It's Not What You Think It Is

Rating: 9/10 (13 July 2003)

After reading the mixed reviews and hearing comments from family and friends about this movie, I decided to save my money, and see the movie on whichever premium movie channel bought first rights. After all, it's hard for a director to top a movie like Shyamalan's *The Sixth Sense*, and I hate being disappointed in a movie I paid extra money to see.
But I think those folk were expecting either a horror movie or an apocolyptic movie (neither of which interest me in any event), and were disappointed. Too bad for them. All the better for me, because I went into this without any expectations.
And having a lack of expectations can pay off in amazing ways. First, for me, as a lover of deeply textured suspense films, such as Hitchcock's, it is pure delight to see a director make such playful reference to some of the great suspense films, as well as a few of the so-bad-they've-become-myth types (there's even a rather amusing moment of *Blair Witch* thrown in). And all the while unravelling a fascinating symbolic portrait of a man coming to terms with his faith and his grief.
And make no mistake, this movie is an unravelling. It is not one of those movies that ties everything up in a neat little bow. You actually are left wanting more, but in a good way, like after reading a good novel that gets your imagination fired up about what might've happened next to each character.
What you do get will keep you talking with your movie-loving friends for years to come. Some of the reviewers will try to tell you that it falls back on pop spirituality, but I think in 25 years, those reviewers will find themselves feeling pretty silly. As a very spiritual person, I was moved profoundly by the movie's spirituality. (I venture that any of the reviewers who panned the movie - Village Voice take note - will find themselves feeling pretty silly in 25 years.)
What these unenlightened reviewers are confusing for pop spirituality is actually fundamental spirituality, that of the home as the symbol of the psyche. And Shyamalan is proving deft at using homes to such strong psychological effect. That is a trait this movie shares with *The Sixth Sense*, both of which take place throughout the physical and psychic home. And, in my opinion, all the great suspense thrillers ultimately involved the home as the symbol of the psyche, from Hitch to Romero to Stephen King. A more recent (and well-done) entry to the oeuvre is *The Others*. Even the good rip-offs had the sense to recognize this fundamental essence of human nature, hence we have *Nightmare on Elm Street* and *Poltergeist.* But this is not another *Sixth Sense*, so don't expect that. But who wants that anyway? That movie rejuvenated a genre that had all but died, and in a way so clever that few will be able to ever top it. It stands on its own.

This movie follows in that genre very nicely, however, and, like *The Sixth Sense* will leave you quietly affected for hours or even days. It has a few dialogue and pacing issues and at least one throw-away scene, but, on balance, it has some amazing cinematography, and from the moment you hear the opening strains of the James Newton Howard score (which is also an homage to Hitch), uses sound (or, sometimes, lack thereof) to brilliant effect. Even its occasional comic touches are well-placed, like the comic relief in one of Shakespeare's tragedies.
And I will leave my comments there because this is not a movie one can review in a straightforward way, or in a way that would avoid spoilers. The whole movie is potentially spoiled when too many plot points are revealed, because like a dream (or a nightmare), everyone will interpret the symbols of this story in a way that makes the most sense for them in their own lives. That, to me, is its ultimate brilliance.
Let me just say that I am inclined to agree with Roger Ebert's four-star review, which was written in a way that allows each viewer to discover the delight and/or discomfort of the movie for him or herself.