The overall rating of a review is different from a simple average of all individual ratings.
Share this review on
What do we usually ask to a cinema film? We have not sometimes pretended, provided that is possible to spend a couple of happy-go-lucky hours. Sometimes we hardly ask more and more what a screen-play it is able to give us. Intensity, excite!
The sixth sense is a film “atypical” in comparison to the cinema panorama of the last years. Personally I judge him/it a film of good level but without excessive pretensions. Or perlomeno… you/he/she is induced to hold so until wing sad final scene. Seen for the first time to the cinema in 1999 and seen again then in videocassette and subsequently in television really some days ago, every time I don't succeed in being impassive, despite the efforts, during the final scene.
But we go with order. The director is M. Night Shymalan, a young Indian (of India) here to the debut (after the ghosts, you/he/she has spoken of the supererois, in his/her Unbreakable and, in these days, of extraterrestrials, with Signs), you/he/she perpetually uses a mobile shot: as if it brought the television camera on the shoulders (instead that hooked to the equipments) and therefore constantly trembling. It sometimes delays (also stucchevolmente) on you determine shots during all the dialogues. It had been being for the times of the first Carpenter that I didn't assist to a similar experiment. Yet… yet the film never suffers from slowness.
Worth of the screen-play that himself has realized… even if the comparison with Hitchkock appears me, for now, a swearword (also Shymalan appears in dwarfish parts, as it was a Teacher in his/her films. Here it is the physician that recommends a social assistant to the mother of the small Colas). its worth is that to have disseminated the film of signs, and contemporarily diverted the spectator up to the final sensation. As if for the whole projection the spectator himself had seen the film with a pair of glasses of kantiana memory that camouflaged the reality!
A particular worth goes to the interpretation, before that of his/her/their child , of the great Bruce Willis. Labeled for years as mediocrity interpreter of action movies ( of Stallion or Swarzenegger), Willis has given test of great eclecticism in films where (finally) it was not always the indestructible and hard hero to die. They are examples of it, apart the bright comedies as Hudson Hawke-The magician of the Theft, The last Boy-scout, FBI Operazione Testifies, Confrontation; films as The army of the 12 Monkeys (in which dies), Armageddon (in which dies), Jackal (in which dies), Pulp Fiction (magistral interpretation of the boxer to end career), and he/she anchors Unbreakable. Besides it is easy giocoforza to notice how many films has turned together with Samuel Lee Jackson: apart the cameo in the film Balls in Reed, Die Hard 3, Pulp Fiction and the same Unbreakable. Here dress the cloths of Malcom, a psychiatrist for little boys, to the search of a second possibility in the life.
Beyond the history in itself, of the ghosts that his/her child thinks to see (and therefore of the same credibility of the history); beyond the “bus” cinema (who doesn't know what is or he doesn't remember him/it, races to concern my opinion on her Hidden Truth) that to the cinema they literally made to jolt from the poltroncina (and what to house they are meaningless instead); beyond the scenes rigorously cut in TV… that for which this film will be remembered is the same intensity of the 5 final minutes. Without doubt this film, with his/her end, you/he/she has bewildered more me so much that that with Kaiser Soze. During the vision… in the same moment in which the whole pieces of the mosaic reentered in his/her own wedge and the director it discovered his/her own papers… I have had to make an enormous effort not to surrender to the emotion. I don't understand what ropes of my heart the director has been able to pinch. I don't understand as is possible that this ropes so violently have vigorous! I remember that one friend of mine had to run away from the cinema in all hurry not to drown in his/her puddle of tears! And also when l ' I have seen again in videocassette before, and in television then… I have had to do a strong violence to avoid to surrender to the tears. Now as is possible really I don't understand him/it. The emotion of the first vision goes well. But this was the third time and the intensity of the continuous scene to touch me with the same vehemence!
I am not the type that loves the melodramatic, sugary and stupid films and never toward tears or arrival to move me for some scenes that they irritate a lot sometimes contrarily me, (City of Angels, remake, besides of the film of Wim Wenders, The Sky Above Berlin; or So is the Life… which of big long I prefer the good Train de Streets). But in this case is the same intensity of the film that breaks the banks pervades the spectator in the end! In the years you/he/she is hardly assisted to something of the kind. But despite everything… my resistance from “man everything of a piece” you/he/she has had the best, and I have not poured tears (also because there was this time my mother and the case didn't seem me).
An only film remains… to which have not tried even to oppose resistance and that indeed it makes me cry as a lamb every time that I see him/it again. I am not able and I don't want to withstand. Perhaps in few they know him/it. It is a film a lot of old man. A film of Frank Capra. Interpreted by James Stewart. It calls “It's to wonderful life “... You Life is Marvelous
Devoted to two great of the “cinema”: the incommensurable and bright Daniela (Kumquat) and the mythical Brest (of which, for the truth, I ignore the name).