In short: A 97 minute snoozefest with a perplexing scale of events, redeemed somewhat by a good third Act, a great setup-and-payoff character arc, and the usual Shyamalan shock ending.

Written and Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

Mel Gibson Father Graham Hess
Joaquin Phoenix Merrill Hess
Rory Culkin Morgan Hess
Abigail Breslin Bo Hess
M. Night Shyamalan Ray

Well the Signs were there: Supernatural subject matter. Children as important characters. Main character is an unhappy guy with a less than ideal marital status. Pennsylvania setting. Appearance by the writer/director in a small role. Excellent camera work. Shocking twist ending. Yep, it’s an M. Night Shyamalan film.

Mel Gibson stars as Graham Hess, a Pennsylvania farmer raising his son and daughter with help from his brother Merrill(Joaquin Phoenix). Graham has been experiencing a crisis of faith for the past six months, and when crop circles begin appearing in his corn fields and elsewhere, it heralds an ominous event that will not only put him and his children at risk, but force him to resolve his personal crises one way or the other.

After the disappointing Unbreakable, I was hoping M. Night Shyamalan would be redeemed in my eyes with Signs, which boasted a good-looking trailer, and an EXCELLENTLY creepy website. Unfortunately, much as with Unbreakable, I had to struggle to stay awake during this movie, and actually ended up missing some key expositional scenes during the first hour. With The Sixth Sense, there is a big instigating moment right in the very beginning of the movie when Mark Wahlberg’s brother, former New Kid on the Block Donnie Wahlberg, shoots Bruce Willis, and a definite sense of buildup throughout the movie, as the audience, who knows from the movie publicity what the kid’s story is, is slowly given bits and pieces of his abilities, and Bruce Willis as well. Even Unbreakable has that structure. With Signs, all the scenes in the first hour or so seem static and flat, almost interchangeable.
---One of the problems I had with the overall scope of the plot is that it has a very odd sense of scale. With movies that deal with the paranormal phenomena (mermaids, aliens, the Loch Ness monster, ghosts), there are two scales at which the subject matter is seen by the general public in the movie: One in which, by the end of the movie, only the main participants in the movie are aware of the existence of said phenomena and the public is not (Shyamalan’s previous two films, The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, took this approach, as did Ghost, The X-Files Movie, Date with an Angel, etc. The second scale is one in which the entire public is made aware of the reality of the phenomena, sometimes entailing a massive paradigm shift that changes the entire society, which the movie sometimes will explore. Examples of this scale would be Splash, Independence Day, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc. The reason Signs violates this categorization somewhat is because while it initially appears to abandon the first scale when crops circles begin appearing and lights begin appearing in the night skies over about 300 cities around the world, and news stories about these occurrences dominate the TV airwaves, it doesn’t stick with that scale. Now usually, when a movie takes the general public approach, it will focus on a small group of people against the larger backdrop of the larger global event. But Signs doesn’t really do that, because what happens all over the world is left to an occasional mention by a nervous TV anchorperson, with no discussion about the larger picture, let alone an actual look at that larger picture. In this way, the movie seems to want to have it both ways: Having this stuff taking place all over the world, but putting the entire focus of the film on Graham Hess, his brother and two children, without dealing with the larger background in anything resembling a believable, convincing way, makes it seem like a copout. Yes, you’re supposed to focus on the human element in science fiction, but you’re supposed to show the relationship between that Little Guy and the bigger picture. Here, Graham and family seem entirely cut off from an of the global implications of this plot. This is best exemplified in an extremely forced line in the movie (echoed for humor) about how all the science books will have to be rewritten. Too bad the script didn’t get same suggestion.
---Even the "alien threat" is preposterous. Why in the world, (Spoiler Warning: ) after so many years (Centuries? Millennia?) of sneaking around, refusing to be photographed in the flesh or leave any hard evidence behind, doing anal probes on Farmer Bob, etc., would the aliens suddenly decide on an all-out in-your-face global "raid," when subtlety and secrecy has been their stock in trade up till now? (End Spoiler Warning.) It’s cartoony motivation, and the kind of silliness that made Independence Day a ridiculous one-dimensional movie.
---That said, the movie is redeemed somewhat by Shyamalan’s understanding of the importance of the character arc, and the manner in which he is able to plant subtle trivia in the first hour of the movie, trivial things that later payoff in two ways by the end of the film—one payoff saves the day and the other helps him resolve his personal crises. There is the patented Shyamalan SHOCK ENDING, and while this is not a revelation per se the way the previous two were, this one will not disappoint. And of course, Shyamalan is a master cameraman, and he really knows how to hold his camera. While the first hour’s exposition is largely boring, the peekaboo alien scenes are handled PERFECTLY, with scary moments and humor peppered throughout.

NITS:
When the alien "raid" begins, Graham sees that the TV is only broadcasting the Emergency Broadcast System’s signal. After September 11th, it’s a joke to think this will ever be used, because as 20/20’s John Stossel pointed out in one of his usual Private-Business-is-Better-Than-Government-Monopoly Editorials, the EBS wasn’t even used on September 11th. Who would think to use it here? The point of the signal, we’ve always been told, is to give "further instructions" to people locally after they hear the signal. Well, what "instructions," if any, was the government planning on giving? "Quick! Duct tape your ass so they can’t do anal probes on you!"

After the alien threat has passed, the news broadcaster says that the tide was turned in the Middle East, where a primitive method of repelling the aliens was found, but no other details are available. First, that sounds like something a movie writer would say, but not a newscaster. How can they know that a "primitive method" was used, but not what that method was? It’s to keep that knowledge from the audience, but I can’t imagine how that information could’ve gotten across the globe, albeit in such a vague, peekaboo manner.

Second, I find it interesting that this solution was found in the Middle East, which is so abundant in deserts.

Okay, so what was that alien trying to do when it picked up Morgan at the end of the movie? At first I thought it was going to try and cure Morgan’s asthma, in the vein of "the aliens are really benevolent" schtick, but then he sprays that poisonous gas into his face. Why is this? My friend suggested the this alien was one of the "wounded" left behind when the aliens fled, but that doesn’t explain what he was doing grabbing Morgan. And if he wanted Morgan for some reason, why didn’t he just jump out the window with him and run away? Why does he just stand there before Graham and Merrill?
END OF NITS

Given the sparse amount of publicity for this film so far, the fact that Unbreakable was not the crowd pleaser that The Sixth Sense was, and the way Spider-Man and other films have dominated the summer, I doubt this film will be a box office smash. But hardcore Shyamalan fans might flock to it. But in any case, remember one thing:

Swing away.

