Close Encounters of The Fourth Sign
Sep 16th, 2002
Advantages:
Great acting and thoroughly enjoyable
Disadvantages:
Very scary for little ones
Recommendable:
Yes
Detailed rating:
Did you enjoy it?
Story
Characters / Performances
Special Effects
How does it compare to similar films?
more
 repairmanjack
About me:
Member since:11.09.2002
Reviews:15
Members who trust:7
Review rated by 30 Ciao members on average: very helpful
First he brought you “The Sixth Sense”, then he brought you a movie that, some said, had very little sense at all, the Bruce Willis vehicle, “Unbreakable”. Now, the man with the name worth six thousand points at Scrabble, M. Night Shyamalan, brings you his claustrophobic view of intergalactic communication and conflict in “Signs”. It seems many critics are still desperate for the writer/director to fall flat on his face. Many who praised “Unbreakable”, on the coattails of “Sixth Sense” have drawn some pretty long knives out for this movie. I’d like to redress that a little. “Signs” is infinitely better than the director’s last – although many reviews focus on the lameness of the ending (although I found it kind of neat!).
Well, my partner and I went to the movies to check this out last night. The trailers looked reasonably compelling – but then, that fooled us the last time. Not knowing entirely what to expect – the only way to really appreciate a movie, these days, I find - we settled down in Lowestoft’s comfortably busy cinema… and let a hugely entertaining movie absorb us. The film opens in the simple surroundings of a small-town US farm, where, despite the apocalyptic ideas of the movie, it largely stays. This idea is central to the success of the movie. It focuses on the one family, which nicely feeds the tension… a small, explicit group alone and under siege. Farmer Graham Hess (Gibson) wakes with a start one morning to find his children shouting and screaming in a cornfield. Overnight, a huge and ornate series of crop-circles have appeared on his land. The corn is perfectly bent flat, not a stalk broken. Assuming this the work of bored kids, Hess contacts the police, who show little interest. The officer, when she does finally arrive, brings tales of the animals in the town acting up, turning on their owners, “acting like they would when a predator is around”.
The film is filled with these small “signs” for the audience… delicate, but linked pointers that slowly take us toward the inevitable conclusion. The family dog pees on itself, before rounding on the children. Hess and his brother, Merrill (a brilliant performance by Joaquin Phoenix), who lives with his brother’s family, we assume, to help out in the absence of the children’s mother, give chase to an unseen,
but superbly athletic intruder. This scene, and the succeeding frame where the two brothers attempt to give a statement to the police, demonstrates the two male lead characters perfectly. Merrill is the more affected, laconic, worldly-wise (in fact, other-worldly-wise!), of the two, slightly in awe of his older brother. Graham is the loving, but somewhat emotionally bloodied and spiritually broken, more forthright of the two. This relationship is extremely believable throughout the movie, and the chemistry between the two, brotherly bickering and brotherly love is immensely enjoyable to watch. There is much humour here, in an, at times, beautifully scripted plot. The children’s wild suggestions of alien contact - the little girl, Bo, wakes her daddy in the night to say “There’s a monster outside my room, and can I have a drink of water?”; and her older, and more serious brother, Morgan, who seems, by turns, as professorial as the TV newscasters, and as unstable as his comically bewildered uncle – lead the movie. Wild suggestions, the plots of old books and movies plundered for their scientific information, give Shyamalan an incredibly useful tool. I was ready, in part, to deride the man for producing a hackneyed sci-fi movie… but “Signs” is far from that. Instead, the audience’s grounding in sci-fi history – the fancies we take from our beloved b-movies, are manipulated and interpreted in a way that suggests the more sinister aspect of such mental-filler. You will watch some of this movie with a silly, but knowing grin on your face. You can see what the man is doing, but he does it very well indeed.
Cleverly, the audience is as isolated as the family. We are never given cinematic footage of the trouble in the rest of the world, so we have no frame of reference to the broader troubles that the family themselves do not have… Like them, we rely on patchy reports on their radio; glimpses of lights in the sky on the TV news; the sinister disappearance of the lights… but the solidity of the craft in the air, (or is this just more of the movie’s paranoia?) given their apparent extraction. There are no sweeping shots of galactic battles, a la “Independence Day”. Hess and his family come to rely on a single book… the kind we all deride as ridiculous fancy, written by a pseudo-professor named “Bimbu”, for clues on how to protect themselves in the coming days. Hess and his family initially try to ignore, and then come to rely on, the television as a means of learning about the approaching contact with (or invasion by) the aliens. At one point Phoenix’ character claims “its like War of The Worlds”. For the longest time we wonder if he is correct. Is this some elaborate hoax…? The crude camcorder footage of a child’s birthday party, where an alien can be glimpsed stalking in the background might well be a bad joke. Similarly, the whole crop-circle thing… much derided in the UFOlogy press of this country as stoned locals with too much time on their hands (again Phoenix makes mention of them when trying to rationalise events to Gibson’s two children, “nerds who’ve never had girlfriends” … is a very brave icon to pin the movie to. My initial incredulity at someone making a movie about crop-circles disappeared within the first five minutes of the film.
As mentioned, Gibson’s character is a farmer… although we quickly learn he was originally a Reverend. The reasons for his dissolution with the church and his falling out with God are bled to us in three of four linking flashbacks. A couple seem to come at rather jarring times – but in the final reel, their genius, and importance will grip you. As always, Shyamalan keeps his best cards until the end of the movie. There is an element of religious procrastination in the film; the family wishing to pray, the well-played scene where Merrill asks his brother to be the guy he used to be and give him some spiritual comfort; the funny scene with the pharmacy counter-clerk wishing to confess her sins; but these are overshadowed by Gibson’s performance of a man decrying his shattered faith. The ending of the film, and its restoration of the man’s belief, could have been clumsy (it nearly is!), but does, satisfactorily seem to work.
It is not giving too much away (and I am desperately trying to give nothing away, folks, it will really spoil things if you know more than a scant few facts about this film. I have already seen one review that told me the alien’s weakness… which certainly took the edge of some of my viewing pleasure… grrr!), to tell you that Gibson’s character is a widower, nor that his wife was killed by a truck… the driver of which is still in town. This is a small, but compelling cameo by Shyamalan himself… much improved on his egotistical irrelevance in “Unbreakable”. Here, he comes up with the goods… His parting shot to Gibson’s character before he heads to the hills “Oh, and don’t look in my pantry, Father. I found one of them in there and trapped him inside”, will put the hair up on the back of your neck. Mention should be made of the performance of the two leads: Gibson is as reliable as ever. Strangely, his role as the beleaguered Graham Hess, seems a little stilted and uncomfortable in the first couple of minutes – lacking the absorbance of his earlier roles in such films as “Man Without A Face”. This is not to Gibson’s detriment, though. Personally, I have never seen him portray a role like this before… the emotionally tight, slightly naïve character (the traits of which, we, presume, he has absorbed from his previous vocation as a Reverend). Once more of his character becomes known.. ie. his former occupation, the widowing, and the glimpses of its denouement.. his performance suddenly becomes much more touching and “real”. Personally, watching this film, I had the hardest time shaking off memories of Gibson’s Martin Riggs persona… but then I’m a Lethal Weapon junkie, and its my fault, not his. Phoenix, too, is as reliable as ever. This is the first film I have seen him in since “Gladiator”, but never once was I reminded of his other work. This is a warm, touching, and comically well-timed piece of acting… and should secure him much new work as a leading man.
Similarly, the children project themselves admirably. There is no Spielberg slush here; the children are troubled, and troubling… often at loggerheads with their father. Rory Culkin’s rendition of Morgan, is touching – and cancels out my first silent thought “Christ! Another bloody Culkin!” – but it is little Abigail Breslin that steals the show. It has to be said, the use of sound in this film is exceptional… and lends real weight to the creepiness. The language of the aliens... sounding like an orgy of crickets in a steel bucket, is cutting and precise. The scampering and scratching noises as they probe the house, the family locked (trapped!) helplessly in the basement. The use of a baby-monitor to eavesdrop is, at first, hackneyed, but eventually, inspired. Much mention must go to the lack of non-diagetic sound… there is almost no film score. This is very unusual, and quite jarring (it took me five minutes to work out what was “wrong” with the film), but the weight the silence lends to the diagetics, and the performances, is extremely impressive and effective.
The film keeps the atmosphere as strained as the air in Culkin’s lungs (the boy has asthma, which, like everything else in this movie, has its relevance and purpose – Shymalan doesn’t waste a minute of screen time with irrelevances in this movie). The family barricade themselves into their house, boarding up doors and windows (the logic being, if an alien can’t get out of the pantry, it “probably” can’t get into a well-defended home. (Personally, I’d be gone!) A couple of the set-pieces are extremely clever, but to catalogue them will, genuinely, spoil them for you. The best indication I can give you of the effect of this film is this: in a busy cinema, packed with a broad range of viewers: young; old; movie buffs; sweethearts; and all the usual annoying idiots with a six-kilo carton of popcorn and a six-pack of cheap lager under their belt, everyone laughed, jumped and shivered (the slow-building tension is extremely creepy in places) as one. As the final credits rolled, there was a stunned silence as we let the film’s denouement sink into us. Finally, an approving murmur broke over the crowd… who were all very slow, almost reluctant, to leave their seats.
As one person put it, “Wow!”
Compare Prices
sorted by Price
Read more on this product
|
|
05.11.2002 14:45
Very thorough and insightful. I really liked Unbreakable. I just thought that the telling of such a cliched story in a totally different setting (i.e. the real world) gave it a very fresh look. Plus the soundtrack was fantastic!
22.10.2002 01:38
Excellent op on a film I had some interest in seeing but was unable to...it's since been taken out of the cinemas near me to make room for Red Dragon and xXx, so I guess I'll have to wait for the DVD. Keep the ops coming! :D -Karl
12.10.2002 13:51
Great op :-) I can't wait to see this :-) Lea x