Rating: 
Summary: Alien invasion almost - almost! - sabotages important story
Review: Gibson plays Graham Hess, a recently widowed minister and father of two who has been bled not only of joy and charm but also of his faith. His baby brother Merrill (Phoenix), a washed-up minor league ballplayer, has moved into the guesthouse on Hess's farm in rural Pennsylvania. Hess's two grade-school age children are grappling with their mother's death and their father's emotional demise. They also deal with asthma and obsessive habits.Into this mix plop ominous harbingers: crop markings, mysterious figures in the shadows, and pets going mad. These signs pecede an alien invasion. But this ain't "Independence Day," folks. "Signs" is about fragile human life and about faith. The story unfolds strictly from the Hess family's perspective. There are no scenes in the Penatgon or the White House, nor are there shots of spaceships rumbling toward Earth or cities being leveled. You experience the invasion as the typical family boarded up in their country home in the middle of the night would. Every sound is suspect and every choice is life-or-death. Gibson is a morose and timid anti-Mel in this film, devoid of charm or animation (light years from Martin Riggs or William Wallace). That's interesting to me but not to some. The lingering camera shots of silent characters (or inanimate objects) are real-time, character's-point-of-view devices that can allow the audience to project their fears onto the film. But they can be seen as plodding and obtuse, too. The weakest device is the alien invasion itself. It's "facts" are rife with illogic. In wedding the genres of his first two films (the supernatural of "Sixth Sense" and the pulp/comicbook premise of "Unbreakable") Shyamalan was shooting for a unique type of film. In some ways he succeeds. But the invasion story is thin because it's expendable. Cardinal rule: If a story doesn't need aliens to be told, why have them? In fact, its spiritual aspect would be all the more resonant in normal life. But then it wouldn't be a Shyamalan movie, would it? I still like it, though.
Rating: 
Summary: Acting was GREAT, but story line was lacking!
Review: I was expecting an edge of your seat drama/thriller. The previews I saw made the movie look great; and those parts were, but those were the only parts. All the "good" scenes were used in the previews because that was all there was. Although the story was sorry, the acting was great. Mel Gibson did an outstanding job! Thank God for that one redeeming quality!
Rating:
Summary: Good, but not Great
Review: Riding again on the tails of his success with "The Sixth Sense," writer/director M. Night Shyamalan goes to bat with a metaphysical thriller, this time on a more purely science-fictional level than in his past films. Does he succeed? I guess, kind of, though not with flying colors. Trailers and ads for this film have focussed heavily on the crop circle phenomenon, a known hoax that gulled a lot of people fifteen years ago but is now known to be the work of "artists" with too much time on their hands. This hoax is even acknowledged out loud more than once in the film. One wonders if the emphasis on crop circles was because Shyamalan didn't know what else to use to kick-start the plot. The crop circles are a red herring anyway. So are the aliens who appear fairly early. The real story revolves around Graham Hess (Mel Gibson), a priest who has renounced his vows after the sudden, violent death of his wife. The prolonged crisis of faith he suffers through this film, consistent with Shyamalan's metaphysical musings in the past, is the real story here. Joaquin Phoenix turns in a good performance as Gibson's younger brother Merrill, and Cherry Jones is good in a rare screen performance as Officer Paski, a local cop and friend of the Hesses. Both are underexplored, however, as are the rest of the supporting characters. This is Graham Hess' story, and the others simply serve to propel him along. The story is good but not great. Because of Shyamalan's fondness for twists and his wry sense of humor, it is at least engaging enough to keep viewers interested in the moment. However, many will come to the film expecting to see something on the level of "The Sixth Sense," and they will be disappointed. Most of the negative criticisms owe less to the quality of the film than to the fact that it isn't on the same par as "The Sixth Sense." Taken in itself, this film is better than most being made right now. The aliens -- a mix of puppetry, computer generation, and men in suits -- disappoint, but they're largely peripheral. Only one is seen very closely. Many people will certainly be disappointed by them, but keep in mind, they're not the heart of the story. The ending will also seem very pat. The movie comes to a sudden halt rather than trying to resolve the outstanding questions. In terms of story, this is the biggest flaw in the movie. Technically, there are other flaws, particularly Shyamalan's repeated use of point-of-view shots and tight face holds on speaking characters. At times it seems as though he's trying to remind us that this isn't real, that we're only watching a movie. The purpose for this is hard to fathom. It takes some time to get used to these awkward shots, but once you're comfortable with them, they no longer really interfere with the story flow. This movie is enjoyable if you don't try to put it in the context of Shyamalan's body of work. Take your time, immerse yourself. It's not the best movie ever, but it is a strong picture with heart.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed but still pretty original and thrilling...
