UHD Review Signs UHD Review (1 Viewer)

[Todd Erwin]

Signs, M. Night Shyamalan’s follow-up to Unbreakable, receives a nice 4K upgrade courtesy of Walt Disney Home Entertainment.



Signs (2002)



Released: 02 Aug 2002
Rated: PG-13
Runtime: 106 min




Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Genre: Drama, Mystery, Sci-Fi



Cast: Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin
Writer(s): M. Night Shyamalan



Plot: A widowed former reverend living with his children and brother on a Pennsylvania farm finds mysterious crop circles in their fields, which suggests something more frightening to come.



IMDB rating: 6.8
MetaScore: 59





Disc Information



Studio: Disney
Distributed By: Sony
Video Resolution: 2160p HEVC w/HDR



Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Audio:...

Continue reading...

 

[Wayne Klein]

I enjoy “Signs” quite a bit BUT the twist at the end is kind of dumb. That aside, it’s a fine movie and the themes are well examined, directed with suspense and some terrific performances. It has a Spielberg vibe to parts of it as well.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I enjoy “Signs” quite a bit BUT the twist at the end is kind of dumb. That aside, it’s a fine movie and the themes are well examined, directed with suspense and some terrific performances. It has a Spielberg vibe to parts of it as well.

Why is the twist at the end kind of dumb?

 

[Wayne Klein]

Why is the twist at the end kind of dumb?

There are some spoilers that follow if one hasn’t seen it, wait.

Spoiler

Critics were critical of it at the time and I was when I saw it before even reading any reviews-why would aliens come to a planet primarily made of water? If it’s to invade or for resources, then they’ve picked the wrong planet. If they were here to obtain humans, we are mostly made up of water as well. It also rains quite a bit so they could be here only for a short period of time. Their endgame is never truly revealed (though there is a radio broadcast that suggests they were here to obtain humans but we don’t find out why. That really doesn’t matter all that much though because fhey are kind of the MacGuffin of the film). Wouldn’t aliens with technology like that be smart enough to figure out these might be issues? It’s a minor point but, as I’ve said before, it’s a bit of sloppy plotting IMHO. There is a bit of foreshadowing when the character MNS tells the main character that he is going to an area surrounded by water. Just my opinion. It is still a fine film and I enjoy it particularly the tense middle section. The examination of the crisis of faith is also well handled. Great performances. It’s about the larger picture but I’m a mechanics guy when it comes to writing.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Spoiler

Is that really so much different from the ending to War of the Worlds, where germs cause those aliens to perish suddenly? The aliens in Signs are more or less unknowable - and I think the ending of the film speaks to that. Maybe their homeworld’s water wasn’t dangerous to them so they never considered that ours could be. One of the things I really like about this movie is that it doesn’t really try to explain the aliens or make their motivation understandable in human terms.

 

[Robert Crawford]

At times, we have a tendency to be too logical when it comes to plot points making sense. Most filmmakers are concerned with entertaining audiences, first and foremost. Hitchcock was a big proponent of that thinking when it came to his films.

 

[JoshZ]

It's a profoundly dumb plot twist. Not only do these aliens who can be killed by any contact with water come to a planet covered in water to harvest humans whose bodies are 60% or more water, they even run around dew-covered farm fields completely naked! This species is advanced enough to build spaceships that can cross the galaxy, yet it never occurs to them to put on environmental protection suits when traipsing around on a toxic planet?

Like most Shyamalan movies, the entire script was built around a gimmick premise that was barely half thought-out. The signs of that failing (no pun intended) had already started to show with Unbreakable, but this was the first of his movies where it became clear that the "plot twist guy" wasn't quite as clever as we'd assumed after The Sixth Sense.

 

[Wayne Klein]

Spoiler

Is that really so much different from the ending to War of the Worlds, where germs cause those aliens to perish suddenly? The aliens in Signs are more or less unknowable - and I think the ending of the film speaks to that. Maybe their homeworld’s water wasn’t dangerous to them so they never considered that ours could be. One of the things I really like about this movie is that it doesn’t really try to explain the aliens or make their motivation understandable in human terms.

