Signs
M. Night Shyamalyan, Director

Review by Rada Djurica

Caution: Some spoilers regarding plot development

The publicity campaign in USA for "Signs" was really big, and I know that. But all that publicity can't hide the simple truth. "Signs" is a film that makes you think something like: "Gee, I think that I've seen this film before." And it is just like that. It is something seen so many times before.

Here we are, on an American farm, with an American family, counting crop cycles in their field. Something horrible is going on. Extraterrestrials have finally came to take over the Earth. A Biblical end of the world is coming. Revealing the rest is simple. A little help of God and here we are, extraterrestrials are gone, to invade an other planet instead of Earth, because they have realized that people on Earth still believe in God in that plain Biblical way. And in the end, you think "That's it?!?!" Because no matter of the predictable, boring scenario, the film can be entertaining, mixing frightening emotions with welcome bits of humour.

There are two storylines within the unsatisfying and blurred message. The central message of the film is, of course, about men losing their faith. But it is done poorly, although the presentation is gripping. Maybe it is like that because "Signs" is the first film made after the tragedy of the terrorists' attack on the Twin Towers. Another fault: the movie screams, "Look how clever I am!"

Graham Hess (Mel Gibson), a minister who has lost his faith and left the church after the tragic death of his wife, is a lonely farmer who lives on the family farm with his children and a brother. All alone, they fight the evil extraterrestrials, violent aliens who have come to invade nice, decent people. Graham's faith in God solves the problem, because he represents human faith that stands united against one enemy - ugly and filthy looking " aliens."

The film starts wonderfully. Shyamalan opens the story stylishly, with a shot of the backyard seen through a window in the house. "Are you in my dream, too?"

The adorable Graham daughter has a mysterious reason for leaving barely touched glasses of water all over the house, claiming that the liquid is "contaminated."

Next thing that strikes is a "Breaking News" report about an epidemic of crop circles all around the world. It seems that this time, USA is not the only country in trouble. This is the kind of film that would have been right to make 50 years ago. But not now. Not when it's standing next to "Minority Report" and "AI" or maybe "X-Files."

Mel Gibson, well yes, I agree, he is a big star, but is this enough? The pay-off, when it finally arrives, feels both contrived and insufficient, as if there is a lot more to say after the ending. I wouldn't be surprised that a continuation ofthis story could be made into a TV serial in the style of "The X-Files," for those who haven't had enough of extra terrestrials with Mulder and Scully.

The director eliminates anything that might interfere with his ending, but that ending never comes. Is this what he wants us to believe? The film is a prolonged piece of cinematic foreplay leading up to what should be a massive orgasm. I mean, I agree "Signs" is film full of suspense, but it's also very predictive, almost boringly so.

The biggest disappointment came after I'd seen the alien. Creatures like that have been crawling all over the screen for the last 30 years, like a creature drawn in a children's book 50 years ago. And children are screaming on the sight of it, just like they'd scream at a singing postman wearing a clown costume.

It is hard to manipulate with suspense without leaving the viewer feeling cheated. It seems that M. Night has abandoned his artistic vision in the great desire for commercial success.

Writer and director M. Night Shyamalan ("The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable") specializes in quite common supernatural thrillers and, this time, he explores the meaning of faith and coincidence. And I don't know why, but I don't believe him. I read somewhere that M. Night Shyamalan is a cinematic descendant of Alfred Hitchcock. Somehow he doesn't remands me of Hitchcock. Among contemporary filmmakers, he has been compared with Steven Spielberg for using the popular Hitchcockian tricks to shock and create suspense. At Hitchcock's time this was a great tool, but today.....I don't know, maybe he needs proper inspiration. No doubt "Signs" was meant to be a real chillier thriller. Showing little and playing with the imagination is always far scarier than what we can imagine. But maybe some other time....One thing is pretty certain, this film won't bring large audience as his previous picture "The Sixth Sense".