*** Official "SIGNS" Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[Edwin Pereyra]

Here are my thoughts – SPOILER FREE
Signs starts out with a musical score accompanying the opening credits reminiscent of Bernard Herrmann’s score in Psycho. Even the artwork of the opening credits tries to mimic that Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece. But that is where comparisons to the late Mr. Hitchcock begin and end.
M. Night Shyamalan’s latest feature film is also his most commercial film yet. It is one of those films where the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
The film tells the story of a family played by Mel Gibson, his children (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin) and his brother, Joaquin Phoenix, an ex-minor league baseball player. One morning crop circles appear on their farm for no apparent reason. Is this a hoax or the work of extra-terrestrials? The answer is revealed as the film unfolds.
Those looking for thrills with an all out action might just be a little disappointed. It is not that type of a film. It moves at a very leisurely pace and concentrates more on building tension and suspense. For the most part, Shyamalan succeeds. But one has to keep in mind that suspense is also fairly subjective. Shyamalan’s style is prevalent throughout the film including the slow panning of the camera from one end of the room to the other. But this time, he doesn’t go overboard in style as he did in Unbreakable. Here, he is much more restrained.
Signs is not a plot driven film. Those who had a good time nitpicking the character behaviors in Panic Room and the science in Minority Report will have a field day with this one and probably not enjoy its final resolution. I wouldn’t be surprised if others call the ending hokey. I suggest not questioning why a character behaves in such a manner while under stress nor would I suggest questioning the film’s science at all. For example, the kids in this film displayed far more confidence and braveness for their age given the circumstances and challenges they were faced with. I’m not so sure other children would exude such confidence and act in a similar manner given the same circumstances.
It is also not a character based film either. While Shyamalan tries to pile Signs with layers of spirituality, fate, foreshadowings and coincidences, in the end, the probing and the examination isn’t deep enough. In his effort to put more depth into the storyline, the film becomes a drama, a comedy, a thriller, science fiction and a mystery all in one that it loses its own identity. Shyamalan spoon feeds us with a lot of details that there is not much left to ponder upon in the end.
Signs is your typical summer fare and it should be enjoyed as such. Enjoy it for its creepiness, spirituality and its humor – the latter being plentiful. I found that there is still enough to enjoy from both the suspense and spiritual side of the story to warrant a mild recommendation. Just don’t expect a big payoff in the end.
Signs rates (out of four).
~Edwin

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Signs". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.
Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!
If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.
Crawdaddy

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I liked it a lot more than that. Here Shyamalan uses an economy of words and images to tell his story, and he does so with a master's touch. This guy is a pure filmmaker who doesn't have to expend pages of dialogue to tell the audience what to watch and think. Shyamalan conveys his intentions through long takes and silence, leaving audiences to observe. In that respect Signs is by no means a "typical" summer film.
While it may not be a character-based film, there's certainly a crucial character arc. The film is about Gibson's spiritual journey and how the events test his beliefs.

On a side note, Shyamalan has wisely chosen to avoid another twist ending
.
A very entertaining movie. One last potential spoiler: Plus, you have to give Shyamalan credit for making a movie about a subject--religious reawakening--that ordinarily would not appeal to mass audiences on the scale that this film will.

:star: :star: :star: 1/2

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Here's what I posted (slightly revised) when I saw the film a few weeks ago:
M. Night Shyamalan’s SIGNS seemingly is about an alien invasion of the earth. Unfortunately, what the movie is really about is a man-of-god trying to regain his faith after a tragic accident takes the life of his wife. Using nearly every cliché in the book, SIGNS is nothing more than a verrrry slowly paced retread of WAR OF THE WORLDS, INVADERS FROM MARS, EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS, THE BIRDS, THE EXORCIST, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, INDEPENDENCE DAY, CONTACT, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and The Invaders episode of TV’s "The Twilight Zone".
Obviously going for the show-nothing, mood-is-everything approach of his hit THE SIXTH SENSE, Shyamalan keeps the audience in the dark, both figuratively and literally, for much of the film, refusing to show the armadas of spacecraft and keeping the alien creatures in shadow, though we do see a few blinking lights hovering over Mexico City on a CNN-like news broadcast. I thought this approach was all wrong for this material. As much as I like well thought-out scripts that require a minimum of special effects, when your story relies so much on what the audience is told is "out there", you just have to show it! Otherwise, it feels like a cheat. I’m sure the defense of the film will come in with the argument that "It’s NOT about an alien invasion, it’s a character study about loss of faith." True, but then why use the pretext of an alien invasion as the catalyst for this plot if you're not going to show it? THE EXORCIST, also about the loss of faith, doesn't hide any of its details. In fact, they are necessary for the story. SIGNS suffers because of this refusal to expand the plot.
This will probably be a big hit, though; it seemed that much of the audience was enjoying the film. My gut feeling is that this is aimed at people who have *never* seen one of these films before; to them, it will all seem fresh and new.
The cast does an admirable job keeping the film believable, though it’s not much help with such a derivative script; I can’t decide if Shyamalan has *never* seen another alien attack film or has seen *too many* of them. Mel Gibson plays the Reverend well, though I could picture Harrison Ford doing this part even better. Joaquin Phoenix is fine as Gibson’s brother. James Newton Howard’s music score is a knockout, giving the film the credibility it desperately needs. The photography of Tak Fujimoto (1.85 flat aspect ratio) is very nice, though this film continues the tradition of seriously under-lighting interior scenes, turning them into a grainy mess at times. The sound is impressive, with several deep-bass scenes that made some members of the audience jump.
You know you’re in trouble when the aftermath of a big alien attack on the farmhouse consists of a lot of turned-over furniture...

