Woods? I always figured Dana made the right choice there.
I’m a little apprehensive about the apocalypse being shown mostly (solely?) via television. I thought the weakest parts of Signs and The Happening were the comical, unconvincing news footage of alien invasion and horrific self-harm. Didn’t a guy feed himself to lions? I have trouble taking Shyalaman’s worldbuilding seriously so I hope the film offers more character moments in its pro-sacrifice arguments than just channel surfing.
FYC the original scene that showed Bautista could act: Ric Flair telling him he was an orphan, without any prior knowledge, before he had a match https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J_FOY5ZGaA
It then inspired the infamous "Little Dave Batistia" song that's somewhere on an episode of Edge & Christian's Podcast or Up Up Down Down that no one dares sing to Dave's face.
I fundamentally understood the novel differently from how you did, I think. It's not "about a family that almost literally stands at the precipice of global collapse"; it's crystal-clear to me that there's simply no apocalypse happening in the book, and that the book is about how four very naive, troubled people could easily believe that one was happening because you can simply turn on the news anytime and see something that's being packaged as apocalyptic (and then, if you're so inclined, blame it on The Gays and the Chinese - not a coincidence that Wen isn't a white kid living with her mommy and daddy.)
But that's why the book is great - there's that ambiguity. Shyamalan can't do ambiguity. He cannot. His famous twist endings are about explaining everything that's come before them so that everything is wrapped up in a neat little package. He was the worst director for this material.