underrated director, hes better than the mcguffin

Rating: Null/10 (5 August 2004)

I just read your reviews, and whilst you clearly liked the film, i think you may be giving Shyamalan less credit than he deserves. Signs was a brilliant film, but a poor twist which he could have done much better. Apart from the whole the earth is made up of 80% water and they run around in crop fields that must be full of water...it wasn't a twist that you come to expect from Shyamalan.
He's a much better filmmaker than you appear to be prepared to give him, Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are brilliant because you are concentrating so much on the brilliance of the films, that the twist does come as a shock. Signs however, whilst incredible beautiful, does not have those subtle clues that create the twist but instead a desperate idea...and by comparing Shyamalan to Hitchcock and saying its only a Mcguffin is to completely lessen the work of a fantastic filmmaker.
Hitchcock admitted that the mcguffin was a plot device to progress the film along, and whilst these aid the film, its Shyamalan's status as an auteur you guys need to consider, why do you assume that just because his other films are great you should let this one be put down as simply another Hitchcockian McGuffin. Quite simply, Shyamalan's film is beautiful and fantastic and the boy's asthma and the girls phobia of water was a poor plot device and a twist you could see coming really. Shyamalan is a better director than this film suggests and it should be praised for its first hour and 30 minutes and criticised for its use of the McGuffin...this is unsubtle film-making from a guy built around subtlety.