 |
| Scenario: A retired priest finds his tenuous faith put to new light when his farm - and the whole world it seems - is menaced by a shadowy race of aliens. But are these extra-terrestrials really among us? Or is this just an elaborate hoax by a bunch of punk kids? Breakdown: All right. I have to throw Shyamalan some props from the get-go, because I'm going tear into him fairly viciously in a few moments. This cat has really established his own signature style in his last three films. Signs could thus be seen as a "Shyamalan Thrillology" of sorts, since it continues the director's unique method of blending the supernatural with the everyday, featuring an estranged main character that experiences profound personal discovery. His films are always greeted with a higher than usual level of anticipation by both mainstream and critical audiences. This is no easy feat. Signs delivers many great Shyamalan-isms, though it's easily the worst of his lot thus far. The earliest tip off that something's awry is the opening credit sequence, which literally tries to scare the viewer with titles that leap into focus, set to a barrage of startling orchestral bursts akin to nails running down chalkboard slate. This could have been a separate movie altogether entitled, "Attack of the Killer Credits." It's that b-movie cheesy, and represents Signs in the worst possible way. Getting over the credits hurdle is easy once the film starts. This is what we could call "vintage" Shyamalan at work - slow, measured shots and expert use of fleetingly ghoulish imagery. It worked in the Sixth Sense and it works again here. In fact, the first hour of Signs makes you forget the following irregularities: -an aged Mel Gibson way past his prime -McCauley Culkin's younger brother -Shyamalan acting in his own picture, a serious dabble with failure -a surprisingly subdued Joaquin Phoenix (who will hereby referred to as "TNT" after his defining role in Oliver Stone's U-Turn). In other words, Signs has the power to hook even the most jaded viewers. Then, something goes horribly wrong. It's amazing. No other film has begun so promising only to fall through the floor with such floundering, violent ineptitude as Signs. To detail the film's shocking demise here would be unnecessary spoilage. It's true, nearly every movie starts out better than it ends. That's the nature of the three-act structure. But what we have here is a critical failure beyond the expected letdown. Make no mistake -- I seriously theorize that Shyamalan mailed in the last 20 minutes. There's no other explanation. Fair dues to Night, since he's one of the best genre-mixers in the business right now. But here, he seems preoccupied with putting everything in its right place, so obsessively that its ending irreparably compromises every bit of finely crafted suspense that precedes it. Therefore I leave thee with an agonizing choice: 1. See the film, walk out after 90 minutes and make up your own ending. 2. Watch the whole film and prepare for a letdown of staggering proportions. Statistics Fwats Factor - Medium. The topics of crop circles and alien invasion are inherently conspiratorial, but Signs treats these elements as simple fuel for nail-biting tension, rather than speculate on the legitimacy of these subjects. Mission Success - Partial Success Signs succeeds in its fundamental mission to weave an original tale of supernatural suspense. But its utter failing in the final minutes spoil those efforts severely. Overall Recommendation - 2 Signs probably deserves a higher rating, but I want you to take my warning seriously. What happened here is almost criminal and should not be taken lightly. Tread carefully and curtail your expectations from what you'd normally get out of a Shyamalan movie. And don't listen to those schleps in the IMDM user comments section. They get hard-ons for anything with the name "M. Night Shyamalan" on it and cannot be trusted. -end transmission- |
 |