User Reviews (2,554)

Add a Review

  • lavaside-602375 September 2023
    I'm honestly shocked this has a 6.8 on IMDb.

    A bunch of people used to a 'twist'?

    A bunch of people who think all alien movies must contain explosions?

    A combination of both?

    Great casting.

    Great acting.

    Great writing.

    Lots of tension.

    One of the most serious explorations of faith in cinema.

    Just an all around really good movie.

    Joaquin Phoenix steals the show.

    I will say, it does have a very morose vibe - being the back drop is everyone being sad because the mom had died. I wonder if that is what turned people off. The subject of aliens plays second fiddle to it.

    Yeah, if I had to put my finger on it, I'd bet that's it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Signs is set in Bucks County, Pennsylvania where Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) lives on a farm with his his two young children Bo (Abigail Breslin) & Morgan (Rory Culkin) plus his younger brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), one morning they discover elaborate crop circles in their corn fields. At first they think it's a hoax but there are newsflashes all over the TV which say these crop circles have appeared all over the world, then things turn really sinister when UFO's start appearing in the sky by these crop circles & when footage of an alien is caught on a camcorder the Hess family have to consider the possibility of an alien invasion...

    Written, produced & directed by M. Night Shyamalan who also has a fairly big role in the film as Ray Reddy who ran over Mel Gibson's character's wife I actually really liked Signs. The script which takes itself pretty seriously could be described as somewhat slow at times but I thought the story was engaging & pretty intriguing which kept me hooked. I really liked all the character's here, OK maybe the kids are a touch annoying as they tend to be in films but I thought this was pretty well written with a decent balance between humour & seriousness. The alien invasion stuff is kept to a minimum & little is seen of the aliens themselves, this is a film where less is more & it retains a air of creepiness around the aliens. It's not big on action either & concentrates on the Hess family & almost totally ignores the outside world which is unusual for recent alien flicks which tend to be nothing more than showcase's for overblown CGI computer effects as in Independence Day (1996) & War of the Worlds (2005) so Signs is a nice change of pace, I mean there's nothing wrong with huge CGI special effects filled films but Signs was just a nice change.

    Director Shyamalan does a fine job but then he had a mega budget to help him, for those looking for another The Sixth Sense (1999) will probably be disappointed as Signs is a very different film & doesn't have such a great ending. I thought there were some creepy moments here & the restraint in the usage of CGI here helps create an ominous atmosphere & leaves something to the audiences imagination which is a novelty these days. What CGI is here is very good & the alien when eventually seen looks OK if a little unimaginative.

    With a whopping budget of $72,000,000 Signs obviously looks the business & has that big budget Hollywood look although that huge figure did surprise me a bit as there's not many special effects, there's only about five character's in the entire film & it takes place in the same location for the most part so 72 big ones does seem like quite a lot considering the end result. I thought the acting was pretty good throughout.

    Signs in my opinion is a great alien invasion flick that tells it's story in a different sort of way, I liked it a lot although I know for a fact there's a lot of hate out there for it. Personally I think it's well worth a watch.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I didn't care for this movie when it first came out, when I saw it on the big screen. I wasn't doing IMDb reviews back then, so I revisit those films prior to fifteen years ago that I might have seen but never commented on. My initial reluctance concerned how the story line veered off from a psychological thriller into a sci-fi flick, without considering the context of 'Father' Graham Ness's (Mel Gibson) insight into his 'two groups of people', who he defined as those who looked at luck or coincidence as confirming either their own hope versus fear. People with hope view coincidence as a sign that someone is watching over them, while those with fear feel that they're out in the world alone and on their own. Graham fell into the second camp, his brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) felt comfortable in the first category.

    The entire story in my estimation, hinged on the way Graham was scarred by the death of his wife in a senseless accident. Unable to come to grips with any logical reason for that to occur, Graham withdrew from the clerical life and gave up on his belief in a just and loving God. What director Shyamalan tries to do is close the circle on Graham's faith by indulging in 'signs', those little moments and occurrences in a person's life that seem to have no meaning in and of themselves, but when viewed in a larger context, have a way of coming together to resonate in a person's life. So we have 'see', and 'swing away', the two vital elements Graham needed to employ in order to save his son Morgan (Rory Culkin) from the deadly grasp of a vengeful alien being.

