When is it time to give up? I asked myself this when I recently saw a preview for the new film “Devil”. The reason why is because when the screen showed the titles “from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan” the entire theater groaned very loudly. It was when I heard these ominous groans that I wondered if a future should exist for the once prominent director. Personally, after watching “The Last Airbender” and seeing the terrible box office gross that ensued I was sure it was the last we would hear of Mr. Shyamalan. Yet when I saw this trailer and learned of a series of films known as the “Night Chronicles” soon to come it feels as though his resignation won’t be when we would all like. So in an effort to help both mine and your understanding, let’s explore how Shyamalan became not only the appealing director he once was but also how he transformed to the box office poison he now is today.

From the very beginning of this young director’s career, it felt as if he was right on the cusp of something truly brilliant. Now, more than a decade has gone by and here we stand right where we started, with something that has yet to be fully realized. No matter what director or artist is being discussed there is one principle that always rings true: to create you must evolve. Perhaps this is a lesson our fateful choice of director should have learned long ago.

M. Night Shyamalan (Born in India as Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan) was raised in the urban Penn Valley area of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was there that he received a Super-8 camera as a gift and then began making home movies (most of which are special features on his various films). He raised all the funding for his first film “Praying with Anger” which he produced, directed, and starred in all on his own. The film is a story  of an alienated Americanized teenager of East Indian heritage that is sent back to India and is partially based on Shymalan’s personal experiences. I recently saw this film while doing research for this article, and found it to be very interesting. The film shows signs of a director who wanted to tell stories we could not only enjoy but relate to as well. I personally can recommend the film and while not perfect, for those who still believe in Shyamalan, it’s definitely a must-see.

His second film “Wide Awake” was actually a film that I saw at a young age and it wasn’t until a second viewing many years later that I became aware of who its director was. The film takes place at a Philadelphia Catholic school and centers around a boy who embarks on a journey to discover God after his grandfather dies. While not completely successful at the box office, Shymalan showed great promise as many consider this to be an underrated film. What makes this film significant in his career is it continues the trend of exploring the spiritual and religious in an interesting, unbiased, and relatable way.

M. Night’s third film which is perhaps his most ambitious, and arguably his most critically successful, would be his his definitive work. The film was “The Sixth Sense”, and much like Shymalan’s role model Steven Spielberg, this third film would be the landmark of his career. Both Speilberg and Shymalan in their third film (Speilberg’s being “Jaws”) engrossed themselves around the idea instituted by Alfred Hitchcock of capturing what’s most fearful… the unknown.  The fear coming not from what we see, but from what we don’t see. “The Sixth Sense” again handling a very adult matter through the eyes of a child, with an academy award nominated performance by Haley Joel Osment. Shymalan’s decision to use a child as the film’s main character continued a trend he began with his last film, but with this entry he started another one as well; the twist. At the final moments of “The Sixth Sense” Shymalan not only shocked the audience but at the same time intrigued them enough to expect an ending like this with all of his films.

With his fourth film, “Unbreakable”, Shymalan seemed to almost reinvent himself with what I believe to be his best film to date. The film begins with a train wreck and thus it becomes the center piece for the film’s plot. Without revealing too much, the film slowly unravels to a rich storyline, intriguing performances, and a visual style that still impresses me to this day. As almost a quasi-superhero film for the 21st century, “Unbreakable” is largely ignored by the mass audience but is still revered by most comic and cult-film fans today.

Shymalan wanted something new and yet something familiar with his fifth film “Signs”, and he did just that. Again, the film explores religious themes, provides us with young talented actors in pivotal roles, and of course ends with the Shymalan twist. Instead of using the actor Bruce Willis as the lead character, Shymalan shifted gears a bit and used Mel Gibson. This proved to be a step in the right direction as audiences came out in droves to not only see “the new Mel Gibson film” but also wait for that twist that they had become accustomed to. This film is also somewhat hard to discuss without revealing too much, but Shymalan again took the familiar, as he did with “Unbreakable”, and reinvented it. The plot revolves around the idea of how crop circles are made and makes us wonder if they truly are the mystery they appear to be. The reason this film stands out as one of Shymalan’s best is it again employs what he started out to create, a film not only enjoyable but relatable.

