Another M. Night triumph...

Rating: 7/10 (3 August 2002)

"Signs," starring Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix, and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, who helmed "The Sixth Sense," could possibly be one of the best films of 2002, so far. Yet again, Shyamalan treats his viewers with some Hitchcockian-style camera angles, which provide enhanced suspense for an already suspenseful picture.
Mel Gibson plays Graham Hess, a former reverend-farmer who recently lost his faith in God over the death of his wife. His younger brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), a former Minor League Baseball player, helps support Graham's children Morgan and Bo Hess (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin). Before long, the family soon discovers crop circles in the farm's corn fields. Could they be signs of an alien invasion, or just an elaborate prank played by people with too much time on their hands?
M. Night Shyamalan proves yet again that he's a very gifted director. (Although some call him the next Spielberg, I consider him to be the next Robert Zemeckis, as he utilizes more subtle special effects rather than the in-your-face eye-candy sort.) Previously helming "Unbreakable," and before that, "The Sixth Sense," M. Night takes elements from both of those movies to create "Signs." He successfully utilizes the frightening and intense moments borrowed from "The Sixth Sense," as well as the simple, yet somehow, fancy camerawork from "Unbreakable."
Mel Gibson gives a solid performance as the widower who loses his faith over the death of his wife. He acts as if he desperately cares for his kids, and even his brother. Although some may disagree, I believe Gibson yet again gives an Oscar-worthy performance. As for Joaquin Phoenix, he acts like a second father to Graham's children, who give a stunning performance, as well.
Although some believed that "Signs" would be a typical invasion movie and special effects extravaganza, I found it to be something more than that. It's about faith, and the film constantly asks us questions, such as: Are there miracles in the world, or is it just luck? Shyamalan directs and writes "Signs" with such intelligence that many will think that it was slow and needed to be cut down a bit. I don't believe this; if you are following along with the story, you'll see that almost every scene is needed somehow in the movie.
As a special-effects movie freak, I could say that "Signs," which does in fact have some special effects, intelligently provides us with a more subtle view that focuses more on the characters rather than what's going on outside. (There is very little second unit photography in this film.) Most of the effects will go unnoticed, and what this says is that the special effects team has done their job.
"Signs" is yet again a unique piece of art by M. Night Shyamalan. Though it's more predictable than the director's previous movies, it's still very entertaining, and often frightening at times. Shyamalan knows how to make a movie that literally forces you to care about the characters, and not the eye candy. I can't wait to hear what M. Night's up to next.