Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

Signs review

Posted : 1 year, 12 months ago on 1 April 2022 11:35

This was a movie I wanted to like, with its cast and great idea, and also that I loved The Sixth Sense and liked Unbreakable very much. Shyamalan has definitely done worse than this though with The Happening, Lady in the Water and The Last Airbender(I'm watching The Village as we speak and presently it is difficult to judge whether I dislike it or not), but this was a disappointment. Signs does have some good values, such as a genuinely tense first fifty minutes or so, very good cinematography and score and credible turns from Joaquin Pheonix, Abigail Breslin and Rory Culkin.

However, what promise Signs did have is almost completely squandered around the halfway mark. Shyamalan's direction is uneven here, first it's alert and tense and then it became lazy and lethargic. The script has an uneasy mix of cheesy and maudlin, the characters generally are underdeveloped and the story either suffers in the second half from also being underdeveloped or even worse not making much sense.

Although Mel Gibson has done worse performances than this I found his performance rather laboured here, doesn't help that his character doesn't engage or that some of the worst dialogue is with him.

What disappointed me most about Signs was that after such a good start, it is spoilt by scenes that come across as too mawkish and over-sentimental than genuinely poignant, creaky flashbacks that severely undermine the suspense and the truly ludicrously melodramatic ending. Not to mention some glaring and even in some cases unforgivable plot holes, particularly the aliens being killed by water.

All in all, disappointing. I liked the performances, visuals and especially the tense, spooky atmosphere created at the start, but it just got lazy. 4/10 Bethany Cox


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 9 years, 10 months ago on 26 May 2014 09:36

Nowadays, M. Night Shyamalan has become the laughing stock of the film community but there was a time when he was considered one of the most promising directors in the world. Some people would argue that it started to go wrong already with this flick but I don’t agree, in my opinion, it started to turn sour with ‘Lady in the water’(still his worst movie in my opinion) whereas this movie was well received and a success at the box-office. At the time, Mel Gibson was still a bankable actor and it would be his last hit before he focused on his directing projects and on ruining his public image. Anyway, I thought it was a fairly entertaining story, there is no denying that Shyamalan knows how to direct a thriller and there was a very strong cast (Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, Abigail Breslin). The biggest issue was eventually the ending. I mean, it was all very nice and efficient, especially in delivering an ominous mood but they had to provide an interesting climax at some point, not necessarily an explanation (see ‘Inception’ or anything directed by David Lynch), but you need to manage to end your tale in a satisfactory way and that’s where Shyamalan fails every time, even with ‘The Sixth Sense’ which I consider one of the most overrated movies ever made. This time again, the ending was quite ridiculous, borderline laughable, and above all, it was yet again a twist ending. It was already the 3rd time in a row that Shyamalan used this trick and his audience was already getting quite fed up with this gimmick. Still, in spite of this underwhelming ending, the rest of the movie is actually pretty good and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

"Signs" (2002)

Posted : 10 years, 9 months ago on 14 June 2013 02:43

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

I know a lot of people like this movie, but at the same time, many other people have already pointed out how flawed it is, so I don't feel I have anything significant to add.
I understand what the movie was going for: an alien invasion scenario that focuses entirely on an ordinary rural family and how the crisis unfolds from their perspective. In this regard, the movie could have worked. Other movies, like Night of the Living Dead, have used that idea of a limited focus to great effect. But here, it's all ruined by terrible acting and some really stupid writing – too many examples to get into.
Yes, the acting is a major problem with this movie. No one ever shows any emotion whatsoever, which completely kills any tension. I know Shyamalan usually goes for a downbeat tone, but for a movie like this, you really need something more realistic.
To sum it up, this is basically Wasted Potential: The Movie. It has its moments, and could easily have been an engrossing and bone-chilling horror film, if only the story had been thought out a little better and the acting had actually been competent.

My rating: 45%


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Bone-chilling thriller with tremendous humanity

Posted : 12 years ago on 18 March 2012 07:09

"What you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or, look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?"

If Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay took charge of 2002's Signs, they would have delivered a brainless action ride involving a cast of stereotypes battling a conventional alien enemy. Under the guidance of writer-director M. Night Shyamalan, however, Signs is anything but conventional or dumb. Eschewing a blockbuster approach, Shyamalan uses the possibility that we are not alone in the universe as the foundation for an engaging character drama with messages about religious beliefs and faith. It is essentially the low-key flipside to Independence Day, and the film's proceedings are probably closer to what the experience of an alien invasion would be like for most families around the globe. Moreover, Signs is one of the most effectively bone-chilling motion pictures of the noughties - a science fiction horror picture in the classical Hitchcockian mould where less is more.


