Signs (2002)

I have been a horror film fan for 30 years. While I remember a few films actually scaring me as a kid (Jaws, Psycho), I have failed to encounter many in my adult life. I like to be scared, but Hollywood has seen fit to retread every tired formulaic convention in just about everything it throws at the local multiplex. Even the independent filmmakers, free of the "system", seem to forget what FEAR is. Mostly I sit solemnly staring in disbelief at the screen, waiting and hoping to get those goosebumps. Then, finally, we were given Signs. Most will say, including the director, that this is not a horror film; I genuinely disagree. If this is not a horror flick, then it is time for this film to start a branch of its own and begin a new genre. I admired every little aspect of this picture, from the use of everyday objects: baby monitor, a blank television screen and a half empty glass of water, to convey and act as a vehicle to extract fear from the ordinary. Most of all, Shyamalan is an expert craftsman and knows how to get the most out of space, actors and sound. It is the lingering shot on a basement staircase when you are desperately hoping he moves his camera to show us more, or the screeching sound in the next room whose source he won't reveal . This director knows just how long to hold the shot, to increase the tension and build the suspense, long enough for our mind to begin forming pictures. And those pictures can be the most frightening of all. Stay the course Shyamalan.

Fmovies: M. Night Shyamalan has done it again, and this time, better. If 'Unbreakable' left skepticism about the young director, `Signs' will make you a believer again.

Mel Gibson and his family, one boy, one girl, and Gibson's younger brother (Joaquin Phoenix) take residence in the small town of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Gibson's wife is not a member of this household (we find out why, later). Shot over and around a 'Walton's-style' house and surrounded by crops, we get the eerie feeling that we are to be entangled here for the next two hours. Immediately, the children notice gigantic perfect circular shapes or signs as we like to call them, appearing within the crops. Is this a hoax or War of the Worlds? And, that's all you need to know. The rest of film will dazzle you with style, suspense, and downright scariness.

The key ingredients to this recipe for storytelling is one half Close Encounters of the Third Kind, a dash of Stephen King, sprinkled with Orson Wells. Shyamalan also uses Hitchcock like close ups, wicked camera angles, and a blasting score. You are locked in as soon as the movie begins. You will tilt your head in wonder and confusion, as characters in the film do. There is a deep desire to figure this all out, while your stuck in the middle of nowhere, nowhere being Bucks County.

The picture gives us two ultimate dilemmas to wrestle with. Two basic questions we must ask ourselves. Are our daily occurrences and the paths we choose Coincidence? Or, are is it just plain Luck? Shyamalan weaves these posing questions into a subplot, with trickery until the end. From scene to scene, he leaves no fades to black. As one scene ends the other smartly begins. That's what keeps the audience watching as if we were tucked tightly into our beds and rapidly turning pages of a good book. Each page is significant. This movie isn't just about crops. That's what makes Shyamalan such a keen filmmaker. He has the talent and ability to fog up the film, and distract you with different propositions.

Shyamalan uses technique to peak his story, rather than dialogue. His masterful and favorite formula is the usage of flashbacks, which gives the audience a chance to catch up on what they might have missed. He emphasizes his points by re-occurring scenes and replaying them for the grand effect, the 11th hour, until he hits you with the finale. Whether you believe the outcome or not, you cannot deny his aptitude for storytelling.

This nervous and paranoid feature film with a heart-pounding ending is terrific. I was still thinking about it when I left the theater. You too, will enjoy the ride. But, when it's over, say your prayers, get into bed, pull the sheets over your head, breathe a sigh of relief, and close the book!

Most of the people that comment on this movie are going to relate the fact that they were disappointed. And that's okay- your opinion of a movie should always include your pre-showing as well as post-showing emotions. But to those people I just have to say, "You just don't get it." Everyone is going into this movie thinking it is some kind of chilling horror, or blood-and-gore slasher flick. Shyamalan doesn't do those tired genres, thankfully. Instead, he gives us a warm, funny, emotionally-charged, and yes, suspenseful thriller which manages to compact an entire list of genres into one whole film.

I have seen the movie twice already- the first time for myself, and the second time just for crowd reactions. I wasn't bored through either showing. This is in part to some great acting by Phoenix, and some PHENOMENAL acting by the two child leads! Gibson isn't too bad either, but I have to admit, his part could have been played by anyone (sorry Mel :)

I think for the first time Shyamalan really brings us a film that doesn't rely on smoke and mirrors to please the audience. For all those naysayers out there, I would suggest that you view the film again, either now, or when it is available for home use. Look- and listen closer. You might just be able to make out the 'Signs.'

Signs fmovies. In last week's issue of Newsweek, M. Night Shyamalan is quoted as saying to his accomplices in crime, "If I did 'Pokemon 5,' would you come? Come on! I could turn it into a metaphor for the human condition!" The scary thing about that comment is not only that he probably *could* do it if afforded the opportunity, but also that he pulls off a similar trick in "Signs," which from an artistic standpoint is easily the best film he's ever done.

The greater picture of the film is the crop signs that suddenly and quickly start appearing worldwide - and the question of whether they mean anything for mankind as a whole. But once the greater picture is laid out in the first twenty minutes, it takes a complete backseat to Shyamalan's happy & pained family of four, and focuses on their feelings, their worries, their doubts; as the horror of what's transpiring in the greater picture creeps closer to them.

When Merrill says, "It's like War of the Worlds," it's NOT hyperbole, even though we never see what transpires in the greater picture. Instead, Shyamalan focuses on the subtle nuances of the fear of the individual. Instead of seeing hundreds of soldiers fighting in hand-to-hand combat with gigantic bugs, we gain an appreciation of what it's like for those who aren't blessed with such courage - or, in Graham Hess' case, being able to find it again.

This is the first horror movie I've ever seen that both genuinely scared me - because you sympathize with the family's plight, even without seeing it - and made me laugh at the same time, because the family's reaction to the terror unfolding in the world is a sign itself of a strength that most don't have - the ability to be levelheaded and always keep things in perspective, no matter how scary or "out-there" the situation is.

As usual, Shyamalan gets excellent performances out of all of his actors, especially Willis & Breslin as Graham & Bo. As usual, everything you see means something - the trick, like with "Sixth Sense" & "Unbreakable, is whether or not you can put them all together. I'd be shocked, though, if this film doesn't get nominated for its sound - the soundtrack is Hitchcockian-creepy, and Shyamalan is a master at using sound effects to create the terror that the visual effects normally do.

Don't go to "Signs" expecting a monster movie, or a shock ending, but definitely see it before the summer's out, and be prepared to be moved in ways that you previously couldn't have imagined from a horror or suspense film. It's been said that a genius of film is one who knows how to transcend or reinvent a genre - and with this film, M. Night Shyamalan is decidedly on his way there, if he hasn't already reached it. 10/10

I don't think this film deserved the poor reviews that some gave it. I've only seen 3 of Night Shylaman's films (6th Sense, Unbreakable) and this one is the most sophisticated in my mind in terms of the director manipulating the viewers into seeing and believing what he wants you to believe.

This is not Gibson's worst film by any means. If anything he gets to try to portray an understated, confused, and emotionally scarred character and I think he soft-sells it very well. Joaquin Phoenix also has a similar character to play and he too soft-sells it well. That was probably not an accident as their calm, sullen personalities contrast with the unbearable situation they find themselves in.

If you haven't already, see it - and keep an open mind.