Signs

SIGNS

Rating: D

Summary: The first bona fide clunker of the summer.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Sixth Sense. Unbreakable had some serious problems, but also some interesting ideas. Although it scored a more modest box office tally than its smash-hit predecessor, it still turned a tidy profit. M. Night Shyamalan's latest effort, Signs, is a complete flop from any perspective. Look for it to have a huge opening weekend, then as word of mouth gets around it'll plummet faster than WorldCom stock. My advice: sell!

The two most hackneyed, over-used character types in Hollywood are the former hero who has become an alcoholic, and the former reverend who has lost his faith. (Running a very close third is the hooker with a heart of gold.) Fortunately, this movie is refreshingly free of alcoholics and hookers. On the other hand... Let's put it this way: When Mel Gibson indignantly tells another character, "Don't call me Father!" and that other character isn't one of his kids, the vast whooshing noise heard was the air being sucked out of the theater.

So anyway, Mel and his two kids and his brother (Joaquin Phoenix) inhabit a farm in Pennsylvania. One day, a mysterious crop circle appears in their corn field, and from then on strange things begin to happen all over the world. But the scale of the movie remains confined to the farm - all the action occurs there, and the only way we know things are amiss elsewhere around the globe is through televised news bulletins. Were it not for the presence of Gibson in the cast, this film would be a dead ringer for a cheapo Roger Corman flick. But at least in a Corman movie, there's always the hope that the busty actresses will get naked.

Anyone looking for new insight into the phenomenon of crop circles, or even some background on their urban folklore aspects, is going to be sorely disappointed. In spite of its ad campaign, this movie has nothing to do with crop circles. It actually has very little to do with aliens either. It's really about Gibson refinding his faith, and the aliens and crop circles are completely superfluous to a plot that could have just as easily been about bank robbers. What's worse, the entire story is unbelievably contrived, as Shyamalan shamelessly asks us to swallow one silly plot point after another. For example, when Gibson's wife is killed in a car crash (I'm not giving anything away here - she's already dead at the start of the movie), the vehicle pins her against a tree. We're told that she's hopelessly injured, and that the truck is "holding her together." So the police leave her pinned so that Gibson can go to her and have one last chat before they take the car away and she dies. Give me a break.

The film might have been better in spite of itself if what was on screen at least succeeded in being scary. But there's only one genuinely good shock in the entire movie, and that doesn't come until nearly the end. Most of the scenes are merely tedious, with blatant cues inserted where we're supposed to be scared (but aren't). Even Gibson's scenes with his children seem cold and distant, which is surprising since Shyamalan was so successful portraying the relationship between Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense.

I know this is a very negative review, but in truth I'm pulling for M. Night Shyamalan. I wish he would return to the form of his remarkably effective first film. It seems like he needs someone to either say no to him occasionally, or at least tell him when his scripts are veering too far into the ridiculous. But that doesn't seem to be happening, and the problem appears to be getting progressively worse.

So I was faced with a dilemma. Should I give this movie a "C-" or a "D"? Although it was certainly bad, it wasn't as unwatchably awful as, say, A.I. or Whipped. Okay, then, C-. But wait - renting this on video would be a complete waste of time and money. Mmmm, you're right. Guess that leaves us with a D.

You guys have no idea of the tough decisions movie critics face every day.