RR logo

Front Page
Contents
Search
Back Issues
Classified Ads
About Us
Links
Subscribe

What's at the Movies by Ian Pugh
 

‘Signs’ runs crop circles
around the competition

One of the rarities of the modern cinema is the ability to create tension. All too often, giant explosions and tepid car chases take the place of real tension. All of a sudden, we are hit with the taut, well-written “Signs.” With a deceptively subtle approach, “Signs” blindsides the audience by showing them what they do not expect.

Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) is a farmer living in Bucks County, PA with his children, Morgan (Rory Culkin) and Bo (Abigail Breslin) and his brother Merrill (Joaquin Pheonix). The family can best be described as the result of broken dreams. Graham was a priest only six months ago; a tragic car accident that claimed his wife also destroyed his faith, and now he becomes uneasy when people still refer to him as “Father.” Merrill was a star of Minor League Baseball and still holds a few records, including one for most strikeouts at bat. One morning, Graham is shocked to find crop circles emblazoned on his cornfield. The next day, hundreds of such circles appear all over the world. Over the next few nights, Graham and Merrill try to figure out what the odd sounds emanating from the field are. They’re not sure, but there is one certainty. Something strange is here and there are more strange things to come.

Director M. Night Shyamalan (of the good but overrated “The Sixth Sense”) seems to take a page right out of Hitchcock’s book for “Signs.” Characters and plot details are only revealed when they’re absolutely necessary and even when they are shown to us, we always feel like there’s something missing. It’s all meant to milk the greatest possible suspense from the audience and it’s always successful. I spent nearly three-fourths of the running time literally on the edge of my seat.

“Signs” cannot be labeled with one genre. The film contains elements of horror, science fiction, mystery, drama and even humor. Only the most accomplished films could possibly handle that many elements. In that light, “Signs” plays out like some sort of a mad juggler, throwing around not only these factors, but also the audience and their expectations.

“Signs” defies description, demanding that one should see it to even begin to appreciate it. I give “Signs” the highest recommendation one can possibly give. It’s frightening, it’s entertaining and most importantly, it will stay in your mind for a long time to come.


What do you think? Talk about it on the discussion board!

 
  Front Page| Current Issue| Back Issues| Search
Problems? Comments? Contact the Webmaster.
Entire contents © 2002 by the author(s) and Stuart Communications, Inc.