Signs (2002) (1 Viewer)

[Morgan Jolley]

I think that you are all looking at the movie differently than you are supposed to.

It's not about aliens invading the Earth, it's about a reverend who has lost his faith. If it weren't for the little thing that each member of his family has (his daughter's water obsession, his brother's homerun swing, and his son's asthma) then none of them might be there. Everything started with his wife's death and was like a row of dominoes set into motion. The movie is more about fate and how things happen after a series of events than aliens. The aliens were more or less a way to move the story to the finale, like a plot device, than a main focus.

At least that's why I got from the many reviews, previews, and spoilers I read.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Morgan, two things:
1. I think you meant for that 'quote' above to be a 'spoiler'.
2. Your assessment is scarily accurate, considering you haven't yet seen the movie!

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Yes, the film is everything that was quoted above, which should be a spoiler. I got everything Shyamalan was trying to say. But for the most part, it just wasn't that engaging. He spent so much time saying very little in the end. At times, the payoff is not worth the journey that the film makes.

~Edwin

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Wow, Edwin, I'm really surprised you felt that way about it. I thought Shyamalan told the story with economy and finesse. His confidence and skill shine through in the direction. I think it's a really entertaining film. Having just read through the thread, it does look like those with faulty assumptions of the storyline may be less than thrilled with the result. I, for one, was glad to see something where I didn't know all the answers and didn't really know going in what it was about exactly. If you're expecting a total sci-fi immersion, you're probably due to be disappointed.

I do want to point out something Ron said:

I'll admit, I was glued to the screen for the film's final half hour.

I'd say that's high praise in part.

I know some already feel like they were sold a false bill of goods, but I don't think that's the case. Shyamalan used the same tack with Unbreakable. I was really surprised to learn what the film was about, something that couldn't be pulled from the trailer. Better to leave some mystery than erase it all.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Mark, before going in, I knew that Signs was about spirituality and fate and not about those other elements that Shyamalan meanders on. Therefore, I was focused and prepared for the film’s subject matter. For me, this expectation became a problem instead of an asset. My preconceived notion left me wanting these two main themes fully explored, examined and probed.
Instead, the film only manages to scratch the surface. I attribute this to the significant amount of time that Shyamalan invests in other sequences that do not add value to the main topic at hand or at least to what he actually intends the film to be.
I did not have any problems at all with the film’s pace. I am well aware of the director’s craft and style and was prepared for it. But, as I have said before, by spending so much time in these other storylines the film lost its focus. It became too many things in one. Without a clear focus, its impact was minimized.
There is a problem when a film spends more of its time in its secondary plot rather than its main themes. I also did not like the hand holding approach he took. He lays out every single clue and nuance instead of letting the audience figure it out for themselves. Whatever happened to subtlety? For me, the ingenuity is just not there.
But like I said in the review thread, to a certain extent, I enjoyed the spiritual side of the story even with its lack of depth. This is one aspect of the story that could have been that much more compelling for me had Shyamalan probed into it that much more.
In the end, that guy behind me said it perfectly, “Is that it?” Case closed. There is very little to think about as you step out of the theater.
~Edwin

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Hi everybody, I just got back from the preview and I loved it. I was a nervous wreck for the last hour. I too liked SIXTH SENSE but not as much as UNBREAKABLE. I knew nothing about this movie other than the first magnificent trailer that played before LOTR and Ron's spoiler-free preview a week ago. I'd give it 4 out of 5 (for M Knight Shyamalan fans).
By the way, does anyone know how to pronounce his last name? Can anyone point me to a wav file?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Mark, in addition to the hand holding approach that Shyamalan took and laying out all the clues for the audience instead of letting them figure it out for themselves, the film became preachy in what it was trying to say. In that process, it tried really hard to pound the message it was trying to convey in a very sermonizing manner.

~Edwin

 

[Jeff Adams]

I am definately going to the theaters for this one. It looks really good. I am a big MKS fan. I am in the same boat as Carlo. The first time I saw Unbreakable I didn't really think much of it. It was okay. But then I caught it again on HBO or Starz and really really liked it. I went and bought it on dvd and have watched it 4 more times. I love the movie. The Sixth Sense was good but Unbreakable was GREAT!

