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

[JonZ]

Very disappointing after the excellent Unbreakable
:star: :star:

 

[Blu]

I enjoyed this movie a lot!
The Psycho style opening music really set the tone for a story that was deliberate but paced well. It has long slow shots, no fast zooms and every shot means something.
The tension created makes the movie!

 

[Robert Crawford]

I enjoyed this film very much and will most likely see it again soon for another enjoyable viewing experience. Great acting jobs by all actors and the film's director is fast becoming my favorite director of his generation.





Crawdaddy

 

[Tim Glover]

I loved it too.
4.5 stars out of 5

 

[MichaelG]

I give it 3.75 out of 5 stars.

I thought the idea of water destroying the alien was a little weak, that's too easy.

I did like the move, had some good scary parts and some funny parts. Overall I would recommend this to friends.

 

[Dalton]

I will keep it short since most of the other positive reviews sum up my feelings on the film. I loved this film and give it
:star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: . Much better than the dissapointing Unbreakable .

 

[Mike Broadman]

I'm surprised that so many were scared by the movie. I didn't even think it was trying to be scary. The movie had the tone of "nervous laughter," like when you say something stupid at a party and there's this awkward moment. It come across very well.

My feelings about the film are portrayed accurately by Mr. Weinberg's review.

 

[Jeremy Anderson]

For a long time now, horror movies have lost something. Modern horror cinema has become nothing but hack-and-slash guts and gore, with no real heart or feeling of dread. Directors have long since forgotten that sometimes what you DON'T see is scarier than what you do. Thankfully, M. Night Shyamalan brought to Hollywood a restoration of the vision of great directors such as Hitchcock and DePalma with his first feature film, The Sixth Sense. (Yes, I know Wide Awake was his actual first feature film, but movies with Rosie O'Donnell don't count.) Though opinions were split on the movie, his second feature Unbreakable proved that Shyamalan was something unique in his field -- someone who could write, direct, produce and even act in his own movies without sacrificing one hat for any of the others. Unbreakable has stood as my favorite movie in recent years... until today.

SIGNS is absolutely one of the most riveting pieces of sci-fi/horror/drama that I have ever seen, and I would place it next to The Changeling in my list of creepiest movies ever. Mel Gibson plays Father Graham Hess, a Pennsylvania preacher whose faith has been weakened by the recent death of his wife. After her death, his brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) moves in to help out with the two kids (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin). One night, a series of crop circles appears in the yard. Long story short, aliens are coming to Earth. But the movie isn't really about that per se, but the more intimate human drama of the four main characters and how they deal with both the aliens and their own faith in God. The result is extraordinary -- an amalgam of science fiction, horror, suspense, religion and drama. I was absolutely floored by Shyamalan's restraint, giving us blurry shots of the aliens or only shots using reflections. It made the movie so much more suspenseful than just showing them like most recent movies do. Thankfully, Shyamalan eschews his trademark surprise ending this time out, which I think may upset some viewers. Of all the performances here, Gibson and Culkin are the standouts. Mel Gibson makes you believe his internal struggle of faith, especially during a scene at the dinner table where his performance almost had me in tears. Rory Culkin is quickly proving himself to be a capable young actor, and his performance here is better than his amazing performance in Kenneth Lonergan's You Can Count On Me.

The movie is mostly dark, with Shyamalan using shadows and muted colors to increase the feeling of dread. In particular, one scene where the light gets knocked out in the basement had me absolutely riveted. Again, the things in the dark that we can't see are so much more frightening and intense than those that we can, and I'm glad Shyamalan and DP Tak Fujimoto chose to shoot the film as they did. If I had a complaint about this movie, it would be that one particular plot point was never explained but hinted at repeatedly throughout the movie (concerning Hess' daughter, which I won't go into since I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone). On further thought, maybe it's best that they DIDN'T tie up all the loose ends here. Regardless, this is a movie that I can't wait to get on DVD.

The usage of sound in the movie is outstanding. From the beginning of the movie where two dogs are barking behind you, the surrounds are used so effectively that you feel like you are there. Since Shyamalan chooses not to show the creatures in most scenes, the usage and placement of sound is critical to the sense of dread. Bumps, creaks and howls circle around the viewer, giving you the sense that something outside the room is trying to get in. This is the single most effective usage of digital surround that I have ever heard in a movie, bar none. Also excellent is the score by James Newton Howard. Howard's scores for The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable get regular play in my house, since they're very atmospheric and great to read horror novels by. After hearing the score for this movie and how precise the usage of instruments is in it, I will definitely be getting the score.

