IMDb user comments for
Signs (2002)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 220:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

2197 comments in total

---

91 out of 136 people found the following comment useful :-
underrated film, 28 July 2005
Author: J Charles from over there

I don't think this film deserved the poor reviews that some gave it. I've only seen 3 of Night Shylaman's films (6th Sense, Unbreakable) and this one is the most sophisticated in my mind in terms of the director manipulating the viewers into seeing and believing what he wants you to believe.

This is not Gibson's worst film by any means. If anything he gets to try to portray an understated, confused, and emotionally scarred character and I think he soft-sells it very well. Joaquin Phoenix also has a similar character to play and he too soft-sells it well. That was probably not an accident as their calm, sullen personalities contrast with the unbearable situation they find themselves in.

If you haven't already, see it - and keep an open mind.

---

82 out of 135 people found the following comment useful :-
Mostly dreadful, with some redeeming features, 25 February 2005

Author: Everton_Paul from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This film could have been so, so much better. Its greatest weak points are 1) the overly religious theme and the complete pap that links coincidence, fate and religious faith, and 2) completely stupid and illogical storyline regarding the Aliens attack of the earth.

The cinematography is good, but nothing special. Mel Gibson's acting is laboured. Joaquin Phoenix is better, and has real talent, but is wasted in this. The dialogue is cringe-worthy in many over the top sentimental scenes between Gibson and his kids.

The best thing about this movie is the genuine build up of tension for the 1st hour or so. Like some of the best monster/alien movies, the creature(s) are only revealed a tiny bit at a time – and old (but good) tricks are used to keep the suspense high. Up until this point I was quite enjoying the film, and it 'had me going' a little.

The finishing 30 mins does not do any justice to the build up, and the plot at the end is just silly and lame. I don't really know where to begin .. Well, OK, for starters, it seems absolutely ridiculous to me that an extremely advanced race of Aliens (as they must be to build space craft that can travel great distances in space and that can also be rendered invisible to our eyes when they get here) have to…

i) create crop circles to navigate the earth ii) cannot work out ways to smash down wooden doors and battened windows of a house.

You would think that had they come millions of miles to 'harvest (????)' humans they would have come prepared with some sort of hi tech guns that paralyse us, or at the very least some suits that make themselves invisible (like their ships) or maybe carry some hi-tech equipment to aid them in their task. But oh no, they wander around our planet surface butt naked thereby enabling us to lock them in wooden pantries! Perhaps if we were told that the Aliens are giving us a sporting chance (a la the Predator alien that hunts Arnie) then we might be willing to suspend disbelief regarding their apparent incompetence in 'harvesting' an inherently inferior race (i.e. us) a little more, but we are not led to believe that they are doing any such thing.

You would also think, that such an advanced race of Aliens would probably work out a way to feed themselves without having to travel round the galaxy looking for beings to 'harvest', assuming that they are 'harvesting' us for food (we are not really told). And if it's meat they want, you'd think they get better value harvesting cows, sheep and pigs, no? In fact, if they'd just have asked us, 'hey we need some food', I'm sure planet earth's leaders would have given them a good supply of meat. But no, they attack us and risk themselves in the process!

Also why, if water is like acid to them, are they wandering around butt naked on a planet that has most of its surface covered in water and whose atmosphere is full of water droplets and vapour??!!? Are we supposed to believe that bulk quantities of water 'melt' the aliens, but they can quite happily breathe our air complete with the high levels of water vapour that is in it?!? And if they don't breathe (we are never really told much about the aliens) then still the high levels of water vapour in our air would surely be a bit of a problem to them, no?

There are just so many stupid inconsistencies in this film, it is almost quite laughable. And it is a shame really, because (as I said initially) the film is genuinely scary and suspenseful in the 1st hour. It's just that when the final credits roll, you think, 'hang-on a minute, that ending was just complete nonsense!!!'

For all the hype M. Night Shyamalan is getting for writing, producing and directing his films, he really should learn a bit of science before trying to write a plot involving science fiction

---

54 out of 80 people found the following comment useful :-
What was the guy on who invented this ridiculous story??? ***Spoiler Alert***, 28 February 2004

Author: Martin Lange (martin_lange) from Auckland/NZ

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

*** Spoiler Alert **** Spoiler Alert *** Spoiler Alert ***

OK, this movie has a good cinematography and one cannot argue about the good craftsmanship.

However, who invented this ridiculous story???

