Signs

The brilliant Signs is the ultimate emotional ride, a goosebump-inducing orgasm and, of no less importance, a spiritual caress, thanks to which the film has aged more slowly. This is a beautiful Shyamalan movie with a great, often imitated soundtrack by James Newton Howard. (10/06/2002)

Masterfully crafted atmosphere, excellent direction and cinematography. The screenplay could be better, but by far the most annoying aspect is the excessive and fervently presented references that don’t leave the viewer opportunity to insert their own ingredients, but must unquestionably accept the director's. Some of them are at least quesionable. Otherwise, it is excellent filmmaking. (02/09/2014)

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 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)

Can humor go hand in hand with slowly built suspense and a thick, disconcerting atmosphere? Can you combine a sci-fi movie about invasion with questions of faith and destiny? Isn’t there an unwritten rule that “the dog never dies"? If Shyamalan had come up with this concept a decade later, everybody would have laughed at him. But he came up with it at a time when he was unarguably still at his creative zenith and managed to concentrate his talents on making one of the top thrillers of the beginning of the twenty-first century. It has just one weak spot: the very end when he proves once and for all whether or not he was one of those people who believes/hopes that everything happens for a specific reason. I’m not one of them and so in such a well-thought out movie, which to a certain extent Signs is, I felt that the ending (but not necessarily the overall message) was really unsatisfying and, to a certain extent, cheap. If it had been less ambitious and made do with just three (?) days of the first contact through the eyes of a regular family, it would have been more than enough for a good movie. (11/20/2003)