Troublesome aspects of Signs

Rating: 8/10 (5 August 2002)

Signs has sterling performances, Joaquim Phoenix's being my favorite. Mel Gibson is refreshingly subdued, and when he vamooses on seeing an alien's tail (possibly), it is unlike anything you have seen from Mel. The movie does not have surprises like in Shyamalan's previous movies, and is a welcome change. Unbreakable's ending seemed contrived.
Signs has wonderful camera work, and a great musical score. The movie is eerie, funny, and moving. Signs is about how normal people would behave when aliens came to earth. Not how Will Smith would, based on Jeff Goldblum's advice. The movie is disturbing.
It is troublesome nevertheless. Staying away from special effects altogether is not a sign of greatness in the young Indian director. I mean, a movie must be different from a play in some way. Signs isn't. I'd still like to see how Shyamalan uses special effects, if he is to be compared to Spielberg. I had the same problem with Unbreakable: the train shook, but we did not see it crash. How would Shyamalan make it look different on screen? That's my poser.
My feeling is Shyamalan either doesn't have the ability to show these effects, or wants to save money. The trouble is his films are becoming blockbusters in spite of a lack of effects. Signs has more scope, and I felt it wanting. It is very well for critics to say that it is what you don't see that's scary. Spielberg did something similar in Jaws, but the final showdown with the shark looks frightening on the screen even today. The creature in Signs was more comical than anything else.
PS. I am an Indian, and a die-hard Shyamalan addict. I hope he will listen.