An Oldie but a Goodie

For my first review since coming back from teaching, I wanted to do something fresh in my mind and since I just finished watching M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs (2002), I thought I’d get back into it by reviewing an oldie but a goodie. Please note the review contains some spoilers.

Although surely not his best work, Signs is what I consider as Shyamalan’s last good movie. While this point may be arguable, I think it even more unlikely that any would consider The Village (2004) to hold this title. Whereas the latter seemed far more wrapped up in its plot twist and “gotcha” moment, the former tells a good story whose payoff is far less invested in a twist and concerns itself more with a good character arc. For those that are unfamiliar with the film, Mel Gibson portrays a former preacher in the Midwest who, along with his children, is trying to adapt to life after the recent death of his wife. To compound their difficulties, strange events begin to take place at their house the most iconic of which is the appearance of massive crop circles in their backyard corn field. As these events begin to grow in magnitude and scope, Gibson’s character must decide what he really believes in as he struggles to keep his family together.

Though the teaser version I’ve just written may not seem terribly exciting, I very much enjoyed the story Shyamalan has created, even if it may not prove satisfying to all. Yes, the idea of a person losing their faith, and then regaining it is nothing new to storytelling (in fact, it may have even made the story a bit predictable). And certainly, there are a few problems with the rules Shyamalan has set up for his narrative (why DID these aliens attack a planet that has more than enough water to kill them all a million times over?). The bottom line, however, is that we have a very enjoyable story that allows for investment in character even if it may not exactly be high art or literature.

In the realm outside of story, one of the reasons Shyamalan garnered respect from me earlier on in his career is the way he views filmmaking. I remember an interview with him around the time Signs came out in which he spoke about his style of cinematography and how he wants every camera placement and movement to have rationale behind it, for it to mean something. This is a sentiment I can’t help but feel thankful for in a time when shots are lined up simply to be “interesting” rather than convey any sort of meaning. Not only that, but I’m a sucker for movies that take time with their shots as Signs does and don’t attempt to cut every half second. While there’s most certainly a time and place for quick edits, it’s refreshing to see a director who isn’t afraid of looking at something for more than two seconds.

Although Signs may have its issues in terms of visual effects and may not exactly be reinventing the wheel when it comes to story, taken all at once the film is very enjoyable, engaging, and easy on the eyes, too. It’s also fun to see pre-celebrity-meltdown versions of Mel Gibson AND Joaquin Phoenix on screen as well as a very young and frickin’ adorable Abigail Breslin.