Signs (2002) (1 Viewer)

[Justin_S]

I have posted my review in the Review Thread.
Now, I LOVED this film! I honestly liked this film even more than I did UNBREAKABLE and SIXTH SENSE, and this film is probably the scariest film I've seen since 1999.
The film is sort of like NOTLD in that the main characters only have the radio and television to keep them up to date with what is going on in the rest of the world. This is a great aspect, because it makes the film seem even more realistic, and all the more scary. It also allows the main characters to become more fleshed out.
That Brazilian camcorder sighting scene was utterly spectacular, and is my favorite scene in the entire film!
I was very freaked out and uneasy throughout most of this film, and it was just a blast! I will be seeing this a few more times in the theater, and can't wait for the DVD!

 

[Nick Graham]

Here's my overview of the movie...not really a review, but I do give a pretentious star rating for it at the end.
My wife, brother and I saw this flick this afternoon, and while I have some reservations about the ending and some holes in general, no movie in ages has had me this shaken afterwards without resorting to shock tactics. I am a horror film buff, and usually every modern movie that attempts to be genuinely scary doesn't work on me just because they ALL use the same cliches, though some movies dress them up better than others. Basically, once you have seen one modern Hollywood scare flick, you've pretty much seen them all, sad but true. It's no fun when you can literally announce the arrival of every scare tactic right before it happens. Signs is different. It creates a mood and atmosphere that keeps piling on the tension, and a sense of dread keeps building and building in you until the finale where you are just about to pop. That "birthday party" video may be one of the most effective creep out scenes in the last decade or two. Go see this flick.
Now, my few small gripes. Shyamalan is still way too focused on using flashbacks from the character's pasts and the film itself to create a resolution. This time it's all just WAY too convenient. I wish he would wrap things up a little less tidily. The "last dinner" scene is wrenching, but it would have been even more so had it taken Mel just a little bit more than a conveniently edited string of flashbacks for him to arrive at the state he is in at the end of the film. And one last gripe....wouldn't any normal person IMMEDIATELY report to the police, military, etc what Mel found in that pantry?
Those gripes aside, this is one of the most frightening films in the last 2 or 3 decades, with exemplary performances across the board and tons of standout scenes (of the scare, humorous, and plain old dramatic variety). Don't go into this movie looking for some deep meaning, or you will be disappointed. Go in looking for scares for the most hardened of horror fans, and you will leave a happy camper. I'd normally give this 3 1/2 outta 4 stars, but almost twelve hours after I saw it, I am still feeling a little creeped out, and DYING to go see it again tomorrow. Plus, it takes a LOT of effort to scare me these days, much less leave a genuinely scared/disturbed feeling with me well after the film has ended, so this sucker is easily 4 stars out of four stars. With this and Road to Perdition, I've had an awesome month at the movies.
One last thing, make sure you see this in a theater with good sound. Shyamalan and composer James Newton Howard use the sound and score of this film to manipulate the audience at near Hitchcock and John Carpenter levels.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Chuck, trust me, I didn't ruin Unbreakable for you, but I will extend a "mea culpa" to you and others for my assumption of people's familiarity of Shyamalan's previous films and I have spoilerized that portion for any others who haven't seen Unbreakable (what are you waiting for, an embroidered invitation? Go rent/buy the film! It's one of my favorite films).

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I warned you guys not to ask questions about the film's logic or science. Now, see?
~Edwin

 

[James_G]

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?

From what I gathered from the radio broadcast, the aliens were harvesting humans (with “poison”) and taking them away on their spaceships. Perhaps the alien, who had been trapped in the pantry of the veterinarian’s house, didn't know that his comrades had already fled and was just doing his job?

 

[Quentin]

Me, I think it's ok.

Shyamalan is Lynch light to me. He's all about mood and theme (which is great!), but he has all the subtlety of a speeding bus driving through a Tiffany's.

"Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable", and "Signs" are all very similar - they take a lot of time to establish a mood, introduce characters, and set up a ton of information that will pay off in the end and resonate the theme. But, you see it coming a mile away (the thematic stuff, that is...I realize many people were fooled by the basic twist of "Sixth Sense"...even I didn't figure it out til halfway in), and it never truly resonates. It just is.