:star: :star: (out of 4)

 

[Stephen Orr]

I have to disagree a bit with the other posters. My son and I saw "Signs" today with a packed house, and think it is one of the best films about how God works through the circumstances in people's lives to make Himself known. It reminded me of the old saying "It doesn't matter if you believe in Him, because He believes in you."


M. Night is a genius filmmaker, and is quickly becoming my favorite director. One thing, among others, that I appreciated was that he never went for the cheap scare. Everything that would scare us in this film is presented in a genuine, realistic way (given the alien invasion plot).

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Signs - :star::star::star::star:1/2 out of 5
Whether you love him or not, there’s no denying the impact that filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan has made with his first two major films. The Sixth Sense was an absolute phenomenon, a deliberate and brilliantly crafted ghost story that unexpectedly became a massive box-office sensation. His second effort, Unbreakable (which I still contend is the better of the two) may not have “wowed" moviegoers quite so enjoyably, although the movie was also a critical and financial success. So now the young filmmaker has set himself an unenviable task: how to ‘top’ his previous efforts, both in storytelling quality and in the creation of the seemingly requisite ‘twist ending’.
Well, if you’re looking for a review that will divulge stuff from the last 45 minutes of this movie, you’re reading the wrong one. To say that Shyamalan needs to insert some mind-bending jolt at the end of each of his films would be a mistake; how confining it must be to be labeled the ‘twist ending director’. Regardless of what goes on during the final ten minutes of Signs, odds are you’ll have your eyeballs virtually glued to the screen. Not because you’re expecting some massive jolt, but because Signs is a nearly hypnotic movie – and it’s a whole lotta fun, too.
Mel Gibson plays Graham Hess, a low-key and devoted father who maintains a farm in Bucks County, PA. Formerly a man of God (prior to a mysterious and tragic accident involving his recently-deceased wife), Graham seems content (if more than a little glum) to raise his young son and daughter, tend to his corn crop, and spend nights in front of the TV with his loyal younger brother, Merrill. Through a series of mystifying occurrences, the Hesses slowly begin to suspect that their homestead has become a meeting place of sorts for some unseen extra-terrestrial visitors.
That’s all you’re getting from me, plotwise. You may end up loving or loathing this movie, but only a fool would divulge details that could ruin your own experience with the film. Suffice to say that Shyamalan takes a potentially trite and overused concept (aliens come to Earth), and infuses it into a rustic, realistic, and altogether believable tale of hidden invasion. If you’re expecting a lot of cutaways to other locales where similar crises are taking place with widespread hysteria and explosions, this isn’t the movie. (Try Independence Day.) Signs stays totally anchored on the Hess farm, with only a few brief visits to the local Bucks County main street. In other words, we see a possibly worldwide invasion of alien creatures – through the eyes of a farmer and his young family. Sound dull? Absolutely not.
If the movie seems to take a little while to ‘get rolling’, that’s because the horror of Signs lies in ‘mundane reality’. A film in which all the characters seem like super-heroes probably couldn’t offer the tension and fear inherent in watching John Q. Public as he witnesses what he believes to be the end of the world. Were the Earth ever visited by seemingly malevolent creatures, what you see in Signs is precisely what would be going on all over the globe: protective fathers, naively brave kids, and a house filled with a deep and resigned sadness. Watching the end of humanity from the comfort of your own secluded home seems a lot scarier than being laser-zapped at ground zero.
But IS the Hess farm ground zero? The massive crop circles discovered amongst the corn seem to imply some sort of navigational ‘sign’...or it could just be a few drunken idiots itching for a cheap laugh. Those late night shuffles and rooftop thumps? Could be the wind, a squirrel, an unfastened window...or it could be something wholly mysterious and starkly terrifying. If The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are the sort of movies that improve with repeat viewings (and I firmly believe that they are), then Signs is best the first time around. As a somewhat jaded fan of all things cinematically spooky, I did not expect Signs to jolt me or fill me with a creepy sense of unease. Yet Shyamalan accomplished both, and quite effectively I might add.