The scene in the trailer and commercial where Bo tells Graham, "There's a monster outside my room can I have a drink of water?" is supposed to be an ominous scene, but watching it, it turns out not to be at all, and I felt a bit ripped off.

And why would the science books need to be rewritten when the lights appear in the sky? Just because there are lights in the sky?

The official premiere was tonight at Alice Tully Hall (Lincoln Center) in New York. The entire cast was there, as was M. Night Shyamalan. Watching with a couple of friends made it seem better, because I could look at everyone’s reaction to scary moments as they approached, but that first hour was still kinda slow. I also noticed a couple of other nits. As usual, the normal spoiler warnings should be acknowledged, as discussing the nits requires referencing important plot points.

So how exactly is it that pantry doors can hold these guys aliens in? They had no prob breaking through almost all of the barricades in the Hess house, but the door to Ray’s pantry keeps one alien all couped up? I don’t get it. For that matter, with the technology the aliens have, and their ability to break through those barricades of the Hess house, why couldn’t they break through the cellar door with a hatchet wedged under the doorknob? They broke the barricades on the windows and doors. Why not break through that basement door?

And speaking of the aliens’ selective technology, isn’t it a bit odd that the medium they use for their communication can be picked up by a baby monitor?

And why do aliens’ chameleonic skin sometimes change to match their surroundings, and sometimes not? When (Remember that spoiler warning!) the alien at the end of the movie is holding Morgan, the skin on the arm he uses to hold him changes to match Morgan’s clothes, and the skin on his back even changes to form a reflection of Bo, who is standing several feet away. So why doesn’t the front of his body and face change to match the living room in front of him?

How exactly did these aliens’ weakness evolve, especially when you consider how the thing they’re vulnerable to is so necessary?

I thought the movie was great for all the reasons you rave about. I also thought it was a great for the reasons you rant about. I didn't think the beginning was boring at all. Like his previous two films, I thought there was a wonderful sense of expectation and curiosity. It draws you in completely by making you strain to see and hear what's happening. It completely involved me. But unlike "Unbreakable," which I did like, overall, "Signs" does it with a little more humor and a brisker pace.

I also disagree with your argument about the scale of the movie. One of the things I loved about this movie was that, despite the global implications of what's happening, we never stray from this one family. The fact that you only consider that there are two possible ways of telling this type of story is not indicative of a copout, but rather a fresh approach.

And I think it made it a more realistic picture. It didn't give us more information than what the characters have been given. Think of the number of people across the country who felt detached from the 9/11 attacks, despite their broader, global implications. After all, the point of the movie wasn't about the alien invasion, but about one man's crisis of faith.


When the alien "raid" begins, Graham sees that the TV is only broadcasting the Emergency Broadcast System’s signal. - Luigi

I didn't get this at all. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, but I didn't think it was the Emergency Broadcast System, but merely an indication that the station is no longer on the air. Try tuning in to an off-aur station at three in the morning and you might see/hear the exact same thing.


How can they know that a "primitive method" was used, but not what that method was? It’s to keep that knowledge from the audience, but I can’t imagine how that information could’ve gotten across the globe, albeit in such a vague, peekaboo manner. - Luigi

Again, I didn't get that at all. I thought Gibson merely turned the TV off shortly after the newscaster talked about the solution to the problem. You're right that it was meant to keep the information from the audience. But I don't think there was anything to indicate that it was information kept from the fictional public en masse.

Imagine turning tuning in on 9/11 and the first thing you hear is Peter Jennings saying, "The Twin Towers have collapsed. This is an event that will change our lives. And we can only stare and wonder why this happened." That doesn't mean that the fact that two airliners were crashed into the buildings was being kept from the public.

I think Mel just turned the TV on at the wrong time.


Second, I find it interesting that this solution was found in the Middle East, which is so abundant in deserts. - Luigi

I think it was meant to be ironic for exactly the same reason. But for all we know someone there had similar "signs" that helped them deal with the crisis.


Okay, so what was that alien trying to do when it picked up Morgan at the end of the movie? At first I thought it was going to try and cure Morgan’s asthma, in the vein of "the aliens are really benevolent" schtick, but then he sprays that poisonous gas into his face. Why is this? My friend suggested the this alien was one of the "wounded" left behind when the aliens fled, but that doesn’t explain what he was doing grabbing Morgan. And if he wanted Morgan for some reason, why didn’t he just jump out the window with him and run away? Why does he just stand there before Graham and Merrill? - Luigi

Maybe because he's wounded? I agree that the alien's motivations were confusing. At first I speculated the same thing you were, that the alien was going to help Morgan. Then I thought that he was simply holding him hostage until he can effect his escape. Then I wondered if it was trying to kill him in retaliation for Mel cutting off his fingers. It was impossible to tell. And this scene was my main criticism for the movie... but I'll talk about that later.

Or perhaps the alien didn't want to create too much of a ruckuss and have the water surrounding him spill on him. If I were in a room filled with containers of hydrochloric acid, I certainly wouldn't be making sudden moves.


The scene in the trailer and commercial where Bo tells Graham, "There's a monster outside my room can I have a drink of water?" is supposed to be an ominous scene, but watching it, it turns out not to be at all, and I felt a bit ripped off. - Luigi

I never got the impression that it was any more ominous than the way it was presented in the film itself. Bo was simply acting like a four-year-old. And I got the same feeling watching the movie as I did watching the preview.


So how exactly is it that pantry doors can hold these guys aliens in? They had no prob breaking through almost all of the barricades in the Hess house, but the door to Ray’s pantry keeps one alien all couped up? - Luigi

Well, for all we know the aliens used tools to break into the house. presumably the one in the pantry didn't have something to break open the door.


why couldn’t they break through the cellar door with a hatchet wedged under the doorknob? They broke the barricades on the windows and doors. Why not break through that basement door? - Luigi

Well, we know the aliens didn't break through the barricades for some time. If you'll recall, they came in through the attic first. Maybe it was once they were inside that they used objects to break the barricades (to make the distracting noise).


