Great science fiction movie, although it is basically a movie about faith and meaning.

Rating: 9/10 (28 January 2005)

'Signs' is the movie you'll either love or hate. I loved it. To describe it in a nutshell: Close Encounters of the Third Kind meets Hitchcocks 'The birds'. It's a Sci-Fi movie showing a widower (a former preacher) who finds mysterious circles in his crops and the way he deals with this problem. And again, I really, really loved this movie. Sure, it has flaws, but name one movie that doesn't. But for the sake of objectivity I'll sum up some of these imperfections. For example, the introduction of the 'menacing elements' (I call it like this to avoid spoilers) has been done much too sudden and much too overt. As a result the fear-provoking factor is slightly reduced. Still, there's a scene where a home made video reveals those so-called 'threatening elements' very explicitly and I must say, it is one of the scariest moments in the movie. Anyhow, maybe this film lacks the power of suggestion, all the more when compared to Shyamalans other movies. But come on, let's not split hairs.
Another 'flaw' is the obligatory end twist. It is after all a movie from the creator of 'The sixth sense', so you can expect a huge eye-opening surprise at the end of the film. I admit, when you have just seen the movie, and you analise the story and all the plot elements, this end twist makes the whole movie seem a bit artificial because every little element in the movie has been introduced for the sake of making this twist plausible. But on the other hand, when you're actually watching the movie, the twist really does work. And I guess that's the most important thing, how you feel while watching it. Any post-movie gibberish is trivial.
But like I said before, I loved this movie. First of all the acting is marvelous. One particular emotional scene comes to mind: 'the last supper'-scene. In this scene former preacher Graham Hess (played by Mel Gibson), his brother Merril (played by Joaquin Phoenix) and his children (some will perhaps recognize Macauly Culkins younger brother) are trying to have dinner, but the emotions of fear are just too overwhelming, so they break out in tears. This is really a tear jerking scene. But even in less dramatic scenes the acting is above standard.
Another positive element in 'Signs' is the subtle humor, which is rather unseen in the work of Shyamalan. It certainly relieves the constant tension of the story, and therefore it is appropriate within the movie as a whole. What was Shyamalan to do anyway? After all, he hired Mel 'funniest man alive' Gibson. Rest my case.
The camera-work in this movie is very artistic and calculated, but I didn't expect any less from this director. So, I won't go into this any further.
Some find it a bit restrictive that the movie takes place for almost 95% in the farm-area where the family lives. But to me the limitations of space added to the genuine feeling of imprisonment the family must have had being threatened by unknown forces, and tied to the memory of their departed wife/mother/sister-in-law. This claustrophobic feeling works, just like it did in Shyamalans 'The Village'.
What strikes me about Shyamalans movies 'The Village' and 'Signs' is that each of these films is cemented with an universal message. There's always a moral to be found. While the search for pure, unconditional love was the main topic of 'The Village', 'Signs' focuses on the loss of faith and the search for meaning in misery. Okay, being a Shyamalan fan I'm biased, but what the heck: 9,5 out of 10.