Signs

When faith doesn't necessarily mean God, when signs don't compel you to join a society of lunatics, when the past holds secrets that can only be deciphered at the right moment – and when Mel Gibson plays the lead role. That's when the feeling comes that one little 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 with the first and keeping me on the edge of my seat 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. (30/03/2006)

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%. (13/06/2006)

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. (09/02/2014)

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... (02/01/2007)

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)