Still reeling

Rating: 10/10 (5 August 2002)

*********Some mild plot point spoilers. I don't recommend reading this until you've seen the film. i.e., go see the film.************
It's possible that, in long retrospect, "Signs" will appear to my memory to be a simplistic, one-trick B-movie thriller with a generous sapling-layer of faith arguments thrown in for good measure. If I feel that way I won't be alone.
But I don't feel that way right now.
Right now I'm looking over my shoulder. Right now I'm pondering how M. Night Shyamalan could maintain as direct a focus on the details of this film as he does. Right now I'm still reeling from the realness of the situation into which the film's characters are thrust.
Right now I'm writing this review so that I can rejoin the real world in some way, and detach myself from the one I was so thoroughly woven into a few hours ago. So I can sleep well, mostly.
Shyamalan is possibly the most brutally efficient director I have ever seen at work. Only Hitchcock kept a focus nearly this narrow, and it's sure that "poor man's Hitchcock" is a phrase that will dog Shyamalan for the rest of his days. Others have compared him to Kubrick for the drawn-out scenes filled only with the immediate focus or sometimes with nothing at all, leaving the viewer to fill in the gaps. But in nearly all Kubrick films I find myself urging the next scene to begin; with this film I found myself wondering what new thrill or revelation would walk into the scene. Not a second is wasted. And yes, there are the trappings of early Spielberg, the "less is more" of Jaws, where we're slowly introduced to our assailant one terrifying limb at a time.
And as we work our way into the nature of the beast, we are also astonished with the strangeness of the main characters, each of which it seems have been cast with a specific thrill in mind. Both Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix have creeped us out in one way or another in previous films, and the child actors, far from being boilerplate screamers, are as different as night and day, Rory Culkin appearing helpless and insightful while Abigail Breslin is naive yet resolute as the unflappable Bo.
Shyamalan's only misstep is casting himself in a substantial role in this film, where he seems a young child who has created a spectacular fantasy world and finds himself unable to play-act in it with nearly the skill that its complexity and intensity require.
And even his deadpan performance serves to dish up yet another of the ample thrills in the film. While I was somewhat disappointed with the ending, that disappointment was the same I feel as I pull into the station of my favorite roller-coaster ride - sadness that there couldn't have been one more blinding bit of firework, but soberly aware that I probably couldn't have handled anymore.
Give this film a spin and see if you can handle it.