Interesting film, but is it truly deserving of the praise heaped upon it? *Some spoilers*

Rating: Null/10 (7 April 2000)

I saw this on video the first week it was released. My first impression was, "Wow, that was good." Then, I began to think a little bit and more and more holes became apparent.
First, consider the score. While praised by a number of the other reviewers, and it was effective, it often slipped into ham-handedness, especially whenever a 'scary looking' ghost was going to appear. I realized how thoroughly the score was manipulating the audience only upon reflection.
Second, the dialogue was very stilted and it is credit to Willis, who can indeed act, and to Osment that they were able to convey any emotions whatsoever. Further, Osment should have gotten the Academy Award for being able to handle such awkward lines and still convince the audience that he was a real child.
Third, did that ending suck or what? I'm surprised that more people didn't see the plot twist coming, since it was thoroughly obvious from the behavior of Willis by the middle of the movie (i.e. Why wasn't he having conversations with anyone except Osment?). Actually, I didn't even know there was going to be a plot twist of any sort going into the movie, having not paid much attention to buzz and talk about the movie. Further, the flashback and flashback montage revealing 'what really happened' could have been cut entirely, unless the director thought the audience was so stupid that it wouldn't get the previous five minutes and the blood on Willis. Well, maybe audiences are that stupid.
On a more upbeat note, the cinematography was really very good, and showed a very fine attention to detail, especially the sweaty palms scene. The only quibble I had was with the lingering shots of Philadelphia landmarks. While they certainly occasionally helped highlight the eerie mood, they weren't always on par with the quality of other shots. Anyhow, still above average there.
So, in conclusion, great acting (considering the limitations of the principals), fine cinematography, and an interesting story hampered by manipulative music, bad dialogue and five minutes of ending that could have been cut. Still 7/10.