Directed by:
M. Night ShyamalanScreenplay:
M. Night ShyamalanCinematography:
Tak FujimotoComposer:
James Newton HowardCast:
Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, Abigail Breslin, Cherry Jones, M. Night Shyamalan, Patricia Kalember, Ted Sutton, Merritt Wever, Lanny Flaherty (more)Plots(1)
It's contaminated. That's what pint-sized Bo (Abigail Breslin) says about every glass of water that she tries to drink, then rejects. This is just one in a long list of strange occurrences that are changing the lives of the Hess family. Things go awry when Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) and his brother, Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), awake early one morning to find the dogs barking and the children--Bo, and her brother Morgan (Rory Culkin)--wandering bleary eyed in the corn fields. They discover a pattern of perfectly carved crop circles left the night before. Trying not to overreact, Graham ignores the media frenzy that has permeated all television and radio stations, and even shrugs off the oddly familiar information that Morgan reads in his book about extraterrestrials invading earth. The real challenge for Graham is to find the faith he needs to pull himself, and his family, through this unexplainable series of events. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Reviews (13)
In some ways a very funny update of the invasion sci-fi genre, in some ways unpleasantly claustrophobic, in some ways pleasantly exaggerated (the hats), but in other respects completely burdened by trying to go beyond and show something more than an intimate story of a family crisis surrounded by mysterious signs from above. I enjoyed watching it as one of the variants of the classic narrative of re-establishing the authority of a father through a disaster. In this respect, it is slightly reminiscent of Spielberg's War of the Worlds. However, Steven is a much better narrator and entertainer, without lagging behind Shyamalan in terms of thought (it’s not really even possible).
()
The brilliant Signs is the ultimate emotional ride, a goosebump-inducing orgasm and, of no less importance, a spiritual caress, thanks to which the film has aged more slowly. This is a beautiful Shyamalan movie with a great, often imitated soundtrack by James Newton Howard.
()
I’ll start with the good things. I liked how Shyamalan used the girl's obsession with water and Merrill's baseball ability to "swing hard" at the end. Both, seemingly unrelated to the plot, resulted in a successful twist. It’s also true that some scenes are brilliantly shot and lethally tense, Shyamalan really knows how to “polish a turd”. And now the worse: Shyamalan tries to tackle a lot of issues, like the question of faith, parenthood and on so forth. It disrupts the coherence of the plot and often gets boring even. Some scenes (a wannabe emotionally tense scene with the prayer before a meal, the dialogue with the dying wife) seem terribly unnatural. Shyamalan, as a devout Catholic, solves his own problems, he is not very good at psychology and the result is a strange mess – something between a psychological film and a pure horror movie. Those two things don’t fit together and things end up falling apart.
()
An above-average thriller (a variation of Independence Day) in the typical chatty style of Shyalaman that generates an unsettling atmosphere from the beginning to the end, where things fall considerably apart due to the not very good look of the aliens. Mel Gibson carries the film on his shoulders, he hardly ever leaves the screen. Signs doesn’t get a full score mostly because of the ending, which is way too American and doesn’t fit the film’s atmosphere.
()
Can humor go hand in hand with slowly built suspense and a thick, disconcerting atmosphere? Can you combine a sci-fi movie about invasion with questions of faith and destiny? Isn’t there an unwritten rule that “the dog never dies"? If Shyamalan had come up with this concept a decade later, everybody would have laughed at him. But he came up with it at a time when he was unarguably still at his creative zenith and managed to concentrate his talents on making one of the top thrillers of the beginning of the twenty-first century. It has just one weak spot: the very end when he proves once and for all whether or not he was one of those people who believes/hopes that everything happens for a specific reason. I’m not one of them and so in such a well-thought out movie, which to a certain extent Signs is, I felt that the ending (but not necessarily the overall message) was really unsatisfying and, to a certain extent, cheap. If it had been less ambitious and made do with just three (?) days of the first contact through the eyes of a regular family, it would have been more than enough for a good movie.
()
When faith doesn't necessarily mean God, when signs don't compel you to join a society of lunatics, when the past holds secrets that can only be deciphered at the right moment – and when Mel Gibson plays the lead role. That's when the feeling comes that one little Indian is a genius in both storytelling and directing, and that he will never disappoint me. And that feeling has stayed with me for quite a few years. When he can transition from a heartfelt family drama to an almost unbearable suspenseful situation in a single shot, gripping my heart with full force with the first and keeping me on the edge of my seat with the second, he proves his mastery of genre-defying artistry (which he then elevated to heavenly levels in The Village). Not just for him, I will tremble every two years for his new film.
()
I noticed something interesting - those who rate Signs very highly often have great reservations about The Village. For me, it's the opposite. While I consider The Village to be M. Night Shyamalan's masterpiece, I not only disliked Signs, but it disgusted me. That's because the film touches on a genre that I like very much, and I know quite a lot about it. However, it does so in a very superficial way, using ideas from B-movies of the 1950s. Its portrayal of aliens and the risks associated with them made me laugh in the movie theater. In that case, any attempt at a "thriller" and "horror" is doomed to failure. Where others talk about the "great atmosphere and mystique," I sometimes felt like the director was openly making fun of me. Signs does not work as a psychological film for various reasons. What remains is the traditionally good work with actors, and the children acted very decently, while Gibson delivered his standard performance, he did not suit his role in my eye. He looks much better in action roles. Shyamalan is very good at working with details and sounds, but this time it wasn't enough to create the good atmosphere that his filmmaking stands for, due to the poorly chosen approach to the subject. In particular, the incorporation of religious elements into the story really didn't sit well with me. Overall impression 40%.
()
I remember when I was small going to take a look at a crop circle that appeared just off the road to Skalky. I know how terrified I was but at the same time I was really fascinated. A weird feeling. I still remember it somehow. Inside the circle the stalks of grain, I don’t know what sort, seemed empty inside, cracked and dry. I even took one of them home with me. To this day they haven’t worked out who did it or why. Just that the night before that, just before dawn apparently the sky turned yellow. Dark yellow. Dad woke up early and saw it. Now where the field used to be there’s a “millionaire’s quarter" (houses for the rich, a friend of my sister’s supposedly lives there) and a new road that leads to Walmart. Every time I pass by, I remember standing there. Inside that circle. A weird feeling...
()
Masterfully crafted atmosphere, excellent direction and cinematography. The screenplay could be better, but by far the most annoying aspect is the excessive and fervently presented references that don’t leave the viewer opportunity to insert their own ingredients, but must unquestionably accept the director's. Some of them are at least quesionable. Otherwise, it is excellent filmmaking.
()
Shyamalan at his absolute peak – which would be followed by nothing but a deep plunge downwards. If you don't count the purely commercial and popcorn flick Independence Day, Signs is clearly the best and most powerful film about contact with evil alien worlds. An emotionally very impressive and tense movie that builds up the tension until the final scene in the cellar, which would bring beads of sweat even to Hitchcock's forehead – you really don't get that kind of palpable and real fear in every film. The growing sense of unease is greatly deepened by Howard's excellent soundtrack and the cinematography capturing the unpleasant setting of a remote farm surrounded by corn. Gibson in the lead role is great as always, but Phoenix and Culkin don't lag behind him and prove their immense talent. It's not yet worthy of a full rating, but I'll always enjoy such a genre candy. 85%
()
Like, I was pretty scared. It was suspenseful as hell and the running time was optimal. But still, despite all that, there was something missing. I guess the presence of the alien creatures. While it's nice to have a foot there, a shadow here and there - it wasn't enough for me. The cast is well chosen, Bo had a really interesting perversion :-) ... it wasn't the worst, but there was something considerable lacking to perfection - 75%.
()
The first time I saw this film, I loved it. I liked the story. And ultimately, it was also because I was heavily influenced by my impressions of The Sixth Sense at that time. The film stayed with me, and what lingered were mostly the comedic scenes and some that ultimately came across as unintentionally funny. It's very, very pathetic, but it's still the best thing Shyamalan has ever made.
()
Shyamalan, with his visionary and novel directorial style, has made a unique and compelling film about an encounter with "evil" aliens. Perhaps what got me the most was the camera work – so many chilling and seemingly single-layer shots combined with magical music and a solid script create a very dense atmosphere at times, which is the main plus of Signs. 90%
()
Ads