Weak Sci-fi/horror, yet speculative

Rating: 6/10 (12 January 2003)

There's a lot to like and dislike in this film. First, the film is not really as scary as Knight Shyamalan, its writer and director, and the studio implies. As science fiction, it is pure schlock. There is a message that the movie tries to deliver however, so I will pay the movie (7.5 user rating!) it's due, even though I didn't really like it. The rest of this review is pretty much a spoiler, so don't bother reading it until you've seen the film. If you have seen the film, and feel dissatisfied, perhaps you will agree with some of my points. I'll discuss some of the negatives, some positives, and what I think the filmmaker was trying to do and why it is pleasing to so many despite its faults.
The fear factor: No scene is really scary. Part of the problem is the poor character development which may be attributed to the actors: Gibson, especially, is horrible by Hollywood standards, seemingly just "going along" and overacting for the director so that the studio can get it's money out. The performances by the children are also way below the standard here. Clearly Shyamalan is not a "people person", he is not getting the best out of his actors. Another problem is that Shyamalan is a trying to work within a minimalist horror ethic that really doesn't work cinematically. Minimalist concepts are important in film, it's just that a lot of the techniques that the director tries to bring off, just end up being annoying: The knocking all over the house for example to tell us that aliens are there, as well as the test pattern on the TV, which frankly just went over my head the first time I saw it. (Shyamalan wants us to interpret it as "destruction" of our media resources by the alien attack.) Further, the still shots on TV and alien in the alley, presented to convince the characters and the viewers that there is a world wide attack going on, are pretty lame. It seems that Shyamalan is hell-bent (my expression :) on not spending "too much" money on effects and wants to "show what can be done" with just a few resources and one damn :) expensive actor. He doesn't succeed very well, and any illusion that he has should be exposed. There is one reservation I have to make, however, it is that Shyamalan sincerely trying to draw a picture of hysteria-based reality. He is stating here that reality is NOT a fixed entity based on some objective "out there", but is based on culture, which of course, includes media such as film, television and books, as well as social interaction. He is quite successful in making this allusion and this contributes to the existentialist interpretation of the movie's message, as well as to the likelihood that the movie is going to make it onto some lists despite all of its roughness.

The script: That Shyamalan is not an especially good writer of dialog seems obvious from listening carefully to what these people are saying to each other: how they often answer different questions to those asked, and speak disjointedly in general. If he feels this has a positive dramatic effect, then this brings into question what is drama, and how it works. At any rate, if this was his intention - to create a disjointedness feeling in the film viewer based on the disjointedness of the dialog - I don't think it was artistically or elegantly done, once again - it was mostly annoying. I kept asking myself, "Would these people all watch this and want to suspend their belief if Mel Gibson were not in it?" The feature videos on the DVD indicated that Shyamalan is a meticulous story-boarder. This may be his main talent, not bringing his own somewhat naive ideas to the screen in a minimalist style.
The aliens: Not much to comment on here. They sound a lot like raccoons, have the classic skinny look almost to the point of effeminacy (but not so much that a man can't fit into the costume) and yet, look a bit like Spiderman. (Was it a left-over pattern from wardrobe?) Water kills them, which seems to imply that they come from a part of the universe where ordinary properties of matter don't apply. Oh yes, and they have poison gas jet in their wrist, which they use to kill humans one at a time. Hmm, this echoes back to Spiderman, doesn't it? And even though there are many of them in their flying saucers and a gang of them pounding on the house, there are only two in the movie, one in the house and one running though a back-alley in Brazil (probably the same actor). Believe me, E.T. was a lot better.
The story: Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) was a priest who lost his belief when his wife, Colleen, died because of a careless driver (the sixth character, Ray, played by Shyamalan). Gibson's character is actually the strongest element of the film and clearly calls for an actor of his stature. Also, the portrayal of Colleen's death becomes a central element in the apotheosis of the movie, as Graham Hess gradually comes to realize that her final words were inspirational instructions to him on how to conduct himself and the family through their time of need (the alien invasion). This makes some sense on at least two levels: 1) That Graham was to recover his religious belief as a result of surviving this test and abandoning his angry disbelief; and 2) existentially and metaphorically, as the character says, "Everything happens for a reason", therefore the wife dies, she gives advice, the advice is followed and the family survives the alien invasion. Viewers may respond then to this according to their own personal degree of religiosity: the more religious will tend to see it as a reconversion story, echoing their own reconversions. The non-religious can weigh the existentialist message, "Everything happens for a reason", and reflect on whether their own experience bares this out and perhaps, whether or not it should. This is a positive message and a coherent statement by Shyamalan, which will not play as well in Peoria (Christian fundamentalists may consider this as too mixed a message, while they should "thank God for small favors" in that Shyamalan puts religious belief in so positive a light. Only the skeptical empiricists will be left completely out in the cold. Oh well, you can't always please everyone, right?
In summary, I think that Shyamalan has made a movie that will be often discussed and will always have to be judged on its own merits, which is probably as it should be. The film is important in that it deals in speculative matters of human knowledge (not the existence of alien beings), rare in American Cinema.