Can we say propaganda?

Rating: 5/10 (2 August 2004)

Can we say propaganda? Personally, I feel that M. Night Shyamalan's name was attached to this movie for sole purpose of enticing everyone and their dog to go see it. One of the main purposes of the film medium is to communicate a message or messages to those that watch, but a message is only effective when the viewers are receptive to it. You do NOT advertise a movie as a scary horror flick and then try to make a profound statement to the viewers and expect them to hear it.
Knowing M. Night Shyamalan's work and style, I wasn't just expecting a good scare, but an *intelligent* scare. I found neither of which. The plot was very poorly structured, the dialogue was weak and the whole concept just felt forced not to mention it's been done before. What I keep coming back to is that not only does this movie lack Shyamalan's stylistic touch, but it lacks substance. I just felt it to be very hollow, and maybe that's because it wasn't what I expected, but I do not feel that Shyamalan brought anything new to the idea. The whole point of this movie could've been communicated in three sentences--it was not worth the hour and a half of my life I lost.

And not to say this was a horrible movie, just very mediocre and lacking. I would've never thought that Shyamalan did this movie--he had a point, but didn't know how to make it, and as such, the movie is just lost on everyone. The one thing I would say to those who haven't seen it is that if you're just looking for a good scare, you WILL be disappointed; this is NOT the intelligent thriller it's made out to be.
5 out of 10