Overall Rating
  Awesome: 35.25%
Worth A Look: 21.43%
Average: 9.45%
Pretty Bad: 15.67%
Total Crap: 18.2%
13 reviews, 356 user ratings
|
|
| Signs |
by Scott Weinberg
"Stop. Do Not Enter. Slippery When Wet. No U-turn. Yield. Don't walk. (Run)"
|
Whether you love him or not, there’s no denying the impact that filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan has made with his first two major films. The Sixth Sense was an absolute phenomenon, a deliberate and brilliantly crafted ghost story that unexpectedly became a massive box-office sensation. His second effort, Unbreakable (which I still contend is the better of the two) may not have “wowed" moviegoers quite so enjoyably, although the movie was also a critical and financial success. So now the young filmmaker has set himself an unenviable task: how to ‘top’ his previous efforts, both in storytelling quality and in the creation of the seemingly requisite ‘twist ending’.Well, if you’re looking for a review that will divulge stuff from the last 45 minutes of this movie, you’re reading the wrong one. To say that Shyamalan needs to insert some mind-bending jolt at the end of each of his films would be a mistake; how confining it must be to be labeled the ‘twist ending director’. Regardless of what goes on during the final ten minutes of Signs, odds are you’ll have your eyeballs virtually glued to the screen. Not because you’re expecting some massive jolt, but because Signs is a nearly hypnotic movie – and it’s a whole lotta fun, too.
Mel Gibson plays Graham Hess, a low-key and devoted father who maintains a farm in Bucks County, PA. Formerly a man of God (prior to a mysterious and tragic accident involving his recently-deceased wife), Graham seems content (if more than a little glum) to raise his young son and daughter, tend to his corn crop, and spend nights in front of the TV with his loyal younger brother, Merrill. Through a series of mystifying occurrences, the Hesses slowly begin to suspect that their homestead has become a meeting place of sorts for some unseen extra-terrestrial visitors.
That’s all you’re getting from me, plotwise. You may end up loving or loathing this movie, but only a fool would divulge details that could ruin your own experience with the film. Suffice to say that Shyamalan takes a potentially trite and overused concept (aliens come to Earth), and infuses it into a rustic, realistic, and altogether believable tale of hidden invasion. If you’re expecting a lot of cutaways to other locales where similar crises are taking place with widespread hysteria and explosions, this isn’t the movie. (Try Independence Day.) Signs stays totally anchored on the Hess farm, with only a few brief visits to the local Bucks County main street. In other words, we see a possibly worldwide invasion of alien creatures – through the eyes of a farmer and his young family. Sound dull? Absolutely not.
If the movie seems to take a little while to ‘get rolling’, that’s because the horror of Signs lies in ‘mundane reality’. A film in which all the characters seem like super-heroes probably couldn’t offer the tension and fear inherent in watching John Q. Public as he witnesses what he believes to be the end of the world. Were the Earth ever visited by seemingly malevolent creatures, what you see in Signs is precisely what would be going on all over the globe: protective fathers, naively brave kids, and a house filled with a deep and resigned sadness. Watching the end of humanity from the comfort of your own secluded home seems a lot scarier than being laser-zapped at ground zero.
But IS the Hess farm ground zero? The massive crop circles discovered amongst the corn seem to imply some sort of navigational ‘sign’...or it could just be a few drunken idiots itching for a cheap laugh. Those late night shuffles and rooftop thumps? Could be the wind, a squirrel, an unfastened window...or it could be something wholly mysterious and starkly terrifying. If The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are the sort of movies that improve with repeat viewings (and I firmly believe that they are), then Signs is best the first time around. As a somewhat jaded fan of all things cinematically spooky, I did not expect Signs to jolt me or fill me with a creepy sense of unease. Yet Shyamalan accomplished both, and quite effectively I might add.
Opting to forgo his normal leading man (Bruce Willis), Shyamalan cast Mel Gibson as Graham, and it’s one of the best performances he’s offered in years. Thankfully eschewing the chest-thumping rah-rah of his self-produced Hero Trilogy (Braveheart, The Patriot, We Were Soldiers), Gibson is more flawed, tortured, and sympathetic than we’ve seen in quite some time; his performance here may remind you why he’s often considered a solid actor in addition to being a grade-A movie star. Joaquin Phoenix offers a terrific supporting performance as Graham’s younger brother, bringing a necessary touch of familial devotion and plain old common sense to the Hess family.
Special note should be made for Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin, who play Graham’s young children. Since they’re both onscreen for almost the entire film, it’s wonderful that neither of them showcase any of the ham-handed preciousness you generally see from child actors. Sure, Breslin is a cute-as-a-button little girl, but her character never once seems like widow dressing for us to go “Awwwwwwww” at...though you may once or twice. Culkin (littlest brother in the seemingly unending series of Culkins) offers more dramatic weight and ‘real-kid’ authenticity than big brother Macauly did over his entire career. (Sorry, Mac, but that whole Home Alone thing, while entertaining to witness, was hardly ‘acting’.) Signs only has four ‘major’ roles, but that’s all you’ll really need.
As in his earlier movies, Shyamalan presents the fantastic, while filtering it through some decidedly ambiguous moral dilemmas. The issue of Graham’s faith (and eventual lack thereof) is clearly of paramount concern to Shyamalan, and it grounds the film even further. The eventual outcome of Graham’s inner turmoil may seem a bit ‘convenient’ to some, but I’d argue that his character arc fits this tale to a tee.
Signs may not be a better film than either The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, but so what? Since when does a director have to ‘top’ the film before? I see Signs as a sort of departure for Shyamalan, but to explain that any further...I’d have to ruin the movie for you! Either way, the guy still has a perfect batting average, and (much like I felt after seeing his previous films) I can’t wait to see what he comes up with next.
If you mistake a well-crafted set-up for ‘boring plot stuff’, you may be better off skipping Signs, as it’s a film that knows full well where it’s headed – yet is in no real hurry to get there. In another film, that could be the kiss of death, but Shyamalan’s screenplay offers enough mysterious clues and torturously delicious teases before getting down to the meat and potatoes.Signs contains some of the most effective and brilliantly-conceived ‘creepouts’ I’ve seen in years, a handful of joyous jolts that wouldn’t have been nearly as effective if the flick had just opened with a bunch of cheap scares. Some movies are scary just because of atmosphere and timing; Signs is scary because, quite simply, it seems real. (NOTE: In all honesty, this movie rates a 4.5/5 in my book. We at HBS/EFC don't 'do' half-stars, hence this note.)
link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=6018&reviewer=128
originally posted: 08/03/02 08:07:47
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
 |
USA
02-Aug-2002 (PG-13)
UK
N/A
Australia
15-Aug-2002
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
