If you're thinking of seeing it, it's also worth reading the Roger Ebert review.

I suspect I'll be in the minority in praising this film. It will be described as empty, uneventful, meandering. But for some, it will weave a spell. It is a parable, yes, but it is also simply the story of these people and how their lives and existence have suddenly become problematic. We depend on such a superstructure to maintain us that one or two alterations could leave us stranded and wandering through a field, if we are that lucky.

I thought it was a decent movie myself. Pretty much what you'd expect from Shyamalan: tense build-up, domestic drama meets implausible plot device.

I've never been able to make it all the way through one of his movies, so I'm not planning on going to see this one. But Ebert's review is a good counterpoint.

(SPOILER IN THIS COMMENT)



Regarding the science, the instant multi-step evolution is completely implausible, though it seems to be standard in movies: I don't recall anyone complaining about it in X-Men.

But the neurobiology is pretty plausible: if you look at the zombie caterpillars for instance, it's pretty common for species to gain control over other species for their own benefit. Pheromones can cause neurochemical changes when inhaled: so it's perfectly possible for it to be airborne.

That review is great. Though I definitely think critics hold Shyamalan to a standard that they wouldn't apply to a newer or less-well-known film-maker. Not that I wished they're ease up on him.

Anyway, points #9 and #18 made me LOL.

Re: point #18 - one reviewer called this "Hollywood's first blockbuster to promote the anti-evolutionary theory of intelligent design."

Regardless of what side of that coin I'm on, I will say that the previews I saw looked intriguing... and I do tend to trust Ebert's judgement about 75% of the time... I don't know - I thought that Shyamalan's last two movies were so howlingly, mind-numbingly awful that I really can't even justify the time or the expense for this one.

And what's with the huge red "R" in the commercials? Does the studio have such little faith in this movie that they're trying to get people to see it because OMG IT'S M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN'S FIRST R-RATED FILM!!!!!!!!1!!!?

M. Night Shylaman's next film will be called "A Wizard Did It".

I went and saw it with a friend this weekend not knowing much about it, only that I've enjoyed all of his other films. Yes, even Lady In the Water. Which nobody liked.

This? Was awful. Not even bad-B-movie-fun, just bad. Terrible acting, silly science, unsuspenseful "suspense", and silly how-many-ways-can-I-make-people-kill-themselves.

I've come to fixate on the pregnancy test, how she didn't even put the cover back on it. Because, ew. That's disgusting. That's your URINE, honey. All over the counters now.

What I never quite understand about M. WhyamIstilldoingthis's work is that he has such an incredible imagination, and a genuine sense of how to impart nameless fear into his films.

So why then does he continue to exponentially do worse with each film? It's like he's intentionally forgetting everything there is to know about movie-making with each release.

I hate the fact that I no longer can watch his movies because The Sixth Sense was so very, very good.

I can't see him doing anything valuable from here on out - he's on a death march to total career suicide.

I loved Sixth Sense and Unbreakable and nothing since. He needs to hire a screen writer, his visual sense is great but he can't seem to write a story that makes any damn sense.

My father wanted to see this movie for father's day. So we went to see this movie. The movie was AWFUL...just unbelievably awful.

I hope that Betty Buckley made a mountain of money because there is no other reason to waste such talent on this kind of crap.