Shymalan was at a crossroads with his sixth film, with so many different ideas and twists, where would he go from here? Shymalan’s answer was “The Village”. Audiences were mixed. While many consider this film much better than it was perceived, I can agree with the mass population and say this movie revealed to us Shymalan’s tell. Instead of an interesting and mysterious plot that the audience would relate to, we were instead subjected to something far worse. The idea of surprising the audience with a twist had obviously overwhelmed Shymalan and it sadly disappointed many. Shymalan had to learn that you can’t revolve an entire film around the principle of a surprise, unfortunately it’s a lesson he’s still trying to learn.

Distraught by what many thought to be the end of his career with words like “wash-up” and “has-been”,  Shymalan had to break new ground with his seventh film. Unfortunately, this did not happen and instead we were treated with “Lady in the Water”. What followed was a film that seemed like a potentially good idea that just wasn’t fully realized. Shymalan tried to tell an adult fairy tale in the vein of “Pan’s Labyrinth” but failed miserably and instead produced something that even the Grimm Fairy Tales wouldn’t accept. Shymalan used a new actor in Paul GIamatti and a familiar one with Bryce Dallas Howard but again Shymalan couldn’t figure out a successful formula to make a film like this work.

His next film, due to the recent fall from grace, was a toss up between almost no expectations and talks of a comeback. The film that came out of this was “The Happening”. Now once again, up until writing this article I had not seen this film, frankly because it had been panned by everyone I know. I don’t want to over-analyze this film so I’ll simply say that watching this film was utterly painful. I have never felt an experience quite like this, because this quite possibly was the worst film I have ever seen. The problem being once again that Shymalan was given a large budget, a slew of talented actors, and yet still could not produce due the plot being poorly realized.

M. Night Shymalan’s latest work, “The Last Airbender”, was supposed to once again be a reinvention and had all the possibility to do so. With a storyline based on a popular and well written anime cartoon of the same name, this film would be hard to screw up. Though as we saw with “The Happening” the film was plagued by horrible acting, atrocious dialogue, and special effects that James Cameron created when he was in grade school. I’m not sure what else to say about Shymalan’s films that I haven’t already said because as you may have noticed, they all follow a trend.

This trend is one commonly seen in filmmaking today; that even with all the ambition in the world, all of the money in the world, and even with endless support and resources, a film’s story must take the time to be fully realized. When you are given the keys to the kingdom at such an early stage in your career sometimes it feels like everything afterward is downhill, sadly this has proven to be the case with Shymalan, the only direction he has gone is down. Starting out with such promise, such vision, and such imagination Shymalan has truly squandered away all hope from his audience, and at his own hand. There is no one to blame but Shymalan himself, for he truly had everything a filmmaker could ask for and yet in just a little over a decade, he has created a literal “what not-to-do” guide to filmmaking. The lesson to learn here is that story is important, and no matter what, that story must have time to develop. Much like Shymalan’s films his career was rushed before it began, now it feels like it’s already over.

Without avail, Shyamalan brings us a new film we didn’t ask for. This time it’s called “Devil”, a movie he wrote but did not direct. The problem we have seen in his increasingly depreciating work unfortunately has been the writing. To depend on a failing formula and dialogue that simply doesn’t improve is a gamble for sure. The question remains as it has with has last few films; will he redeem himself or fall short yet again? After much deliberation I can say with confidence that I’ve been fooled before and unlike Shyamalan’s poorly written characters I won’t get fooled again.

Have you seen “Devil”? Did you love it, or hate it? Let us know in the comment section below.

When you hear the plot synopsis “An assassin hides out in Italy for one last assignment”, it’s hard to hold out hope for originality in a film’s plot. Yet with George Clooney’s latest starring film, “The American”, the actor not only brings originality through his performance but makes his best film in years.