Yes, "Signs" is not really about aliens. It's about faith. And if you didn't get that, you weren't watching the same movie I saw because Shyamalan does not let it slip by. The film also suffers from imbalance - Gibson's character is fully realized, but the rest of the family is there to set up the end and the "parts" they play in the final moment. Lastly, it's too long by about 20 minutes.

As for the water weakness
not only is it similar to "Unbreakable", but it is right out of "War of the Worlds". Stinker.

Shyamalan's big problem is this "style" he's decided to corner the market on. If you go for the slow reveal and WHAMMO payoff in the end of the film you run a danger of the payoff seeming too contrived. After all, the payoff in a film of this style is also the premise of the film and most premises ARE contrived. The difference in films of this style is that the contrivance has all attention focused on it. Everything in the movie points to it, and if it is even SLIGHTLY weak it will seem fake. Gibson's "revelation" feels overly manipulated...because it IS!

But, the actors are all great...and kid actors are hard to direct, but Shyamalan never fails there. The suspense stuff is a lot of fun and pretty scary at times. And, it's a sweet message.

I really hope Shyamalan tries something different next time out. Quit trying to be the master of slow movies with huge payoffs and go another direction!

 

[Seth Paxton]

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.

 

[Quentin]

Someone says in the review thread that:



I have to say...there are a lot of things to admire about this film, and of M. Night in general. But, this is NOT one of them. Economy is not something he is any longer familiar with. LOOOONG monologues about Joaquin's minor league success, a LOOONNNG speech from M. Night himself about his car accident being "meant to be", LOOOOONG cuts of flashbacks, A LOOOOOOOOOOONG talk about "two kinds of people", etc. Then, repeat scenes from earlier with the absolute intent to tell us what to watch and think.

I don't dislike this film...I think that it's one of the better summer popcorn films along with "Bourne Identity", but this is, by far, the major flaw with this and the other two famous M. Night films.

 

[Quentin]

Don't get me wrong Seth...as a suspense film, this one ranks high. Great stuff...AND he leaves A LOT to the imagination.

So, why does he have such a hard time leaving thematic and character information to the imagination? Or, do you think M. Night announcing himself on screen that "it was meant to be" and "I'm going toward water" are subtle? Was Gibson's diatribe on "two types of people" indirect? Did the story about Joaquin's minor league baseball reveal something about his character, or was it just fodder for setting up the climactic moment? Same question about the little girl's drinking tic.

Again...I like the film. I like what he attempted. But, it has some big, screaming flaws.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

If that camcorder footage scene wasn't a direct riff on the famous "bigfoot" footage from the 1960s, it might have been shocking or scary. As soon as it began, I knew exactly when the alien was going to show up in that scene.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Well, that scene MIGHT have been scary if the "reporter" did not say, "We warn you. What you are about to see is VERY disturbing".

Yes, another spoonfeeding. Why can't we just decide this for ourselves?

~Edwin

 

[Seth Paxton]