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

To say that Signs is only about spirituality and fate is being untrue to the entire spirit of the film. It spends a good chunk of its time dealing with the horror, suspense and science fiction elements of the story. Three quarters of the film’s running time is spent nurturing and cultivating these aspects of the story – something that cannot easily be dismissed as incidental, secondary or an afterthought.
I believe Shyamalan tries to cater to two different types of audiences – those who are primarily concerned about thrills and scares and those who want a deeper meaning out of the film. He is able to succeed to a certain extent. Using a baseball diamond to illustrate my point, he is able to get to third base pleasing the former but somehow, he got stuck on first base dealing with the latter.
James Berardinelli shares the same concerns I have about this film:

The movie is not without its faults. In order to convey one of his key themes - that of the loss of faith and its restoration - Shyamalan resorts to sermonizing with a stridency that makes bludgeoning seem restrained. Instead of relying on subtlety and an audience's intuition and intelligence, he hammers home his point in such an overt manner that it's almost laughable. Even after the most obtuse viewer will have figured out his message, he offers one more "clue". An unfortunate side-effect of this tactic is that there are times when the characters lose their individuality and become mouthpieces for the cause.

~Edwin

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I spoiler-tagged what I said.

I think you don't pronounce the 'y' in his last name. Sha-ma-lan.

 

[Todd H]

I enjoyed The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, which means I'm looking forward to this one as well. Also, I just checked RottenTomatoes.com and Signs is at 80%. I just hope it lives up to expectations.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I agree with Edwin's comments above about the film's use of the alien invasion as only a pretext for the crisis of faith our main character is going through. The film really does cheat about the invasion. And the crisis of faith stuff isn't that interesting, so what are we left with? Add in that ridiculous "psychic message" angle (better left to John Edward evangelists) and you've got a film with a serious problem.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Also, I just checked RottenTomatoes.com and Signs is at 80%. I just hope it lives up to expectations.

With such a limiting two-tiered system at Rotten Tomatoes, reviews are forced to be pigeon holed in two categories – good (fresh) or bad (rotten). Even my comments would get a fresh rating over at Rotten Tomatoes. That is why I like Variety’s critics roundup system better because it allows for a middle ground – the mixed reviews, and gives a better overview of how the critics really felt about a film.
It would be interesting to see how Signs fares overall with the general public. Three other people in our group also had mixed feelings with the film.
~Edwin

 

[Andrew Chong]

If you like James Newton Howard's 'Signs' music, particularly that striking ascending three or four note repeating figure, and enjoy electronic music, check out five remixes of that theme at Link Removed and enjoy versions by Paul Oakenfold, The Crystal Method and Photek.

 

[Stephen Orr]

My family and I sat around dinner tonight discussing "Signs". I think the movie IS about faith in something bigger than yourself. The sci-fi/alien invasion aspect was simply a plot device that provided the characters to react to. To a certain extent, the aliens could have been replace by an impending hurricane, tornado, nuclear strike, whatever. The story was about the family, especially the dad, and how they deal with the impending crisis.

I thought it was extremely interesting how many of the characters weaknesses ended up being strengths or salvations in the end. For example, the son's asthma saves him from the poison gas, the little girl's quirk with leaving half full water glasses around helps defeat the final alien, the brother's tendency to swing at anything as hard as he can
were used to great effect. Some thought those things were hokey and cheesy and awfully coincidental, but wasn't that what the movie was about? There was a long conversation between Graham and his brother about the two kinds of people there are, those with faith that no matter what, there's something bigger taking care of things, and those who think everything is coincidence and live in fear because they have no hope.

"I'm a miracle kind of guy myself...." or something like that. I liked that line.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I'm not spoilerizing anything because this is the discussion thread where the spoilers are unnecessary.
Spoilers ahoy!
I think Graham might be an Episcopal priest (they are allowed to marry and have kids).
I also was not impressed by the film because I had a sudden flashback to one of Shyamalan's other films, Unbreakable when the weakness of the aliens was revealed: water. This was the same with the David Dunn character (he can be stopped by drowning).
I actually groaned in the theater when I saw this aspect of the story develop, and of course, with Bo's drinking tic, it makes for a ready supply of it when it's needed. This "weakness" literally stops the film dead for me because I also have a hard time believing creatures advanced enough to fly their spacecrafts to Earth would not be wearing some form of environmental suits for protection while on Earth.
It's like, "well, we really got aliens attacking Earth, but we need an easy, inexpensive way to be rid of them because we also have these themes (of signs that act like yellow bricks that lead us to where we need to be) to explore because that's really what the story's about, but no one would come see this story unless they thought it would be about aliens invading earth, and want to see how humans would deal with such an event."
Shyamalan would have been able to keep the underlying (overlying in some parts) themes intact, and the audience satisfied if he figured a better way to dispose of the aliens (that made logical, scientific sense). Hell, I would laughed my butt off if the aliens were allergic to cornstalks (the irony being that the fields they used as navigational signs is what is kills them), with the tagline: "Maize - it's what kills aliens!"
I get that Shyamalan wanted to tackle how to pick up the pieces from a life-altering event that rocks the foundation of a priest's faith in a higher power, one that would inflict so much personal pain on an innocent (Graham's wife) from a senseless accident of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the after-effects of the tragedy on her family. I get that Graham gave up on his faith after seeing this whole sign/event in his life (and reacted negatively to it), but the story tries to veer us back into "everything happens for a reason" and the more you're willing to accept that events (good or bad) happen because they have to happen in order to make you who you are.
It's how Graham re-discovers how precious life is (with the resolution of the alien attack angle) that disappointed me about the film. When his family (and the whole damn world) is under attack by stupid aliens (why couldn't the aliens break into boarded up places, why don't they not have weapons/tools as they make contact with Earth soil?) and actually get to live because of "fate" (that gives Bo her drinking tic which enables glasses of water to be all over the house and Merrill's bat to be right where he needed it to be for easy access to treat the alien like a galactic pinyata) allows the Hesses to stave off the lone alien left, it seems hollow, way too setup for the finale, and definitely not from a natural or logical progression.
What is the reason for the alien to poison Morgan when he's outnumbered by 2 humans big enough to inflict some damage on him? If I'm the alien, I drop the boy and get the hell out of the house. But Noooooo, the alien attempts to poisons Morgan so that we get another oh so convenient example of how lucky/fateful it was that Morgan suffers an asthma attack just in time for his lungs to shut off, and for none of the poison gas to reach his lung while the epineferin (sp) kicks in to get Morgan to breath again. It's plot contrivances like these that undercut the bigger themes of seeing the signs that tell you to become who you are meant to be. But since basically these "twists of fate" happen for no logical reason, and only happen because it needed to happen for us to get that cartharsis when Morgan starts to breath again, the story cheats the audience of a really satisfying resolution.
Damn, initially I wasn't so down on this film, but the more I type about it, the more I get pissed off about it (but I promised someone to go see it tomorrow with them. Yowie!)
So, even after making first contact with the aliens, Graham decides to just go back to being a priest. Sorry, if I made first contact, I'm on every talk show for the next year! Then comes all the personal appearances at the UFO conventions, etc.

 

[DonRoeber]

Just a quick question... in the last hour or so of the film, there were a few frames during key sequences that were nearly all black. I was wondering if anyone else saw these? If so, any ideas what they meant?
I saw the movie during a terrible thunderstorm, so it may just have been the bulb in the projector flickering. Right after the dog bites it the theater lost power, which -really- added to the suspense and fun of the movie. Fortunately, the power came back only a minute later (although the first slide they showed was an advertisement for soda
All in all, this movie was _fun_. It wasn't anything you had to think about like Sixth Sense, or to an extent, Unbreakable. In a recent interview with CNN, Shaymalan admitted that he made a B movie with an A list cast, crew, and techniques, which is what he wanted to do. I think he did a great job pulling it off.

 

[Ryan Peter]

You guys have interesting points (nice super-rant there Pat ) but Ebert's and Seth's reviews nicely sum up my views of the film. The film works nicely because it flows so well. Not one of the logical errors Pat pointed out crossed my mind during the film, I only cared about the immediate situation/characters because of how well the film is crafted.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Ugh, when I saw the film at first the film burned up (the melting screen thingy) during the THX introduction took them a few minutes to get that fixed and then they couldn't get the house lights off until a few minutes after the film started. And then some Chatty Kathy behind me wouldn't shut up, she was a regular Paula Poundstone making hilarious remarks (well she found them hilarious) and quips throughout the film and giggled constantly during the tense parts.

 

[Chuck C]

Hey Patrick, why don't you ruin Unbreakable for us.