Not trying to bait Dan Emerson about M. Night Shalayanananaanananam, but he's increasingly a director and writer I have lots of time for, without really liking any of his films. If it wasn't for his obvious talent for Hitchcockian presentation, I'd argue that he may be better off at working as a novelist. He's clearly a sizeable talent with a desire to present a specific world-view ages away from the mass-production product of a normal film directory. But God knows he likes to be ponderous and banal - which is a shame, as the films are best when he applies the bar-room wit rather than the pulpit preaching.

I still think he's trying too hard to be heavyweight, too worried about not appearing flighty and lightweight.

Other thoughts: What on earth is it with the current generation of American Film-makers and posturing, sacharine Christian-beliefs-fired-through-new-age filter toss?

Donnie Darko? American Beauty? Signs? Heavy traces of it in Sixth Sense and Unwatchable too. It's beginning to really get in my way of enjoyment of film.

(And the overt film classicism grates too. It's like watching McKee's Story set into motion.)

God bless Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. At least that was funny. Otherwise, leave me alone. I'll be watching Dead or Alive and giggling at the AntiStory.

I dunno. Once again, I return to the quote buried in the middle of Slaughterhouse 5. I paraphrase: "Everything there is to know about humans is in The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky," says Spitty, "But it's not enough anymore".

Maybe that's what annoys about Shalayanananana: He uses sci-fi tropes - his films have been the genre staples of a Ghost Story, A superhero flick and a alien abduction tale - to say nothing about the human condition than that classical literature can manage all too easily.

And it's not enough anymore.