BTW, I actually thought they had some weakness to wood as well. It seemed to cause them problems. In fact I thought the water was a red herring until the end. I thought when the wood connected it would do more than normal damage. (I thought it was clever that MKS let out that a "solution" had been found but then doesn't let them find out what it is in time to use it - accept later by accident).
Look, the bottom line is our world is foreign to them. Too often with things like this there is some assumption that other people/things have total knowledge about us. Here the aliens were smart enough to figure some things out, but also seemed to be a bit confused by the foreign environment, and that seems more likely to me. We complain when Earthlings go to a foreign planet in films and instantly know everything about the new world and creatures, but we are ALSO mad when aliens come to Earth and don't know everything?? Seems like a contradiction to me. And not only that, maybe to their technology (based on their world's chemistry) water is like powerful acid, so that it even tears through their suits. Maybe such a concept as clothing is just outside their thinking since they appeared to be a stealth based creature anyway. Some animals on Earth use shells others simply try to hide. Well, why don't all animals have shells? Would mice be safer from hawks if they had a big turtle shell? It's just not how they and nature approach things. Different is different. I can accept that.
My one main gripe would be what are the chances that it would not be raining ANYWHERE they attacked? They couldn't pull it off. Of course they may have been watching the global weather and only attacking where they would be safe.
One confusion is that we are speaking like it's an attack, but it wasn't. It was a HUNT. Just like hunters sneaking among the buffalo. If the buffalo were to turn on the hunters and stampede the hunters would be killed. Lions attack hunters and kill them. But why do hunters allow this to happen? Well think of Indian hunters as an example. They had the technology to hunt the buffalo, they were smarter than them, but they weren't THAT far beyond the buffalo in development to be safe from trampling. It was just a risk of the hunt which they did for survival.
So maybe the aliens had a large leap in space travel, possibly based on physical concepts rather different from our approach. It might be that these techs weren't very weapon/defense centric (sheilds, rockets, other "man" approaches to space and SF space travel). Perhaps they actually had LESS weapons than we do, so they were sneaking around hoping to make a quick strike on the herd and then to pull out.
In the end I assumed that the alien was desperate, confused, possibly unaware he'd been left behind.
Now one ironic moment for me is that alien life sort of flied in the face of Christianity. Jesus came to Earth because we are the ones, right? So here the aliens give Mel restored faith in God, yet they also sort of contradict the religion he's just restored his faith in.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yes, another spoonfeeding. Why can't we just decide this for ourselves?

Come on Edwin, do you not watch the news?
I've heard that EXACT line used many times over on intense footage about to be shown on the news. It's called "truth of the scene". That IS what a news anchor would say before airing footage like that. It happens everyday on TV.
To me that is looking too hard for "spoonfeeding". What's next, when a character says "I'm scared" you are going to say "no shit, we know that".
To me I thought MKS let a lot of the situations be implied, especially early on. We know his wife was killed and that she was probably the victim of an accident where the person was not jailed for it.
Toward the end I would agree with Patrick that the flashbacks were too heavy handed. Mostly because it had already been so well implied without a lick of dialog, or minimal dialog.
Time and again he backs the script off rather than utilizing exposition dialog. At least to me.
On this one I think we saw different films totally. You've got Patrick, I've got Mark. I guess we let Tino come in and break the tie tomorrow.

 

[Seth Paxton]

If that camcorder footage scene wasn't a direct riff on the famous "bigfoot" footage from the 1960s, it might have been shocking or scary. As soon as it began, I knew exactly when the alien was going to show up in that scene.

For me, that's exactly what I liked about it. Because we have seen that bigfoot footage (faked of course), and here we are applying it as if it were real. How would we feel if we saw something in the manner that stuff like that does get capture by amateurs if we knew it was likely real.

And to be honest, MKS had me wondering if we were being setup a bit to find out it really was a hoax in the end. Or if it was a mix between copy cat hoaxes and some real stuff.

Quentin - you have hit on where I think MKS failed as well (which I sort of just touched on in my response to Edwin). The baseball scene was awkward. I thought the water thing was a red herring till the end. The "meant to be" thing was handled too heavy handed. And most troubling about that was that early in the film he was avoiding giving us any more than we needed. Wife's dead, he lost the faith and quit, brother moved in to help with things, guy apparently hit her or something...all that was done early on without really ever saying any of it too specifically.

So the awkward flashback at the end felt like something we didn't need to see. We didn't need to see those last moments with the wife because the dialog had already been spoken. In fact he probably would have been better off simply flashing briefly to his dialog with Phoenix instead.


Now back to something I did like and wanted to mention. In the end we get what I assumed to be a touch of CGI alien. BUT, he also seems to be doing practical effects - the shot of the alien through the glass and reflected in the TV allow for a person in a suit to be in the scene and still look vague enough to appear to be the alien. And the first person shot of Phoenix slamming the alien.

 

[Matt Stone]

Just wanted to quickly chime in without saying too much for the time being. I loved the film...seemed very reminiscent of Contact to me, in that it was more of a movie about faith than aliens. I heard quite a few people bitching when I walked out of the theater...I guess they thought it was going to be Independence Day II or something.

