Jaden Jordan
- Apr 1, 2019
- 3 min read

Signs (2002)

Updated: Aug 3, 2021

GENERAL

The Breakdown: A father of two and his brother must protect their family when a strange series of phenomena suggest that aliens are invading earth.

Watch If: You have little experience with horror or scare easily.

Not If: You have trouble with suspension of disbelief.

SECONDARY FACTS

Overall Rating: 2.4

Length: 1:46

Country: USA

Language: English

Scare Factor: Low

Gore Factor: None

REVIEW

THE QUICK AND DIRTY

It's fun, but it's not good. Like many of Shyamalan's films, Signs encompasses that small section of horror that I believe should exist, despite it not being particularly good.

PREMISE: 2

Signs is an alien invasion film, and not much more. It teems with weak explanations and far-fetched justifications for things working out as they do. They story itself is uninteresting and derivative, and adds little to the alien-invasion sub-genre that could be considered interesting or original. It is, however, a good film for younger horror fans (Think pre-teen/ young teenagers) as most of the less-than-subtle plot explanations are far less jarring to the less jaded viewers, or those with less experience in horror. I remember watching this movie when it came out, and to my 9-year-old self, it was the scariest movie I had ever seen. Now, however, I can't help but hate any protagonist dumb enough to make half the mistakes that Mel Gibson's character makes in Signs.

-SPOILER-

I mean, seriously, who forgets the dog? Who forgets your kid's LIFE SAVING MEDICINE in the face of a potential Armageddon.

-END SPOILER-

ACTING: 3

The acting is fine. The writing, however, is terrible. I am amazed that any of the actors participating in this film could keep a straight face through any of the dialogue. To further help my point:

"I AM INSANE WITH ANGER."

"IS DOUCHBAG A CURSE?"

VISUALS: 3

Signs, unfortunately, does not stand the cruel test of time. While there are a few scenes that are visually interesting and do a great job of pulling the viewer in, many of the effects are dated, and the aliens themselves are more suggestions of aliens than clear pictures, which is fine. I will never begrudge a director for obscuring their monsters, but the scenes where they do show the aliens are plagued by the constraints of the technology of the time.

Signs does, however, lay claim to the most effective jump scare I have ever experienced. Granted, I was a child the last time it actually got me, but it is emblazoned in a way that can only be achieved through effective filmography and childhood wonder. That being said, in a recent mindset, the choppy, no-lube-we'll-do-it-live zoom scenes do take away from the film a bit.

ATMOSPHERE: 2

When I was little, Signs was terrifying. But as an adult, it is mostly long, stretching sections of overhanded exposition and short, tense moments of WTF. I find, however, that it is always fun to watch, particularly when you force someone who has no context for the film they're about to view to watch it with you. It's fun, and in its own way, enjoyable. Granted, that way may be somewhat masochistic, as you grind popcorn through your teeth, jaw held fast in clenched judgment, but you know, still fun.

DELIVERY: 2

It's 2002 Shyamalan. It's over thought and under done, and hints to a lazy execution of an intriguing premise made by a filmmaker who as of Signs, lacked the self awareness to realize that some things haven't been done before because they're just plain dumb. This film also lacks the oomf-twist ending that is so synonymous with Shyamammal's work. It does, however, have the accompanying revelatory score, which leads me to wonder if, while we're over here playing Operation, Shamalama might be playing 3D Chess. All in all, Signs is a bad movie, but an enjoyable one, that comes with a healthy overdose of nostalgic "this played on that FX every Thursday after the 2005 remake of house of Wax."