Count me for one of those that enjoyed Signs. Seems like, for the most part, the problem people have with the film is the ending/resolution. I agree that the ending was the weakest point of the film, but the rest of it (the buildup of suspense throughout) is so good (IMO) that I was able to look beyond that weakness. And personally I didn't think the ending was as "lame" as some are making it out to be. A tad unoriginal/unimaginative maybe, but still not bad. My main criteria for evaluating a film is to ask the questions was I entertained? and am I glad I spent the time watching it? My answer to both was yes for Signs. My question to all the critics is how would you have made it better? I would like to hear some constructive criticism/remarks, instead of simply "It's lame" and all that.

edit: No offense intended to those that did not care for the film. I don't specifically remember anyone using the words "It's lame" in this thread, although I have read that or something similar in other threads. I used those words as an example of a simple, unexplained opinion which I have heard many times before.

for me it was not scary. It felt like a made for cable movie on the big screen. the ending was rather dumb.

I saw this movie having read nothing about it beforehand.

It was not scary, but I loved the atmosphere that shyamalan had created throughout the movie. It was suspenseful and eerie.

In fact I was waiting for the damned twist at the end, and when there was none, I wondered if I had missed something. That spoiled the enjoyment of the movie a little bit.

Maybe the movie should have come with a disclaimer: "Warning: No surprise twist at the end"

I guess I worded my Signs thread wrong [and put it in the wrong forum]

Oh well...

I agree.


And the "REAL" story was thought provoking in terms of FAITH.


the creepiest part:

The home video from South America

One thing that always irritates me about Shyamalan movies:

Why do the main characters talk in a melancholic whiny sort of whisper to each other throughout the movie?

definitely one of the tensest movies i've ever seen.
it's hard for me to get scared at a movie (if something challenges a firmly held belief, or makes me question what i always took as 'truth'- that can be kind of scary- but when the term is used for slasher movies and things of that ilk, that kind of material i don't find frightening.

Shamalyans 3 for 3 in my book.
they may not be my favorite movies of all time, but they were consistently entertaining.
i may be dim, but i couldn't necc. see where they were going, but enjoyed the ride just the same.

what i really appreciate about Signs, is the fact, apart from the star salaries and the union workers, this is a film that was not very complex to produce.
very simple sets/locations. no extravagent special effects,etc.
no plot structure gimmicks.
yet i was enthralled the whole time.

that to me is the mark of a true storyteller

I felt like I was watching Night of the Living Dead all over again...

how many out there actually made the connection bet. the death of his wife and what she said to the ending of the movie?

I'm admitting I didn't get it the first time watching it in the cinema. But while watching it at home on DVD, I realized the connection.

I even watched a few scenes again and again to see the moon/star/planets shape appearing in the kitchen window as well as playground house. I didn't notice it in the beginning. But in the DVD extras, I saw them and thought, hey those weren't there in the movie. But I was proven wrong. It was there. I was probably too occupied w/ the characters that I didn't notice them, even the second time around.

Other than water being harmful to them, it is a pretty good movie.

I agree totally with what he said. High quality movie. Better than the Ring. (Ok im sorry for saying that to any Ring fans oot there. Lets not get in a flame war.)

I just saw it as well and I thought it was a very good movie. One of the things that I really like about Sh is that he really ties all the loose ends. I find that a rare and delightful occasion. As far as the ending I thought that it was well done and pretty creative (except the water) I thought it was different enough from birds and Close Encounters etc. to stand on its own merits. You do have to turn some things off like how the aliens are still as fragile as humans yet they were able to kill many people (although not essential, i really want to know how many!). They were too passive for my tastes which fit the movie but did not fit what I would do.

Yeah the South American video was good. you are like watching and you know its coming but it still freaks you out when it does.

Ghosts still freak me out more. Sixth sense really creeped me out while Signs was mainly for suspense.

My one major "WTF" question...although I realize the movie wasn't really about the Aliens:

If they were so advanced then why oh why would they try to invade a planet that's what, 70% water?

It's like me invading a planet that's 70% acid right?

I didn't find it to be scary at all. The "scares" were too predictable and weren't very effective to me. But the movie was about a man who had lost his faith, and by the end I just felt like Shomama should hav ejust tackled that subject head on. It felt watered down in that sense.

But what bugged me the most were the plot holes. Mainly the one of the aliens not freakin' realizing that water is bad until the damn end! What the hell is that about? You mean to tell me that during all of their reconnaissance missions they never figured that out? Major plot hole, and it near ruined the movie for me.

I just found Signs to be incredibly weak. His other two movies were better. And for the record, while I do agree about this on Sixth Sense, I don't think Unbreakable was totally built around the ending.

I agree, Sixth Sense was his best movie.

For all you people who are ignoring the holy water theory maybe think of it like this. The alien race is dying, and need to do research on us to save their species. If they don't their entire race will die. We are their only hope. 70% acid 70% water what's the difference. You do what you have to do to save your species. If that means a suicidial run to a planet that is made up mostly of a compound your body can't tolerate you still have to go because either way you're going to die.

Well if that was the case and it was a last ditch effort. then they would have taken everyone. I'm sorry but if it's either death of a race or death of a few, I'm sure they wouldn't have turned around and ran. Not all were killed and they retreated... Doesn't show much for a "suicide run". Still baffles me how the aliens survived in a field all night. I mean come on.. My car is wet in the morning just by nature... wouldn't the field be pretty much a death trap for them?

Perhaps they had taken all they needed or could handle for their research. Plus, I'm only saying this for people who don't like the holy water theory which is the one I prefer.

creepiest part was definitely the home video part

I just found it that the Water result was a cheap way to get out of writting a real ending..

I wasn't thinking to deeply about it in the theater, but just by common sense.. their is freak'n moisture in the air. It was just trying to hard to be a War of the Worlds and not enough trying to be itself.. besides, the end result seemed just to silly of a weakness. hell, make it noise or something

But that's not the holy water theory at all. Only sanctified water, such as what his daughter had touched would work to hurt the aliens.

I really like Signs, I can see why others don't like it, still, it is not really a sci-fi movie....

Resurrecting this dead thread... just to kill it again.

I finally saw this film tonight. Holy crap, what a load of horse shit. I don't want to repeat what's already been posted (at length), but I do have a few specific comments.

I kind of dig the angle: "This is a story about a catastrophe, but it's actually a lot more about the people experiencing it." Done well, that's fine. But you cannot have that catastrophe be one of the most interesting things that could happen to humankind. Hurricane, earthquake, war - whatever - those are acceptable. Your movie cannot host an alien goddamn invasion and blow it off like it's unimportant.

It's really a foreground/background issue: if the latter is more interesting than the former, then your story is myopic. People are going to spend the whole film trying to peek around your foreground characters to see more of the neat backdrop.

This was also one of the films where plot devices stand out like sore thumbs. Ever play a really bad videogame, where everything looks bland and boring except the BIG, RED BUTTON ON THE WALL that you're supposed to press? That's goddamn subtle compared to this film. Shyamalan should've just named his characters Asthma Boy, Water Girl, Baseball-Bat Thug Brother, and Certain-To-Regain-My-Faith-By-Film's-End Dad. They should've been wearing T-shirts with these labels.

And yes, jesus christ, when we finally did see the aliens, they completely sucked.

- David Stein

So you're saying you wanted the movie to turn into Independence Day?

I think the movie would have been better if there would have only been 1 crop signal and only that particuolar town freaked out.