Of all the mainstream directors currently working today, M. Night Shyamalan is one of the most interesting to follow. After starting a career with such praised films as “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs,” there was a noticeable shift in his work where the quality of his films began to decrease, culminating in his widely panned adaptation of “Avatar: The Last Airbender.” Since then, his career has been varied, with a string of critical hits and misses.

All of this has led to Shyamalan’s newest film, “Knock at the Cabin,” in which a couple and their daughter are taken captive in their summer vacation cabin by a group of strangers who tell them they must sacrifice one of their lives in order to prevent the apocalypse. The entire rest of the film is then spent with the family determining if all of it is a hoax or if they really should kill one of their own to save humanity. With a premise as promising and tense as that, I went into this movie intrigued but cautious, considering Shyamalan’s uneven history. After my viewing, I can say this film is one of Shyamalan’s most mixed, where the bad and good elements are vying to outweigh one another.

Starting with the positive elements, the film looks fantastic. The setting is gorgeous but still has a  really disquieting calm to it that compliments the film’s suspenseful tone very nicely. However, what stood out most to me in the visual department was the camerawork. The cinematographer for this film, Jarin Blaschke, also has worked on Robert Eggers’ films such as “The Witch” and “The Lighthouse,” and his level of experience and talent shows. The framing of the shots in this film really heightens the intensity of it all, and a large amount of close-ups really help to get you into the fear the characters feel. For example, the very first scene in which the daughter is talking with a member of the strangers is composed almost entirely of claustrophobic close up shots of their faces, contributing to the film’s tension.

The film also had some excellent performances from the actors. Everyone in this movie does a good job, but Dave Bautista steals the show as the character Leonard, who is somewhat of a leader in the group of strangers. Bautista was perfectly cast in the role. With Leonard’s friendly and gentle attitude contrasting against his imposing figure, Bautista’s acting leaves you never quite sure if he’s as compassionate as he seems. It’s a new kind of subtlety for an actor who is known primarily for roles in action properties, and I think he proved himself more than capable of playing similar characters in the future. Ben Aldridge was also a standout as the traumatized husband Andrew. He completely sells all the desperation and anger he portrays through the character. 

Without spoiling much, the “sacrifice” scenes were also handled well, with the traumatic results of the character’s decisions carrying weight for the entire cast. The violence is also handled with class. It’s not overly brutal and doesn’t show the audience too much gore. This maintains the element of sympathy for the cast which is crucial to making the dynamic between the strangers and family work.

With all that being said, this film had some flaws that held it back from reaching its full potential. The most prevalent and noticeable was the film’s dialogue. Some lines came across as really awkwardly –– like when Leonard starts talking about how a cartoon for young children playing on a TV is enjoyable. Leonard said this because the cartoon teaches good life lessons, and the characters are kind when consoling the family they’ve just tied up in the corner. There’s also some occasional forced swears where you can really feel the actors struggling to make those lines come off as genuine. While the actors are giving good performances, it feels like they sometimes have to battle a clunky script to maintain a serious tone.

My biggest issue with the film, and the one I feel audiences are going to be the most divided on, is the ending. This movie is based on a novel by Paul Tremblay, and it differs quite a lot from the source material. It feels like Shyamalan was unsure of how much to reveal by the end and how much to keep a mystery, with some loose threads being unresolved in a way that feels very strange. The small details that audiences will be curious to see answers for are forgotten about, yet the biggest mystery is revealed through a very silly leap in logic when one of the husbands has a “eureka” moment. It doesn’t detract from the good parts of the film, but I do feel as if this mystery could have been unwound a little more gracefully.

With the film proving somewhat divisive with both critics and audiences, I’d say this is one of those movies where one’s enjoyment of it is reliant on how much they’re able to look past the weaker elements to enjoy the good. For me, I think those good elements are interesting enough to keep the movie from being a bad time, and they won me over just enough that I can say I’m glad I viewed it once. Despite its flaws, there’s enough enjoyment to be found in “Knock at the Cabin” that I recommend people to go check it out and see if the thrills in this movie pay off more than they did for me.