People keep forgetting that Shyamalan didn't conceive or write this film -- he was just brought in to direct someone else's project. Sure, he did do a draft of the script, and as the director he had the final say about its content, but one theme I'm seeing in a number of those Rotten Tomatoes reviews is that Shyamalan's direction seems phoned in because he wasn't sufficiently invested in a concept that wasn't his.
So while this is a film directed by Shyamalan, it is not a "Shyamalan film" in the sense of following the formula he's known for.
I get so tired of the Hollywood apologists on this board...
Typical Apologist wrote:
Well, actually, Irving Mogul only farted in the general direction of the studio two years before it was created by a horde of anonymous trained rhesus monkeys with iPads trapped in Funk & Wagnall's basement and shouldn't be blamed for the shitfest it became even though his is the only name on all the production credits, cause the studio just likes to give innocent people credit as a goof.
Dude, he shares the screenwriter credit, he owns the director credit, he cashed the check, and you would have to dumb and blind not to see the typical nature-worshipping that Night's been shoving down our throats since Signs. It is an M. Night Shyamalan film. The fact that it was conceived by a millionaire nepotist does not change that.