August 2, 2002 -- "Signs," the latest movie by director M. Night Shyamalan ("The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable") is a silly, but suspense-filled thriller about the mysterious phenomenon of crop circles. That the movie works as well as it does, despite an outlandish plot, is a tribute to Shyamalan's prowess as a director, and to some fine acting performances. Of course it should be noted that Shyamalan also wrote the script, produced the film, and acts in the film as well.

Mel Gibson stars as Father Graham Hess, an Episcopalian minister who has lost his faith following the tragic death of his wife. He says, "I am not going to waste any more time praying!" His brother, Merrill Hess (Joaquin Phoenix of "Gladiator"), lives with Graham and Graham's two children, Morgan (Rory Culkin of "You Can Count On Me," and Bo (Abigail Breslin) on the family farm in Pennsylvania. Then the weird crop circle stuff starts. The dogs and the kids start acting funny and there are reports of UFO activity and crop circles appearing over the world. Are they hoaxes or are they some kind of sign relating to aliens?

During the crop circle crisis Graham and his brother engage in an interesting philosophical conversation, the upshot of which is that people of faith believe they have help when facing the unknown. People without faith, like Graham, feel afraid because they are facing the unknown on their own. This question of faith is the central element of the movie. Graham finally resolves his own feelings on the matter, but not in a very convincing way. Merrill, on the other hand, is a man of faith, a man who believes there are no coincidences. That is another central theme of the film. It is refreshing to see a film which takes on the issue of faith without demonizing anyone.

One of the problems I have with this film is the way it explains the phenomena of crop circles. It is nonsense from a scientific standpoint. Since this is a science fiction film, and not a fantasy, the unscientific thesis of the film is a problem. The dialogue at times is also a little overwritten, such as one scene with some comic overtones. It happens when Graham and Merrill hear something outside. Instead of immediately going outside to investigate, they have this comic conversation inside the house where they are literally discussing how they should play the next scene. The dialogue seemed so forced at times it yanked me right out of the moviegoing experience and reminded me that this was, after all, just a movie. Another problem I had with the film was the pace of it. The film seemed to move a bit too slowly at times.

On the other hand, Shyamalan does have a knack for maintaining suspense. He does this in part by not revealing too much too soon. There are also a number of effective "Gotcha!" moments, usually invloving loud noises, that are startling. The acting is also very good, as one would expect with such a talented cast. Tony-winning stage actress Cherry Jones is a standout in the supporting role of sheriff's deputy Caroline Paski. It was a bit of a distraction to have Shyamalan himself playing the role of the neighbor, Ray Reddy, since it is a key role in the film. Shyamalan does not play a convincing character in the film. It would be different if he had made a name for himself as an actor first. Again, it pulls you out of the movie experience. Hitchcock, of course, always appeared in his own films, but usually he was on screen for just a few seconds, and he never played a character with an important role in the film. It was a game with him. Shyamalan is a fan of Alfred Hitchcock. Maybe he is playing a similar game. The movie ought to come first, however.

Another part of the movie that works well is the isolation of the small family on the farm. They are effectively isolated from the rest of the world. They depend almost entirely on a television, and a strange UFO book, for their information. Merrill locks himself in a closet and devours televized crop circle coverage in much the same way people became obsessed with coverage of the World Trade Center attack last year. The closet is a nice symbol which highlights the fact that television, like film, tends to isolate people from each other. The isolation of the family and the last-stand defense of their home is symbolically very powerful. The situation is similar to Hitchcock's "The Birds." The cinematography of the film, by Tak Fujimoto (who has worked with Shyamalan before) is also very good. I particularly liked the use of overhead shots.

While I applaud the film's approach to the question of faith, without being preachy, and the film is also effective on a psychological level, the film does have its problems. While Shyamalan has been hailed as the next Spielberg by some, this film is not as polished as the typical Spielberg product, and not as polished as his earlier efforts, "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable." What we're seeing here is raw talent, very much in the mold of Hitchcock with his mastery of suspense and endings with a twist. Where Shyamalan differs from Hitchcock is that his films are not quite as cold. There is more sympathy for the characters. Hitchcock, like Kubrick, seemed to view people as insects, rather than human, emphasizing their weaknesses, rather than their strengths. The big question is, is Shyamalan going to become a victim of the hype surrounding him, or can he keep an even keel in the choppy, sycophant and shark-filled waters of Hollywood? Whether you view Shyamalan as a great auteur, as some do, or as just a good director and writer, as I do, one thing's for sure; we can all look forward to his next film. It may not be great, but it will be interesting. This film rates a C+.

Click here for links to places to buy this movie in video and/or DVD format, the soundtrack, books, even used videos, games and lots of other stuff. I suggest you shop at least two of these places before buying anything. Prices seem to vary continuously. For more information on this film, click on this link to The Internet Movie Database. Type in the name of the movie in the search box and press enter. You will be able to find background information on the film, the actors, and links to much more information.

While I couldn't really go into the film's scientific problems above without spoiling the ending of the film, I will do so here. Don't read further if you want to be surprised when you see the film. The film's thesis is that a large fleet of thousands of intersteller craft comes to the earth to make crop circles which designate landing sites. We're supposed to believe the aliens really need these crop circles for navigation. Making a map of the earth and designating landing sites on the map is obviously a snap compared to intersteller navigation. The whole alien invasion is portrayed as a brief snack stop, like pulling in at a Burger King for a sandwich. That is an incredible waste of time and energy for a spacefaring race. We're supposed to believe that aliens capable of intersteller travel are not going to be carrying any weapons when they attack humans. These are obviously tool-makers and tool-users. Your average farmer with a shotgun would just blow these unarmed aliens away. If the aliens do come after us, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll be packing serious heat, like the alien in "Predator." We're also supposed to believe that they can make themselves invisible, but not their space ships. The ships are also supposed to be invisible to radar, however. Radar, like visible light, is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you can bend one part of it, you should be able to bend the visible part of the same spectrum. We're supposed to believe that beings to whom water is a poison would attack a planet which is three-fourths covered by water and eat people who are largely composed of water. I could go on and on. As a whole, the story just falls apart logically and scientifically. It makes the science in "Independence Day" look brilliant by comparison.