    Now in terms of a personal sign, I had to get a kick out of little Bo Hess (Abigail Breslin) and her fickle taste in water. There are times my (now ten year old) granddaughter will tell me she doesn't like the water she's about to drink because it 'tastes old', or because it was lying around in a glass for a while. I try to wrap my head around the idea of water tasting 'old' and I can't do it, so I'll have to take her insistence as a means of tapping into some power I'm not aware of. Someday it might come in handy for, I don't know, an alien invasion or something along those lines.
  • I don't think this film deserved the poor reviews that some gave it. I've only seen 3 of Night Shylaman's films (6th Sense, Unbreakable) and this one is the most sophisticated in my mind in terms of the director manipulating the viewers into seeing and believing what he wants you to believe.

    This is not Gibson's worst film by any means. If anything he gets to try to portray an understated, confused, and emotionally scarred character and I think he soft-sells it very well. Joaquin Phoenix also has a similar character to play and he too soft-sells it well. That was probably not an accident as their calm, sullen personalities contrast with the unbearable situation they find themselves in.

    If you haven't already, see it - and keep an open mind.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There are few things more or less all moviegoers tend to agree about, one of them being that the career of writer/director M. Night Shyamalan, after an impressive start (The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable), has turned out to be a huge disappointment. Opinions may differ on the moment he completely lost it, although Lady in the Water is generally regarded as the point his hubris got the better of him.

    Like The Village, Signs belongs to a middle Shyamalan phase, where his visual talent still made up for his limits (preachiness, plot holes, the egotistic insistence of casting himself in pivotal roles).

    Signs follows an alien invasion from the point of view of a small rural family including a widowed father (Mel Gibson), his younger brother (Joaquin Phoenix) and two kids. The movie is filmed with style, intelligence and an unusual attention to silence and stillness in the build-up of atmosphere.

    The elephant in the room is, of course, a plot hole so conspicuous it has achieved memetic status, with the water-allergic invaders mastering interstellar travel but not raincoats and umbrellas. Why don't you just commit yourself to directing and leave screenplays to better writers and acting to actors, Night? Not everyone can be Orson Welles and pull triple duty.

    Special mention for the fine score by James Newton Howard, homaging the works of the great Bernard Herrman.

    6,5/10
  • Signs is written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. It stars Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, Abigail Breslin and Cherry Jones. Music is scored by James Newton Howard and cinematography by Tak Fujimoto.

    Still reeling from the death of his wife, former man of the cloth Graham Hess (Gibson) lives and works on his farm with his two young children and younger brother. When the family awakes one morning to find a huge crop circle in their plantation, it is asked if it's a prank or the sign of alien contact?

    I don't know if M. Night Shyamalan discouraged the marketing of Signs? Where evidence very much pointed to it being an alien invasion movie for all the family to enjoy? But Signs is anything but a family alien invasion movie. The trailers were deliberately vague, there was a mystery element hanging over the picture and with the Shyamalan CV already boasting the phenomenally successful The Sixth Sense and the divisive, but very moody, Unbreakable, hopes were pitched somewhere between excited and intrigued. Gibson on board, and Phoenix as well, good selling points without a doubt. However, Signs is a grower, a film that pays better dividends on further viewings once armed with the knowledge of what sort of theme drives it on. Yet it still frustrates greatly and you can see why it proved so divisive.

    Shyamalan's movie is primarily about faith, the loss of such, the alien visitors are merely a component of this theme, they act as the catalyst that takes Graham to the pinnacle of his voyage of discovery. The meditations on faith and grief are subtle initially but they drive the picture forward, but then Manoj Shyamalan slips into sermonising and his picture strives for a huge ending to justify it, which unfortunately never arrives, this after having been tickled and baited by the mystery of what the aliens want, friend or foe? Questions leap out such as will the Hess family come through this latest crisis in one piece? And will this "invasion" marry up with the director's thematics that he is so keen for us to open our hearts to? The answers to these questions are mixed, and take further viewings to digest fully. That is if you can forgive the downright idiocy of the alien visitors in the first place?

    The last third has killed the film for many, which is a shame given the excellence on offer in the first hour. Shyamalan's camera is wonderfully fluid, his mise en scène is ace and he garners wonderfully low-key performances from his cast. While as much as his critics hate to acknowledge it, the director has a brilliant knack for building suspense, the ability to draw the viewer into his world, playing on our basic inquisitive nature. That he hasn't delivered on his promise, both here with the finale to the film and later in his overall directing career (though this writer personally loves The Village), is hard to argue against, but there is major talent there buried in his egocentric/confused make up. Elsewhere, James Newton Howard's score is channelling Herrmann and Fujimoto's photography is sublime, this really is a beautiful movie to look at.

    Definitely not a family film, and not really an alien invasion film, with it showcasing both the good and bad aspects of its director. Yet still compelling and pretty enough to warrant a second viewing me thinks. 7/10
  • In last week's issue of Newsweek, M. Night Shyamalan is quoted as saying to his accomplices in crime, "If I did 'Pokemon 5,' would you come? Come on! I could turn it into a metaphor for the human condition!" The scary thing about that comment is not only that he probably *could* do it if afforded the opportunity, but also that he pulls off a similar trick in "Signs," which from an artistic standpoint is easily the best film he's ever done.

    The greater picture of the film is the crop signs that suddenly and quickly start appearing worldwide - and the question of whether they mean anything for mankind as a whole. But once the greater picture is laid out in the first twenty minutes, it takes a complete backseat to Shyamalan's happy & pained family of four, and focuses on their feelings, their worries, their doubts; as the horror of what's transpiring in the greater picture creeps closer to them.

    When Merrill says, "It's like War of the Worlds," it's NOT hyperbole, even though we never see what transpires in the greater picture. Instead, Shyamalan focuses on the subtle nuances of the fear of the individual. Instead of seeing hundreds of soldiers fighting in hand-to-hand combat with gigantic bugs, we gain an appreciation of what it's like for those who aren't blessed with such courage - or, in Graham Hess' case, being able to find it again.

    This is the first horror movie I've ever seen that both genuinely scared me - because you sympathize with the family's plight, even without seeing it - and made me laugh at the same time, because the family's reaction to the terror unfolding in the world is a sign itself of a strength that most don't have - the ability to be levelheaded and always keep things in perspective, no matter how scary or "out-there" the situation is.

    As usual, Shyamalan gets excellent performances out of all of his actors, especially Willis & Breslin as Graham & Bo. As usual, everything you see means something - the trick, like with "Sixth Sense" & "Unbreakable, is whether or not you can put them all together. I'd be shocked, though, if this film doesn't get nominated for its sound - the soundtrack is Hitchcockian-creepy, and Shyamalan is a master at using sound effects to create the terror that the visual effects normally do.

    Don't go to "Signs" expecting a monster movie, or a shock ending, but definitely see it before the summer's out, and be prepared to be moved in ways that you previously couldn't have imagined from a horror or suspense film. It's been said that a genius of film is one who knows how to transcend or reinvent a genre - and with this film, M. Night Shyamalan is decidedly on his way there, if he hasn't already reached it. 10/10
  • !!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!

    There's a lot to commend M Night Shyamalan's SIGNS for . It's not often we see such a moody atmospheric thriller about an alien invasion and I will praise this movie later . However Shyamalan shots himself in the foot by the way the story is told

    Crop circles appear outside the home of the Hess family and after Graham Hess and his brother Merril find out that it wasn't caused by local pranksters Graham's son Morgan comes up with the answer - It was done by aliens . He knows this because he read a book on the subject . Obviously everyone else in the world has read only one book - The same one as Morgan - because as soon as crop circles appear round the world it's the leading story and can mean only one thing: The aliens are coming . And sure enough just like everyone has predicted lights appear over Planet Earth's cities which herald the start of little green men come to wipe us out

    If someone told you crop circles were signs on an alien invasion how would you react ? Exactly but at no point does anyone question a possible invasion because it's taken as read by all the characters in the story which starts to become ridiculous when the world's broadcasters start interrupting programmes showing the world wide phenomenon of crop circles . Let's be honest here jet liners crashing into sky scrapers is a good reason to interrupt TV shows with 24 hour news reports but people finding crop circles all over the world is not

    There's one other thing : Ten year old Morgan seems to be channeling the minds of Newton , Darwin and Einstien . Listen to this kid's dialogue " Everything people have written about in science books is about to change " and there's several more instances of this . You can't take this child seriously or believe in him as a three dimensional character

    Make that two things : Why would aliens invade a planet whose surface is composed of 70% water ? Isn't the human body two thirds water anyway. Oh and how does Graham's neighbour know that the aliens don't like water anyway ?

    Better make that three things because if the subtext is about rediscovering ones faith then why is everyone certain of an approaching invasion ? Surely for this theme to work then Graham should have been shouting from the roof tops that aliens don't exist only to be proved wrong . If he's wrong about aliens then surely he's wrong about the non existence of the lord right ?

    It's a great pity that Shyamalan didn't think these things through a bit further because despite not ruining the movie these things stop SIGNS becoming a masterpiece of genre cinema which it certainly had the potential to be . Even a critical viewer like myself who noticed the flaws couldn't help being terrified by the climax in the cellar where for one heart stopping moment it looked like a couple of the characters had been abducted . As for the scene Graham sees the reflection in the TV .... I certainly can't fault the good bits and I will recommend this movie even to those who don't like SF/Horror very much . Certainly it's a radical change to watch a film like this that doesn't have tens of millions spent on special effects and the film works better for it . You reading this Mr Spielberg ?

    Shyamalan will best be remembered for THE SIXTH SENSE , a film that I found somewhat overrated while his follow up UNBREAKABLE was a masterpiece in my opinion . SIGNS is slightly different because it doesn't have one of those shock twist endings and when you consider what a poor film THE VILLAGE is one can't help thinking that Shyamalan would be better off abandoning clever endings and concentrating on terrifying audiences and I would wonder if he could get away with directing a Hollywood version of Nigel Kneale's QUATERMASS AND THE PIT . Now that would be worth queuing at the cinema for

    Update 30 dec : Some have mentioned that the concept of predestination is very important to understanding the movie ie the plot holes aren't actually plot holes viewed this way and while this makes absolute sense in a metaphysical way it still misses out on logic
  • The plot of the movie was very interesting and so mysterious. The storyline was very well written, totally different than any other alien movies. The filming location of the movie was basic, just an old farmhouse, but I really liked it! The characters were very interesting, so likeable and well-developed. The casting was really good and the acting was nice. The opening scene of the movie was kinda intense and totally unexpected. Overall, it was an unexpected movie that didn't had many plot twists nor jumpscares. But, it was very intense and so creepy (especially, the scenes that the aliens were shown in the screen). Alien's design was just fine, not very realistic but they were terrifying. In my opinion, it's probably one of the best alien movies I have ever seen! It was so good and I would definitely, recommend it to anyone. Last but not least, the ending scene was totally unexpected and kinda shocking.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    M. Night Shyamalan is one of the most consistently interesting directors working in Hollywood today. He first came to prominence with THE SIXTH SENSE, a top-notch horror flick, and followed it with UNBREAKABLE, a top-notch science fiction flick. Although I haven't seen THE VILLAGE yet, SIGNS makes a slight change of direction for Shyamalan. Although on the face of it, this combines both horror and science fiction elements, the actual alien invasion in the film takes a firm second place to the main thrust of the story, charting Mel Gibson's lack of faith coming from the horrific death of his wife.

    This is a human drama through and through, very much focused on the human mind and family relationships, and what makes it so effective is the acting. Gibson is decent, as always, and the kids – especially Rory Culkin – are surprisingly good as well. Best of all, though, is Joaquin Phoenix in support; he's the best here I've ever seen him, delivering a confident, assured, very human portrayal of his character and never stepping into the limelight, instead standing back and letting the focus lie with Gibson. Films focusing on personal religion and the topic of faith tend to be somewhat preachy; they're very difficult to do successfully, but Shyamalan manages it, making this a thought-provoking, sometimes uncomfortable voyage through the human mind. It says something that he cast himself as the driver who killed Gibson's wife; the subject matter is very mature and intelligent, subtle and most definitely not in your face.

    Of course, this is supposed to be an alien invasion flick, so what of that? Well, all the trappings are fine (crop circles, blurry UFO footage, weird radio signals) and the script is both witty and pleasingly referential to previous genre fare. The aliens themselves are the classic Greys, popularised in the likes of THE X-FILES, and there's a wonderfully disturbing moment when one is captured on somebody's video camera. Shyamalan hides the aliens, always skirting around them, and as such he keeps the movie realistic and believable. There are some excellent suspense sequences, notably the alien-trapped-in-the-pantry shocker which is great stuff; the great news is that it gets even better for the finale, which is a new spin on the old NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD plot, as our protagonists board themselves up in their home to fend of the aliens. It's so well shot, in fact, that it manages to be scarier and more eerie than Romero's film! Compare the basement scene in this with the equivalent in Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS and you'll see how Spielberg has just lost the plot these days.

    However, the final denouement for the alien is very disappointing, very Hollywoodised, and I have a feeling that the climax went against Shyamalan's own personal wishes. The film would have been much better just leaving the aliens unseen and in the dark, but no, we get a cheesy heroic-style action ending, which is completely laughable, with CGI effects that just don't hold up to scrutiny. Ah well, you can't get everything, and this ending is the only thing that mars an otherwise perfectly-made movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    *** Spoiler Alert **** Spoiler Alert *** Spoiler Alert ***

    OK, this movie has a good cinematography and one cannot argue about the good craftsmanship.

    However, who invented this ridiculous story???

