Rating: 
Summary: Signs is worth seeing
Review: I thought that Signs was a really well done movie. It was one of my favorite movies this summer, and I happened to enjoy it just as much as Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. However, I think it is unfair to compare it to those films. It is impossible for one to continue to climb upwards in film directing, and you will always hit a movie that isn't as great.Signs is quite wonderful in that it uses the viewers imagination to create suspense. More films should actually be doing this, but none seem as skillfully done. Mel Gibson, etc. give performances that are entertaining to say the very least. It seems to be a very psychological movie, very personal, instead of being all about FX and action. The music is some of the best film music I have seen put to imagery. It's funny and suspenseful, awe-inspiring and emotional. I think M. Night is a directing genius, even if ALL of his films can't be perfect. =) Check it out!
Rating: 
Summary: Spooked
Review: I've never been more spooked in my life.... I spent almost nine years of my life living next to a cornfield, and when you can hear the wind blowing in the field at night, the effect is very chilling. The plot was full of holes, but I didn't realize that until the very end. I was thoroughly spooked until the morning after the invasion when they all went upstairs to see what was on tv. Then the plot starts getting soggy, and the silly background story all falls into place, leaving you thoroughly dissapointed. In my opinion, M. Night did a superb job with the first two thirds of the movie, and successfully scared the living [stuff] out of me, but the movie lost its effect with the kid and his asthma attack.
Rating:
Summary: The Signs Say "Yes"
Review: Though this movie dazzles its audience with suspense and special effects, it is also very fatalistically and holistically oriented. This is a great movie--about fate, but more importantly about faith. There are two main conflicts in this movie: the invasion of extraterrestrial forces, and another problem . . . the reverend's battle within himself to believe in God and have faith that someone is watching out for us. In the end, it is ironic that fate solves the invasion problem while faith solves the reverend's internal struggle; but both solutions are tied together in some awkward way. The movie poses the option of choice . . . "You just have to ask yourself what kind of person are you." This movie suggests two theories--that people see signs/miracles and that others think people just get lucky. And when you think about it, it really makes sense. This is a deep movie if you analyze its message and the core of what it portrays. Watch it . . . you'll enjoy it.
Rating: 
Summary: rent it first
Review: Before I mention anything, I want to say, dont look for any kind of award winning story in this movie. With that said, this movie did one thing well, creep the hell out of me. The story is bad, really bad, but Mel Gibson is such a likeable guy that all his lines could be replaced with "I eat babies, potato car key" and people would still love him. I gave this movie three stars because I expected it to scare me, and it did, no more, no less. what made this movie so creepy was the fact that it took place in a normal small town,and the fact that it could happen anywhere. This movie is nothing special, pretty much what I've come to expect from shyamalan.
Rating:
Summary: SciFi at Its Best
Review: M. Night Shyamalan is both a superb actor and director in this movie. Mel Gibson is in top form and the movie is ultimately believable. The treatment echos the best of Alfred Hitchcock in both tantalizing cinematography and plot development. The child actors are very good and I expect they will be around for a long time. The movie raises many religious and political issues that provide food for thought well after the movie's over. I saw this first in the theater then bought the DVD and like the movie more everytime I view it.
Rating:
Summary: It's Not Like They Didn't Warn Us
Review: This was truly a freaky movie. Some of the scares were gotten cheaply, like when a director throws something at the audience to make them jump (I hate that, it seems so easy), but some of the scares were built up with suspense. There did seem to be some lapses in the story, some holes in the plot, but all in all, a good, scary little movie. The main character I didn't care for was the one played by the director, M. Night Shyamalan. It just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the movie. He stuck out like a sore thumb. I know he likes to be in his movies, but he should have stuck with a smaller, non-speaking role, like Hitchcock used to do. Once I got past that, I was able to enjoy the movie, and be pleasantly spooked by more than a few scenes. I don't want to spoil anything, but this is one that needs to be see at night, with the lights off.
Rating:
Summary: A Real Surprise...
Review: I was prepared to hate this film but actually anjoyed it! The new film by M. Night Shymalan is actually pretty scary. He even has a somewhat decent role in it himself (but he should stick to directing). Although, I wouldn't have minded a different lead other than Mel Gibson. When crop circles develop in a midwestern family's corn field, paranoia and fear develop as they witness strange developments all over the world. The film's major downfall is its slow pacing. But with a great climatic ending, the film finishes with a very satisfying (although very Hollywood) ending. **** stars.
Rating:
Summary: Poorly executed storytelling.
Review: I gave this film three stars because it is inadvertently and unintentionally laugh-out-loud hilarious at times -- just for Mel Gibson's completely off-key acting alone. Shyamalan presents an obtuse, preachy message about faith with languid, melodramatic pacing; he manages to kill the suspense at every turn (I'll igonre the plot-holes). Hitchcock said less is more and Shyamalan plays off of that, attempting to invoke subtlety with a nod to camp suspense conventions of a prior era, but somehow he manages to be incredibly heavy-handed with the sparse bit of content he's working with. I think it just misfires on all counts, and what we have is a lesson in bad filmmaking worth a few good laughs. I was completely unengaged by it and I expected it to be much, much better than it was.
Rating:
Summary: Good solid thriller
Review: This movie was very well done. It was spooky as well and a good story line in my opnion. I reallly like the crisis of faith storyline set against an alien invasion, a very original idea. I have read that it was "B" movie with "A" actors and it was just a variation of War of the Worlds, but I disagree. While it did seem to take a couple of themes from a couple of different movies it still stands alone as an original thriller. I feel it is worth watching and buying.
Rating:
Summary: Mel Gibson back to the Mad Max Days only passive
Review: Mel Gibson's performance is understated like back in the Mad Max days but in a passive way. I think this is the first movie Mel has made in a long time that wasn't ham-acted. This is what made Mel's movies good to see, not the psycho Lethal Weapons, and surely not the silly What Women Want. And the Phoenix kid is turning out to be a pretty good actor. He played Commodus in Gladiator, also. I thought the movie was a reasonable depiction of how people might act if the subject turned out as the screenwriter's story sees it. I like movies where when there are strange events the people get past that and get down with what they are going to do about it. There is also a pseudo-spiritual rejuvenation subplot, if you haven't heard about it yet. The kids did a good job, too. A good story, did fairly well at the box office, too. No oppressively gory footage, or pornography, yet scary. Get the hint Hollywood?
| 