Let me get this right:

a) Aliens can travel millions of light years in their space crafts, but lack the technology of breaking into a wooden house. b) For that matter - a seven-foot-tall alien, who can run like an Olympic athlete, can be locked into a wooden kitchen pantry without being able to escape. c) Aliens (able to travel space) run around naked and cannot deal with water. Does this imply that a raincoat is a more sophisticated invention than a spaceship? d) Aliens come to `harvest human beings', but can be scared off by wooden clubs. Aehhh . the human body consists 90+% of water, which the aliens cannot handle . does this qualify for the `real dumb plot award'??? e) A referent looses his faith when his wife dies (which is fair), but regains it when he remembers her last words which tip him off that Aliens doesn't like being beaten with wooden clubs . are there more people who think this is crap???

Also:

f) When confronted with an imminent Alien attack, board yourself into a lonely wooden house in the prairie - don't go into the next town, arm yourself and join the local militia / military organisation.

g) Don't have the asthma medicine your son's life is depending on handy. h) After you boarded up your house, just hang around in the lounge. Don't fortify your cellar basement and shift all your water, food and medicine there. i) Lacking fire arms, don't arm yourself with knifes, axes or whatever you can find. Leave your vicious guard dogs (who detect aliens earlier than you and could scare them off) outside the house.

.. And the top price goes to:

j) Alien communication can best be observed on baby monitors!!! . sophisticated civil air control and military radar equipment cannot spot them.

Well, they don't make movies like that one any more. Hopefully, no-one will never ever make a movie like that one again!!!

My opinion - right down there with `Battlefield Earth' and `Giggli'. 1 out of 10.

---

93 out of 167 people found the following comment useful :-
An expert at work..., 23 November 2002

Author: king_kobra from Switz

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Leave it to M. Night Shyamalan to take our expectations for a movie, turn them upside down, and still deliver a work surpassing anything we'd dared hope for.

With `The Sixth Sense' and `Unbreakable' the young director so immersed us in threatening, supernatural realities that we would follow him anywhere. When all roads led to remarkable twist endings, we loved him even more.

It's with high expectations, then, that audiences greet his new sci-fi thriller `Signs.' And Shyamalan waltzes into the picture clearly aware of what's expected. He knows we're on to his trickery and will spot his clever little ending a mile away, and that knowledge assures that we won't.

Shyamalan also uses the ongoing allure of UFOs and space aliens to sell a film that, ultimately, has little to do with either one.

Despite the inescapable background noise, the movie is really about the emotional and spiritual journey of a rural widower named Graham Hess (Mel Gibson). Formerly a reverend, he gave up his church after the death of his wife.

When we meet him, his days are spent tending a large farm with his brother, Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), and children Morgan (Rory Culkin) and Bo (Abigail Breslin). It's a simple life that's turned upside down when strange crop circles show up in his field. At first, Graham is convinced it's a prank, but then they begin to appear around the world, and the possibility of alien life - perhaps even an invasion - looks realistic.

As the film runs its paces, it riffs on a number of themes more important than the crop circles themselves, but Shyamalan is smart enough to know he has to hang his hat on something. With that in mind, he hides his real issues within a first-class, neoclassical thriller. That means the scares come not from splashy, grotesque special effects but tight editing and suspenseful storytelling.

From the opening frames, Shyamalan creates an atmosphere so eerie and tense that one literally feels tired by the time the film ends. But it's a good tired, the type that comes after working on something worthwhile and being aptly rewarded for the effort.

It's safe to say nobody else could have directed this movie. The unique perspective is purely that of Shyamalan, who wrote, produced and directed.

At one turn the film feels campy, at the next desperately serious, but Shyamalan has somehow melded the diversities into a whole that plays like real life. Since that's what most people look for at the movies, the payoff is big.

Shyamalan also demonstrates an expert ability to build tension, break it with comic relief, then rebuild it. It helps that he has veterans like Gibson and Phoenix delivering the lines, but one gets the feeling this movie would have been great even without the megastars. I'm glad they signed on, though, because their names assure a big-time audience, and this is the type of film that deserves one.

---

83 out of 148 people found the following comment useful :-
Riveting and clever scarefest reinvents the modern horror film, 6 August 2002
Author: Rob from Charlotte, North Carolina

I have been a horror film fan for 30 years. While I remember a few films actually scaring me as a kid (Jaws, Psycho), I have failed to encounter many in my adult life. I like to be scared, but Hollywood has seen fit to retread every tired formulaic convention in just about everything it throws at the local multiplex. Even the independent filmmakers, free of the "system", seem to forget what FEAR is. Mostly I sit solemnly staring in disbelief at the screen, waiting and hoping to get those goosebumps. Then, finally, we were given Signs. Most will say, including the director, that this is not a horror film; I genuinely disagree. If this is not a horror flick, then it is time for this film to start a branch of its own and begin a new genre. I admired every little aspect of this picture, from the use of everyday objects: baby monitor, a blank television screen and a half empty glass of water, to convey and act as a vehicle to extract fear from the ordinary. Most of all, Shyamalan is an expert craftsman and knows how to get the most out of space, actors and sound. It is the lingering shot on a basement staircase when you are desperately hoping he moves his camera to show us more, or the screeching sound in the next room whose source he won't reveal . This director knows just how long to hold the shot, to increase the tension and build the suspense, long enough for our mind to begin forming pictures. And those pictures can be the most frightening of all. Stay the course Shyamalan.

---

33 out of 49 people found the following comment useful :-
Outlandish plot holes ruin film, 25 March 2006

Author: jakekelly from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I saw this film at a packed opening weekend showing in NYC. As the film progressed and the tension rose I thought to myself that this was actually a pretty good film. There were scares, some laughs and even some scenes that tugged at the old heart strings. It reminded me of Night of the Living Dead and the original War of the Worlds, both of which are long time favorites. Durring the final, climactic scene something so completely retarded occurred that I was ripped out of the contented haze the movie had lulled me into. I was shocked. I turned to my girlfriend and said "They get killed by water? Water kills them?" She said, loudly "This movie is F*CKING DUMB!" And I said "I don't believe it..." And that's it. Naked aliens who find water to be deadly come to the wettest place in this solar system. Then, believe it or not, they get killed with water. Other posters (nearly 1,000 or something) have pointed out how utterly insulting this is so I won't go any further into it. I would like to know why the people who rate this a 10 don't bother addressing this outlandish plot device that destroys the entire film for so many others. I would even accept an explanation like "I am an idiot and MAJOR plot-holes don't bother me at all". Has M. Night ever defended this ludicrous flick? No? That's probably because it's indefensible.

---

34 out of 52 people found the following comment useful :-
Religious sermon, 16 April 2006

Author: endymionng from Denmark

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Is it possible that there are no coincidences??? Give me a break... This cannot possibly be a premise for a SCIENCE-Fiction movie, thats just preposterous.

I like MNS's topics for movies and there is no doubt that he is a VERY skilled director of both people and cameras. Sixth Sense was extremely clever and very frightening, Unbreakable was one of the first movies to take comics seriously and was also very cleverly written.

This had the potential to be a new ET or some other kind of clever Science-Fiction, and instead we get this God awful (pun intended) sermon thats supposed to tell mankind that EVERYTHING is predestined. Why ???

---

49 out of 82 people found the following comment useful :-
Advanced beings who have mastered Space Travel but have a deadly, 21 May 2005

Author: coj_lewis from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Advanced beings who have mastered Space Travel but have a deadly aversion to water choose to invade a planet where every breath you take is full of moisture, the atmosphere is full of moisture so guess the outcome. Also, even with there advanced knowledge they seem to have a problem breaking down wooden barriers. And was it only me but didn't that maize field scene look remarkably like the scene from E.T. But hang on this film isn't about Alien Invasion at all I hear you shout, its about man questioning and rediscovering his faith. Well, he may have done that but i lost my faith in the American Film Industry in the process. This is a film that insults the audience's intelligence.

---

45 out of 75 people found the following comment useful :-
Deplorable...no respect for science fiction or for intelligence, for that matter, 10 December 2005

Author: gregep from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

As a long-time science fiction fan and as a scientist, I was not prepared for the insult foisted upon this viewer by this miscarriage of the legacy of true science fiction. If one wishes to have a movie about faith and redemption, fine, but don't trash a whole genre in the process with unbelievable sloppiness. Three years after seeing the film, I still feel insulted.

Spoilers: Why would an intelligent life form capable of traversing untold distances and for whom contact with water is fatal choose a planet for invasion whose surface is predominantly water? Why would that intelligent life form be incapable of sufficient intelligence and tools to free itself from an ordinary locked room? Why would those beings choose to prey on beings that are primarily composed of that substance they find fatal? The list goes on and on, but the bottom line is that some director with no feel and, obviously, no respect for the genre choose that genre for his vehicle? Oh, yeah, name stars and $$$.

Next time I see the name M. Night Shyamalan, I'll forego the experience.

---

40 out of 67 people found the following comment useful :-
Ultimately dumb (1 big spoiler), 18 February 2003

Author: d_dog666

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Why the would a race of (technologically advanced?) aliens with severe water allergies try and invade a planet which almost is covered with water? Dunno....don't care....it was all a load derivative crap anyway with some convenient spiritual nonsense thrown in to try and justify it. Boring!!!!

---

---

Page 1 of 220:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history