Why do movie critics attack M Night Shyamalan personally?

Question

Is the reason any of the following?

1) The critics do not understand his films.
2) They envy his balls.
3) Shyamalan is conceited.
4) He makes dumb movies.
5) His films are unconventional.

Answer 1

The reason why critics attack M. Night personally is because, since "The Sixth Sense", he's put his name out there as the brand. What happens if you're disappointed with a certain brand of potato chips, or soft drink? The common response to something like that being bad is "Pepsi sucks" or "Lays makes crappy chips". It's the same thing. The only difference is, instead of a brand, it's an actual person they're talking about, and can attack more than just the movie.
FYI, the same thing happens to Wes Craven, and Stephen King if the critics don't like their movies.

Answer 2

I think Shyamalan films are always interesting to watch. I even liked, The Village. Sure, it was predictable and a little ... off. But, it had a great love story in it. I was moved by the poor guy that loved her because she was his friend despite his mental condition. He is a great director even if sometimes his stories are .. unbelievable. I know it sounds like I'm panning him, but I really always enjoy his films, because of their oddness not in spite of their oddness. He has an interesting, fresh approach to film making. He can make you feel expectant and edgy without grossing you out. I think he rocks. So, I think the critics attack him because he doesn't fit the mold and they are uneasy about that.

Answer 3

I gotta go with answer #3. He got a big head after the huge success of his first 2 films. Even though his last few efforts were not nearly as good, everytime someone becomes a 'darling" to some degree, they become a hated figure. Everyone used to think Jeff Gordon (NASCAR) was the greatest thing ever until he started winning a lot, now noone likes him.

Answer 4

All of those are good ideas. I think, though, that it has more to do with the critics themselves. What skills do they have? What knowledge do they possess? What productive have they done to contribute to the world and to society?
Answer: Nothing. The only "skill" they have is to criticize. They ARE critics. That's the only thing they bring to the table. So...... take that into consideration as you are hearing what they say.

Answer 5

It could be several or many combinations of the reasons you've mentioned.

The problem I have with him is his inconsistency. He's brilliant with one film and duds out with another. 'The Village' could have been so much better.

Anyway, overall he's right up there with the best directors working in Hollywood these days.

Answer 6

how about because his movies SUCK A S S...that stupid movie about the house in the field, and it turns out to be an experiment right by a highway or some bs, what a tub of crap, that was the last time i waste my money on that garbage, id rather burn 10 dollars than wast it at his movies...the critcs eat up his garbage movies and talk about how different they are, yeah they are different, they suck harder

Answer 7

signs was the worst movie ive ever seen, i almost vomitted like 3 times, like the swinging the baseball bat at the glasses of water to stop the alien? and kevin costners like "swing away billy"

LMAO, worst scene in movie history

Answer 8

He comes out with unique ideas that are very hard for some critics to grasp. Very un-traditional.

Answer 9

No, its not.

Its because ATTACKING his movies don't work.

By this I mean, instead of driving people away, it just gives him MORE publicity and makes him more money, which is NOT HOW its supposed to work FOR THEM. So, since they can't knock him down professionally . . .

Answer 10

1 and 5 are both good guesses