Sinais

An above-average thriller (a variation of Independence Day) in the typical chatty style of Shyalaman that generates an unsettling atmosphere from the beginning to the end, where things fall considerably apart due to the not very good look of the aliens. Mel Gibson carries the film on his shoulders, he hardly ever leaves the screen. Signs doesn’t get a full score mostly because of the ending, which is way too American and doesn’t fit the film’s atmosphere. (30/12/2007)

In some ways a very funny update of the invasion sci-fi genre, in some ways unpleasantly claustrophobic, in some ways pleasantly exaggerated (the hats), but in other respects completely burdened by trying to go beyond and show something more than an intimate story of a family crisis surrounded by mysterious signs from above. I enjoyed watching it as one of the variants of the classic narrative of re-establishing the authority of a father through a disaster. In this respect, it is slightly reminiscent of Spielberg's War of the Worlds. However, Steven is a much better narrator and entertainer, without lagging behind Shyamalan in terms of thought (it’s not really even possible). (13/06/2013)

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. (06/10/2002)

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. (20/11/2003)

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. (18/05/2003)