And speaking of the aliens’ selective technology, isn’t it a bit odd that the medium they use for their communication can be picked up by a baby monitor? - Luigi

No odder than that the spirit world can communicate with Carol Anne via television static in "Poltergeist." Presumably the aliens use radio waves much like we do. I didn't get the impression that these aliens had Trek-like technology (spaceships aside). In fact, the aliens seemed kind of primitive. No death rays. No transporters. There's even a reference to the two possible outcomes if the aliens are hostile. One of which is that the second wave will come in hundreds or thousands of years. Meaning, no faster than light travel.


And why do aliens’ chameleonic skin sometimes change to match their surroundings, and sometimes not? - Luigi

Well, the alien is injured, so that might have something to do with it. Or maybe they can't camoflage completely (which would explain why Mel sees its leg in the cornfield). Or maybe he was wearing something on his front (like a bullet-proof vest).


How exactly did these aliens’ weakness evolve, especially when you consider how the thing they’re vulnerable to is so necessary? - Luigi

Necessary to life as we know it, you mean. It's also possible that this is simply a skin reaction. Or it's only dangerous to them in its pure, liquid form. But this is sort of like asking how does the alien develop concentrated acid for blood in the Alien movies. Who knows how? It's only important that they do.


My main criticisms/nits for the movie are based mainly on two things. One of the problems with movies like these is that once you spend an hour and a half giving us peekaboo shots of the creature, letting our imaginations run wild, the payoff when you eventually see them is almost always a disappointment. They're never as frightening as you imagine them to be.

It's very rare that a movie gets away with this. It works for "Alien." But that's partly because the alien was designed as part of the scenery. It was an extention of its surroundings in the movie. The alien in "Signs" is so out of place in that setting that it doesn't seem scary, just silly. So I thought that scene with the CGI alien who still looked like a guy in a rubber suit to be ultimately disappointing.

The one nit that has me baffled is in regards to Mel's wife. Mel tells Joaquin about his wife's last words, and how they were disjointed memory flashes... and this was integral to his loss of faith. And then we discover that his wife's last words were nothing like what he suggested. She spoke in articulate, complete sentences. While he certainly couldn't have guessed the ultimate payoff of her words, I don't see how he couldn't have assumed she was speaking metaphorically, rather than portray her as crazy in her final moments.

Also I think that the score got in the way of some of the film's moments. In particular is the baby monitor scene atop the car. Why on Earth would they decide to score a scene where you straining to hear what's going on in the first place. So I had a hard time distinguishing between the music and the alien dialogue.

Finally, I think the movie flipflops at times on the issue of coincidences. In Morgan's science book, there's a picture of a house that the characters remark looks like their house. I fully expected that we would discover some reason why his cornfield was targetted. But there was no payoff for that.

But ultimately I did enjoy this movie immensely. And now that Shyamalan has tackled three genre subjects (ghosts, superheroes, and aliens), I'm hoping he'll challenge himself to do other types of movies. I'm dying to know what he can accomplish as an action director with his great visual story-telling skills.

Darth Sarcasm: I thought Gibson merely turned the TV off shortly after the newscaster talked about the solution to the problem. You're right that it was meant to keep the information from the audience. But I don't think there was anything to indicate that it was information kept from the fictional public en masse.
Luigi Novi: The broadcaster specifically said that a "primitive method" was used, but that they didn’t know what that method was.

Darth Sarcasm: Then I wondered if it was trying to kill him in retaliation for Mel cutting off his fingers.
Luigi Novi: The alien whose fingers got cut off was holed up in Ray’s house. If this were the same one, how did he get out of Ray’s house? And how would he know who cut his hand off? He never actually saw Graham; their exchange occurred beneath the crack of a pantry door.

Darth Sarcasm: But this is sort of like asking how does the alien develop concentrated acid for blood in the Alien movies.
Luigi Novi: Slight difference. Evolution gives organisms traits that help them survive, not huge weaknesses that make it easy for enemies to beat them. The acid blood is the one. The reaction to water is the other.

The broadcaster specifically said that a "primitive method" was used, but that they didn’t know what that method was. - Luigi

I recall the broadcaster referring to the "primitive method." I do not recall him saying they didn't know what that method was.


The alien whose fingers got cut off was holed up in Ray’s house. If this were the same one, how did he get out of Ray’s house? - Luigi

Maybe his buddies let him out... just a guess...


And how would he know who cut his hand off? He never actually saw Graham; their exchange occurred beneath the crack of a pantry door. - Luigi

Graham wasn't wearing a tin foil hat.

But I agree with you. This is simply another reason why that scene was confusing to me. It was the alien from the pantry (at least it was missing the fingers). But why?


Slight difference. Evolution gives organisms traits that help them survive, not huge weaknesses that make it easy for enemies to beat them. - Luigi

And how, pray tell, does the acid blood help the Aliens survive? If anything, all it does is take your enemy with you.

Ah, NitCentral, how I've missed thee. I caught Signs over the weekend, and had a couple nits to post.

The reasoning given for the crop circles is flimsy at best. Merrill speculates that the crop circles are navigational aides (a common theory), but that really makes no sense for an invasion from space. It's not like the Earth is a featureless ball. Coming from orbit, it should be quite easy to target an area and head towards it. Once near the surface, any good human-made compass and mapping system should be sufficient to get where you are going. How could an advanced alien race need such things to find their way around? And what about the areas without sufficient agriculture?

Then again, maybe intelligence isn't one of their strong suits. After all, they, being aliens that seem to have some negative reactions to H2O, a fairly common chemical combination, decided to invade a planet whose surface is more than 50% water! And they leave crop circles in farms, where (at least most modern ones) people have learned how to direct water through irrigation. Good thing none of these farms used sprinklers.

I believe one of the newscasters said that the lights were being sighted within one mile of the crop circles (at the very least, Merril remembers it later so that they can barricade themselves in the house). However, the newscasts always refer to the lights appearing over major cities. I have a hard time believing that there is sufficient farmland within a mile of these major urban centers to mark. And does that mean they were focussing on India for some reason? (Remember, in the beginning, most of the crop circles being spotted were in India)

>When the alien "raid" begins, Graham sees that the TV is only broadcasting the Emergency Broadcast System’s signal.
-Luigi Novi

Is that what that was? I thought that was an old style B&W test pattern. I was wondering what station they were watching that would still use that pattern instead of the color bars that I usually see.

