I stuck with him through most of Signs (and even liked the wife plot point), but it all seemed too neatly wrapped up (contrivance alert!) and so the ending felt very dumb to me.
Hmm, I hear this criticism of
Signs a lot, but I'm not sure it's valid. The entire theme of the movie is that coincidences aren't really coincidences and that having faith will make things fall into place. That theme demands a "contrived" ending. If you reject the theme, that's fine, but the movie is internally consistent. That criticism sounds to me like "movie about faith has too much faith in it."
Never saw Lady in the Water.... but I did see The Happening. *doh* Sigh. Great first five minutes. 'nuff said there.
I just feel like he can't rein himself in (or else thinks his ideas and thoughts are SO amazing) that he just don't know how to raise the crops anymore. Bringing something to life means shaping, pruning, etc., not just tossing a bucket of water and as many bags of Miracle-Grow you can find on your Wonderful Amazing Stupendous Ideas.
I thought there was a nugget of a good idea for a movie in
Lady In The Water, but it wasn't realized, like, at all. I think
The Happening did have a fantastic beginning, right up until they got out of town.
After thinking about it, maybe his problem is lack of attention to character in favor of attention to plot. Look at his successes - they're full of memorable characters we care about. The
Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and
Signs all had the plot twists, but they also had great characters. The subsequent movies have the plot, but don't have any characters you give a damn about, even when they're played by good actors. A good character can cover for plot deficiencies in the same way a good singer can rescue a mediocre song.