Spoiler

Yes. Because “War of the Worlds” was written at the turn of the century. The films have stayed true to the films. “Signs” is a 21st century film and we understand the world, biology and other things more than we did then. By 1969 we had astronauts put into isolation because we didn’t want to take the risk but we understood biology and science with greater depth. I can forgive “War of the Worlds” as a product of its time and the first and innovative project. I can forgive Wells his conclusion because of the time and his pivotal role in creating the genre. The plot point by an experience screenwriter with 100 years of history and understanding of science? Not so much. It’s sloppy plotting.

 

[Wayne Klein]

It's a profoundly dumb plot twist. Not only do these aliens who can be killed by any contact with water come to a planet covered in water to harvest humans whose bodies are 60% or more water, they even run around dew-covered farm fields completely naked! This species is advanced enough to build spaceships that can cross the galaxy, yet it never occurs to them to put on environmental protection suits when traipsing around on a toxic planet?

Like most Shyamalan movies, the entire script was built around a gimmick premise that was barely half thought-out. The signs of that failing (no pun intended) had already started to show with Unbreakable, but this was the first of his movies where it became clear that the "plot twist guy" wasn't quite as clever as we'd assumed after The Sixth Sense.

Yep. I think it’s more that he wrote himself into a corner and was so enthralled with the “water” symbolism, he decided to go with that. It might have worked in a “Twilight Zone” episode a la “To Serve Man” but even then, It’s illogical. It’s just sloppy.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yep. I think it’s more that he wrote himself into a corner and was so enthralled with the “water” symbolism, he decided to go with that. It might have worked in a “Twilight Zone” episode a la “To Serve Man” but even then, It’s illogical. It’s just sloppy.

It worked for most people in this movie. I think most people didn’t care about the water aspect of the storyline because they recognized the main theme in this movie evolves around losing faith and regaining it and not about scientific logic.

 

[Kilgore]

I thought the movie was great, but the ending was a huge letdown. I still recommend it though, as it IS one of Shyamalan's best. Sixth Sense was a once in a lifetime creation, and there was no way he could ever live up to it.

 

[Wayne Klein]

It worked for most people in this movie. I think most people didn’t care about the water aspect of the storyline because they recognized the main theme in this movie evolves around losing faith and regaining it and not about scientific logic.

I agree that some folks liked the examination of the crisis of faith theme but it's still illogical. I'm not the only one that noticed it either. I like the film I just feel that the plot twist with water was kind of stupid. The film would have worked without it quite well but he felt it was necessary for some reason. I personally think he wrote himself into a corner and wanted an ending that didn't just echo other films but, in doing so, he also failed basic writing 101.

Hitchcock has done the same thing with some of his films but the difference is that he worked with skilled writers that cared about storytelling logic and would ensure that the elements did hang together.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Time to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Wayne Klein]

I thought the movie was great, but the ending was a huge letdown. I still recommend it though, as it IS one of Shyamalan's best. Sixth Sense was a once in a lifetime creation, and there was no way he could ever live up to it.

I absolutely agree about the ending of the film. Having said that, though, I really enjoy his deconstruction of comic book heroes with "Unbreakable". The problem I think MNS has is this-he seeks to top his twists with each film. At some point that will become too much of a gimmick and work against a filmmaker. Hitchcock and other directors who did various thrillers were able to overcome this because, IMHO, they used writers that could put together a cohesive narrative and cared about the structure of the story.

 

[Wayne Klein]

Spoiler

Yes. Because “War of the Worlds” was written at the turn of the century. The films have stayed true to the films. “Signs” is a 21st century film and we understand the world, biology and other things more than we did then. By 1969 we had astronauts put into isolation because we didn’t want to take the risk but we understood biology and science with greater depth. I can forgive “War of the Worlds” as a product of its time and the first and innovative project. I can forgive Wells his conclusion because of the time and his pivotal role in creating the genre. The plot point by an experience screenwriter with 100 years of history and understanding of science? Not so much. It’s sloppy plotting.

That should say the films have stayed true to the book but I had a mental block that obviously caused me to write film twice.