I greatly admire Werner Herzog. While I have a long way to go in catching up on his films, all those I've seen to date - whether fiction or documentary - I've absolutely loved. It stands to reason, however, that not all a filmmaker's pictures will be equal, or equally appealing to a viewer. Despite myself, 'Signs of life' is the first of the man's features I've watched that just doesn't make a major impression with me. The filming locations are lovely, and I appreciate Thomas Mauch's cinematography. I regret to say that I don't particularly get anything else out of this; I altogether struggled to even stay awake while watching.
In terms of both content and film-making I recognize the underpinnings of the style, the command of the medium, that Herzog would develop and indeed perfect in very short order hereafter. Yet in this instance there is no meaningful plot or character development until the last third of the runtime. At that point 'Signs of life' is more actively engaging, more strongly holding of one's attention. Even then the story is a little light, though, and all that would have been necessary for the picture at large to have stood out more would have been for the progression of Stroszek's condition to have been earnestly drawn out over more of the preceding length. As it is, the shift comes across as too sudden in the narrative, and therefore less than natural, believable, or convincing.
I do like this film, and think it's worth watching, especially for Herzog fans. This is a showcase of where he was so early in his career, much as 'Dark Star' is for John Carpenter, 'Stereo' is for David Cronenberg, and so on. In much the same fashion, though, 'Signs of life' also lacks the finesse, and fullness of vision, that would let it truly shine, and by that token it's not necessarily so essential a viewing experience as are many if not most of those to follow. This is, still, a fine way to spend ninety minutes - only, much less than wholly perfect or captivating.
