Signes

Signs is written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. It stars Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, Abigail Breslin and Cherry Jones. Music is scored by James Newton Howard and cinematography by Tak Fujimoto.

Still reeling from the death of his wife, former man of the cloth Graham Hess (Gibson) lives and works on his farm with his two young children and younger brother. When the family awakes one morning to find a huge crop circle in their plantation, it is asked if it's a prank or the sign of alien contact?

I don't know if M. Night Shyamalan discouraged the marketing of Signs? Where evidence very much pointed to it being an alien invasion movie for all the family to enjoy? But Signs is anything but a family alien invasion movie. The trailers were deliberately vague, there was a mystery element hanging over the picture and with the Shyamalan CV already boasting the phenomenally successful The Sixth Sense and the divisive, but very moody, Unbreakable, hopes were pitched somewhere between excited and intrigued. Gibson on board, and Phoenix as well, good selling points without a doubt. However, Signs is a grower, a film that pays better dividends on further viewings once armed with the knowledge of what sort of theme drives it on. Yet it still frustrates greatly and you can see why it proved so divisive.

Shyamalan's movie is primarily about faith, the loss of such, the alien visitors are merely a component of this theme, they act as the catalyst that takes Graham to the pinnacle of his voyage of discovery. The meditations on faith and grief are subtle initially but they drive the picture forward, but then Manoj Shyamalan slips into sermonising and his picture strives for a huge ending to justify it, which unfortunately never arrives, this after having been tickled and baited by the mystery of what the aliens want, friend or foe? Questions leap out such as will the Hess family come through this latest crisis in one piece? And will this "invasion" marry up with the director's thematics that he is so keen for us to open our hearts to? The answers to these questions are mixed, and take further viewings to digest fully. That is if you can forgive the downright idiocy of the alien visitors in the first place?

The last third has killed the film for many, which is a shame given the excellence on offer in the first hour. Shyamalan's camera is wonderfully fluid, his mise en scène is ace and he garners wonderfully low-key performances from his cast. While as much as his critics hate to acknowledge it, the director has a brilliant knack for building suspense, the ability to draw the viewer into his world, playing on our basic inquisitive nature. That he hasn't delivered on his promise, both here with the finale to the film and later in his overall directing career (though this writer personally loves The Village), is hard to argue against, but there is major talent there buried in his egocentric/confused make up. Elsewhere, James Newton Howard's score is channelling Herrmann and Fujimoto's photography is sublime, this really is a beautiful movie to look at.

Definitely not a family film, and not really an alien invasion film, with it showcasing both the good and bad aspects of its director. Yet still compelling and pretty enough to warrant a second viewing me thinks. 7/10

!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!

There's a lot to commend M Night Shyamalan's SIGNS for . It's not often we see such a moody atmospheric thriller about an alien invasion and I will praise this movie later . However Shyamalan shots himself in the foot by the way the story is told

Crop circles appear outside the home of the Hess family and after Graham Hess and his brother Merril find out that it wasn't caused by local pranksters Graham's son Morgan comes up with the answer - It was done by aliens . He knows this because he read a book on the subject . Obviously everyone else in the world has read only one book - The same one as Morgan - because as soon as crop circles appear round the world it's the leading story and can mean only one thing: The aliens are coming . And sure enough just like everyone has predicted lights appear over Planet Earth's cities which herald the start of little green men come to wipe us out

If someone told you crop circles were signs on an alien invasion how would you react ? Exactly but at no point does anyone question a possible invasion because it's taken as read by all the characters in the story which starts to become ridiculous when the world's broadcasters start interrupting programmes showing the world wide phenomenon of crop circles . Let's be honest here jet liners crashing into sky scrapers is a good reason to interrupt TV shows with 24 hour news reports but people finding crop circles all over the world is not

There's one other thing : Ten year old Morgan seems to be channeling the minds of Newton , Darwin and Einstien . Listen to this kid's dialogue " Everything people have written about in science books is about to change " and there's several more instances of this . You can't take this child seriously or believe in him as a three dimensional character

Make that two things : Why would aliens invade a planet whose surface is composed of 70% water ? Isn't the human body two thirds water anyway. Oh and how does Graham's neighbour know that the aliens don't like water anyway ?

Better make that three things because if the subtext is about rediscovering ones faith then why is everyone certain of an approaching invasion ? Surely for this theme to work then Graham should have been shouting from the roof tops that aliens don't exist only to be proved wrong . If he's wrong about aliens then surely he's wrong about the non existence of the lord right ?

It's a great pity that Shyamalan didn't think these things through a bit further because despite not ruining the movie these things stop SIGNS becoming a masterpiece of genre cinema which it certainly had the potential to be . Even a critical viewer like myself who noticed the flaws couldn't help being terrified by the climax in the cellar where for one heart stopping moment it looked like a couple of the characters had been abducted . As for the scene Graham sees the reflection in the TV .... I certainly can't fault the good bits and I will recommend this movie even to those who don't like SF/Horror very much . Certainly it's a radical change to watch a film like this that doesn't have tens of millions spent on special effects and the film works better for it . You reading this Mr Spielberg ?

