Another corker from Hollywood's new Hitchcock/Spielberg (delete as appropriate)

Rating: 10/10 (10 September 2002)

The first thing you need to know about Signs is that it is not for everybody. Certainly not for those who hated Unbreakable. The slow, measured pacing, the lack of real "action", the dialogue-heavy character scenes - all are present and correct in Shyamalan's latest. And why not? Personally I found Unbreakable to be an understated, underrated cult classic, and I see absolutely no reason why Signs should not be elevated to such status.
The second thing you need to know about Signs is...nothing else! Seriously, this particular cinematic dish is best served cold - the less you know, the better. One of the greatest pleasures in cinema is going to see a film not knowing quite where it will take you - something which, in these days of plot-spoiling trailers, is all too rare, and something which that sly trickster Shyamalan is all too keen to play on.
Any pre-conceived ideas anyone may have about Signs will probably be blown away by the time the film reaches its final act, which, despite what some critics may say, is just as thrilling as the first two thirds. During the hour and forty five minutes I was in the cinema, I did not take my eyes off the screen ONCE, I laughed several times, and jumped just as much. The sheer gut-wrenching tension made me grasp my arm rest, and the emotion made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck on more than one occasion. I really don't expect much more from a film than that.
Onto the acting then, and the performances, without exception, are superb - Shyamalan again drawing winning displays from the two young children. Phoenix proves what a tremendous range he has with a brilliantly subtle performance, whilst Gibson underplays his troubled patriarch beautifully.
So, Shyamalan has now made three blockbusters, all of which have been intelligent, exciting, thought-provoking and enjoyable. Shouldn't he get some kind of award for that?
*****