Opting to forgo his normal leading man (Bruce Willis), Shyamalan cast Mel Gibson as Graham, and it’s one of the best performances he’s offered in years. Thankfully eschewing the chest-thumping rah-rah of his self-produced Hero Trilogy (Braveheart, The Patriot, We Were Soldiers), Gibson is more flawed, tortured, and sympathetic than we’ve seen in quite some time; his performance here may remind you why he’s often considered a solid actor in addition to being a grade-A movie star. Joaquin Phoenix offers a terrific supporting performance as Graham’s younger brother, bringing a necessary touch of familial devotion and plain old common sense to the Hess family.
Special note should be made for Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin, who play Graham’s young children. Since they’re both onscreen for almost the entire film, it’s wonderful that neither of them showcase any of the ham-handed preciousness you generally see from child actors. Sure, Breslin is a cute-as-a-button little girl, but her character never once seems like widow dressing for us to go “Awwwwwwww” at...though you may once or twice. Culkin (littlest brother in the seemingly unending series of Culkins) offers more dramatic weight and ‘real-kid’ authenticity than big brother Macauly did over his entire career. (Sorry, Mac, but that whole Home Alone thing, while entertaining to witness, was hardly ‘acting’.) Signs only has four ‘major’ roles, but that’s all you’ll really need.
As in his earlier movies, Shyamalan presents the fantastic, while filtering it through some decidedly ambiguous moral dilemmas. The issue of Graham’s faith (and eventual lack thereof) is clearly of paramount concern to Shyamalan, and it grounds the film even further. The eventual outcome of Graham’s inner turmoil may seem a bit ‘convenient’ to some, but I’d argue that his character arc fits this tale to a tee.
Signs may not be a better film than either The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, but so what? Since when does a director have to ‘top’ the film before? I see Signs as a sort of departure for Shyamalan, but to explain that any further...I’d have to ruin the movie for you! Either way, the guy still has a perfect batting average, and (much like I felt after seeing his previous films) I can’t wait to see what he comes up with next.
If you mistake a well-crafted set-up for ‘boring plot stuff’, you may be better off skipping Signs, as it’s a film that knows full well where it’s headed – yet is in no real hurry to get there. In another film, that could be the kiss of death, but Shyamalan’s screenplay offers enough mysterious clues and torturously delicious teases before getting down to the meat and potatoes.
Signs contains some of the most effective and brilliantly-conceived ‘creepouts’ I’ve seen in years, a handful of joyous jolts that wouldn’t have been nearly as effective if the flick had just opened with a bunch of cheap scares. Some movies are scary just because of atmosphere and timing; Signs is scary because, quite simply, it seems real.

 

[Seth Paxton]

As always SPOILER FREE
Signs 8.5 of 10
I really am leaning toward a 9 though. Why the .5 off? Well, the script is just a touch awkward at times and a few scenes just felt pushed together wrong, nothing really terrible, just a little difficulty getting everything that M. Night wanted to have go on in the film to actually fit together.
Like his previous two films, this is a MOOD PIECE foremost. Clearly it's his strength. The line I am recommending this film on is this... Signs does for alien invasion what The Others did for haunted houses (throw in a dash of Night of the Living Dead as well).
And that's why the lean toward the 9. The film is so much more about implying things, about silences, about the audience having time to mull things over themselves and work themselves up to a scare. And often the scares (and I had several) come from things that could easily not scare you had the film not set you up for it with it's simmering approach.
There is a central theme to the film that is resolved in the end, and that also lends to the film being stronger than just a thriller.
The film marks another fine turn by Joaquin Phoenix as well, to go with his effort in Quills (I didn't care for him in Gladiator).
You might find it a spoiler to know that aliens do exist in the film and that crop circles aren't some huge part of it, but it's not really a spoiler at all (you will know early enough in the film anyway). In fact, the idea that I can tell you that without spoiling the film for you speaks to the strength of what you really get from the film.
M. Night Shyamalan is clearly a thoughtful and hard working director who WANTS to avoid the flaws that so many of us complain about today. He shoots for real in-camera effects as often as possible and understands that it's not always WHAT you show, but HOW you show it. Sixth Sense never had me fooled, but even still I admired seeing his effort to hide things from us. That is how I enjoyed that film because I saw him avoiding cheats and sticking to implication. For Signs he has done it again, letting your mind do more of the work. And that benefits the film.
Oh, and there are actually plenty of good laughs throughout the film. Just part of the warmth and humanity that is much more key to the film than any aliens.

