Skip to main content

How the mighty fall - and achieving perfection

A couple of days ago I watched M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening for the first time. In a sense it was a reasonably good film. I can say this because I said I'd watch the first 10 minutes then go to bed, and stayed up for the whole thing. However it was extremely flawed, not just in the hokey main premise, but in the creaking ending that could have been seen coming a mile away. How far this is from Night's (as I like to think of him) masterpiece. What I hadn't realized until I looked him up on IMDB was that he was also responsible for the truly awful Last Airbender - this is a man on a serious downhill curve.

But surely he can do better again. I challenge anyone who has seen The Sixth Sense to argue that this isn't a brilliant movie. (If you haven't seen it, get hold of it this week. But don't let anyone tell you what happens first.) This has one of the most cleverly crafted structures, building to a stunning reveal I've ever seen in a film. However, I do think there was one thing he should have done differently to achieve perfection. (If you haven't seen the movie, you can tune out now, because this will be meaningless, but shouldn't give away the plot.)

There was one scene that I watched thinking 'Why are they doing that? These people wouldn't do that!' What happened made sense in terms of the underlying plot, but was wrong in terms of the immediate storyline. Malcolm Crowe, played by Bruce Willis, and the boy, take a bus to visit some house or other. 'You'd never see a professional man in the US catching a bus,' I thought while watching it. To make it work, old Nightie should have put them in a taxi, not a bus. But hey, it's easy to be critical after the event.

So, how about coming up with something equal clever, M? You know you've got it in you. Here's a little reminder of how to do it:


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou