Ever felt a growing sense of dread from something as simple as watching a man stare into a darkened cornfield? If you see “Signs” — written, directed and produced by M. Night Shyamalan — you might.
Shyamalan, director of “The Sixth Sense” and “Unbreakable,” follows a kind of Hitchcock-esque methodology in “Signs.” The violence in this film is implied. Suspense is not reliant on special effects and awkward, forced situations, but rather on allowing scenes to play out for as long as necessary.
The pacing of “Signs” is really what sets the movie apart from other thrillers intended to be blockbusters. Quietly creeping along, “Signs” works subtly to generate tension by giving the right moments their appropriate breathing room. The movie strikes a balance between plot motion and breath-like pause — never boring, yet still examining fear in an honest way.
“Signs” does a remarkable job of exuding authenticity. Though at times the dialogue runs heavy-handed, the characters are entirely believable. Mel Gibson plays Graham Hess, a former minister struggling with his faith amidst the possibility of an alien invasion. Despite this obvious — and maybe even forced — twist built directly into the character, Mel Gibson really hits a minimalist — yet powerful — stride with this role, and is convincing in that everyman fashion.
Joaquin Phoenix does a commendable job of playing Graham’s brother Merrill. Phoenix supports Gibson’s performance well, in addition to portraying his character realistically. Providing much of the comic relief in this movie, scenes of interaction between the two are some of the brightest in the film.
Shyamalan himself appears in “Signs” in a small, but crucial roll. Though his screen time is short, his delivery is decent.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The faults of this movie lie in weak dialogue during intense and personally revealing moments. Though “Signs” gets points for emotional depth as shown via close-ups and slight movements, forced dialogue and clichÇd speeches destroy much of the simplicity that propels this movie. While the delivery of these overstated themes is well-acted, the lines themselves detract from the overall impact of the movie. The audience is not left with space to draw its own conclusions, but rather is forced around by overt heartstring tugging.
“Signs” also suffers from a case of a too-convenient ending. Wrapped tightly as though it’s a present under a Christmas tree, the movie is easily forgettable. With all moral issues resolved, all dangling plot strings wound, the audience leaves the theater and the movie leaves their memory — “Signs,” short-term fodder.
Shyamalan’s skill lies in his ability to craft nuance and thus believability into his plot. He maneuvers some of the stickier territory in the film masterfully, but at the same time discredits the audience’s intuition by handing themes out on a silver platter.
Visually, the movie is convincing and the scenarios are unique, yet still believable. It is the characters’ reactions to this alien invasion that the audience buys. But the intensity of the secondary plotline of a man finding his faith is pushed too far and too hard. The happy fairy-tale reminiscent ending is a bit much to swallow.