Review: Quite frankly, it's very difficult to make a very good film about invading aliens. Usually directors get caught up in the special effects or the action, and don't pay attention to what is most important: the reactions of the characters and the effect such a shocking event would have on their community. So, even though M. Night Shyamalan's Signs has significant flaws, it deserves credit for approaching the whole "alien invaders" thing in, for the most part, an original, clever, and entertaining way. In Signs, a mid-western family, consisting of a former priest and widower (Mel Gibson), his children and his brother (Joaquin Phoenix), is faced with mysterious occurances and then an actual alien invasion. As stated previously, Signs really isn't about the actual alien invasion, for few details about the aliens are provided and the only coverage of their attack on the world comes through the family's TV set. Instead, it's about peoples' reactions to the unknown and mysterious. Consequently, some people, especially those people who walk in expecting some slam-bang action/horror spectacle, may be disappointed. This, however, is unfortunate, because Signs really does have many admirable qualities. Its highlights include a terrific soundtrack (reminicent of Hitchcock's soundtrack for Psycho) and good performances from the actors. As for the directing, it is somewhat uneven. Although Shyamalan is clearly able to generate good "Hitchcock-esque" suspense and does have an ability for capturing the small details that create the atmosphere, he does sometimes become a little heavy-handed. The script is also uneven - it has patches of humor and genuine insight into the characters - but also often falls short and resorts to Hollywood cliches which make the characters seem shallow. Overall, however, Signs is quite good. Its biggest flaws are its message about spirituality, which is overly stressed, and the fact that the script sometimes becomes corny. Nevertheless, among the many junky summer blockbusters, Signs is one movie that is worth seeing regardless of its flaws, as its original take on the alien invasion idea and its creepy atmosphere, which keeps the audience on the edge of their seats, make it well worth the money.
Rating: 
Summary: Triumph of Marketing over Substance
Review: I saw this movie because my girlfriend wanted to see Mel Gibson. I agreed because I thought it would have some sort of imaginative twist at the end, like the 'Sixth Sense'. Alas, this movie disappoints like a kid's cereal box. It smothers its viewers in tense dialogue, end of the world fears, always promising something more, & ultimately failing to deliver any substance. Actually, the greatest strength of this movie is that it is so ridiculous that none of it is believable' emotions without reason. At the end I waited for Mel to wake up & find out the whole movie was just a dream experienced in some kind of coma. The movie use cliché after cliché-- a man who has lost his faith and needs redemption, an asthmatic child, faith over fear, trust don't question, & incredibly stupid aliens-- with weaknesses stolen from old B sci-fi movies. It's a feel good movie for brain dead people & those too afraid to think.
Rating:
Summary: 2 1/2 stars--cheesy!!!!!!!!
Review: After the awesome "Sixth Sense," I was expecting another cool flick from Mr M.Night. I have to agree with the first reviewer who said that the dialogue sounded contrived, and the plot was preachy.
There were more funny (funny stupid, not funny haha) moments in this movie than scary ones, and I was never "on the edge of my seat."
The only redeeming things about this movie was the scary-looking alien and the cute little girl. I say skip it and rent "The Sixth Sense" instead.
Rating:
Summary: I tell you no lie
Review: Oh dear. I tell you no lie. I watched this on my hols in Corfu and was really looking forward to seeing it as it appeared to be a solid film with an interesting subject and good ole Mel Gibson in it - surely it couldn't be bad? I watched thinking ok it's trundling along, it's going to get going in a minute, it's warming up etc. It seemed to have a lot of promise. Then the ending (which I won't tell you as you'll work it out for yourself) happened and the titles came up and you know what? It was that total bar steward of a director M. Night Shymalan. I didn't realise before the film but I certainly recognised this was his piece of work. All of his films start with great promise, interesting storylines and top actors and they all infer this is going to be a great solid film. Then they end without fulfilling any of their promise. I saw the twist in the Sixth Sense within 25 mins of it starting (and I did not even realise there was a twist before I went to see the film!)and Unbreakable started well until the twist at the end which I nearly walked out on as my god what was he thinking - did no-one tell him this was a diabolical ending. I think if he could finish a film as well as he does the start of his films he will be a really good director. But he needs sooooo badly to work on the ending of his films. Anyway this is my penny's worth - buyer beware.
Rating:
Summary: Very disappointing!...
Review: I had high hopes for this movie, but when I saw it, I was very disappointed. I loved The 6th Sense, and I expected this one to be great too. However, there were so many holes in the plot, it wasn't worth watching. It seemed to me like they ran out of script about half way through the movie and just made up a stupid ending. I mean, if the aliens can come to attack our planet, how come they can't open doors? And why would they just randomly decide to leave? Good cast, ok acting, but no story!...
Rating:
Summary: A thesis for belief in 107 minutes
Review: _Signs_, as I was surprised to reflect, is not a film about crop circles or aliens. (Crop circles were fairly authoritatively stripped of their mysteriousness in the early 1990's when hoaxers revealed their methods of creating them; crop circle "experts" now say more than 80% of the known circles were man-made.) The film instead uses the phenomenon of the circles and their tenuous connection to extraterrestrial life as a Hitchcockian Macguffin to propel its real story: that of a man's faith in God. Nietzsche said, convincingly in my opinion, that the modern age is characterized by people no longer being convinced of their own religious beliefs. Yet it seems a natural instinct to reach out to something larger than yourself. One may not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic god or gods, but there is no way to prove their nonexistence. Anyone who says they can prove there isn't a god is wrong, as are the people who can prove there is one. (The study of Kant is my basis for this statement, his work throwing down a challenge many feel to this day has not been sufficiently answered-- but that's another story). So with religious belief found everywhere in the world, in human expression and also inhabiting much of the greatest art that has ever been created, yet not being convincingly demonstrated, we are presented with a situation that is bipolar. Shyamalan's film takes this scenario as its brilliant starting point. Mel Gibson plays a priest who has lost his faith due to events in his life. Just as Shyamalan goes to this "inner" extreme-- portraying a man of God renouncing God-- he goes to the opposite "outer" extreme in his movie by setting this man in the middle of a world that is collapsing all around him. Shymalan plays Job's advocate, forcing Gibson's character to the brink of his latest worldview, which isn't really new: at several points the protagonist reveals he never stopped believing in God, but has only changed his attitude towards Him. The question the film asks is, are those amazing moments in our life, all those "signs" of something higher and greater than ourselves, nothing but a coincidence? Can there be such a thing as no coincidence? Are we alone in the world?-- not only our outer world of the universe, but also our inner, personal, faith-based world as well? Are we merely slaves to our imaginations? Shyamalan tries to link the "signs" we marvel at to something higher. The film's answer to the question is one I don't totally agree with-- If I think these "signs" are not coincidence, does this make them the result or action of a higher being? I don't think this is necessarily true-- but even if I do not agree with the film's conclusion, I must appreciate the amazing attempt Shyamalan makes. His film is economical, taut, suspenseful, excellently written and thought provoking. While falling short of the amazing acheivements of _The Sixth Sense_ and _Unbreakable_, _Signs_ is still an excellent and recommended viewing. I hope Shyamalan continues to make films like these: dynamic, daring and light years above what the rest of Hollywood is cranking out.
Rating:
Summary: this is one of the many reasons why i hate hollywood.
Review: so, i downloaded Signs last night from kazaa..now, i don't know if it was just the quality of the download or if it was just a plain bad movie, but i didn't like it. I don't know about you but If I was given the choice to have my teeth ripped out of my mouth with pliars, no anesthetic,or watch another Mel Gibson movie... i think i'd rather gum my food for the rest of my life. Gibson plays a preacher-turned-athiest when his wife gets crushed by a car, living in a hick-like-town he supports his two young children and his younger brother. after numerous reports of crop circles and one right in his front yard, the news media announces that aliens have invaded the world and they're not here to use the telephone. the film is bombarded with flashbacks of how/why he lost his faith, in an attempt to make you teary-eyed and is soaked with those dreaded 'oscar-moments'. the only thing more pathetic than seeing Mel Gibson cry is watching two white, middle aged business men high-fiving eachother in front of the gap. The result is a film that sags between its night sequences. The only comparison I can think of is a "Jaws" without a story between shark attacks. but thats just my opinion, i could be wrong. i know a lot of people who thouroughly enjoyed it.
| 
