Style over substance yields disappointment

Rating: 4/10 (15 March 2005)

I saw the ending coming within the first five minutes of the film, which is unfortunate, but is the result of M. Night Shamalyan's heavy handed role as writer, director and producer. Having no one else to answer to, nor creative partners in the major shaping of the film. He had no one to point out that an astute movie viewer can very easily discern the "hints" given in various ways, and know nearly everything. The problem seems to be that Shamalyan is determined to duplicate the success of "The Sixth Sense;" clearly the backers of this film were hoping so, too. However, it's another "Signs" (also extremely predictable); a 'creepy' premise and the dressings of a suspense film, but with none of the satisfaction. In "The Sixth Sense," I didn't see the end coming. However, if I'd seen "The Village" and "Signs" first, I probably would. I don't like being "gimmicked" and expected to buy into something contrived. No, in spite of having collected a fine cast and crew, the movie fails because it doesn't tell a good story. Shamlayan seems to have aspirations towards "The Twilight Zone," "The Outer Limits" and other stylized movies and programs of their ilk. However, he's missed the point: they weren't good because they had an angle or a style, it was because they were GOOD. but it was the storytelling that did the job. Here, we have a flimsy construction of a story. However, even if you start getting caught up in what you suspect is happening, don't be surprised to find it losing steam on you. So we go down another level, and see if it's the people & the relationships that are the golden key. Nope. A fine cast, who worked well together, and some scenes did work nicely. But they worked nicely in spite of the movie; when people really clicked and connected each other, there sere sparks. But they couldn't carry the film, as it wasn't designed that way.
William Hurt seems very well cast, and plays his character with great honesty and compassion, but there are only a few moments in the whole film that bring the best out of him. What's Sigourney Weaver even DOING in this movie? The character showed some promise earlier on, but it fizzled out and the she became one of the crowd. Joaquin Phoenix did a creditable job with his character, but it seemed more natural to him, and as the actor, he wasn't having to try to fight through the material. If Adrien Brody hadn't been playing Noah, I doubt I've have been interested at all. Brody makes it work because it's HIM. The rest of the supporting cast is pretty effective. Bryce Dallas Howard shows a lot of potential, but this was over her head under the direction of Shamalyan. She was not believable as a blind person; however, she clearly has the talent to be able to do so, IF the director had given her the coaching needed. She was very committed, but I doubt that the director ever told exactly what he was after. I'm not sure HE'S sure. All of the character moments seemed to come from the actors' own efforts, and kudos to them. Shamalyan just doesn't seem to direct scenes well. No surprise, if he's sitting in his trailer at night thinking about the concept and how he can tweak it even more to force us into paying good money to see this movie. The music (featuring a wonderful violinist)is also manipulative. Yes, every suspense/horror film works better with a good score, but the passion of the music at the "critical scenes" far outweighed what we were getting from the screen. So they seemed loud and out of place.
A lot of the technical work is commendable. The music was good, but not used well. The cinematographer had many wonderful shots all throughout the film.... except that, in places, you could tell where Shamalyan MADE him take a self-consciously "gimmick" shot that didn't fit in with the rest of the camera technique. Scenic design was good, VERY good, and it provides important clues about what's going on. That's by intelligent design, but the lack of involvement in the characters lets the eye wander too much, and you are given more to know than you should at points. The costuming was effective in the same way, and leads you to some conclusions.
All over, it's not a BAD film; it's watchable, and you'll like most all of the characters. However, if you've seen "Signs," then you've pretty much seen this one and vice versa. My recommendation is to see "The Sixth Sense," skip these other two, and wait until Shmalyan comes out with some material with depth. Perhaps the people who were signing the checks this time, looking at their returns, may indeed themselves consider to tell Shamlyan that there'll be no more of this. He's a very talented director, but his writing isn't on the same level, and directing your own work might seem egotistical to some. He'd be much better off concentrating on direction, take on a co-writer, and working with a producer who'll twist his arm at the right times. Movie making is a COLLABORATIVE art, and it's high time that Shamalyan learns this for himself and learns how to trust other people to do theirs. I will not go see his next offering until some of my more trustworthy fans scope it out first.