>First, that sounds like something a movie writer would say, but not a newscaster. How can they know that a "primitive method" was used, but not what that method was? It’s to keep that knowledge from the audience, but I can’t imagine how that information could’ve gotten across the globe, albeit in such a vague, peekaboo manner.
-Luigi Novi

While the phrasing was odd for a newscaster, I agree, given the current media climate of the need for exclusives, I can imagine, even after such a massive catastrophe, going with whatever info they had. Like I said, though, I can't imagine them saying "a primitive method" was used if they didn't know what it was. It's really non-information.

>Given the sparse amount of publicity for this film so far, the fact that Unbreakable was not the crowd pleaser that The Sixth Sense was, and the way Spider-Man and other films have dominated the summer, I doubt this film will be a box office smash.
-Luigi Novi

I'm guessing you wished you hadn't said that, huh? In my experience, 95% of movie publicity is put out within a few weeks of release.

>And speaking of the aliens’ selective technology, isn’t it a bit odd that the medium they use for their communication can be picked up by a baby monitor?
-Luigi Novi

I don't have much of a problem with the use of radio waves (though the frequency would still be an issue), but that they were communicating without computer encryption. With enough time, we could easily intercept enough transmissions to get a start on the language (assuming it matches any of our current linguistic theory) and be able to prepare for their actions.

>And why do aliens’ chameleonic skin sometimes change to match their surroundings, and sometimes not?
-Luigi Novi

Okay, here you've got me. Aside from the instance you cited, do you recall any other instances of this ability. I may have just focused on something else in that scene, because it completely escaped my notice.

>Mel tells Joaquin about his wife's last words, and how they were disjointed memory flashes... and this was integral to his loss of faith. And then we discover that his wife's last words were nothing like what he suggested.
-Darth Sarcasm

Well, 1. Memory is inherently imperfect. 2. Graham was understandably emotional at the time, and could easily have misinterpreted the situation. and 3. I think the point that was integral to his loss of faith was the way his wife was killed (in such a sequence of events that, if any Supreme Being exists, must have been planned. Since that so conflicted with his belief system, he simply lost faith).

>In Morgan's science book, there's a picture of a house that the characters remark looks like their house. I fully expected that we would discover some reason why his cornfield was targetted.
-Darth Sarcasm

I had to laugh when they said that. It's hardly some original farmhouse design they had. How many different homes like that would exist even in that county, let alone the country.

>And how, pray tell, does the acid blood help the Aliens survive? If anything, all it does is take your enemy with you.
-Darth Sarcasm

Well, that sure does help the species survive. Even on an individual level, an attacker who drew blood would quickly find his claws/blade/etc. melting due to the acid. Sure helps him win that fight.

Finally, does anyone know what denomination was being represented. I know it wasn't Catholicism, since they don't allow the clergy to marry. What denomination has clergy, confession, and allows the clergy to marry?

Darth Sarcasm: I recall the broadcaster referring to the "primitive method." I do not recall him saying they didn't know what that method was.
Luigi Novi: I do. I clearly remember the broadcaster saying they don’t have any further information on what that method was. I could be wrong, though.

Luigi Novi: The alien whose fingers got cut off was holed up in Ray’s house. If this were the same one, how did he get out of Ray’s house?

Darth Sarcasm: Maybe his buddies let him out... just a guess...
Luigi Novi: Except that I remember all of this guy’s fingers as being intact. Maybe it’s just me again. But why would his buddies let him out, but leave him on the planet, rather than take him up to their sickbay?

Darth Sarcasm: And how, pray tell, does the acid blood help the Aliens survive? If anything, all it does is take your enemy with you.
Luigi Novi: It’s a deterrent to predators who have the capability to learn, much as the toxin present in the secretions of some frogs can give predators a nasty case of foam-mouth. I once observed on the Discovery Channel a young wolf cub playing with/attacking such a frog. He put his mouth on the frog, then immediately withdrew, foaming all over his mouth. The effect was temporary, but visibly unpleasant, and the adult wolves knew not to go near those frogs. True, you have to make a wound on the Alien for the acid to get to you, but only one has to be wounded for its family to be protected from that predator. It’s also possible that the destructiveness of their blood is a byproduct, rather the main reason for its development. Just a guess.

Dustin Westfall: The reasoning given for the crop circles is flimsy at best. Merrill speculates that the crop circles are navigational aides (a common theory), but that really makes no sense for an invasion from space. It's not like the Earth is a featureless ball. Coming from orbit, it should be quite easy to target an area and head towards it. Once near the surface, any good human-made compass and mapping system should be sufficient to get where you are going. How could an advanced alien race need such things to find their way around? And what about the areas without sufficient agriculture?
Luigi Novi: ARRRRRRRGGGHGHHHHH!!! Damnyou, Dustin, I was just about to post that! Hmph! Just back, and already causing trouble by stealing other people’s nits, huh? Seriously, though, welcome back.

Darth Sarcasm: I didn't get this at all. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, but I didn't think it was the Emergency Broadcast System, but merely an indication that the station is no longer on the air. Try tuning in to an off-air station at three in the morning and you might see/hear the exact same thing.

Dustin Westfall: Is that what that was? I thought that was an old style B&W test pattern.
Luigi Novi: Now that you mention, I think you’re right. I must’ve been influenced by the sound more than anything else.

Luigi Novi: How can they know that a "primitive method" was used, but not what that method was? It’s to keep that knowledge from the audience, but I can’t imagine how that information could’ve gotten across the globe, albeit in such a vague, peekaboo manner.

Darth Sarcasm: Imagine turning tuning in on 9/11 and the first thing you hear is Peter Jennings saying, "The Twin Towers have collapsed. This is an event that will change our lives. And we can only stare and wonder why this happened." That doesn't mean that the fact that two airliners were crashed into the buildings was being kept from the public.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say that the news media had the information but were deliberately refraining from releasing it. It appeared that they themselves didn’t have it, which makes no sense. How exactly could they find out that it was a "primitive method," but not what it was? I’m trying to think of a situation in which "It’s water! It’s water! Just spray the alien infidels with water!" could morph into "It’s a primitive solution! Primitive!" It makes no sense. By the time the public was repelling these suckers en masse, there had to be footage of them doing this. It makes no sense that a simple word like "Water" would not have gotten around the planet, but a euphemistic categorization like "Primitive method" would. The people who discovered the weakness and who screamed it to any cameras they saw would be screaming "Water! Water!" THAT would’ve spread throughout the globe.

Luigi Novi: Given the sparse amount of publicity for this film so far, the fact that Unbreakable was not the crowd pleaser that The Sixth Sense was, and the way Spider-Man and other films have dominated the summer, I doubt this film will be a box office smash.

Dustin Westfall: I'm guessing you wished you hadn't said that, huh? In my experience, 95% of movie publicity is put out within a few weeks of release.
Luigi Novi: Not really, but I suppose I should’ve been more specific in what I meant by "box office smash." Perhaps I should’ve specified that it won’t top The Sixth Sense (Not a big revelation) or Spider-Man (also not an "out on a limb" prediction). But yeah, it’ll make money. It made 60.3 million so far. But I don’t think it’ll have universal appeal like The Sixth Sense did, or that it’ll be in theaters for as many consecutive weeks, partly because viewer reaction is more mixed, and whereas SS opened in the fall, Signs is opening at the end of the summer, which has been dominated by Spider-Man, Attack of the Clowns, and must compete with Goldmember, Triple-X, and other films which will offer more competition.

Dustin Westfall: Okay, here you've got me. Aside from the instance you cited, do you recall any other instances of this ability?
Luigi Novi: Well, no, because the aliens didn’t fully appear in the movie prior to this scene, Dustin. All we got prior to that scene was an arm and a leg. But I can assure you that my memory of this is accurate (even moreso than on the question of what the broadcaster said and the question of the alien’s fingers), since I saw the movie twice.

Dustin Westfall: Finally, does anyone know what denomination was being represented?
Luigi Novi: Episcopalian.

The reasoning given for the crop circles is flimsy at best. - Dustin

The characters merely speculate about it, but no explanation is ever given for it. True, it's an unanswered question (just like the aliens' motivations in harvesting us is unclear), but their motivations are neither necessary, nor the point. If anything, it adds to the mystery.


Then again, maybe intelligence isn't one of their strong suits. After all, they, being aliens that seem to have some negative reactions to H2O, a fairly common chemical combination, decided to invade a planet whose surface is more than 50% water! - Dustin

Well, their goal was apparently to harvest people. Perhaps ours was the first (or only)inhabited planet they encountered. Also, we only know that water in its "pure," liquid form affects the creatures. Perhaps salt water doesn't have an adverse effect on them (reducing your percentage by quite a bit).


And does that mean they were focusing on India for some reason? - Dustin

Ray was the one to mention his theory about the aliens avoiding water, which is why they target farmlands that aren't near large bodies of water. Since he was right about everything else (as well as being the writer of the film), I'd guess he was probably close to right. Since their goal was to harvest humans, it's only logical for them to target the second most populous country in the world.


Aside from the instance you cited, do you recall any other instances of this ability. - Dustin

The video footage from Brazil gave us our first glimpse of a full-bodied alien. While the image was brief and fuzzy, the alien did appear dark... possibly to match the foliage he had been hiding in moments before stepping into the daylight.


But why would his buddies let him out, but leave him on the planet, rather than take him up to their sickbay? - Luigi

There are a number of examples in nature (human and otherwise) for such paradoxes. Why do animals save their young from predators but then abandon them moments later because their scent is unfamiliar? Why do people hurt/beat/molest/rape the people they love?


I didn’t say that the news media had the information but were deliberately refraining from releasing it. - Luigi

I didn't say that you suggested a deliberate refrain from releasing the information. I said they had the information. They released it. But Graham turned the TV on after they talked about it and before they talked about it again.

I understand what you're saying.

The crux of the debate on this point is on what was actually said in the broadcast. My impression was that people discovered the weakness, it was shared, and Graham just turned the TV on (and got distracted) at the wrong moment. In other words, that people were saying "It's water! Water!" And Graham just turned the TV on when the newscaster was commenting on the simpicity of the solution and then got distracted before they could repeat it. I do not recall the newscaster saying, "We don't know what that primitive solution to the alien threat is at this time." Maybe my recollection is wrong, but your version is not how I remember it.

Just got back from watching it. In short, good...but not great.

SPOILERS

Here's some random points.

1. The mood was perfect--wonderfully ominous, filled with a sort of claustrophobic suspense. There were the usual "jump" scenes, but there were a lot of slow, quiet scares.

2. Mel Gibson was good. He had a difficult script to digest (one curiosity about M. Night's works are that in a quest to be "real," they occasionally sound very fake and banal) at times. Joaquin Phoenix was good in the comic relief role (I cracked up watching him as he reacted to the alien on TV). The kids were a little "too creepy" at times. And M. Night playing the role of Ray didn't work for me.

3. The guy playing the military recruiter was HORRIBLE! His scene dragged the film down a little into B-movie territory.

4. There really isn't a twist ending, but I liked the re-interpretation of Graham's wife's last words. "See," was very fitting, as at the end, you're basically reviewing on why things happened in the film for what purpose.

5. The movie dropped the boat, though, on a few issues. First, of all, showing the alien on TV is a definite no-no, and takes the shock out of the final scene. Secondly, the character of Ray, with great possibilities, turns into little more than a plot device ("Oh, by the way, I locked an alien up. Take a look. Bye."). What I also found annoying was that from a director known for his confusing twists, how everything was so straightforward in the film. The ending was sort of laughable in a way (I mean, I loved how Graham found faith and signs again, but it was done in an admittedly cheesy way).

6. Why couldn't we defeat the aliens? They seemed to react pretty well to attacks from knives and bats. What if Graham had a gun?

7. I found the significance placed in "Swing away" a little overstated. So if she didn't say that, would Graham not have told Merle to swing? C'mon! I wish they dealt more with Merle going back to his big-league career.

8. I find it hard to believe that in the days of Jeromy Burnitz and Richie Sexson, that a team would not pick a big ol' power hitter up just because he strikes out a lot.

9. The movie was funny a lot--sometimes intentionally (the foil hats), sometimes unintentionally (the shifts in style from Horror! to Touching Drama!--it was good to see the drama, but when the schmaltzy music picked up, I thought I was in a Zuckers brother movie at times). The credits sequence is a little over-the-top. Morgan utters a lot of pretensious lines that don't sound right. And the line "Why don't you have stacks of cash and beautiful women licking your toes?" should be burned out of existence.

>ARRRRRRRGGGHGHHHHH!!! Damnyou, Dustin, I was just about to post that! Hmph! Just back, and already causing trouble by stealing other people’s nits, huh? Seriously, though, welcome back.
-Luigi Novi

Forgot your tin foil hat, didn't you?

>Except that I remember all of this guy’s fingers as being intact. Maybe it’s just me again. But why would his buddies let him out, but leave him on the planet, rather than take him up to their sickbay?
-Luigi Novi

After we see the alien holding Morgan, we cut between a closeup of the alien's hand, with two fingers noticably shorter than the others, and a flashback of Graham cutting off the alien's fingers in Ray's house, and then back again. I say that's a pretty clear indication that, at the very least, Graham believed it was the same alien.

As for why they wouldn't take him back to the ship, I'm thinking that they simply put him back to work on the assault (unless seriously injured, he's still useful on the battlefield).

>The characters merely speculate about it, but no explanation is ever given for it. True, it's an unanswered question (just like the aliens' motivations in harvesting us is unclear), but their motivations are neither necessary, nor the point. If anything, it adds to the mystery.
-Darth Sarcasm

In general, from what I understand of writing, when an author has a character says something like this, without correcting it, it usually is intended to be accurate (it's a more natural way of presenting information to the audience than straight exposition).

>Well, their goal was apparently to harvest people.
-Darth Sarcasm

It was? Was that stated anywhere in the movie, or is that merely speculation? From my POV, all I could tell was that they were launching a planetary assault. What the long-term goal was (colonization, mining, hunting, etc.) remains unclear to me.

And if their goal is to harvest people, then why go with the out-in-the-open planetary assault? Wouldn't it be more efficient to step up the covert landings, while focusing on specific areas, cutting them off from the outside world, and rounding up the people there?

>I do not recall the newscaster saying, "We don't know what that primitive solution to the alien threat is at this time." Maybe my recollection is wrong, but your version is not how I remember it.
-Darth Sarcasm

My recollection of the scene agrees with Luigi's.

One last thing I remembered: When the family emerges from the cellar, there are a bunch of designs cut into the barricade over the window at the top of the stairs. Why? Was one of the aliens getting bored while waiting, and decided to do a little decorating?

It was speculation, as far as I know, about the harvest thing. Merle and Morgan deliver a ton of speculating in the movie--some of which is true.

How much of Morgan's book can really be believed, though? It shows aliens using their ships to attack things (nope), says aliens are small (nope), and says aliens can read minds (apparently nope). Despite all this, Graham and Morgan continue to put stock into it. Maybe it is the power of Dr. Bimbo.

Dustin: Forgot your tin foil hat, didn't you?
Touche! Good one!

In general, from what I understand of writing, when an author has a character says something like this, without correcting it, it usually is intended to be accurate (it's a more natural way of presenting information to the audience than straight exposition). - Dustin

Sometimes, yes. But not always. In the end it's still supposition. In this case it might not be exposition at all but merely emphasizing how strange, mysterious, and frightening the situation is. It's the characters trying to apply a human motivation to something they do not understand.


And if their goal is to harvest people, then why go with the out-in-the-open planetary assault? Wouldn't it be more efficient to step up the covert landings, while focusing on specific areas, cutting them off from the outside world, and rounding up the people there? - Dustin

The advantage of the open assault is that it gives us less time to figure out their one, simple weakness. All it takes is one person to discover it and their plans would be foiled (as it was).


When the family emerges from the cellar, there are a bunch of designs cut into the barricade over the window at the top of the stairs. Why? Was one of the aliens getting bored while waiting, and decided to do a little decorating? - Dustin

I wondered about that as well... until a few minutes later. There's a small structure outside the house with a small, slanted roof that had a similar pattern cut into it (I forget what the structure was... a kid's playhouse...? a well...?). One half of the roof is missing. So apparently they used the missing half to board up the kitchen window.

I really loved this movie. It was so much better than the average summer movie. M. Night Shyamalan is a superb filmaker (I thought Unbreakable was under-rated). He scares you by not showing you everything. He also does not bombard his audience with numerous and useless visual effects.
I noticed a continuity error. When Graham and Merrill think they are a victim of practical jokers, Merrill suggests running around the house screaming like madmen. They open the main door, then the screen door, burst out, and run around the house. When they meet back in front, the screen door is closed (like it should be), but the main door is closed! They left it open when bursting out.

I agree that the military recruiter did a horrible acting job - everyone i nthe theater was laughing when he sat there in mid sentece with his mouth open!

Finally, does anyone know what denomination was being represented. I know it wasn't Catholicism, since they don't allow the clergy to marry. What denomination has clergy, confession, and allows the clergy to marry?

As Luigi noted, Graham was probably Episcopalian, that it to say, Anglican.

It's in movie publicity, and presumably the backstory/bible.

The kid said the aliens would come back if they were defeated...and being back a LARGER ARMY...right?!

Eep.

OK. Watched it again this weekend with a friend who hadn't seen it. Like Shyamalan's previous two films, I enjoyed it more on a second viewing than I had the first.

I still took issue with my main two criticisms of the film: the CGI rubber-suit alien and the misrepresentation of the wife's final words.

Regarding the board with the stars/moon cut-outs. It was indeed part of the kids' playhouse in the backyard (the one with the slide).

Now, regarding the television broadcast... having seen it a second time, this time paying closer attention to it, I still contend that the non-delivery of the vital solution to the alien threat can be explained away by unfortunate timing (Graham turned off the TV before they could re-announce the water solution). However, the circumstances are sufficiently vague to allow Luigi and Dustin's interpretation as well.

What actually is stated is that the turnaround and withdrawal of the alien threat began in the Middle East as the result of a primitive solution... but they have no further details Then the TV is shut off.

So there are a number of possibilities:

1. Luigi's contention that the media knew that a "primitive solution" was discovered, but didn't know the specifics of what that solution was.

2. The newsman was actually referring to how the solution was discovered, and not to the solution itself. In other words, they knew it was water, but they didn't know how the Middle East discovered it.

3. The Middle East actually discovered a different solution to the problem.

While I think the third possibility is unlikely, they are all possible explanations. So I guess you just have to decide what kind of person you are: the kind who sees nits and discounts all other contingencies as wrong because it doesn't fit into your worldview or the kind who recognizes other possibilities.

Man, if I never see another creepy movie in my life, it'll be too soon. Yow! To the nits, or anti-nits...

I find it hard to believe that in the days of Jeromy Burnitz and Richie Sexson, that a team would not pick a big ol' power hitter up just because he strikes out a lot.MikeC

Well, he did pick up an awful lot of strikeouts. What we need to know is his batting average. If he makes contact only 1 out of 10 times, even if that 10th time is a home run, and strikes out the other nine times, he's not going to be picked up.

So at the end they say that the aliens have left their wounded behind. Did they leave any of their technology? That'd sure come in handy when the next wave shows up.

Did the ending here remind anyone of the movie Day of the Triffids, in how the water was used?

How about The Wizard of Oz? There are some similarities in theme as well.

A first post, and it's a doozy!

Well, I saw "Signs" and I liked it. I'm not a real fan of scary movies because, well, I don't like being scared, but I still was pretty impressed with this one. It ranked behind "The Others" as one of the creepiest I've seen (though, as I just said, I haven't seen many :-)). Anyway, I didn't like "The Sixth Sense" that much (maybe due to the fact I already knew the catch before I saw it) but I thought "Unbreakable" was very interesting. Anyway, I had a few thoughts on what had already been said here.

Finally, I think the movie flipflops at times on the issue of coincidences. In Morgan's science book, there's a picture of a house that the characters remark looks like their house. I fully expected that we would discover some reason why his cornfield was targetted. But there was no payoff for that. --Darth Sarcasm

I agree ... I was fully expecting something to come of that. Even if, as someone mentioned, the design of the house in book was an oft-used design in farm buildings, why would the filmmakers have mentioned it at all? Shouldn't it have some significance?

Since their goal was to harvest humans, it's
only logical for them to target the second most populous country in the world. --Darth

Does anyone know what kind of crops the circles were made of in India? It certainly wasn't corn.

The video footage from Brazil gave us our first glimpse of a full-bodied alien. While the image was brief and fuzzy, the alien did appear dark... possibly to match the foliage he had been hiding in moments before stepping into the daylight. --Darth

Did anyone else think the alien looked like the "photos" of Bigfoot? :-)

The credits sequence is a little
over-the-top. --Mike C.

I agree--it was creepy, but never really added up to anything. (Aside: what's the best credit sequence y'all have seen?)

After we see the alien holding Morgan, we cut between a closeup of the alien's hand, with two fingers noticably shorter than the others, and a flashback of Graham cutting off the alien's fingers in Ray's house, and then back again. I say that's a pretty clear indication that, at the very least, Graham believed it was the same alien. --Dustin

And more than that, the viewer was supposed to believe it as well. Otherwise, why include such an obvious detail in the scene, and the flashback? (Anti-nit: even it wasn't the same alien, it could have been injured in trying to get into the house. Still, I think the fact that the camera was focused on the lack of fingers points [pun intended] to the fact we are meant to believe it is the same alien.)

Regarding the board with the stars/moon cut-outs. It was indeed part of the kids' playhouse in the backyard (the one with the slide).--Darth

Oh good, I'm glad someone explained it. I thought it was supposed to be allegorical. I guess it could be that, too.

3. The Middle East actually discovered a different solution to the problem. --Darth

Actually, when I heard the line, this is what immediately flashed into my mind. I did not identify it with the water solution; I thought, "hmm, they thought of something else." So, a) that is what was intended; b) I'm extremely weird/perverse/etc.

And I think the latter must be true in any case, as I don't see the similarities to "Wizard of Oz"!

Did anyone else think the alien looked like the "photos" of Bigfoot? :-)Daroga

Oh, yeah! Nice pick-up!

The credits sequence is a little
over-the-top.Mike C.

I agree--it was creepy, but never really added up to anything.Daroga

In my mind, the credits seemed to be only used to show-off the score being used. In this sense, it might have made sense to eschew the credits and just start with the shot of the yard through the warped glass.

And Daroga, either I'm also "weird/perverse/etc.," or we're both fine, because I didn't get the Wizard Of Oz connection either.

Re: Wizard of Oz.

I just noticed some common elements: A person, living on a farm, gets caught up in an out of the ordinary adventure. One of the themes in both films is faith (whether in yourself or in an outside influence). And if you'll recall, the Wicked Witch was disposed of in a similar fashion as the alien menace. Graham, Merril, Morgan, and Bo bear some similarities to The Tin Woodsman, The Cowardly Lion, The Scarecrow, and Dorothy, respectively. I'm sure there were others, but my mind is not functioning at peak efficiency at the moment.

Darth Sarcasm: Graham, Merril, Morgan, and Bo bear some similarities to The Tin Woodsman, The Cowardly Lion, The Scarecrow, and Dorothy, respectively.
Luigi Novi: How do you figure this? Graham lacked faith, not a heart, Merril lacked a good hit/strike record, not courage, Morgan lacked healthy lungs, not brains, and Bo didn't want to get home, just another glass of water.

Actually, the Lion, Scarecrow, and Tin Man didn't lack any of those things, either... they just thought they did.

Graham suffered a crisis of faith, an aspect of our being that is directly related to the heart. Merril lacked confidence in himself. Morgan was every bit the brains in that outfit. And Bo was innocence.

I never claimed that these were directly related or even that the Shyamalan intended for anyone to make this reference. But the associations and similarities are there.

Oh! And the witch/alien was killed in an effort to save the Scarecrow/Morgan. And like Dorothy and her shoes, they all had the power to attain their goal all along.

If you really want to push it, you could argue that Ray was the Wizard.

I got an ominous feeling near the end of the movie, because I expected the aliens to return very soon. It looked very much like it was about to rain outside, and, since the aliens are killed by water, they might have just hidden for a bit. Of course, the next scene showed I was wrong, but still.... Actually, I have no problem with "Stumpy" the alien recognizing Mel, since he was using a knife as a mirror to look into the room. Stumpy probably saw his face.

Oh, by the way, I loved this movie.

I never claimed that these were directly related or even that the Shyamalan intended for anyone to make this reference.
Luigi Novi: the Shyamalan? Whoa, is he a god to you now, Darth?

That would make a cool name for a god, you know.

Wasn't Shai Mailan the name of a Minbari poet?

I find it interesting that Bo had all those glasses of water around the house, and she kept thinking something was wrong with the water. I know, we were probably suppose to think of the coincidence that Bo's wierd water preference actually helped save her brother, but makes me wonder, if Bo, being innocence, and young, and they say the young tend to see things that older people tend to block out, could she have been more aware that her having all those glasses of water around was going to help save her and her family someday??

Also, I did get the fact that Graham was a Reverend, but even though I don't practice regular orthadox religion, I have happen to realize that confessing is a Catholic tradition, and that Graham is Prostitant father, considering he was married. I think as well, that is a big nit. Unless, of course, that wierd chick in the pharmacy is screwed up, and Graham was just humoring her.

Also, speaking of Graham being a Reverend by career, is he also a farmer??? I mean, I usually have thought that being a Reverend was a real full time job. Someone here said it themselves, the signs shows in their cornfield, and that he was a farmer. But the thing is, I got more that he was a Reverend, than him being a farmer. Yea, you saw them running thru the cornfield a lot, like they are familiar to it, but the cornfield could be from a neighboring farm. I really didn't see any farm equipment, just the barns, and I really didn't see the family doing anything that requires farming, which I also have thought, that was a full time job too! Am I making sense.

I think that M. Night Shimalayan did a decent job as Ray. Seeing the commentary from him in the special features on the DVD, had him explaining two events, Sept. 11, and his grandfather passing away, played a big part in his scene there in his truck before he pulled away. I also did enjoy all three of the films. I must admit though, I think he will have a great big problem trying to outdue "Sixth Signs". I think that "Signs" is close, and unbreakable not the best of the three, but I think "Sixth Sense" just pretty much really did an awesome job, and will be a big obstacle in the director getting back up there, this being my thoughts though.
Though, I must applaud him him refering to Alfred Hitchcock and his style of filming in the commentary. I must say, while watching the film, the fact that you really don't see the aliens, and that the fear came from what the family couldn't see and expect, reminded me of Hitchcock films, and it's nice to know that the particular kind of filming is still effective today.

I have happen to realize that confessing is a Catholic tradition, and that Graham is Prostitant father, considering he was married. - SlinkyJ

Graham was Episcopalian. There are many similarities between Episcopalianism and Catholicism, including the hearing of confession.


I really didn't see any farm equipment, just the barns, and I really didn't see the family doing anything that requires farming, which I also have thought, that was a full time job too! Am I making sense. - SlinkyJ

You are. I don't recall any farming equipment, either.

As to why they weren't working their farm...

1. I know little about corn, but maybe once the fields are planted, little needs to be done until the harvest.

2. They had other things on their mind... in one morning, they discover crop circles in their field and one of the kids is forced to kill one of the dogs because it tried to attack them. I dunno about you, but thinking, "Hey! I have to water the field!" would be pretty far from my mind under these circumstances. Add to that the discovery that the crop circle phenomenon is worldwide! And the mother had died just a few months before. Graham may have simply wanted to make sure the kids were all right.


"Sixth Sense" just pretty much really did an awesome job, and will be a big obstacle in the director getting back up there - SlinkyJ

I'm not sure what you mean by "getting back up there"?

Signs' US gross is around $228 million. While that's not as high as Sixth Sense's $293 million, it's not shabby at all (especially considering the fiercer competition last year as well as a bad economy). Shymalan has become a household name and is one of the few directors today who can sell a movie based on his name alone.

I think it's still too early to say that he will never be able to top himself (either critically or financially). In 1975, Jaws was the biggest movie EVER!!! Spielberg has topped himself several times, both critically and financially since. It's clear that like Spielberg, Shyamalan is not a "flash in the pan" or a "one-hit wonder."

1. I know little about corn, but maybe once the fields are planted, little needs to be done until the harvest.

Well, any crop needs more or less constant attention from planting on - thinning where appropriate, monitoring water need, weeding/hoeing, protection from insects/birds/rodents/disease etc - but no, it's not the sort of thing where the farmer is out there in the field 24/7.
If nothing else, discovering who flattened huge sections of said crop would likely be the most immediate priority.

But the thing is, much I appreciate learning more about farming, my confusion is that, Graham's career field is that of a reverend. Of course, understandably, he left that, due to his failing faith because of his wife's death. I just thought being a reverend, and a farmer, was a bit much for him and the family.

I just watched the DVD and there was a fantastic line that was cut. Merrill and Graham are talking about Colleen. They mention that she always knew the endings to movies. That is a neat bit of foreshadowing, and I wonder why they cut it out.

Also, M. Night Shyamalan is now making the movie "The Woods." It involves "a close-knit community that lives with the frightening knowledge that a mythical race of creatures resides in the woods around them." Joaquin Phoenix is rumored to be in it, as well as a role described as "an older man". Maybe Mel again? Information can be found here http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/410/410086p1.html?fromint=1
It looks interesting.


Stumpy Lives!

Don't know if anyone will still read this? Saw a re-run on TV this week and it was actually the first time I saw the movie from A to Z.

My main criticism: where are the authorities? Writing parking tickets?

If you catch an alien in a cupboard wouldn't you call the police, FBI, agent Mulder, the press? I was expecting an ET scene with secret agents quarantining the house and entering the house in 'space ' suits.

Someone said about the Movie
"Signs" with Mel Gibson that
"Knowledge is knowing that Signs is about aliens. Wisdom is knowing Signs is about demons. Anamnesis is unforgetting that Signs is a sidequal to Grinny from CBS Storybreak."

So what do you think? DO you agree or disagree with the point? Who is this mysterious someone? Do you think it's as good as his other films?

Really not sure why I'm asking anything- you don't respond...

Spinning your wheels, my friend. You're just spinning your wheels.