Letdown

Rating: Null/10 (14 October 2002)

M. Night Shyamalan is officially the next Hitchcock. But that's not necessarily a good thing.
Everything about Shyamalan's newest film, Signs, reeks of the master of suspense. The camera angles. The blocking. The muted acting. Even James Newton Howard's score (which is really just a ripoff of Psycho and Vertigo). Does this make it more compelling? Not really.
Shyamalan grabbed America's attention with his 1999 debut, The Sixth Sense, a film which was praised for its creativity with the ghost story template, its return to the glory of the suspense genre, and its "surprise ending". 2000's Unbreakable was not as well-liked as its predecessor, but I liked it more. I thought Shyamalan took what he learned from The Sixth Sense and expanded upon it, creating a film that was much more interesting visually and plot-wise. Many disagree with me. That's okay.
Signs just doesn't live up to this. And it's because this simply isn't a story that lends itself well to the Shyamalan method of visual storytelling.
Let's start with the setting. Shyamalan chose to play this story small-scale, choosing to show how a War of the Worlds-type scenario affects the common man. It's a bold move, one that should play out better than it does. In order for this to work properly, the actors have to have unbridled emotion, not muted tones. The tone has to be completely even, something which Shyamalan didn't accomplish here.
The actors. Mel Gibson replaces Bruce Willis as Shyamalan's main horse. His emotional honesty seems like it ought to lend a credibility to Shyamalan's chosen plot. It certainly plays better than had Shyamalan gone with Willis, as Gibson has a certain world-weariness about his demeanor that the character needs. Does it work in the end? Not really. And part of that is because Shyamalan reins him into the same muted emotions from his previous films. Especially in a character that has such as a strong arc, with his struggle with his faith in religion and in humanity, Gibson doesn't sell the key moments.
Joaquin Phoenix and Rory Culkin are both fine. They both show a grasp of the material and how to play it properly. Newcomer Abigail Breslin as young daughter Bo doesn't get it. Part of that is a weakness of the script. Shyamalan tries to inject a certain amount of humor at what ultimately prove to be untimely moments. Bo is "Full House" when the film should be "X-Files". It just doesn't work. Odd, considering that Shyamalan has written such strong roles for children in his previous two films.
I did like "The State"'s Michael Showalter showing up in a cameo. I dig that guy.
The cinematography works great. Fujimoto's choice of camera angles, showing key moments obscured, utilizing reflection, worked extremely well for the movie. An overall palette of earth-tones brings the film to a more resonant place, adding warmth and humanity.
Okay, the ending. Shyamalan's stock-in-trade now seems to be the big shocker ending. Once again, I saw right through the ending of The Sixth Sense, as would most people who have a grasp of visual storytelling. I didn't see the end of Unbreakable coming at all, which may be the reason why I enjoy that film the most. The ending of Signs doesn't shock, doesn't hit you emotionally. It just kind of happens. It seems like a bit of a copout, in a movie that had a lot of surprises up until that moment. It doesn't work, and I think it erodes the credibility of what came before. Maybe it's just me.
I'm interested to see what Shyamalan does next. It's obvious he's taking a lot of risks with his pictures, which I applaud him for. In a world where so many pictures seem so safe and easy, he chooses to make films which aren't obvious and simple. But next time, try to create a story that works for your method, not try to shoehorn a story into your established modus operandi.