Anyway...really liked it. Not perfect, but very suspenseful with good writing and great acting.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I've heard that EXACT line used many times over on intense footage about to be shown on the news. It's called "truth of the scene". That IS what a news anchor would say before airing footage like that. It happens everyday on TV.

Of course but this time, there was hardly anything intense about that footage at all. And like I said, scary can be fairly subjective. The Blair Witch Project is a prime example.

Shyamalan carefully sets up each scene and appears to have an answer to everything including having to explain where Joaquin Phoenix's character got the extra light bulb down in the basement. But what I would really like to know is what is it in the Middle East that was discovered that made the aliens go away?

~Edwin

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I found the "Middle East" reference to be another heavy-handed message. The place in the world where we have the greatest conflict (where people of different races and religions genuinely *hate* each other) is the place where the solution is found? Through mutual cooperation, no doubt .

 

[Patrick Sun]

Okay, there's a point in the film, when the family are in locked in the cellar (wherever they spent the night) when the alien came a-knocking when Bo goes "it's just like my dream." and I said to myself, "oh no, don't tell me Bo drank some hallucinogenic water" and we're just watching a child's dream. (Immediately my mind goes into rewind mode, trying to remember where a dream splice could have occurred).
Now that's a fake-out, and I didn't appreciated it.
I think you can make a lot of excuses for this film, but the aliens' weakness is not one of them. It's sloppy writing, which lacks a foundation in logic and reality, all in the name of pushing his themes on faith, but at the expense of the setup. The plot is overly contrived, not naturally contrived. Big difference in my book for it to be enormously enjoyable. (And this is coming from a fan of Shyamalan's previous 2 films, haven't seen his 1st film yet).
Shyamalan had a chance to make both themes work and still come up with a plausible resolution to both, but he used one side (the aliens) to push his agenda which didn't really need pushing in an attempt to reel in people who are intrigue about crop signs and extraterrestrial life. Like someone else mentioned that Graham finding his faith again had little to do with the alien "visit" (it could have been any sort of weather-related storm that could have killed them like a twister or lightning/etc during the night), but if you're going to go down the road of the aliens, you have to make it consistent and not cheat the audience, which is most certainly did.
Now if it really was just a little girl's dream, its internal logic does make sense, and all is forgiven. (Maybe).
I will say that I don't scare easily, and none of the scares scared me, but there were plenty of girls sitting around me that got that Blair Witch buzz they were seeking with this film. Sadly enough.

 

[Sam E. Torres]

howcome nobody here seems to be annoyed by the fact that the big aliens came and went, poisoned a lot of people, but SOMEHOW were defeated...with just some words of dialogue. it was so friggin' vague and seemed tacked on to the end. and i don't give a crap if the movie is about faith, they should have made it more detailed than just "oh yeah, they're leaving..."...and i can't believe m. night opted for a kelly kicking the raptor in jp2 approach..."swing away"...that was so friggin' cheesy...i just feel very offended that people are calling this guy the next spielberg. articles are being written about "what you can't see is what is scary"...articles that were written in 1976 about jaws. this guy isn't doing anything new. it's an obviously inspired piece that just made me feel very cheated. i mean, come on-the aliens were not that threatening at all...m. night caught one(good scene, but completely "yeah right" with the whole bad ass serious "don't go in the pantry" line) the cinematography was not nearly as creative and jaw-dropping as the sixth sense or unbreakable.
the only things that completely blew away my expectations were the performances of the actors(contrary to anything else that has been said here, i think gibson pulled away from the same exact role he plays), including the children. i LOVED the james newton howard score, obviously inspired by hitchcock and williams' scores...but this is a good example of how you can turn inspirations into your own masterpiece of work.
it was amazing until the last few cheesy moments...and i am not an independence day fan or anything, i didn't want to see aliens blown up and stuff...i just wanted some logical and not tacked on(water...). i liked contact a lot. but this one just really didn't seem as creative as m. night's other works. here's hoping he doesn't hold this up as his masterpiece benchmark for his other films.
i give the movie :star: :star: 1/2 out of :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Patrick, I was really surprised you didn't like this film. For sure I thought you were going to love it just so that we can have another one of our Unbreakable discussions.
~Edwin