While Clooney has been known to make some great films, both artistic and commercial, his rise to fame came also through a lot of tabloid covers and less than stellar films. However, in “The American” he is truly at the top of his game and delivers a truly great performance, one that he was born to play.

Directed by Anton Corbijn (“Control”) with his second film he brings a unique and almost vintage style to the film that would suggest he is a seasoned professional. Corbijn, who comes from the Netherlands and got most of his fame as a still photographer for bands such as “U2″ and “Nirvana” creates something remarkable with this film.

Remarkable meaning that it feels like Michelangelo Antonioni or Bernardo Bertolucci should have made this film years ago. Although putting an American movie star in a foreign film has been done before, I don’t think it’s been done quite this successful since “The Last Tango in Paris”.

To prove how such a feat can be explained the proof is all through Clooney’s performance. A lot of the time Clooney tends to play a man who charms you with not only his smile but especially his words. What’s most interesting here, is that with this film Clooney is a man of few words and even fewer smiles.

His performance is masterfully subtle and wholly encapsulates the mystery of this film’s plot. Backed by previously stated and outstanding visuals it’s hard not to completely recommend this film. The supporting cast does a great job of not overshadowing Clooney but rather help contribute to his dark presence and the film’s even darker premise.

If you haven’t gathered from this review, I absolutely loved this film. From start to finish, it will draw you in and slowly pull away at the same time making it that much more appealing. I’ve always hoped they had made “The Bourne Identity” series in just one film, well now they have, only it looks much better and is far more intriguing.

Is it better to be appreciated in your own time, or later discovered for your unacknowledged brilliance? This is something I can’t help but question in the film box office as of late. I was driven to examine this very question after a recent screening of the film “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”.

“Pilgrim” felt like the film people had been wanting for quite some time, and yet when finally released it underperformed; why? When a film has a poor box office gross it could always be a number of things. Sometimes it could be timing, competition, or, in some cases, a scandal involving the film’s cast or crew. The reason why I find this subject so alarming is it feels that lately the films I enjoy the most are the ones that take the mass audience a long time to appreciate.

Now granted this isn’t always the case, but I analyzed every movie I have seen this year and besides two (“Inception” and “Shutter Island”) these films were largely ignored by the public. It started early this year in April when I saw “Kick-Ass” and “Macgruber” at both festival and theater screenings, then later continued when I looked back at other films I enjoyed but no one else saw.

The strangest thing, and definitely the most annoying, was the ignorance of the people who hadn’t seen these movies to begin with. The biggest complaint I heard from people who DIDN’T see “Kick-Ass” was that they said they don’t like superhero movies. While this is a valid complaint when it comes to a film like this, if they had actually watched it they would see the film addressed this very issue.

Normally I would chalk this up to mere ignorance, but there seems to be a growing epidemic of film preconceptions. This happened just a month later with “Macgruber” where people simply just wrote the film off entirely even when it had some surprisingly good reviews.

To put my own movie preconceptions to the test I screened two films against my will. My roommate’s girlfriend had previously recommended two films to me and I scoffed at both. She told me to give them a chance because I was being too cynical and I replied with just more cynicism. To make amends, I told her I would watch the two films with her and give my honest opinion. What were these two films you ask? “The Ugly Truth” and “The Last Song”, yes I know, bad, right? I swallowed my pride with a big, nervous gulp and went where few men have boldly gone before.

When it came to “The Ugly Truth”, I knew the film would be bad by both my standards and that of the general public. Katherine Heigle is a “1-note actress”, she has only proven herself in one role (“Knocked Up”) and has simply replayed that same sassy yet slightly annoying character in different shades since. I also knew by the bad acting and atrocious dialogue in the trailer that I had a pretty good idea of how the film would play out. So what happened after I was done viewing the film? Was I surprised? No, of course not! Because, SPOILER ALERT, the two characters who “hate” each other by the end fall in love just as I predicted and yes Heigle’s shades of Grey acting were all the same. The sad part about this is, I fell asleep halfway through the film because I knew this very thing would happen, so I had to wake up and endure the finale.

