A `Twilight Zone' Episode Stretched Thin to Two Hours

Rating: Null/10 (2 August 2004)

In his latest offering M. Night Shyamalan continues his ambition to become the modern-day Rod Serling. Unfortunately, this time out he tries to stretch an hour's material twice as long as it has the elasticity to bear. It is unfortunate because when we strip away M. Night Shyamalan the writer and his eccentricities of plot, then we are left with M. Night Shyamalan the director who is revealed to be average or less in some cases.

In particular, in heavy dialogue scenes he leaves his actors a bit stranded. Poor William Hurt bears the brunt of the expository burden and he seems to shift rudderless through those scenes, trying to make his body do the work of the camera. In a scene where Judy Greer talks to her father about a love interest (and the subsequent scene) the camera never gets closer than a medium-shot of her, making the emotional material difficult for her to communicate.
I also question the structure of the film at some points. The use of flashbacks seems forced and unnecessary at parts. It feels a bit like a bad gear shift through an acceleration. I think different choices with the editing might have made the film stronger.
However the film is not without value and the standout has to be Bryce Dallas Howard. Her performance is talented and moving. She is not quite perfect but perhaps some of the stilted dialogue would not sound true from anyone. She makes the film meaningful.
The photography is also wonderful, that is one of the things that attracted me to the film from the preview, and I was not disappointed. Roger Deakins uses the muted palette to glorious results, creating crisp, autumnal paintings on screen.
***SPOILERISH***
If I had one major complaint about the film it would be that I wish M. Night Shyamalan would play it straight for once. I think he had the cast, crew, and fragments of story to make a very good film. Sometimes irony isn't clever, it's just a crutch for people with out the bravery to be honest. Perhaps his `twist' worked in `The Sixth Sense' (though I would debate that) but here it hurts the picture. The true meaning of the film lay in a unique love story- not some amateurish social criticism.