    Let me get this right:

    a) Aliens can travel millions of light years in their space crafts, but lack the technology of breaking into a wooden house. b) For that matter - a seven-foot-tall alien, who can run like an Olympic athlete, can be locked into a wooden kitchen pantry without being able to escape. c) Aliens (able to travel space) run around naked and cannot deal with water. Does this imply that a raincoat is a more sophisticated invention than a spaceship? d) Aliens come to `harvest human beings', but can be scared off by wooden clubs. Aehhh . the human body consists 90+% of water, which the aliens cannot handle . does this qualify for the `real dumb plot award'??? e) A referent looses his faith when his wife dies (which is fair), but regains it when he remembers her last words which tip him off that Aliens doesn't like being beaten with wooden clubs . are there more people who think this is crap???

    Also:

    f) When confronted with an imminent Alien attack, board yourself into a lonely wooden house in the prairie - don't go into the next town, arm yourself and join the local militia / military organisation.

    g) Don't have the asthma medicine your son's life is depending on handy. h) After you boarded up your house, just hang around in the lounge. Don't fortify your cellar basement and shift all your water, food and medicine there. i) Lacking fire arms, don't arm yourself with knifes, axes or whatever you can find. Leave your vicious guard dogs (who detect aliens earlier than you and could scare them off) outside the house.

    .. And the top price goes to:

    j) Alien communication can best be observed on baby monitors!!! . sophisticated civil air control and military radar equipment cannot spot them.

    Well, they don't make movies like that one any more. Hopefully, no-one will never ever make a movie like that one again!!!

    My opinion - right down there with `Battlefield Earth' and `Giggli'. 1 out of 10.
  • pkhall11 October 2023
    Warning: Spoilers
    Truly, an exceptional movie. There are very few movies out there that are perfect in every way. I believe that this is a perfect movie. There's absolutely nothing. I can find wrong with it critically.

    The story is exceptionally enticing. The acting is perfect. Shyamalan's directing is exceptional and his camera work is exquisite. I love this movie so much I return to it probably twice a year to watch it and every time I watch it I find a new thing that is beautifully done and moving. The scene at the end of the movie when they find the alien in their living room holding Morgan is one of the best film scenes in movie history in my opinion, the tension that Shyamalan skillfully allows to be drawn out as the camera slowly moves and focuses on on all the actors, and then the inserted flashback where Graham's wife is against the tree, and then "swing away Merrill" coming from the dying mother, followed by the realization by Graham that nothing is a coincidence. I had chills then and I have chills now when I watch the movie. Well done, Mr. Shyamalan well done.
  • In a documentary that accompanies the film on DVD, M. Night Shyamalan admits that SIGNS was greatly influenced by such films as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and Hitchcock's THE BIRDS--an admission that will come as no surprise to any one who has seen SIGNS in the wake of those films. Although very different, all three have one thing in common: they ultimately focus on a small group of people fighting off an unnatural entity that attempts to invade their very ordinary homes.

    The story is an unusual mix of meditative religious and classic sci-fi elements blended together by Shyamalan's remarkable sense of visual style. Mel Gibson is a minister who has lost his faith in the wake of his wife's tragic accidental death and who now rejects the concept of unseen powers entirely--so he is nonplussed when his children discover a crop circle in his own cornfield. He remains skeptical even as television news coverage reports alien crafts hovering over major cities. But his denial is exploded when he and his family have a close encounter of the extremely nasty kind.

    The small cast is extremely, extremely good. I generally dislike Mel Gibson as an actor, but he has grown a bit since his macho-bravado BRAVEHEART days, and while he might seem an unlikely choice for the part of a failed minister he carries it extremely well. Joaquin Phoenix is perfectly cast as Gibson's younger brother, and the children--Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin--are flawless.

    What isn't flawless is the story. The blend of religious and sci-fi motifs is an interesting idea, but director Shyamalan (who also wrote the script) doesn't quite manage to hold them in balance, and ultimately winds up beating you over the head with the film's religious elements while giving the sci-fi elements the short end of the stick. I did appreciate the fact that the film builds suspense more by what it does not show than what it does, and I have no qualm with that--it's a welcome choice after such special effects overkill as INDEPENDENCE DAY and the like--but several of his plot devices smack of stereotype, and the film's conclusion is such a deus ex machina that it is not to be believed. There is indeed a great deal to admire about the film, but when all is said and done it somehow lacks sincerity and falls just short of the mark. Entertaining nonetheless.

    Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Advanced beings who have mastered Space Travel but have a deadly aversion to water choose to invade a planet where every breath you take is full of moisture, the atmosphere is full of moisture so guess the outcome. Also, even with there advanced knowledge they seem to have a problem breaking down wooden barriers. And was it only me but didn't that maize field scene look remarkably like the scene from E.T. But hang on this film isn't about Alien Invasion at all I hear you shout, its about man questioning and rediscovering his faith. Well, he may have done that but i lost my faith in the American Film Industry in the process. This is a film that insults the audience's intelligence.
  • M. Night Shyamalan has done it again, and this time, better. If 'Unbreakable' left skepticism about the young director, `Signs' will make you a believer again.

    Mel Gibson and his family, one boy, one girl, and Gibson's younger brother (Joaquin Phoenix) take residence in the small town of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Gibson's wife is not a member of this household (we find out why, later). Shot over and around a 'Walton's-style' house and surrounded by crops, we get the eerie feeling that we are to be entangled here for the next two hours. Immediately, the children notice gigantic perfect circular shapes or signs as we like to call them, appearing within the crops. Is this a hoax or War of the Worlds? And, that's all you need to know. The rest of film will dazzle you with style, suspense, and downright scariness.

    The key ingredients to this recipe for storytelling is one half Close Encounters of the Third Kind, a dash of Stephen King, sprinkled with Orson Wells. Shyamalan also uses Hitchcock like close ups, wicked camera angles, and a blasting score. You are locked in as soon as the movie begins. You will tilt your head in wonder and confusion, as characters in the film do. There is a deep desire to figure this all out, while your stuck in the middle of nowhere, nowhere being Bucks County.

    The picture gives us two ultimate dilemmas to wrestle with. Two basic questions we must ask ourselves. Are our daily occurrences and the paths we choose Coincidence? Or, are is it just plain Luck? Shyamalan weaves these posing questions into a subplot, with trickery until the end. From scene to scene, he leaves no fades to black. As one scene ends the other smartly begins. That's what keeps the audience watching as if we were tucked tightly into our beds and rapidly turning pages of a good book. Each page is significant. This movie isn't just about crops. That's what makes Shyamalan such a keen filmmaker. He has the talent and ability to fog up the film, and distract you with different propositions.

    Shyamalan uses technique to peak his story, rather than dialogue. His masterful and favorite formula is the usage of flashbacks, which gives the audience a chance to catch up on what they might have missed. He emphasizes his points by re-occurring scenes and replaying them for the grand effect, the 11th hour, until he hits you with the finale. Whether you believe the outcome or not, you cannot deny his aptitude for storytelling.

    This nervous and paranoid feature film with a heart-pounding ending is terrific. I was still thinking about it when I left the theater. You too, will enjoy the ride. But, when it's over, say your prayers, get into bed, pull the sheets over your head, breathe a sigh of relief, and close the book!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Shyamalan's early movies all have a feel to them that I can only describe as... somberly thrilling? I don't know if that makes sense, but The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs all have an almost tragic undertone to them as the flawed main characters make their way through the story, and it makes the thrilling parts seem more earned. For some reason, the scene that stuck out the most to me In this was the dinner table scene, as it was really sad seeing Graham finally break as he struggles with his beliefs on whether things happen for a reason after his wife's death. Those flashbacks were gut-punches.

    Shyamalan's signature buildup is on display here as several suspenseful scenes scattered throughout the movie lead to the climatic night in the basement. I think that the buildup to the alien reveal was good, but I think showing us an alien fully might not have been the best decision, especially with those vfx that will only continue to age. I like the metaphors of 'signs' from a Faith-based point of view, and how the events of the film lead Graham back to his Faith. I think the ending could've been edited better, as it was being played like a big Shyamalan twist when In actuality it was more of a meager realization on Graham's part, but I still like the symbolism. Joaquin was great in this, and so was James Newton Howard for sure. Probably my least favorite of the three OG Shyamalan films, but that's not a bad thing, as I enjoyed them all.

    Also, loved Mel Gibson's delivery of the 'Two Groups' monologue, fantastic writing there.
  • This movie was heading towards a perfect score, which I rarely award, but it blew it in the final 10 minutes. The tension was there - the acting from all cast was excellent! It felt authentic. And then the most ridiculous ending. What a disappointment!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    **********POSSIBLE SPOILERS THROUGHOUT**********

    I've read some of the reviews here on the IMDB and one thing comes to mind: A lot of you have no idea what the movie is about, or just didn't pay attention to the dialogue. There's a lot of....

    1) Why did the aliens come to a planet that's 2/3 water when they are harmed by water.

    2) Why did the alien look so cheap.

    3) The characters don't act like people really would.

    Well allow me to try to explain it to all of you nay sayers.

