Like a stock with a beta equal to two...

Rating: Null/10 (25 October 2002)

Heavily hyped and expectantly positioned, SIGNS is casting a paranormal spell among the mainstream, tentpole-seeking flock. The third major work from one M. Night Shyamalan, it is a film which is rather simple in premise but rich in design.
Let's propose an analogy. Ever buy a fish from a pet shop? What's the first thing you do when you bring the little guy home? You take that half-filled- or half-empty, if you're of a pessimistic persuasion- bag of murky water which serves as a transient home for your unblinking, fin-sporting friend and place it on the aqueous surface of the aquarium tank for a brief period of time for purposes of acclimating the swimming critter to the new environment's thermo characteristics. In a similar fashion, one has to acclimate oneself to SIGNS; it doesn't necessarily grab you from the beginning. It's not such a work. Instead, you have to float on its surface for a little while, get a feel for the different world on the screen; once you do, once you relax and are used to the fresh locale, you'll be in business.
Up to a point. Let me explain.
SIGNS is the story of a simple family of farmers led by Graham Hess, portrayed by superstar Mel Gibson. Joaquin Phoenix plays his brother Merrill Hess, and Graham's son Morgan and daughter Bo are represented by Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin, respectively; this is a tight clan, but one which is also filled with multiple neuroses. For instance, Bo can never finish a glass of water because she is obsessed with germs and contamination; Morgan never seems happy, like a kid his age ought to be; and Graham has a passionate hate for someone he used to love and work for- he loses all semblance of faith when his wife Colleen perishes after being struck by a hapless motorist and leaves the priesthood. Doesn't necessarily make for a happy family.
Life goes on for them, hard though it may be, they tend their crops, go to school, try to make the best of whatever existence they've been dealt. But an intrusion suddenly appears: geometric shapes have formed themselves- or have been formed- in the vast acreages of corn fields growing on the premises. Crop circles. And it's not just on the Hess property; the weird symbols crushed into the fields begin appearing all over the globe. What are they.what do they mean?
They mean this: an invasion is on the way. Extraterrestrials bent on raping the planet of its most prized and sophisticated resource: human beings. The family Hess decides to band together even more tightly than before, to try and survive the oncoming onslaught as best they can. But can Graham do it without faith? Can he do it without the help of his former employer? And what about his kids.can what was once a set of odd ways spontaneously morph into a set of useful mutations?
The first thing you notice about SIGNS is the acting; it is the most stifled, stilted craftsmanship ever seen. It is done on purpose, and obviously serves a purpose- one valid interpretation would be that it demonstrates the fact that this is a family made gravely sober through tragedy- but, nevertheless, it does take some getting used to (hence the fish analogy). In fact, it took me some time to get past the perception of petrified wood reading sides during an audition at a casting agent's office. (This did make for some interesting attempts at dry, sarcastic humor.)

What eventually got me over this stumbling block was the architecture of creepiness which slowly but steadily built itself over the course of the acts. The spook quotient crawled and slithered along in a very satiating buildup reminiscent of THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. For acolytes of Mulder and Scully, the omnipresent X-factor is there and accounted for.

There was also some superb foreshadow and follow-through present. As can be expected, Graham's loss of belief plays a pivotal role, as does little Morgan's nasty asthma attacks. Then there is the main theme, as depicted in an excellent exchange between Graham and his fraternal sibling: are there miracles, or are there only instances of random chance? Divine hand or capricious statistical clustering? Magic?.Mayhem? The aliens serve as a catalytic vehicle for such discussion and resolution, raising the philosophical intellect of the piece to an acceptable level.
Yet, there are deficiencies.loads of them, in fact. Let's talk about one in particular: the aliens themselves. What word/phrase should I use? Insipid? Uninspired? Lacking? Devoid of creative imagination? Parched and looking to drink from the river Muse? How about this.they disappointed and subtracted from the grace which was forming. And let me mention a specific scene, the one in which one of the otherworlders is caught on tape at the opening of an alleyway; not only was I immediately struck by the sense that it was a guy in a horribly bad Hollywood suit, but the way in which it was shot valued any chance at instilling lurid fear in the hearts of the viewers at zero. Sorry, M. Night, you failed on that one, we're way past zippers running up the back of a costume accidentally getting caught in frame. (I have to agree with the sentiment of a friend: perhaps he should've Blair-Witched the aliens and either not shown or shown very little of them.)

The unraveling of the plot also left me emotionally listless. In addition, there were some discrepancies of logic as well (big example is the Achilles heel of the aliens). Nevertheless, I enjoyed the experience of SIGNS. It was a bit volatile at times, like the NASDAQ, but like the battered index, it formed quite a sweet bubble at certain points- I was happy enough to have realized profits where I could.
SIGNS. Shyamalan has pretty much batted a thousand at this point (if you begin with THE SIXTH SENSE). I ask you.miracle, or coincidence? Which one are you?.