Are you serious?

Rating: 3/10 (1 August 2004)

I'm feeling generous today. M. Night Shyamalan gets a 3/10 from me because this movie had some decent visuals and a neat beginning concept. Everything- EVERYTHING- else about this movie is terrible.
The story has been beaten to death so many times elsewhere that for me to do it yet again here would just be cruelty. Suffice to it say that the plot of this film is neither suspenseful nor well-written. Unlike M. Night's earlier transgressions, this one is almost devoid of ALL interesting moments including the patented M. Night Shyamalan Cheap Sound Effects Scare (tm). As I sat there for what seemed like eternity, I was practically bored to tears on several occasions.
The acting. The acting. The acting. I have the idea that M. Night thinks it's funny to collect a superb cast and then give them all a terrible script and worse stage direction so that everybody not only turns in the worst performance of their careers, but sound like they are rehearsing a high school play. I honestly thought for the first half of the movie, "No, surely the acting cannot be *this* bad by default. He must be doing it on purpose." However, the jilted line delivery, wooden acting, and transparent facades of emotion from such cinematic greats as Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt (and promising newcomers such as Bryce Dallas Howard) continued unabated throughout the entire film. This is the most painful part of the film, and perhaps M. Night's worst offense yet to American cinema.
Because the acting is so terrible, any emotional effect whatsoever that would have been present in the movie is drained. I simply didn't care whether anyone lived or died, and frankly thought the "creatures" were the most interesting thing to look at (if one can properly say that- I won't spoil it here, but suffice it to say that if you go to this movie expecting an in depth exploration of the supernatural, you are going to be angry.)
M. Night's latest trend is to include at least one thing in his movie so idiotic that he completely insults even the most basic audience member's intelligence. Here, he manages to offend through the character of Ivy (to say she was played ineptly by Howard is to be luxuriously kind to both Howard and Shyamalan), who although blind, manages to run though field, woods, and houses without much trouble, can instantly locate any item she needs, looks people in the eyes when talking to them, and can "see colors" despite he blindness. In some scenes, Howard even appear to have forgotten that her character is blind.
Shyamalan: Are you serious? Am I actually to believe that this was a serious attempt at an adult film (let alone a thriller?) after Signs, I simply called you a bad film maker. Now, I'm beginning to wonder whether you might actually be mildly retarded. I hope you're not serious.