Signs

I remember when I was small going to take a look at a crop circle that appeared just off the road to Skalky. I know how terrified I was but at the same time I was really fascinated. A weird feeling. I still remember it somehow. Inside the circle the stalks of grain, I don’t know what sort, seemed empty inside, cracked and dry. I even took one of them home with me. To this day they haven’t worked out who did it or why. Just that the night before that, just before dawn apparently the sky turned yellow. Dark yellow. Dad woke up early and saw it. Now where the field used to be there’s a “millionaire’s quarter" (houses for the rich, a friend of my sister’s supposedly lives there) and a new road that leads to Walmart. Every time I pass by, I remember standing there. Inside that circle. A weird feeling... (01/02/2007)

I noticed something interesting - those who rate Signs very highly often have great reservations about The Village. For me, it's the opposite. While I consider The Village to be M. Night Shyamalan's masterpiece, I not only disliked Signs, but it disgusted me. That's because the film touches on a genre that I like very much, and I know quite a lot about it. However, it does so in a very superficial way, using ideas from B-movies of the 1950s. Its portrayal of aliens and the risks associated with them made me laugh in the movie theater. In that case, any attempt at a "thriller" and "horror" is doomed to failure. Where others talk about the "great atmosphere and mystique," I sometimes felt like the director was openly making fun of me. Signs does not work as a psychological film for various reasons. What remains is the traditionally good work with actors, and the children acted very decently, while Gibson delivered his standard performance, he did not suit his role in my eye. He looks much better in action roles. Shyamalan is very good at working with details and sounds, but this time it wasn't enough to create the good atmosphere that his filmmaking stands for, due to the poorly chosen approach to the subject. In particular, the incorporation of religious elements into the story really didn't sit well with me. Overall impression 40%. (06/13/2006)

Shyamalan at his absolute peak – which would be followed by nothing but a deep plunge downwards. If you don't count the purely commercial and popcorn flick Independence Day, Signs is clearly the best and most powerful film about contact with evil alien worlds. An emotionally very impressive and tense movie that builds up the tension until the final scene in the cellar, which would bring beads of sweat even to Hitchcock's forehead – you really don't get that kind of palpable and real fear in every film. The growing sense of unease is greatly deepened by Howard's excellent soundtrack and the cinematography capturing the unpleasant setting of a remote farm surrounded by corn. Gibson in the lead role is great as always, but Phoenix and Culkin don't lag behind him and prove their immense talent. It's not yet worthy of a full rating, but I'll always enjoy such a genre candy. 85% (02/10/2013)

I’ll start with the good things. I liked how Shyamalan used the girl's obsession with water and Merrill's baseball ability to "swing hard" at the end. Both, seemingly unrelated to the plot, resulted in a successful twist. It’s also true that some scenes are brilliantly shot and lethally tense, Shyamalan really knows how to “polish a turd”. And now the worse: Shyamalan tries to tackle a lot of issues, like the question of faith, parenthood and on so forth. It disrupts the coherence of the plot and often gets boring even. Some scenes (a wannabe emotionally tense scene with the prayer before a meal, the dialogue with the dying wife) seem terribly unnatural. Shyamalan, as a devout Catholic, solves his own problems, he is not very good at psychology and the result is a strange mess – something between a psychological film and a pure horror movie. Those two things don’t fit together and things end up falling apart. (05/18/2003)

When faith doesn't necessarily mean God, when signs don't compel you to join a society of fools, when the past holds secrets that can only be deciphered at the right moment - and when Mel Gibson plays a lead role. That's when the feeling comes that one little inconspicuous Indian is a genius in both storytelling and directing, and that he will never disappoint me. And that feeling has stayed with me for quite a few years. When he can transition from a heartfelt family drama to an almost unbearable suspenseful situation in a single shot, gripping my heart with full force and keeping me on the edge with the second, he proves his mastery of genre-defying artistry (which he then elevated to heavenly levels in The Village). Not just for him, I will tremble every two years for his new film. (03/30/2006)