By the time I finished “The Ugly Truth” I simply did not have it in me to finish the “The Last Song”. I watched the first half of the film and after realizing the similarities between the two, I knew I would not be fooled twice in one night. So while I gave the films that I had preconceptions about a chance, I’m sure you are asking, what did I learn?

Well to be honest, not a whole hell of a lot, sadly. What I did scrape by with however, was this; when you decide whether or not you want to see a movie, do your research. Now I know that sounds like work but it’s really not. The reason why I knew “Knight and Day” would be an enjoyable film was because both the director (James Mangold -  “Walk the Line” “3:10 to Yuma”) and it’s star (Tom Cruise) have proven track records. The reason why the film failed at the box office however was simply because people are unwilling to forgive Mr. Cruise for his past transgression in the tabloids.

So stop basing your opinion of a movie on a trailer or a man’s religion, but maybe see what the film is about and who the writer or director was instead. To compare, the films the director of “The Ugly Truth”  had made previously were “Legally Blonde” and “Monster-in-Law”, yeah ’nuff said. It’s not too hard to detect the bad films of the world out there, but occasionally you can be fooled. Although when it comes to bad movies I’d much rather watch “Dinner for Schmucks” again instead of watching Miley Cyrus try to act.

Sterling Cooper. If you have no idea what that name means or signifies, than I’ve already lost you. However, if you do know what Sterling Cooper means than you can understand why it makes “Mad Men” the OBSESSION OF THE WEEK.

For most people I know, “Mad Men” is a show that takes a little while to not only understand but to also love. Yet once you do get the premise and genius of the show, you’re completely hooked. As soon as you hear the short but sweet symphony begin the title sequence, you know what it means; it’s Draper time. Draper being the main character behind the show, Donald Draper to be exact. Don Draper works at Sterling Cooper, an advertising agency in the 1960′s, hooked yet? Yeah, neither were most people.

Though the more you watch the more you realize not only the significance of advertising in the 1960′s but also how you’ve been transported into a whole other world that you’ve never before witnessed. Granted, it’s probably because most of the show’s fans weren’t alive when it’s many historic events occurred. Whether they are representing a Bra company that asks “are you a Jackie or a Marilyn” or showing the beginnings of racial stereotypes in advertisements. “Mad Men” is a show that interests both history buffs and culture aficionados alike.

That’s not to say the show doesn’t offer many other eye popping interests as well. With a fantastic premise the show boasts a beautiful cinematic look all its own while still being faithful to the time period. “Mad Men” also has a fantastic cast of mostly relative unknowns and a writing staff that previously worked on “The Sopranos”. If that’s not enough to make you watch I’m not sure I can better convince you.

What else makes the show so addicting is the lifestyle it presents, when watching an episode your tempted to make yourself an “old fashioned” just to feel like you’re in that world. With sharp dialogue, amazing costumes, and set decoration, it’s very easy to get wrapped up in this place that time may have forgotten.

Don’t miss out on this engrossing and masterfully made program. It’s worth every drop.

Mad Men airs Sundays at 7:00 ET 10:00 PST on AMC

I spent nearly 4 hours watching and reading coverage of this year’s Comic-Con 2010, and after it was all said and done I felt very empty. What began as an article supporting the excitement and recent burst of hype in the media changed quickly. I knew that I had a journalistic responsibility to expose how hype has effected me and the world in which we live in. So while writing this article it turned into something very different, I hope you enjoy.

The time is here, Comic-Con 2010 has come and gone, who cares right? Well some people do, over 100,000 in fact. Comic-Con, for those who do not know what it is or see it as just a “nerd-fest”, has slowly become in its 40 years of existence the quintessential media event of the year. CNN, The New York Times, and Time Magazine – all different mediums of highly prestigious and primarily current-event oriented news have covered it. “It” in question is a 4 day event held every year at the San Diego Convention Center in Southern California. Comic-Con offers everything from celebrity panels to exclusive footage that won’t be seen anywhere else for almost a year. It is a nerd haven where those who are usually neglected by the “popular crowd” take center stage and are embraced for all the nerdyness that they can dish out. The past few years have been effected by the winds of change however.

