Signs [Special Edition, Vista Series]

Signs. (My insight on the film)

If you have already read Johns review, then I should tell you now that Im not going to go into the films point A-to-B story, but rather, just add my thoughts of analyzation.

This is a wonderful film that was released over the summer of 2002, and Im sure it will be forgotten, as most films are, during Oscar time. Its a shame because, Signs, is truly a very entertaining film worthy of recognition. As far as Im concerned, M. Night Shyamalan, is on a roll! His previous films are some of my favorite, and he has quite an ingenious way of marketing his films -- keep the audience coming back for more. Like John, I find viewing this film a second time more rewarding, and thats only because Shyamalan leaves you with the feeling of wanting to know more, or at least seeing what you may have missed. The ending of Signs may not be as stunning as his previous films, (The Sixth Sense & Unbreakable), but it still leaves enough curiosity of viewing the film again just to see what the brain might have overlooked.

Over the past months many people have pointed out what, they think, are obvious flaws in the film. In some ways I feel many people have far over analyzed this film to the point of forgetting about being entertained. Many people Ive chatted with felt this film was going to be about a huge alien invasion, possibly similar to what we saw in Independence Day. Well, the film only uses the alien invasion as a backdrop, and the real theme deals with spiritual faith. Even in the previews we only know that there are crop circles involved and it gives us no clue to a full scale alien invasion. As an audience, we make the assumption that aliens are involved, but in reality, we still have no prof of where crop circles come from. As far as the aliens go in the film there has been a huge argument to why they would even consider invading Earth. I dont want to go into details because, if you havent seen the film, it would give too much away. Let me just say this; as humans we all deal with a factor known as risk. We challenge risk even if we know the consequences will have the most tragic of outcome...of course, when you see this film youll know what Im talking about.

If you are the type of person who likes to over-analyze a film, then pay close attention to various elements. Many of the clues in the film contribute to the ending, so watch the characters with a close eye. As a small hint, pay attention to the little girl in the film, Bo (Abigail Breslin) and her fascination with water. Theres reason for this, especially because Mel Gibsons character was a former preacher. Keep in mind, though, the films true plot deals with Mels character, the loss of his wife, and the loss of his faith. Its true that this film does not have the shocker ending that, Shamalan, has given us before, but rather an ending of clarity and something more spiritual, and cleansing. To be quite honest, if youre atheist you wont get it!

On an entertainment level, Signs is suspenseful, and slightly chilling in the way of thrills. Its a reminder to us all that the, Hitchcock, style is still ever prevalent, and can still be accomplished in the freshest of style. Its a wonderful script with an old fashioned chill that makes it an enjoyable ride from start to finish. My suggestion is, dont go into this movie expecting perfection, but rather, sit back an enjoy the ride. Its a film that has a heart of its own, and if you are of the open-minded type, youll find its heart without any effort. Just remember, its only a movie, and a rather well made one at that. Its sure to be a worthy DVD purchase for 2003, and Im sure it will go in my collection as one of my favorites. Its certainly a film that will grow on you, even if you find it only average on your first viewing. Its much like when you purchase a music CD an you need to play it several times before your hooked on it. In all confidence, Signs is one of those films youll look back on in ten years and think, wow, that was a great flick!

Tim. (Fat & lazy critic) [:)]

Tim, just to let you know, I am an atheist, but I "get" the movie. In fact, it is one of my Top Ten Films of 2002.

I must admit I am a sucker for this film. In my opinion it is the best movie of 2002 and one of the best ever. I dont know why John didnt like the ending because I thought it was breathtaking. Allthough there are some parts of the story that are pretty silly and corny I stilled think this movie is great. I really like M. Nights storyteller style. He has now made three movies in a row that all get a 10 in my book.

Oh, forgot to mention that I saw it in Sonys digital DLP theater in the Metreon in SF, wich was really good. I have now seen it 4 times, and I still have the urge to see it again.

Anything would look better at the Metreon. But SIGNS is still a movie that works very well in the home, maybe even better for the greater intimacy of the small screen.

John

Oh, and may I assume, Per, that by "breathtaking," you were making a pun? Clever guy. I wish I had thought of it.

John

"breathtaking"? egads, that could be construed as a morbid joke, lol.

John, you are right in that it is perhaps even better when watched in a dark room in your home with a good sound system an TV.

Just revisited this one a couple of weeks ago, and man is this a great flick.

I think one of Shyamalan's strong points is that his films still retain their resonance even upon repeated viewings. Like Spielberg, he shamelessly manipulates emotion, and he gets me every time.

Let's hope The Village lives up!

Sean (y'know, it takes a village...)