On Saturday night, I saw the movie I was looking forward to the most this summer. After Spiderman and Episode 2 anyway.

I can hardly be blamed for having high expectations; after all, this is by the guy who made The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. It’s a good movie, but I had a lot of problems with it.

Anyway, this movie is about an alien invasion, as seen on CNN from a boarded-up country house. Shyamalan’s talent for slowly creeping out the audience and keeping them on edge is as sharp as it ever was in The Sixth Sense. I was on the edge of my seat throughout. Overall, I was a little disappointed however, because I expect more than just easy thrills and suspense from Shyamalan.

Most good mystery movies reveal facts and clues little by little, and you gradually put the solution together, along with the main character. Shyamalan’s trademark is to give you little hints and false leads throughout, and then reveal a lot in one clever, hugely satisfying moment at the end of the movie. One of the two big problems I have with Signs is that we find out what is going on about twenty minutes into the movie, so you get neither the gradual solution nor the typical Shyamalan moment of truth. Once the mystery is revealed, nothing is really surprising after that. Creepy as hell, but not surprising. The story just takes its natural course from the moment we find out what has caused the crop circles to appear. Not bad, but not what I expect from Shyamalan. My brain wants a little something to play with. Don’t just fray my nerves.

The second big problem I have with Signs has to do with the central theme of the movie, which is religious faith and the questioning thereof. This is an interesting issue and there are lots of questions that could be raised in original ways, especially by someone as gifted as Shyamalan. The matter is dealt with in SUCH a simplistic and straightforward way it’s hardly believable he wrote that whole arc.

Minor problems: first, you could argue that the music, the mood, the opening credits and the director’s little acting part are an homage to Hitchcock. However, it’s so precisely Hitchcock, so little adapted, that you have to call it a ripoff rather than a tribute.

And let’s talk about Shyamalan’s acting part. The SMC said it best, and it’s exactly what I thought: his part is too big in this one. He does a good job of an emotional role, but it’s distracting to see him in it. For a moment you’re meta-watching, stepping out of the movie and thinking about how this is the director, and “boy, he gave himself a big part this time”.

This is regardless a good movie. Shyamalan is still an incredible director. I guarantee your skin will crawl many times while watching the movie; I found myself cutting off circulation to T’s arm more than once. Someone in the audience actually screamed. All the actors, including the children, do incredible jobs and Joaquin Phoenix, who plays the “guy we relate to”, is simply phenomenal.

I think this is a movie that might grow on me with the watching, and I will see it again. I also will look forward to his next one, and gladly see it on opening weekend. Shyamalan has done something that is still him, but a departure from his previous stuff, and that’s fine. The unfortunate thing is that it’s not different in a way that is at all new or original.