    1) There are a lot of explanations for this. One could be that they would have inhabited the other third of the planet. That's like what, 400 square feet. The world's a small place right? Another explanation could be that they weren't aware of the fact they could be harmed by water. Sure it seems silly but tell me, how does one know when they are allergic to a certain medicine or when one doesn't like a certain type of food. You aren't born with the knowledge that you aren't going to like steak before you even try it.

    2) For those of you that don't understand the film I'm going to try my darndest to explain it to you. For those of you that did understand the movie but still had something bad to say about the look of the alien all I can say is that the Director is presuming not to know what aliens actually look like. Since none of us have actually seen them or know the extent of their existence he's not going to show us a tall lanky green alien with a huge head and big yellow eyes. That's also why all the scenes where we see the aliens the best is somewhat blurry. That was Spielberg's mistake with A.I. He used the same aliens from Close Encounters. Unless he has a few aliens living in his backyard I assure you he doesn't know what they look like if they do exist.

    3) I find this totally untrue and I'm going to cite certain examples from the movie to show you that. The scene at dinner where Mel Gibson breaks down and then the children come over and hug him. I've heard it said that no child of that age would do what was done after having just been yelled at. He would most likely go running into the other room. I have a 10 year old niece that is actually one of the smartest people I know. Smarter than a lot of the adults I know as well and would have handled the situation the same way. Just because someone is a child doesn't mean that they always act like a baby and start whining and crying. And vice versa. Just because someone is an "adult" doesn't mean they always act like an adult. The best scene of this movie is another example of this. When Mel Gibson crouches down to his sons height and proceeds to tell him of the day he was born. How awesome of a scene is that? If it hadn't hit yet, that scene should have been pretty clear that this wasn't a movie about an alien invasion but rather something else. And that is most likely what a real father that thought he and his family was going to die would do. They wouldn't have run.

    The Director is not an idiot and he is not going to treat the movie going public like they are idiots. That is why at the beginning of the movie there wasn't a disclamier saying that this movie is not really about aliens and that's why there aren't going to be very many aliens throughout the movie. He left it up to you to figure out what the movie was about. Obviously a lot of you had trouble doing so. If you wanted to see an ID4 type movie then go rent it. That may be the kind of movie that racks up all the millions but I guarantee you that the Director would rather his movie tanks while making it his way then it makes millions by being a cheesy alien film.
  • Focusing on the classical phenomenon that has appeared all over the world. The mystical crop circles. A very good plot and concept for a sci fy film indeed!

    Acting is extremely good especially by the kids.

    Very well performed story telling and very well written and also good filming! Really a very interesting film!

    Effects are very well made for the time!

    A very captivating piece! A film that feels pretty authentic.

    Original and well made sci fy! Its a film that really manages to feel genuine and not exaggerated.

    Soundtrack is very well made and really fits the film!

    I totally recommend it!
  • During the course of the film Joaquin Phoenix's character remarks that the situation they're in seems like The War Of The Worlds. It certainly is, but the small picture of it.

    Whereas H.G. Wells wrote on the grand scale about what nations and governments were doing to fight an alien invasion, M. Night Shyamalan's Signs concerns itself with the small picture, what is happening in one tiny corner of the world, to be precise Bucks County, Pennsylvania and very specifically Mel Gibson and his family.

    One day farmer Gibson who used to be a minister woke up and found that his cornfield had been systematically decimated and a precise geographical pattern was laid out that could be seen from the air. He concluded it was some kind of prank which would have been the normal reaction of anyone. But when reports of the world wide similar crop defilings and then sitings of shadowy alien figures than the world is in a crisis mode.

    But the world is on the back-burner for Gibson. He was a clergyman but gave it up after the death of his wife who was hit by a drunk driver. He's got his own issues to deal with if he can get himself, his children Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin and brother Joaquin Phoenix through the ordeal. All this without knowing how the world in general is coping. Gibson and the family can only speculate and that's where imaginations run wild.

    I have to say that Mel Gibson does a thoroughly good job as an everyman caught up in a global crisis. When War Of The Words was made by George Pal in the Fifties, the leads Gene Barry and Ann Robinson were scientists who had vital information for the survival of the world. The globe is still at risk in Signs, but Mel and his family can't worry about that, just in keeping themselves alive.

    Signs is thinking science fiction ranking up there with the best work of Ray Bradbury and John Heinlein. It's both entertaining and engrossing, you can't ask for more from a film.
  • I had the advantage of hearing nothing but bad things about this film before I saw it, so my expectations were low. Often times, I am pleasantly surprised after hearing all those negative remarks. I'd include this as another film "better than I expected, "but not good enough to watch a second time. The second half of the film, I was told, was extremely hokey but I found it okay, although I could see where people would say that.