While the convention used to usually consist of those that I previously mentioned, with the recent “SuperHero Film Boom”, it now is something that has morphed into a hype fest of sorts. The nerds of the world have been given the spotlight and branded with a dollar sign above their greasy unpolished foreheads. Unfortunately, instead of fighting the system as this culture has so often done before, being cast into obscurity for so long has had the opposite effect. Nerds display themselves proudly and have become a product sold to the highest bidder. This society has lived their lives without the respect they so often seek for far too long and now that they have their “moment in the sun”  they aren’t looking for shade anytime soon.

What has happened as a result, is a transformation of something that was created as a conference for those who feel different to now a freak show for the mass public to scoff at and then benefit from. It is because of this negative effect that I can’t help but wonder is hype a good thing? “Hype” to most is just another word for anticipated excitement and yet to the rich fat-cats of the world it is just another way to add more zero’s to their bank account. With these “exclusive looks” and “collectors items” we as consumers are supposed to feel special and elite. Yet when the very people who want you to pump their gas or serve them coffee are those who fund such an “elite” status it’s difficult not to question it’s merit. Comic-Con has become nothing more than an oversized and overcrowded “Monorail-Tour” at Universal Studios where the audience is given an “inside look” at how movies are really made when it’s nowhere near close.

We are shuttled around like cattle, being told to be excited because something is happening when really the cover has been thrown over our eyes. It feels to me almost like the scene in the film “Big Fish” where the ringmaster of the circus gives a ridiculously long interlude for a giant and when he is finally revealed, he is no taller than someone slightly above average. Following this revelation, we then see what an actual giant looks like and the crowd snaps silent, including the ringmaster. What I mean by this analogy is that Comic-Con is an amazing event when it’s done right, but recently it has become just a parade of the slightly average. I attended Comic-Con at the “beginning of the end” as they call it, and the sad part is I could feel it. While I attended the celebrity panels and felt that lovely false sense of entitlement I mentioned, it wasn’t until I saw what comic-con truly was that I realized it’s fraud.

Comic-Con should be a unification of what we all value most in storytelling; actual storytelling. Instead, the studios of the world have invaded ours in which we created like a sheep in wolf’s clothing (or latex, depending on the costume). To better formulate my point let me use a real world example. The “Harry Potter” novels are rich detailed stories and have taken the time both in the written word and screen in order to prove this point. Rather than cast a “flavor of the week” actor or actress, these films use relatable unknowns as their leads and classically-trained actors to support this ever-expanding universe. To contrast, the “Twilight” novels and films are ones that unlike “Potter” weren’t based around a deeply complex character or in a world unlike anything we could imagine. These poorly written books and disgustingly low quality array of films rely on the very thing you shouldn’t; hype. Hype is destroying so many things around us and yet we just accept it, hoping like it’s predecessors it will simply pass on.

What I valued most about the times I went to Comic-Con, was when I sat down one-on-one with an author or an artist and was able to talk to them about the process that went into creating that particular piece of work. Yet when we are constantly bombarded with what “is” hip and what “will be” big we lose sight of what actually is beautiful and significant in this world. Art is something that should be examined, and something that should be appreciated. But when things are rushed like a panel where a fan can’t even ask a question (“Chuck”) or a multi-million dollar film that takes less time to develop than to make (“Twilight”), we lose sight of why we love these things to begin with. I’m not condemning fandom or even vampires for that matter, but what I’m saying is slow down. Hype relies solely on speed and yet because of that, substance suffers in the process. If you want to make me excited, put in the time and effort in order to do so. Because when you do, films like “Inception” happen and yet when you don’t, well, let’s just say something much worse happens instead.

Though it’s not too late, there is still hope but we must act now and we must support what deserves and truly needs it. Go to an art gallery and tell me that after looking at a piece for 5 minutes you know what the painting means. If so, then maybe there is not as much hope as I thought. But if not, then from one nerd to another let me tell you thank you and may the force be with you….always.