Signs of what?

Rating: 1/10 (9 August 2002)

Signs of great filmmaking? I don't think so.
First of all I am pretty angry about several things. First, I am particularly distressed that the individuals posting here who liked the movie insist on accusing those of us who didn't of needing some kind of over the top special effects to enjoy a film. WRONG! I can think of many great films that did not need exploitative or gratuitous effects and were fantastic films. I can also think of films that had great effects and were still pretty bad movies, Independence Day comes to mind. My taste runs from Woody Allen to John Carpenter and I try hard to judge each film on its own merits. Speaking of John Carpenter he did a bang up job with Starman with minimal effects and the Jenny Hayden character was able to regain her faith after the death of her husband without me feeling totally manipulated and ripped off. Secondly, I am a bit confused by the overall rating of 8+ when so many people seem to share my sentiments. Mostly I am mad that I paid good money and wasted the time to see this film.
!!CONTAINS SPOILERS!!
I do not understand the comparisons to Hitchcock. I am a big Hitchcock fan and the only thing I can think of that is similar is the theme of an average guy caught up in unusual circumstances. I guess you could also say that Shyamalan is trying to build suspense through psychological terror instead of doing it overtly. Unfortunately he uses every obvious psychological gimmick in the book to yank the audience's chain. Hitchcock was much more subtle with a long buildup and lots of character exploration prior to things getting heavy. The main problem with this film is that the story fails to perform the most important function to make the premise work. There is very little information given to help us understand or like these characters. The most glaring example of this is the characters' reaction to the two dogs dying. The main characters are totally insensitive to the deaths of the beloved family pets. When the boy kills the first dog the family is barely upset about it and the second one is carelessly left outside for the evil aliens to massacre. If I ever wanted to try to like these characters or care about them it eventually becomes impossible. Then there is the matter of a total lack of background and believability. As many others have stated, why is he a farmer as well as a preacher? If he is a farmer, does he do any farming type stuff, ever? Where was Merrill before all this happened? What compelled him to come help Graham out? Neither Mel Gibson's nor Joaquin Phoenix's character reacts or behaves as one would expect people in this rural setting, or anywhere else for that matter, to act. They also do not seem to behave consistently within the parameters of who they are supposed to be. Actually, so little background is given, it is hard to figure out who they are supposed to be. I find it hard to believe that anybody who was just told that their neighbor has an alien locked in the pantry would not even try to pry some additional information from them. I don't care what the history between the two people is, basic survival instinct would dictate that you would want to know as much as possible. Same thing when they are locked in the house and then the basement. I am appalled that these guys supposedly care about these kids and don't even pick up one of the many gardening tools lying about to prepare to even try to defend themselves. Especially since Merrill was the baseball player who would swing at anything. It was almost painful to see two really good actors like Mel and Joaquin made to play such two-dimensional characters with such rigid, stilted dialogue. Mel's monologue about there being two kinds of people was good but seemed out of place when the rest of the time his character was basically despondent. Why was the stuff about the redneck neighbors even mentioned? The little boy was precocious to the point of being annoying. The little girl was cute and quirky. The lady sheriff was an engaging character and very well portrayed by Cherry Jones. She was actually the one saving grace of the film.
I could go on and on about the ridiculousness of the whole aliens with an aversion to water who are going to invade our planet to harvest humans using ground tactics nonsense but I think we need to go ahead and bury that horse. There are so many holes in the plot and script that my head is ready to explode trying to comprehend how M. Night could have made this film. I loved Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. I thought his slow, deliberate style of storytelling was totally appropriate in the context of those two films. However, Mr. Shyamalan needs to recognize that different stories require different treatments. Just because this formula worked a couple of times before does not mean he can make every movie using the same kind of devices and stylistic elements. I think he is a very talented writer and director who just needs to grow up and get over himself.
I also share the sentiment of many who feel cheated by virtue of the trailers for this film. I do believe that when we, as the paying, movie going public are marketed to, that the filmmaker or distributor should have a responsibility to make the marketing reflect at least some of the flavor of the film. I basically feel like I was tricked into watching what was essentially an exercise in how much the viewer could be manipulated with the fewest possible resources in terms of sets, effects and dialogue. A kind of minimalism carried to the point of absurdity.
I will see M. Night's next exploit, only because I now feel like he owes me something and I would like to give him the chance to make up for this fiasco.
One last comment: One of the other reviewers on this board suggested that this was all a nightmare the little girl was having. That would actually make the most sense out of everything. Unfortunately, I do not believe that was the intended twist. I think M. Night would have made it more obvious at the end if that was the case. I really wish that he had.