SIGNS may not appeal to everyone. Its deliberate pacing and multi-tiered plot may not work for those going into it expecting Independence Day. But for a movie with lots of heart, a great story, powerful performances, outstanding music and sound, and superlative direction and cinematography, I can not think of a better recent example. The title of the movie refers not only to the signs laid out in the fields, but the little things we see every day -- pictures in books, a child's premonitions, the barking of a dog, and perhaps signs from a higher power. It is this duality that lends SIGNS an intelligence and power that few modern directors can achieve. Perhaps that is why so few of them try anymore.

MOVIE: 10
CINEMATOGRAPHY: 9
AUDIO: 10
PERFORMANCES: 9

 

[Fred Bang]

Just saw SIGNS too, and I give it a 8.5/10. The audience absolutely had a blast at my screening. I think M. Night is the next Spielberg.

I would personnaly have like it more if the ending was a bit more open-ended and ambiguous. That would have given SIGNS a perfect score,

 

[todd stone]

just came back from signs. ANOTHER excellent movie by M Knight.
VERY SUSPENSEFUL
:star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
also, michaelg, considering we don't know ANYTHING about aliens, IRL, I don't see how water could be considered "weak".

 

[Timothy Alexander]

Just came back from seeing Signs and I just have to say M. Night Shyamalan is one talented SOB. This movie just hit a home run with everything for me. From the comedy, to the suspense, to the horror, and to the drama. He blended many different genres together and a movie that was more entertaining than it had any right to be was the result.
One of my favorite movies of the year and something I think will have a great run ahead of itself. Especially since I plan on recommending this one to every single person I know.
:star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Jason Seaver]

I love Signs in spite of its slight to big lapses in logic. It's not quite as good as The Sixth Sense, but it's very close.
Shyamalan accomplishes two things in a mainstream movie that a lot of writer/directors can't do seperately - he crafts a well-acted drama about faith, loss, and family, and he also makes a very fine horror film. He does what Bill Paxton tried to accomplish in Frailty, but unlike that film, Signs avoids veering off the tracks at the end. That's not to say it doesn't have a twist ending - after all, Shyamalan's famous for them, and the ones in his previous movies were all clearly something he built toward. Of course, it may not, since you'd almost be expecting that. I'm not telling.
I will say, though, that he played me like a musical instrument. Even as I recognized the Hermann influence in James Newton Howard's music during the opening titles, how I saw them manipulating me, I was getting tense. Night's "less is more" approach to the paranormal works wonderfully - he recognizes that grotesqueries have become too common to be frightening, and that it's the idea that there may be a monster running around your house that's scary.
Tension builds and builds until in the third act... Yikes. Again, no description, but suffice it to say, Shyamalan has built everything up for a reason, and the payoff is well worth it. Maybe the most intense half-hour or so I've had at the movies this year.
To a certain extent, Shyamalan has a formula, and there are things you can almost check off here - a haunted leading man (played with restraint by an action hero not necessarily known for introspection), a talent for spotting good child actors and getting the most out of them, possibly paranormal situations that insinuate themselves into the characters' lives slowly, a Pennsylvania setting, and a small cameo (actually, in this movie his part has almost grown to the size of a supporting role - more on that in the spoiler space). Eventually, he may need to expand his repetoire, but on the other hand, he is an extremely sure hand with these tools.
About that cameo - it's almost too clever for words. After the movie, I realized that the writer and director had actually come on screen and done an exposition dump, telling the audience exactly what we needed to know for the last act to work as an action sequence. But he disguises it well, and low-keys the exposition with the stuff about Mrs. Hess and the immediate follow-up with a jump-scene.
I mean, that's just a guy with complete mastery of the genre, there. And that's the best word for Signs - masterful. Not quite perfect - some scenes in the first act were off, and I don't buy a whole lot of the reasoning behind it at all - but pretty dang close.
:star::star::star:¾

 

[Adam_S]

There are many degrees of terror, and there are many ways to inspire terror in an audience. The most powerful tool to create terror is through the use of dread. Dread is a feeling, an atmosphere, a style that permeates of all a story. Dread is also difficult to pull off convincingly it requires a precise timing and careful understanding of characters and story. Dread works so well because it relys on two key things: 1) the audience cares for and is emotionally invested in characters thrust into situations specific to the story; 2) It relys on the infinite power of the audiences imagination to make things even worse then the storyteller could ever begin to convey within the limitations of words or images (this is why timing is so essential)

Signs is not Scary, it's not gory, if it is horror, it is character based horror, and the horror is the least important aspect of the film, it never tries to be any of those things, it is truly a story that uses dread to a full effect reminescent of Hitchcock.

