Signs UHD Review

4 Stars “Sign, sign, everywhere a sign”
Signs UHD 4k Review

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: English 5.1 DTS-HDMA, English Descriptive Audio, Spanish 5.1 DD, Spanish 5.1 DTS, French 5.1 DD, Other
Subtitles: English SDH, Spanish, French, Other
Rating: PG-13
Run Time: 1 Hr. 46 Min.
Package Includes: UHD, Blu-ray, Digital Copy
Case Type: 2-disc UHD keepcase with slipcover
Disc Type: UHD
Region: All
Release Date: 10/22/2024
MSRP: $45.99

The Production: 4/5

After the back-to-back successes of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, writer-director M. Night Shyamalan goes three for three with Signs, an alien invasion thriller starring Mel Gibson as a retired priest who questions his faith after the death of his wife and Joaquin Phoenix as his brother, a failed minor league baseball player who has moved in to help out with the family and at the farm. Shyamalan takes a cue from directors before him, such as Steven Spielberg and Alfred Hitchcock, instilling fear in the audience by not showing us much of the aliens until the grand finale, scaring us by what we are not seeing. My one complaint about the film is the discovery of the alien’s weakness, not so much in how it is revealed (there are clues aplenty from beginning to end), but what that weakness is. Not to spoil anything, but you would think that an alien species would do some research first on the planet before beginning an invasion.

Video: 4.5/5

3D Rating: NA

Signs was photographed on 35mm film stock using Panavision Panaflex cameras and was likely completed on 35mm film with an intended theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1 (the film did have some digital theatrical showings using a low-resolution 1K DCP). Disney’s new 2160p HEVC encode includes HDR10 high dynamic range. This is a nice improvement over the previous 1080p Blu-ray release from 2008 (included in this set), particularly in better contrast and deeper blacks, allowing for better shadow detail. Overall, this transfer appears to have a warmer tone to it, with a stronger lean towards browns and yellows. Detail does get a nice boost as well, with a nice uptick in fine details such as fabric textures and facial features.

Audio: 4.5/5

Disney has replaced the Blu-ray’s uncompressed 5.1 PCM track with a lossless DTS-HD MA track on the 4K disc which sounds nearly identical. Of the two Shyamalan films released together, Signs would have benefitted slightly with a new Dolby Atmos track, at least in the scenes where the aliens are walking on the roof of the house. As Matt Hough noted in his 2008 Blu-ray review, the track makes “excellent use of the LFE channel and plenty of ambient sounds to keep the surround channels active and interesting. A few of those effects seem unnecessarily processed, though, and not well matched to some others before and after, but this only happens a couple of times and is a very minor problem.” Dialogue is clear and understandable throughout.

Special Features: 3/5

No surprise, but the 4K disc is a movie-only affair, with the old 2008 Blu-ray included to provide access to the same recycled special features from the DVD release.

Deleted Scenes (480i; 7:32): Five scenes are included.

Making “Signs” (480i; 58:31): A nearly hour-long documentary broken down into six parts, produced by Laurent Bouzereau.

Storyboards: Multi Angle Feature (480i): Offers two sequences which the viewer can flip back and forth between storyboards and the finished scene. The viewer can also watch the scenes/storyboards with the entire 5.1 sound mix, with just the music track, or with just the effects track. The two sequences are Graham investigating the veterinarian’s pantry with a knife and Graham and Merrill chasing trespassers around their home.

Night’s First Alien Movie (480i; 2:17): A little throwaway home movie from Shyamalan’s youth called “Pictures.”

Digital Copy: A Movies Anywhere code is included to redeem a 4K digital copy of the film.

Overall: 4/5

Signs is another early entertaining thriller from M. Night Shyamalan that now looks better than ever.

Todd Erwin has been a reviewer at Home Theater Forum since 2008. His love of movies began as a young child, first showing Super 8 movies in his backyard during the summer to friends and neighbors at age 10. He also received his first movie camera that year, a hand-crank Wollensak 8mm with three fixed lenses. In 1980, he graduated to "talkies" with his award-winning short The Ape-Man, followed by the cult favorite The Adventures of Terrific Man two years later. Other films include Myth or Fact: The Talbert Terror and Warren's Revenge (which is currently being restored). In addition to movie reviews, Todd has written many articles for Home Theater Forum centering mostly on streaming as well as an occasional hardware review, is the host of his own video podcast Streaming News & Views on YouTube and is a frequent guest on the Home Theater United podcast.
Post Disclaimer

Some of our content may contain marketing links, which means we will receive a commission for purchases made via those links. In our editorial content, these affiliate links appear automatically, and our editorial teams are not influenced by our affiliate partnerships. We work with several providers (currently Skimlinks and Amazon) to manage our affiliate relationships. You can find out more about their services by visiting their sites.

Share this post:

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
877
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

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
72,752
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
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

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
877
Why is the twist at the end kind of dumb?
There are some spoilers that follow if one hasn’t seen it, wait.

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.
 
Last edited:

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
27,722
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
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

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
72,752
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
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

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
3,121
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
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

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
877
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
877
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

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
72,752
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
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

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
55
Real Name
Glen Morgan
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

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
877
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.
 

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
877
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

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
877
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.