    However, I just watched it as a piece of entertainment, nothing else, and appreciated the sharp photography, too. In other words, I didn't read into anything with the story which so many others have seemed to do.

    Mel Gibson plays Hollywood's favorite type of clergyman: the kind who has lost his faith. That is, until, the strange turn of events at the end of the movie.

    Hey, it's an entertaining movie, with good suspense and very little offensive material. This is the typical M. Night Shyamaian movie, which means it does a good job of hooking you into the story but doesn't always give you a satisfying ending.
  • Went with a friend last night to see Signs.

    It is one of the worst films I have ever endured in my life.

    Not just "Oh my, that was a waste of $9" bad (like I found The Grinch and Death To Smoochy to be). More "I cannot believe that anyone in their worst, most deluded, crack-addled moments would think this had the merest potential of being a good movie." bad.

    Fairly dull throughout, but the ending had me & me partner slack-jawed with incredularity, as master storyteller M. Night Shamalamadingdong cunningly weaves together a handful of dull badly-signposted non-sequiters from throughout the movie, deftly driving a mack truck through a handful of plotholes, to form an offensive-to-anyone-with-an-IQ-above-70 finale.

    Sweet Lord, it was bad.

    I'm a fairly easy going person. I can watch brain-dead and/or bad movies, and enjoy them. (After Signs, my chum & I decanted back to my place to enjoy Gremlins, which, while cheesy as all hell, at least wears its cheesiness with pride). But Signs was so contrived in its foulness -- so smug in it's "Ahhhh. You weren't expecting that, were you?" attitude -- it left me wanting to phone telephone numbers at random and tell complete strangers "Don't go!"

    It was just that bad.

    Consider yerselves warned.
  • Most of the people that comment on this movie are going to relate the fact that they were disappointed. And that's okay- your opinion of a movie should always include your pre-showing as well as post-showing emotions. But to those people I just have to say, "You just don't get it." Everyone is going into this movie thinking it is some kind of chilling horror, or blood-and-gore slasher flick. Shyamalan doesn't do those tired genres, thankfully. Instead, he gives us a warm, funny, emotionally-charged, and yes, suspenseful thriller which manages to compact an entire list of genres into one whole film.

    I have seen the movie twice already- the first time for myself, and the second time just for crowd reactions. I wasn't bored through either showing. This is in part to some great acting by Phoenix, and some PHENOMENAL acting by the two child leads! Gibson isn't too bad either, but I have to admit, his part could have been played by anyone (sorry Mel :)

    I think for the first time Shyamalan really brings us a film that doesn't rely on smoke and mirrors to please the audience. For all those naysayers out there, I would suggest that you view the film again, either now, or when it is available for home use. Look- and listen closer. You might just be able to make out the 'Signs.'
  • A widowed ex-minister in Pennsylvania, living on a farm with his kids and his ex-ball player brother, believes the crop circles on his land (as well as the ones profiled on the news) may be indicative of something other-worldly. Writer-director M. Night Shyamalan, who understands commercial movie-making these days as well as any other filmmaker, tends to get bogged down in pretensions, but where his dialogue is sometimes gummy, his characters are complicated and relatable. Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix are wonderfully convincing as the brothers unexpectedly caught up in the supernatural, never letting their lived-in relationship hit a false note. Shyamalan is terrific at staging a big scary moment, and any of the sequences involving Gibson and his family are enjoyable, but the more intimate, two-character scenes stall the momentum (particularly one involving Shyamalan himself as a co-star). Still, with all its faults--and a too-literal final act--"Signs" knows how to get reactions from its audience, and it is clever and canny if not quite hair-raising. *** from ****
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As a long-time science fiction fan and as a scientist, I was not prepared for the insult foisted upon this viewer by this miscarriage of the legacy of true science fiction. If one wishes to have a movie about faith and redemption, fine, but don't trash a whole genre in the process with unbelievable sloppiness. Three years after seeing the film, I still feel insulted.

    Spoilers: Why would an intelligent life form capable of traversing untold distances and for whom contact with water is fatal choose a planet for invasion whose surface is predominantly water? Why would that intelligent life form be incapable of sufficient intelligence and tools to free itself from an ordinary locked room? Why would those beings choose to prey on beings that are primarily composed of that substance they find fatal? The list goes on and on, but the bottom line is that some director with no feel and, obviously, no respect for the genre choose that genre for his vehicle? Oh, yeah, name stars and $$$.

    Next time I see the name M. Night Shyamalan, I'll forego the experience.
An error has occured. Please try again.