Just bad is better than utterly terrible I guess

Rating: 4/10 (2 July 2017)

I watched this because some acquaintances told me that it is "Shyamalan's redemption/comeback" or something.
If you heard this as well, know that these people are wrong. The only good things about this movie was the acting, something which I credit the actors for.
While there are several problems with this movie, I'd like to focus on two (related) problems which have been pervasive in Mr. Shyamalan's corpus: 1. terrible exposition; 2. he needs professional help. While it may seem the latter is an attempt at mocking Mr. Shyamalan's mental state, it is not (though I wouldn't vouch for him not being some sort of narcissist), the professional I'm referring to is a professional scriptwriter.
This is related to the terrible exposition which happens in his movies. Not only is it "midichlorians" bad, the dosing of the exposition is completely uneven, making parts that need exposition boring and parts that don't need exposition annoying.
Skip this unless someone is threatening to pull out your fingernails with pliers if you don't watch it.