 

[jacob w k]

I absolutely loved the movie and thought it was one of the best movies that I have seen in the last few years. It might have been the scariest movie I have ever seen. Obviously, this is not due to what you see or do not see but what you hear. I thought it was some of the best use of surround sound that I have ever heard. I do understand why some people will have problems with it, some parts do not really make sense but it more than makes up for it with some great shocks and an incredible amount of tension and suspense.
I'd give it a 10 except for the fact that there is not one gunshot or alien death ray.:frowning:

 

[TerryRL]

:star: :star: :star: :star: out of 5 stars.
"Signs" was a really good movie. I was one of the few who actually liked "Unbreakable" better than "The Sixth Sense" and I would put "Signs" is M. Night Shyamalan's most disciplined work as a director. He gets his thrills the old fasioned way instead of relying on special effects to do all the work for him.
The cast is fabulous and the movie is genuinely creepy. The scene where we see the alien in the news footage of the birthday party was truly scary,
and the "standoff" in the climax was also very well done. Sure the movie has some weaknesses, but overall "Signs" is a very effective thriller.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I thought "Signs" was okay, but I was not fulfilled by the resolution (I "get it" I just didn't like it). There are some good funny bits, some jumpy bits, the actor is pretty good, the kids are cute/precocious, but the whole does not exceed the sum of the parts. It's okay, worth a matinee, but I feel it was one of Shyamalan's weaker efforts.

I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.

 

[BobH]

This is going to be the film that brands Shyamalan's career. All directors get labeled by their style and this movie pretty much convinces me that he's as thin as I thought after seeing Sixth Sense. I just saw him being compared to Spielberg on the cover of Newsweek and I must say that is both flattering and damning. He's not as good but just may be as commercial.

This movie is apparently aimed at a large segment of the population and I would suspect it will be a hit. If one is inclined to be moved by religious faith issues then this hits home because I think it does a good job of presenting Mel Gibson's character. Perhaps another actor would have brought more subtlety but I admit to liking Mel.

If you are the type that can't stand "Chicken Soup for the Soul" or all the emails your friends send you with sentimental stories and "truths" then this movie will leave you wanting a refund. Since I fit in with the latter, I must give it:

2 stars out of 5

For those that fit the market target, you'll leave feeling moved and rewarded. To each his/her own.

 

[Justin_S]

Mel Gibson has never been one of my favorite actors, but his acting is absolutely spectacular in this film! The one scene at the dinner table with his family is so wonderfully acted, and is easily among his best work. The rest of the cast is great too, and the characters are pretty fleshed out.

This film is also extremely creepy at parts! As was mentioned by someone in the discussion thread, the Brazilian camcorder sighting scene is so intensely freaky that it sent shivers up my spine. That scene is so perfectly done, and so perfectly built up. It is easily one of the best scenes in the film. Also, the scene where Gibson sees the alien's leg in the cornfield is pretty damn spooky too, and I felt a good sense of uneasiness while viewing the scenes with the ships in the sky. Besides all this, the film is also quite emotionally touching.

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.

Some people disliked the ending, but I thought it was fitting overall for this film.

Simply put, I loved this film, and it is the second best film of the year so far, right behind FRAILTY. On a scale of 1 to 5, I can't help but give this utterly spectacular film a solid 5!

 

[BertFalasco]

Past midnight. Just came back from seeing it with like 900 people, that doesn't even matter. I need self comfort, no one person helps being with, you know? I feel "surreal realness...."
I will edit this later, I just felt I needed to share how I feel.. I have The Replacements on to comfort me, yet, I find myself keep checking (actually looking) for a mof*cken extraterrestrial in the reflection..
-Bert ONE HELL OF A MOVIE
EDIT: The title of the movie is very relevant also, ont because of crop signs, but the scenarios given by Graham (Mel). Think about what I imply. You're either a believer of miracles or luck/signs. Signs was meant to harm.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

