
I’ve been a fan of your work for many years now, and one of the rapidly dwindling few who acknowledge your mastery for creating on-screen suspense. Those early Hitchcock comparisons were not wildly off-base. The Sixth Sense was obviously hugely successful (deservedly), but I actually thought that your follow-ups Unbreakable and Signs were equally, if not more, efficient. They showed a level of directorial subtlety and control (atypical in mainstream cinema) which, even in the flawed yet entertaining The Village, was eerily effective in creating a mood of unease. Now, we all know Lady In The Water was a dismal trainwreck (People just can’t take the word Narf seriously), so I was really psyched when

Now, on paper I can sort of see why you felt this story might work. I agree that it would be really frightening if people began inexplicably going gonzo and committing suicide. I can also recognize that, in casting Mark Wahlberg, you were continuing your tradition of using straight-edged, stoic male leads to help ground the far-out premise. It worked with Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson, right? While I struggled

See, we all knew right off the bat what was causing the epidemic. The advertisements have made it blatantly clear, as do you with the endless shots of trees and grass blowing in the wind, that Mother Nature is the culprit. It worked out pretty good for your idol Hitchcock when he made The Birds forty-five years ago, so why shouldn’t it work again! Well, because there are few things less terrifying than swaying foliage (Except maybe chipmunks, although they have those sharp teeth...), and you never really found a way to solve that inherent dilemma.
Audiences will accept many things on faith. They are unlikely, however, to watch the former Marky Mark try to pacify a house plant without engaging in disbelieving la

While I suspect you weren’t intending to craft a worthy successor to Nic Cage’s camp-tastic The Wicker Man, it seems you’v

Best wishes for a speedy recovery,
Cam
1.5 out of 5