Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The sexual aspect wasn't for you. It was for the Director!!

Just to be clear, what you are trying to say is that M. Night Shyamalan is a pervert and he was somehow trying to live out some sort of a fantasy he had through this movie? Hence the staging of young girls being locked in a basement and being half-naked for a portion of the film.

Pretty much.

It was all so extraneous to the actual plot, that it's hard to think of another reason for doing it.

WARNING! SPOILERS!


I enjoyed it, but I liked The Visit better. Shyamalan is slowly but surely climbing out of the total wreck of his previous recent-ish films (by which I mean Airbender, The Happening, and After Earth). I did not, however, liked that the link to Unbreakable was featured as a twist. That felt cheap, especially since Unbreakable, though generally well-received, truly isn't that popular of a movie.

Quoted Text Quoted from AlsoBen Found it quite offensive TBH Benny, that's not a review. I wanna know why...? As P.Hanson would say: Please explain.

I think he's referring to the film's portrayal of mental health, which IMO becomes quite a bit less offensive once the supernatural aspect is introduced.

I disagree with the notion that the lead was one-dimensional. In fact, she was the total opposite of that. If what you meant was that she was withdrawn--well, of course she was, with the way her life was. Kristen Stewart in Twilight is a totally different case. She was Kristen Stewart playing Kristen Stewart the way Kristen Stewart always does. There's a gigantic difference between the subtle, damaged demeanor of an abused character with a different actress's dull, monotone lifelessness across every movie she's in. Just because quietness manifests in both of them doesn't mean there's a correlation or that a comparison is justified.

Quoted Text It was all so extraneous to the actual plot, that it's hard to think of another reason for doing it.

The scenes with the kidnapped girls did seem initially gratuitous, but I don't think the content was completely extraneous. It did come into play as the film developed with the whole pedo uncle thing. She knew how to appease a scumbag like that, which is why she was more resourceful than the other two girls once they were kidnapped. McAvoy's character--at least the kidnapping personalities he had--was just another kind of predator to her.

Just announced Shyamalan is doing the next movie that will be a sequel to both Unbreakable and Split... called "Glass"

Quoted Text It was all so extraneous to the actual plot, that it's hard to think of another reason for doing it.

it wasn't. at all. The character was written as a villain for Unbreakable. Shyamalan shelved him and gave him his own movie instead.

I don't get all the whining about the perversion of the film.

Do you people even watch horror films?  

Quoted from Penoyer79 I don't get all the whining about the perversion of the film.

Just for the record, I didn't see any perversion in this film. It was all very tame in my book.

Just saw this the other day. Kinda meh overall. There were certainly elements which I liked but M. Night has a habit of making something "terrifying" accidentally hilarious. This was definitely better than his previous entries so I guess there's that. Furthermore, some small changes could have made this film a real winner.

As for the ending, I couldn't help but roll my eyes. Makes no sense whatsoever. Even fucking M. Night has to build a universe (that no body asked for). That being said, I'm a big fan of Unbreakable so I'll watch the sequel.

Quoted from Demento Just for the record, I didn't see any perversion in this film. It was all very tame in my book.

It's in plain sight.

The director has three teenage girls undress, step by step.

It's not like it can be missed.

Like I say...I couldn't care less. But no-one can honestly say it's not there, when it was.

Quoted from albinopenguin Even fucking M. Night has to build a universe (that no body asked for).

Imagine the possibilities of the Shyamaverse! It would all culminate in a mega-team consisting of superhero Bruce Willis, ghost Bruce Willis, the swimming pool lady, some trees, and Joaquin Phoenix with a baseball bat.

Split was a good time in theatre. Goofy fun with slightly above-par directing. A far cry from classic Shyamalan, but a solid flick. Nice to see something a little different in the genre, tone- and story-wise, than what we typically get with wide-release low budget horror.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The director has three teenage girls undress, step by step.

LOL Shyamalan has a girl go down to her underwear.. the other in her bra for like 5 minutes of combined screen time and it's perversion. no nudity. at all mind you.

Stanley Kubrick filmed rape in A Clockwork Orange... an Orgy in Eyes Wide Shut... and he's an unfoulable cinematic Genius.

I'm confused.

Quoted from Penoyer79 LOL Shyamalan has a girl go down to her underwear.. the other in her bra for like 5 minutes of combined screen time and it's perversion. no nudity. at all mind you. Stanley Kubrick filmed rape in A Clockwork Orange... an Orgy in Eyes Wide Shut... and he's an unfoulable cinematic Genius. I'm confused.

It's the way it was done.

Take a standard horror film, shot by some young guy in his teens or twenties. He sets his film on the beach so he can have teens in their bikinis. It's all open and upfront. Standard horror tropes filmed by a guy still at the Phallic stage of his development.

Maybe it's sexist, maybe it's exploitational, but it's within the norms of behaviour.

What's here gives an air of perversion because it feels as though the middle aged director just really wanted to make a film with nudey teens, and then put a huge amount of thought into it about how to get to that point.

1. Why teenage girls? Was it necessary to the core story?
2. Why did he have to undress all of them? Was it necessary to the core story?

He has literally devised a character trait...OCD...of one of the characters purely as an excuse to get some girls to undress.

Then he has one pee themselves.

Then he has scenes of actual child abuse.

It comes across as quite perverted.  

The films you mentioned had a reason for it. This film, it was just there because the Director wanted it there, but he was too ashamed of it to do it openly, and so built a really weird story to try to justify the fact he just wanted to be around young girls in their underwear.

I applaud the innocence of those that can't see it.

Maybe it takes one to know one, and all that.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I applaud the innocence of those that can't see it. Maybe it takes one to know one, and all that.

I'm far from innocent but I don't see anything close to perversion on anyone's part here.

Quoted from Heretic Imagine the possibilities of the Shyamaverse! It would all culminate in a mega-team consisting of superhero Bruce Willis, ghost Bruce Willis, the swimming pool lady, some trees, and Joaquin Phoenix with a baseball bat.

I take it back. I'd watch the shit out of this movie.

In regards to the perversion, I can definitely see where that's coming from. That being said, M. Night doesn't really have a consistent streak of doing things like this (unlike QT and feet).

And if I remember correctly, there was one personality who tried to rape one of the girls (who peed on him). Later however, another personality (or was it the doctor, I forget) disciplines the rapey personality and he then apologizes. IMO, I felt like that was M. Night trying to get the obvious out of the way from the getgo.

However, I don't know why the one girl wouldn't offer the other her pants. She was wearing a long tee for christ's sake!

I wish they were all completely nude the entire movie!  

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It's in plain sight. The director has three teenage girls undress, step by step.

Teenage girls (my impression was they were 16 or above) in underwear is hardly a perversion by 2017 standards, IMO. No one did anything sexual to them. Plus it's not like it was out of nowhere, there was a reason plot-wise why they were in their underwear.

I honestly see no problem with it or why anyone would take issue with it.

Quoted from Demento Teenage girls (my impression was they were 16 or above) in underwear is hardly a perversion by 2017 standards, IMO. No one did anything sexual to them. Plus it's not like it was out of nowhere, there was a reason plot-wise why they were in their underwear. I honestly see no problem with it or why anyone would take issue with it.

Well, I've explained it as well as I can. It's not about girls in their underwear, it's about the lengths that the middle aged director has gone to, to manipulate them and the script into getting them into their underwear.

It came across to me as extremely creepy. I don't personally care, but I completely understand why a lot of other people noticed what he was up to, and did.