Shyamalan will best be remembered for THE SIXTH SENSE , a film that I found somewhat overrated while his follow up UNBREAKABLE was a masterpiece in my opinion . SIGNS is slightly different because it doesn't have one of those shock twist endings and when you consider what a poor film THE VILLAGE is one can't help thinking that Shyamalan would be better off abandoning clever endings and concentrating on terrifying audiences and I would wonder if he could get away with directing a Hollywood version of Nigel Kneale's QUATERMASS AND THE PIT . Now that would be worth queuing at the cinema for

Update 30 dec : Some have mentioned that the concept of predestination is very important to understanding the movie ie the plot holes aren't actually plot holes viewed this way and while this makes absolute sense in a metaphysical way it still misses out on logic

M. Night Shyamalan has done it again, and this time, better. If 'Unbreakable' left skepticism about the young director, `Signs' will make you a believer again.

Mel Gibson and his family, one boy, one girl, and Gibson's younger brother (Joaquin Phoenix) take residence in the small town of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Gibson's wife is not a member of this household (we find out why, later). Shot over and around a 'Walton's-style' house and surrounded by crops, we get the eerie feeling that we are to be entangled here for the next two hours. Immediately, the children notice gigantic perfect circular shapes or signs as we like to call them, appearing within the crops. Is this a hoax or War of the Worlds? And, that's all you need to know. The rest of film will dazzle you with style, suspense, and downright scariness.

The key ingredients to this recipe for storytelling is one half Close Encounters of the Third Kind, a dash of Stephen King, sprinkled with Orson Wells. Shyamalan also uses Hitchcock like close ups, wicked camera angles, and a blasting score. You are locked in as soon as the movie begins. You will tilt your head in wonder and confusion, as characters in the film do. There is a deep desire to figure this all out, while your stuck in the middle of nowhere, nowhere being Bucks County.

The picture gives us two ultimate dilemmas to wrestle with. Two basic questions we must ask ourselves. Are our daily occurrences and the paths we choose Coincidence? Or, are is it just plain Luck? Shyamalan weaves these posing questions into a subplot, with trickery until the end. From scene to scene, he leaves no fades to black. As one scene ends the other smartly begins. That's what keeps the audience watching as if we were tucked tightly into our beds and rapidly turning pages of a good book. Each page is significant. This movie isn't just about crops. That's what makes Shyamalan such a keen filmmaker. He has the talent and ability to fog up the film, and distract you with different propositions.

Shyamalan uses technique to peak his story, rather than dialogue. His masterful and favorite formula is the usage of flashbacks, which gives the audience a chance to catch up on what they might have missed. He emphasizes his points by re-occurring scenes and replaying them for the grand effect, the 11th hour, until he hits you with the finale. Whether you believe the outcome or not, you cannot deny his aptitude for storytelling.

This nervous and paranoid feature film with a heart-pounding ending is terrific. I was still thinking about it when I left the theater. You too, will enjoy the ride. But, when it's over, say your prayers, get into bed, pull the sheets over your head, breathe a sigh of relief, and close the book!

During the course of the film Joaquin Phoenix's character remarks that the situation they're in seems like The War Of The Worlds. It certainly is, but the small picture of it.

Whereas H.G. Wells wrote on the grand scale about what nations and governments were doing to fight an alien invasion, M. Night Shyamalan's Signs concerns itself with the small picture, what is happening in one tiny corner of the world, to be precise Bucks County, Pennsylvania and very specifically Mel Gibson and his family.

One day farmer Gibson who used to be a minister woke up and found that his cornfield had been systematically decimated and a precise geographical pattern was laid out that could be seen from the air. He concluded it was some kind of prank which would have been the normal reaction of anyone. But when reports of the world wide similar crop defilings and then sitings of shadowy alien figures than the world is in a crisis mode.

But the world is on the back-burner for Gibson. He was a clergyman but gave it up after the death of his wife who was hit by a drunk driver. He's got his own issues to deal with if he can get himself, his children Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin and brother Joaquin Phoenix through the ordeal. All this without knowing how the world in general is coping. Gibson and the family can only speculate and that's where imaginations run wild.

I have to say that Mel Gibson does a thoroughly good job as an everyman caught up in a global crisis. When War Of The Words was made by George Pal in the Fifties, the leads Gene Barry and Ann Robinson were scientists who had vital information for the survival of the world. The globe is still at risk in Signs, but Mel and his family can't worry about that, just in keeping themselves alive.

Signs is thinking science fiction ranking up there with the best work of Ray Bradbury and John Heinlein. It's both entertaining and engrossing, you can't ask for more from a film.

I don't think this film deserved the poor reviews that some gave it. I've only seen 3 of Night Shylaman's films (6th Sense, Unbreakable) and this one is the most sophisticated in my mind in terms of the director manipulating the viewers into seeing and believing what he wants you to believe.

This is not Gibson's worst film by any means. If anything he gets to try to portray an understated, confused, and emotionally scarred character and I think he soft-sells it very well. Joaquin Phoenix also has a similar character to play and he too soft-sells it well. That was probably not an accident as their calm, sullen personalities contrast with the unbearable situation they find themselves in.

If you haven't already, see it - and keep an open mind.