Signs is a survival story, how a broken family individually struggles to survive and understand the potential utter destruction of their world and way of life. It is about how family deals and copes with this situation, and it is no mistake that the most beautiful scene of the film occurs as they cope with a near fatal asthma attack.


Signs is a beautiful, glorious, touching film that is vastly different in theme and execution from a typical summer film.

5* out of 5*

Adam

 

[Zen Butler]

:star: 1/2 out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
I'm sorry but I thought this film was awful. It was poorly written to the point of laughable dialog. The characters walked around like zombies, and I feel they did the best they could with what they had. I will not comment on how unbelievable it was, because I am not basing anything on that. I usually try and leave logic at the door. It was just so in cohesive, and seriously, I noticed many people laughing at parts that were not meant to be funny. Ridiculous! I give it 1 and 1/2 only because of a few comedy scenes that worked, and I saw it in digital projection.

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Well, just got back from seeing "Signs"...
I liked "The Sixth Sense", and actually was one of the few people who enjoyed "Unbreakable" more!! (Maybe it was because I watched while on my honeymoon...:wink: )
I actually went into this movie with pretty much no expectations at all, only having seen a couple of trailers and being intrigued knowing that it's an M. Night film...
I thoroughly enjoyed it!! I'd put it ahead of "The Sixth Sense" (I can't stand Haley Joel Osment) but still under my favorite M. Night film, "Unbreakable".
Very entertaining, surprisingly funny, not particularly deep, but that's okay; it was a welcome step UP in intelligence and quality from typical summer fare. It's not "2001: A Space Odyssey" for deep intelligent filmmaking, and its not "ID4" for mindless popcorn action...it's a cross between "War of the Worlds", "The Birds", and maybe an episode of "Seventh Heaven" ...but it somehow works!
Overall, a definite purchase on DVD:
:star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
-Dennis

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

Hard to get a handle on this film. It had alot of themes and ideas that were handled quite well. The one aspect I didn't really think came off was the humor. To me, it seemed curiously flat...too staged and lifeless. One of the big problems was that all the comedy was given to the children and Joaquin was left to sit around and look with a blank face. Comedy is just not Phoenix's strong suit and it showed. When he was given things to do, he was very compelling and watchable. As for Mel Gibson, his performance was just a tick off, though he does come up with a few very good scenes-such as the "last supper" scene and the cornfield scene that played in the trailer. Just watching him run with blind fear back through the corn was chilling. But, alot of the time, he just looked like he was too constrained...too stiff. If he could have let his guard down a bit more, it would've been a real powerhouse performance.
Overall, a good film that ventures into greatness territory at times. M. Nights spare use of visuals was alarmingly effective...the story and emotions carried the film through, which is something way too many directors aren't able to do with films. M. Night is maturing with every film and he is getting even better. So many people bag on The Sixth Sense because they percieve it to have only a trick ending and nothing more. Strip that ending away and you'll see amazing connections with Signs-a smart, thoughtful film that doesn't take easy paths and uses the story to keep the film moving. While I found SS to be a genuine classic, Signs is just a bit below that mark. It strove greatly, but just barely missed. Still...well worth watching.
Signs :star: :star: :star: (out of 4)
Bruce

 

[Mike Graham]

Finally caught the film tonight. I'm a huge fan of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, owning both of those DVDs. Concerning Signs, I thought it was a fantastic piece of work that actually does deserve a huge opening like 60 million. Of course, there are some problems....
First off, the director, M. Night Shymalan, created a role that was way too large for him. Mainly because anyone who recognizes him has a hard time buying the scene at all. I enjoy spotting him in his films, but a cameo is fine, not full blown pivotal character that has quite a few lines.
Also, there's a lot of humor in this film - quite a bit more then you would normally expect from a film of this kind. While it was mostly great to defuse the tension when necessary and learn to like the characters, a lot of the time it put a damper on some of the more tense scenes in the film. True, the humor dies out more and more as the film goes on, but there were quite a few sequences that suffered beforehand.
Now on to the great stuff. The acting, cinematography and score are fabulous in this film. Everything is designed to create anxiety in the audience as we learn more about the possible causes of the crop circles. I enjoyed Gibson's performance immensely, along with Phoenix and the children. There's a common theme throughout these last three films : family unity, a wary father figure (played by an aging action star), an estranged mother and thoughtful children. If you didn't like these elements in the previous two films, you definitely won't enjoy them in Signs.
Overall, I would rate the films like this :
The Sixth Sense..........A-
Unbreakable..............B+
Signs....................B+
Most of Unbreakable and Signs are on par, but while the previous Bruce Willis film contained a weak scene involving his son wanting to shoot him to test his invincibility that could be considered dramatic or humorous, the Gibson pic had too many comic scenes for its own good. Put this film up there with Changing Lanes, Insomnia and Minority Report.