Set in a small Pennsylvania farming community, the story concerns former reverend Graham Hess (Mel Gibson). After tragically losing his wife, Colleen (Patricia Kalember), in a tragic car accident, Graham no longer has faith and is left to raise his two kids, Morgan (Rory Culkin) and Bo (Abigail Breslin), with the help of his brother, Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix). One morning, the family awakens to find chilling crop circles in their cornfield. While Graham and local police officer Caroline (Cherry Jones) are willing to dismiss the occurrence as the work of pranksters, similar crop signs begin appearing across the planet at a rapid rate. As the phenomenon grips the world and consumes Graham's family, strange events continue to transpire, supporting the nerve-jangling notion that extraterrestrials may have arrived on Earth to stage an attack.

Shyamalan has a gift for careful pacing and precise camerawork, and Signs demonstrates both qualities. Each frame is meticulously composed and visually interesting, and the narrative shifts forward at an unhurried but enthralling pace. The movie is a tad slow by design, and it is directly because of this slow build that Signs is so terrifying since Shyamalan lulls us into a false sense of security. Shyamalan is a master of suspense and tension, as we mostly see ominous shadows, silhouettes or limbs throughout the film, making the big reveal even more of a spine-chilling moment. Indeed, a scene in which Merrill witnesses news footage of one of the aliens is a nerve-shredding "shit your pants" moment, and Merrill's gaping response of terror is contagious. Laudably, Shyamalan accomplishes goosebump-inducing scares like these without requiring blood or gore. James Newton Howard's pitch-perfect original score also deserves praise. The compositions are so simple and low-key, yet that is precisely why they work to such an unsettling extent.


Another key strength of Signs is its sense of humanity. Shyamalan's reputation as a filmmaker is imperfect, but at the height of his powers here, he can scare you one minute and make you cry the next without feeling manipulative. For instance, a late scene involving the characters sitting at a dinner table, believing that the end is near, becomes almost too poignant to bear, thanks to the performances and the dialogue instead of heavy music. Later, following an extremely intense scene, Shyamalan cuts to a flashback illuminating the affecting events on the night when Graham's wife was killed. It's a low-key, dialogue-driven scene, yet it is emotionally fatiguing. Additionally, an underlying sense of humour prevents the movie from becoming serious to a drab extent. If there's a problem with Signs, the digital effects are a tad below par and do not entirely hold up. The alien design is brilliant, but the CGI giving them life is iffy, and one scene towards the end loses some of its effectiveness due to this. While the digital aliens aren't terrible per se, they are too obvious, making them feel out of place in a film otherwise concerned with patience and restraint.

Say whatever you will about Mel Gibson's controversial personal life, but you cannot deny his talent as a performer. Signs spotlights one of Gibson's best and most nuanced performances to date - he looks 100% focused in every frame, and there's never a line or a moment exhibiting any degree of artificiality. Gibson also carries a believable, effortless rapport with Joaquin Phoenix, who's just as impressive as Merrill. Many years separate Gibson and Phoenix, yet buying them as brothers is easy. Against all odds, even the child actors are excellent here - Rory Culkin and a pre-stardom Abigail Breslin (who was five years old at the time of filming) are exquisite. Shyamalan's strength with actors is his ability to strip the Hollywood out of them. Thus, the performances here are not about showboating or Oscar-baiting - instead, the actors all seem real.


Shyamalan is renowned for twist endings, but Signs does not strictly adhere to this trademark. While the climax brings about a revelation, it's not a twist - instead, the ending ingeniously ties together several earlier plot points in an unexpected way that strengthens the whole story's reason for occurring. With this thoughtfulness in the screenplay, Signs is not disposable or forgettable. It's just a bonus that this enthralling film will creep the living hell out of you and coax screams of terror out of the most jaded filmgoer. Without a doubt, Signs is an instant classic with infinite replay value.

9.1/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Signs review

Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 21 May 2010 06:26

I'm new to Shyamalan. I've seen him talking in a few Hitchcock documentaries, but I had no interest in watching any of his films. My Dad bought a cheap VHS of this film from a car boot sale for me. From the cover, it looked interesting so I gave it a watch.
I's not bad either. It's a 'seen it all before' plot, but some very tense scenes just about make up for the bad acting and characterisation. In fact, it was quite gripping, unfortunately let down by the weak climax. Gibson is pretty bad as the widowed former vicar, looking after his kids with his brother, Joaquin Phoenix (who is decent). We are thrown straight into the story as crop circles appear across their farm, which of course sets up the possibility of an alien invasion.
Tense and thrilling, let down by some poor acting and sentimentality.

3/5



0 comments, Reply to this entry