I have a weakness for Sci-Fi films and probably just special effects in general, but I do try to reference rotten tomatoes if at all possible. "After Earth" has a dismal score on the site, but this review intrigued me, especially the statement, "M. Night Shyamalan isn't quite back in top form here, but After Earth is certainly the best movie he's made in years." I have to admit, I still have hope that M. Night will recover from this...odd period he is in. "The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable", "Signs", and "The Village" are all personal favorites of mine. I saw both "Signs" and "The Village" with friends that absolutely hated those films, but I feel that they wanted those films to be something that they were not. "Signs" worked for me as an examination of faith and human interactions, and not simply an alien invasion storyline. "The Village" is a very engaging love story to me, but really doesn't work as a creature feature. Those factors allow me to enjoy the films without focusing on the suspension of disbelief (naked aliens hurt by water? no fly zone over a forest preserve?).

However, this all came crashing down hard for me, as well as a lot of other M. Night fans, with "Lady in the Water". I believe I saw an earlier post that mentioned this film as the worst film he had ever seen. His reasons echo mine. The film is a giant middle finger to critics; it pretends to be deep without really saying anything, and it casts M. Night himself as a world savior who will save the world through his writing. I feel like the idea of this film was to make a movie that is unable to be criticized by movie critics (because they are literally and figuratively the enemy in this film), but instead it made a movie that is insulting to anyone that enjoys films.

I remember reading "The Man Who Heard Voices" before this film arrived to theaters. In Bamberger's book, he describes how M. Night was able to get the funding for this film. If you'll notice, Shyamalan's "The Village" was produced by Disney, and "Lady in the Water" was produced by Warner Bros. Bamberger describes how this change of production studios occurred. M. Night presented the script for "Lady in the Water" to Disney executives, and in a meeting, the higher-ups told M. Night that they just "didn't get it". Shyamalan is incredulous. He was the director that gave them "The Sixth Sense". No one believed in that film. He has a track record, and they need to trust him on this script and his vision for it. The Disney execs are unconvinced, and the script is shopped to Warner Bros. where production begins. The book presents a narrative that sets M. Night up as the underdog who is going to show the close-minded producers at Disney how wrong they are. They'll be eating their words soon enough; they really just didn't "get it".

I find this book to be even more interesting in restrospect. "Lady in the Water" was a financial and critical disappointment. Apparently the Disney executives actually DID "get it". M. Night's script was self-serving, pompous, and most of all, boring. They were wise to pass on it. You are forced to read the subtext of the book, as it appears that M. Night was not the visionary genius who knew that "Lady in the Water" would be a success. Instead, he was arrogant, and way off track, needing someone who was not a yes man to tell him to reevaluate.

I find this fascinating, because I think "Lady in the Water" is where M. Night went completely off the rails. This isn't a director who made one bad film and then returned to form. Or a director who got lucky on one good film, and then his following films reveal him to be mediocre. Instead, he went from very well thought of, making movies that were generally well-received and financially viable to critically ravaged films like "The Happening" and "The Last Airbender". It forces me to look back on "The Man Who Heard Voices" and characterize M. Night as a delusional filmmaker and writer who decided to make a film simply to show how insecure he was about criticism of his films (honestly, who creates a movie critic character that is savagely gored to death as he attempts to characterize his death as "cliche" and "woefully underwritten"?)

This brings me back to "After Earth". There are numerous problems with this film. The acting is questionable, the special effects are subpar, and the backstory is not fully fleshed out to be really engaging. However, I see some of the old M. Night in this film (I realize this film was a collaboration). He uses a unique backdrop, in this case a solar system which contains a post-cataclysmic earth to examine a very common emotional issue, the relationship between a father and son. In the same way that "Unbreakable" uses the Superhero backdrop to examine a failing marriage, I believe that this film is using the same technique. Does it work here as well as "Unbreakable"? Certainly not, but I do think that it is a promising return to form. Using a supernatural backdrop to examine issues of faith, family, love, loss, etc. is a very interesting idea to me. This is why I think "The Happening" failed so spectacularly. Despite it's monumentally stupid premise, the film does not have a deeper theme. You might say the love that Wahlberg finds for Deschanel, but that is neither an overarching theme, or particularly compelling. Instead, the film is completely about this plant attack, and that in and of itself is not particularly compelling. Nor is it effective as a fictionalized, "Inconvenient Truth", in forcing us to wake up and become conservationists.

Unfotunately, I can't say I really enjoyed "After Earth". The father-son dynamic unfortunately follows the infuriating movie cliche where the son needs to "prove" to his father that he's a man and can take care of himself. Jaden Smith's character actually blames his father for the death of his sister because he was "too busy working". I was almost choking on the horrific cliches here, and how much they ring false. The father-son relationship here is not handled with any of the nuance seen in other films, and we're obviously meant to cheer when Jaden's character directly disobeys his father simply to shove it in his father's face. An overcoming all odds story with very little realism (as much realism as can be expected in a film like this), it ultimately seems very hollow.

Sorry to rant for so long without really coming to a point. And obviously a popcorn flick like "After Earth" is not going to receive very much serious analysis, nor is it meant to withstand it. However, I think in context of M. Night's larger career, I think it is either a promising blip which shows a return to form, or it is continuous evidence that M. Night has lost interest in films completely is using his experience to become a "gun for hire".

TL;DR What did you think of "After Earth" in regards to M. Night Shyamalan's continuing career? Do you think there is any merit in the minority opinion that is shows a return to form for M. Night? Or have you closed the book on him and his films?