:star: :star: :star: :star: :star:'s out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:'s for Signs.
I agree with just about every positive thing said so far in this thread about the film and think it's one of the scariest films since The Others. I too really appreciated M. Knights idea to have this whole terrifying situation play out from the home of this family without cutting away to the world. In the end it's the individual families that will have to contend with this thing, we get to witness just one of them. It may as well be our own family on that screen.
I also felt the strong connection to this film and Master Hitchcock's work, Bernard Herman as well, the music was incredibly reminisent of his brilliant work. The scares are plentiful in this film, and the best thing about them is they're not cheap scares, there's genuin tension and suspense proceeding the big scare. That scene with the pantry, and the scene wih the televised footage of the sighting at the kids party, both had me going, big time!
Boy, M. Knight Shaymalan is proving to be quite the expert in tension and good ol fasion story telling, and he's just getting started! He's quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. Now, I didn't care for Unbreakable, but I CAN SEE the skill and quality presant in that film, it just didn't click with me is all. So what I was left with in the end was an obviously good and skillful film that didn't appeal to me.
You want a scary ride, an emotional ride, a funny ride? Go see Signs. One of the best films of the year so far along with Minority Report.

 

[Adrian Finol]

First post ever.
I got to say I really enjoyed this movie, the whole feel of it never let me take a break to think about something else.
I love the whole way they showed only a bit of the aliens but just enough to scare you and get your mind going about what they really look like.
The only thing I can complain about, was that they showed the alien at the end. I wish they just had hinted and scared you with little impression of them. Like the birthday party video or the reflection on the TV at the end. I guess to me it would have been a more powerful impression.

Anyways, I totally recommend going and seeing this movie. Make sure you have women around, cause their screams really make the movie more scarier .

 

[Luis Cruz]

I truly agree with Stephen Orr about how this film

how God works through the circumstances in people's lives to make Himself known. It reminded me of the old saying "It doesn't matter if you believe in Him, because He believes in you."

Amazing film and easily gets **** our of **** from me.
Spoiler tags added by administrator. Please avoid spoilers in Official Review threads.

 

[MikeRS]

AMAZING. Seen it twice already, will probably go again this Sunday. The film simply PAYS OFF. Night weaves a vivid portrait of a troubled but close family, while crafting perhaps the scariest psychological horror film since ALIEN.
He really works on our fear of the unknown so acutely, and with such PATIENCE, that it just about made me want to scream out in joy! The first 2 acts lay out all the seeds and Night's narrative structure is simply beyond reproach. The way he just hits the dramatic/suspensful beats is to me........perfect.
Kudos must also go out to the actors, as Night benefits greatly from the soulful ensemble work of Gibson, Phoenix, the kids, and Cherry Jones. They all play a part of the beautiful--slow burn--spell that is the first two acts of this tale.
But nothing compares to the sheer emotional wallop that is the masterful 3rd act. From the riveting LAST SUPPER the family have together before the barricade, to Graham's recollection of the births of his children(GENIUS!), to assisting Morgan's recovery from his asthma attack, to the reflection of the Alien on the T.V. Set's screen............to that frickin' SWING!!
God, when Phoenix started swinging that bat and Howard's score began to soar, I was so in awe of the emotional high Night had achieved.
THIS IS WHY he is being compared to Spielberg. It's not just technique and style, it's that his genre tales achieve true emotional epiphanies that are worthy of comparison to the best the Beard or even Stephen King have to offer.
:star: :star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
Spoiler tags added by administrator. Please avoid spoilers in Official Review threads.

 

[Masood Ali]

4 out of 5 stars

I'm glad that there was no HUGE payoff at the end of Signs like in Unbreakable or Sixth Sense; it's nice for a director to change pace a little (what some of you may label as "mainstream"). The movie did a masterful job of giving me chills; genuine fear that I haven't felt in a very long time of watching films.

Also, I'm not exactly a religious person myself, but the recurring theme of religion or the reassurance of faith didn't bother me one bit. I think it fit the movie beautifully.

If anything is to be criticized, it would be that he might have shown us too much of the alien with his choice of ending; but the ending fits well, so its a minor gripe.

 

[Lynn Johnson]

While not the critic that most of you are, I can't help but express my opinion regarding this film. The only problem is, I am having a hard time coming up with the correct words to describe my disappointment. Not only was I left wanting MUCH more, but I just plain did not like this movie. It had a few good moments, but I had read a couple of "professional" reviews that put it on a "scary" level with Poltergeist...um, not EVEN close! I think the best way I can describe this movie is that it doesn't live up to its potential - great foundation, but it fails to build on it and left me upset that I spent $9 to see it. Wish I could go back in time and get my $9 back!!!
1.5 :star:'s on a 5 star scale

 

[Paul Case]

:star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
Since everybody else has already pointed out the many amazing and wonderful qualities of this film, I will keep my review short by saying that everybody who sings the praises of this film is dead-on. I love this movie. The writing, the direction, and the performances are all superb. Signs is fantastic and it is the best film I have seen so far this year. I will be eagerly anticipating Shyamalan's next film!