 

[Neil Weinstock]

A review above talks about dread, and it hits the nail right on the head. This film is like a master class in creating and sustaining dread. It starts right from the first scene, and doesn't let up until the credits roll. Unfortunately, the film's lapses in logic and weak, unbelievable ending undermine its artful construction, and left me lamenting the missed opportunity.
M. Night has a style all his own; he moves very slowly, letting the viewer think along with the characters, and leaves much of the action to the imagination. I can't think of anyone out there right now could wring so much creepiness out of such minimal displayed action, and it's just amazing to watch.
Along the way, though, there are plenty of instances where the film's world just does not seem to operate the way the real world does. Suspension of disbelief is fine, but given the approach of this film (as with M. Night's other films) to put a human, earthbound spin on an otherworldly series of events, I expected better. And as for the ending... well, after an exquisitely constructed build-up, I sat there afterwords thinking... "Huh?" It is simply implausible on a number of fronts, and the climax of Mel Gibson's character's internal struggle seems extraordinarily mundane. Also, as mentioned above, Shyamalan's part in the movie is too large; his presence breaks the mood of the film despite the fact that he does fine with his relatively limited but important role.
If I believed the ending of this film even a little, then I could more easily have forgiven its other problems. Indeed, if you can look past them, you've got a pretty entertaining two hours, and there's much to appreciate here. I haven't really figured out whether to actually recommend this movie or not, as it will probably create the same sort of polarized reactions as Unbreakable, though for different reasons (for the record, I absolutely *loved* Unbreakable, but others I recommended it to hated it.)
In any case, I will certainly look forward to Shyamalan's next effort, as I suspect nearly anything he does will be more interesting (if not completely successful) than most other stuff out there.
:star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Pete-D]

I saw the film on Friday at Graumann's in Hollywood. The theater was packed.

I will start by saying this -- Night OWNS the audience, especailly when it comes to building tension and fear. Hell, in that regard he maybe already better than Senior Spielbergo himself.

This audience was screaming and yelling quite a bit. I admit I got quite tense when Mel Gibson wandered into the crop field at night. The alien bolting across the Brazilian birthday party lingered in my head for a while. It was just damn creepy.

In terms of pacing and humor, this is probably a better movie than either The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable. Watching the family interact was great. Big thumbs up for that. You believe in this family, you root for them. This is Mel Gibson's best performance since Braveheart. The scene at the dinner table was phenomenonal. The kids are great and so is Joaquin Phoenix.

The problem with the film is, Night really was more interested in making a film about faith. Which is fine. I don't think the movie is "preachy"; I think some people get way too uptight about anything remotely religious at times too. I think the crux of the story is basically whether or not we live in a world where everything is just a random series of events of whether or not there's something else to it all.

The alien story almost seems tacked on at times. And the two just don't mix a lot of the time either. The ghost story and the psychologist's death idea in the Sixth Sense interwined perfectly. Alien invasions and faith don't quite mesh as well. Although you can say you've never quite seen a ghost movie like The Sixth Sense, you've definitely never seen a superhero film like Unbreakable, and there's never been an alien movie like Signs.

I think the movie maybe could've used a dash more on the alien invasion side of things and made Graham's inner-struggle a little more into the background, but c'est la vive. Night seems to go very ambitious with his stories. It's not enough to make just an alien film, superhero film, etc.

Unbreakable and Signs especailly. He bites off a lot to chew. I commend that. It's a lot easier for a director to do a "safe" picture, but just work something that's a bit more "by the numbers" and do it well. But it's another to be a bit more ambitious with the story and push the audience a little furthur, even if there are some missteps.

Overall I appreciate the effort. This is definitely a movie worth seeing, it's a lock to be the scariest movie of the summer (it topped Sixth Sense in chills easily IMO).
There are some goofy plotholes, but overall the movie worked for me.

****4/ *****5

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I've just posted my Entertainment Review movie review for 'Signs.'
Rating: :star::star::star::star: