Rating: 
Summary: The Best of 2002...
Review: Signs was one of the best films of 2002. It captured our hearts and our minds, and it was a masterpiece that could only come from M. Night Shyalaman. The premise of Signs is simple;an alien invasion is about to take over earth. But the way that the film was made is not so simple. It grabs you by the throat and never lets go. Signs appeals to all ages, as it is a non-terrifying and non-gory thriller, fitted for both kids and adults. Some people may be mad that Mel Gibson doesn't shoot up the aliens with a 12-gauge, and this film is indeed a depart from his other work. However, Signs is also quite refreshing, and I had no idea that Touchstone could produce a film as good as Signs. The tension gradually builds in the film, from crop-circles, to shapes in the darkness, to an announcer on T.V. reporting the invasion as helpless viewers wait for the apocalypse to pass in 9/11 style! The whole movie is executed wonderfully, and I loved Signs! Please check this film out! It was one of the best movies of 2002.
Rating: 
Summary: Better in the theatres
Review: You know, this is one of the few movies I've ever bought that I regret buying. I absolutely loved this in the theatres and bought it the day it came out on DVD, but you know...it just isn't the same the second time around. Rent it, watch it, return it and then be glad you didn't buy it.
Rating:
Summary: Shyamalan has the touch
Review: Shyamalan is master of orchestrating the buildup of tension and atmosphere. The fact that in the film aliens actually appear just four brief times is a testimony to deft and skilled direction. The same is true of the 6th sense - all that tension and fear, and you only see dead people about four times in 2 hours.Gibson and Phoenix are an excellent casting choice - they complement each other very well and are thoroughly believable as brothers. Phoenix has the haunted look down pat - just what the film needs. There's no need to recap the storyline - other reviews have done that already. But it is necessary just to counter some of the criticisms that have come Signs' way. A lot of people out there were griping about the fact that the aliens were quite primitive - having to use ground signs to navigate, and being vulnerable to water. I think this is simplistic - why do people always assume that aliens, if they do exist, are more advanced than we are? Couldn't it be possible that humans are in fact the most advanced life form in the universe? Shyamalan makes his film more believable by not equipping his aliens with every gadget in the book - and at the end of the day its a film about ordinary people, who are emotionally stretched, reacting and coping with extraordinary events.
Rating: 
Summary: I like it a lot even though it has major plot holes
Review: Caution spolier ahead! I love this film, but I must say it makes no sense for aliens who are fatally allergic to water to 1) want to capture humans, whose bodies are composed primarily of water; and 2) to come to a planet whose surface area is mostly water. When I think about questions of logic like this, and others, I have a hard time with the credibility of this movie, but I still like the suspense created here and Mel Gibson is always worth a look. I recommend it despite the glaring credibility problems. Sometimes movies can get away with it, and in my book this one does.
Rating:
Summary: Signs of something special.
Review: Widower Graham Hess awakens to find a crop circle in his field. The pattern is only one of countless others that have appeared around the globe. Too many to be a simple hoax...something is happening. Signs seems to be the kind of movie that Alfred Hitchcock would have made if he had chosen to collaborate with Rod Serling. Writer/producer/director M. Night Shymalan gives the movie a nice dream like quality, which might explain some of the story's logic problems, but the film's visual sense is so strong, and Shymalan's gift at moving the viewer to the edge of his or her seat so pronounced, that the more forgiving veiwers can enjoy this for what it is - an entertaining Twilight Zone episode that misses the classic mark by just enough to qualify it for guilty pleasure status.
Rating: 
Summary: Really dissapointed
Review: I received bad reviews about this movie. However, as a sci-fi fan, I thought it may deserve a view... I was wrong. Shyamalan has a undeniable hability to create tension in his films. In "The sixth sense" the ending is what makes the movie most remarkable. He was unable to repeat that trick in "Unbreakable", with a forgetable ending. However in "Signs" the ending makes this movie just infamous. Turning from a religion/moral dilemma to just another tale about big, bad, scary, vengative, irrational, humanoid monsters invading earth. The only memory it can evoke is that of those B class sci-fi movies of the fifties. I really thought that no one will have the nerve to do one more after Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks". That should have put a final point to the genre. Sadly, Shyamalan didn't think so. I's obvious that Shyamalan was not trying to pay homage to those films, he was trying to do something else, who knows what? I give it two stars because Gibson and Phoenix gave good performances. I'll be a spoiler because the ending is so bad it deserves so. CAUTION: MOVIE SPOILING AHEAD!! You don't have to be a cientist to spoil this movie. Water-melting aliens roaming nude in a rainy planet? Come on! I'm starting to believe that "The sixth sense" was just a lucky strike.
Rating:
Summary: The Homage of M. Night Shyamalan
Review: Forget the ©M. Night Shyamalan plot twist™® that everyone has been spoiled with in the past. It is not here, period end of story. What Night is doing here is to show us that he has an interest in the horror sci-fi classics and would like to see these resurrected for the 21st century viewer. That is not a bad idea at all and Signs could also be played out by reducing your screen to black/white by adjusting the television nobs. When you do that you can see exactly where Night is coming from. This is one big homage movie with some experimental areas thrown in for good measure. The problem with this movie is that the marketing campaign and its theme is totally out of touch with what this film is about. Forget about the poster too. That is a crock. What you have here is essentially "Night of the Living Dead" crossed with "It Came From Outer Space". If anything the later half of this film is a straight forward nod to George A. Romero with one or two little tiny-weenie twists to keep us all happy. Mostly this film is about a looming apocalypse of extraterrestrial proportions. Our main protagonist (Gibson) plays an ex-vicar who has lost all faith in God because of a family accident. His son is a real nerd with asthma, his daughter has a water neurosis and his brother, an ex-baseball player, who lives with the family, seems to have a personality problem. When something starts making patterns in their fields (crop circles) Gibson tries to keep his family calm while the world goes into a dark phase because the aliens are coming. The movie is mostly psychological and is played out very well with a number of real seat jerkers to boot. You will never look at your pantry the same way again. The film does have some minuses though. It is slow and often stalls. We also learn that M. Night Shyamalan can not act, however in this movie he does show us that he has.. gasp... A SENSE OF HUMOUR!, which has been lacking in his other production. This film is very funny at times, in fact laugh out loud so. In short this is a homage movie to all the sci-fi and horror classics. Movies buffs will love it to pieces, but those expecting Night to throw our world upside with another out of the blue plot twist will be sorely, deeply, disappointed. Just stay on track with the homage theme and you will do much better and enjoy it all the more for it. The marketing people for this movie should have their pay checks revoked. They killed this guys winning streak, but this is a great movie all the same and worth watching more than once. **As a note I am not a fanboy who wants to give everything this guy does 5 stars. I did not like his 6th sense all that much to be honest, but this one is not bad.. not bad at all especially if you are a movie buff who has some general knowledge about this genre.**
Rating:
Summary: Can you see the signs?
Review: In Brief Everything that farmer Graham Hess (Gibson) assumed about the world changes when he ands his brother Merrill (Phoenix) wake up one morning to find the dogs barking and the children, Bo (Breslin) and her brother Morgan (Culkin) wandering bleary eyed in the corn fields. Upon further investigation they discover a pattern of perfectly formed crop circles. Trying not to overreact, Graham ignores the worldwide media frenzy that extraterrestrial life may be invading earth and has to search deep within himself for a faith that he once had to pull his family through the ordeal. Review The director of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable appears to be determined to carve himself a niche. With each viewing of these three films one becomes aware of the recurring themes of distance & finding oneself and a prominent style of silence & enchantment from this emerging auteur. Shyamalan, who gives a competent cameo in the film as a veterinarian who 6 months prior to the action of the movie fell asleep at the wheel of his car and ran down Hess' wife, has the potential to be the next Spielberg for the start of the 21st Century. He writes his own films and manages to continue to deliver stories with a passion and lack of pretension that is rarely seen in the cinema today. The script is simply brilliant as it concerns itself far more with what is not said and rather looks to what is and should be implied. It is an actors text and is delivered with an unrelenting passion by Gibson who I firmly believe is the modern embodiment of the 'everyman' as he never fails to engage and has that rare skill of minimalistic acting that can say so much with so little. Phoenix is competent throughout and works well as the distant brother who finds the faith that the elder Hess lost after leaving the Church following his wife's death. This is the anti-Independence Day, this is not about tall buildings being blown up or motherships being defeated through the convenient compatibility of an Apple I Mac and an Alien Parallel Port. In fact, this isn't a lot about Aliens themselves, but rather its more than that: its about remembering who you are and your place in the world, and its importance no matter who you are - essentially its about faith. The only failing in this film comes in the last ten minutes and is primarily the fault of a poorly edited sequence, where a powerfully emotive scene is cut away from too quickly and returns later with far less impact. The Verdict If Shyamalan continues along the path he has begun to cut for himself, I have no doubt that his body of work will mature well. Catch one of best up and coming Hollywood storytellers today so you can tell your kids about him tomorrow. This is a brilliant film that offers so much on so many levels and sustains a tension throughout without falter or distraction.
Rating:
Summary: Another terrific piece of film from M Night Shyamalan.
Review: SIGNS (2002) THE GOOD: --This film scared me on a deep level, to the point of it probably being one of the scariest films I've ever seen. The 'boo' frights were terrific and many of them made me jump out of my skin. The scares work best when they are psychological and silent, or all in your head. Just imagine what this family goes through, particularly in the brilliant finale. M Night Shyamalan puts you right in their shoes and doesn't let up with the terror until the very last frame. --Is "Signs" a horror movie? Yes. Is it a sci-fi movie? Yes. But when it all comes down to it, what is this movie genre-wise? This movie, to me at least, was all about the tale of this family, and the strife they're going through after losing someone close to them. The father is a priest who has lost all faith and the kids prefer their father's brother. "Signs" is about aliens, but it's about how the alien attack affects the family and makes them bring out the love and trust they all must have in each other to survive such a horrifying ordeal. This was shown amazingly in the wonderful and tragic final dinner scene. --Mel Gibson gives one of his finest performances to date. He is a tour-de-force as Graham Hess; he sold me completely in his role. The inner turmoil the character was experiencing was so brilliantly portrayed by Gibson, during quiet, lonely moments or through big, dramatic scenes such as the aforementioned final dinner scene. Joaquin Phoenix was very strong and always believable in his supporting performance as Graham's brother Merrill. The adorable Abigail Breslin and another one of the Culkin clan, Rory Culkin, are terrific rising stars with a lot of talent at such young ages. --M Night Shyamalan continues his run of terrific writing/directing efforts, he brings across the suspense of the situations in the film seamlessly, and injects a lot of emotion into the film. The strange and subtle camera movements and angles were also much appreciated. THE BAD: --I must warn that this section of my review has nothing more, nothing less than THE BIGGEST SPOILERS FOR "SIGNS". DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WISHED TO BE SPOILED! Like many others, I found the way the extra-terrestrials were defeated at the end of the film a little ludicrous and too convenient. This has all been said before - but why the goddamn hell would the aliens invade a planet that is 75% water and they're allergic to the stuff? END SPOILERS! RATING: 9/10 - Another moving film experience from the one and only M Night Shyamalan, also his most terrifying motion picture to date. IF YOU LIKED THIS MOVIE I RECOMMEND: Poltergeist (8/10)
The Ring (8/10)
Scary Movie 3 (3/10)
The Sixth Sense (9/10)
Unbreakable (9/10)
Rating:
Summary: some frightening moments
Review: Shyamalan definitely keeps his title as the master of suspense with "Signs". He's able to take the simplest everyday things and scare the crap out of you with them. After seeing this film, you will never view a cornfield, baby monitor, or scratching noise in your house the same again. If you've seen the commercials, you know that aliens play a key role in the film. Shyamalan is able to totally keep you on the edge of your seat by showing nothing more of them than shadows or claws. What also is amazing is that the aliens are, for the most part, seen in the full daylight. He doesn't always have the scary parts take place at night. Daytime isn't the safe haven that it usually is in a scary movie. This film also uses the theater sound system effectively by having sound effects of the aliens skittering over the house move all around the theater. It will totally freak you out. It's amazing how Shyamalan makes an effective alien invasion movie by hardly showing them at all. He knows that your imagination will create infinitely more terrifying images than he can ever come up with on the screen. This film takes some of the best elements of War of the Worlds and Close Encounters and repackages them for new audiences. It also combines several elements of UFO mythology into a cohesive tale. One of the most notable things about it is that it tells a very personal story. In the face of a global event, we concern ourselves only with what's happening in this particular family. We see everything from their point of view and from their isolated world. However, the true heart of this film's story is a man's restoration of faith in God and rebuilding bonds with his family. If you're looking for a good scare and an interesting twist on the whole alien invasion concept, this is one you'll want to check out. After "The Sixth Sense," everyone expects Shyamalan's movies to have some earth-shattering twist at the end. With "Signs," there's no major revelation at the end as you might hope for. Despite lacking that hoped for twist, the movie is still a little confusing and it may not necessarily answer all of your questions. Most of my unanswered questions involved what was happening beyond the Hess' house. But since that wasn't the focus of the film, my questions were never sufficiently addressed. However, the more time I think about "Signs" after seeing it, the more I think the ending was OK. I guess I was expecting something more dramatic.
| 
