---
title: "Signs"
year: 2002
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/signs"
fi1m_id: "signs"
imdb_id: "tt0286106"
tmdb_id: 2675
wikidata_id: "Q22432"
fi1m_score: 76
critics_score: 57
critics_reviews: 15
published: "2026-09-25T05:36:55.715023+00:00"
updated: "2026-09-25T05:36:56.247159+00:00"
region: "IL"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Signs (2002)

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan · 1h 46m · Thriller, Science Fiction, Horror

## Identity

Signs

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/signs
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** signs
- **IMDb ID:** tt0286106
- **TMDB ID:** 2675
- **Wikidata ID:** Q22432
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286106/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/2675, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22432

**Fi1m score: 76** · Critics 57 from 15 reviews

*In a sentence:* The cornfield does most of the frightening; the explanations could have stayed in there

> M. Night Shyamalan’s *Signs* earns its scares through patient framing and a restricted view of the threat. The writing grows heavy-handed, but the suspense makes this flawed chiller worth an evening.

## Synopsis

A cornfield becomes a source of unease for Graham Hess (Mel Gibson), Merrill Hess (Joaquin Phoenix) and the children, Morgan Hess (Rory Culkin) and Bo Hess (Abigail Breslin). The possibility of visitors from elsewhere turns their attention to what they cannot see around them. Graham tries to reassure a frightened dog while facing questions he cannot readily answer himself. As fear grows, questions of faith accompany the effort to understand the threat. The story stays close to these four people as they face something with implications far beyond the cornfield.

## Review

M. Night Shyamalan makes *Signs* frightening by giving us too little to look at and enough time to worry about it. It is a good, uneven thriller whose quiet stretches are considerably more persuasive than its explanations. The science-fiction premise promises a threat larger than these few people, yet he keeps our attention on their attempts to understand what might be nearby. That limited view sustains the suspense, even when the writing starts asking for more belief than it earns.

Mel Gibson gives Graham Hess a guarded seriousness, useful when the film needs someone to resist panic and less useful when it needs emotional warmth. The dialogue about faith can sound laboured in his delivery, with an emphasis that the quieter scenes do without. Joaquin Phoenix, as Merrill Hess, supplies a welcome looseness, and the script could have given him more room. Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin keep the children from becoming merely small people waiting to scream, giving their apprehension enough individuality to hold our attention.

Tak Fujimoto’s cinematography is most effective when a frame offers somewhere to look without promising anything will appear there. The cornfield matters because so much can remain unseen within it; the director does not need to fill the image to make it worrying. We were frightened by the waiting. Those held views made us search for a threat, then dread having found one. This is familiar horror technique, but the patience and precise framing make it work without any need for novelty.

Larry Fulton’s production design is valuable for how little it distracts us from that search. The surroundings never seem more important than the people having to occupy them, which suits a story that keeps its science-fiction threat at such close quarters. Barbara Tulliver’s editing makes the held shots feel deliberate rather than sluggish, and gives the unease time to settle before moving on. The quiet scenes are where that control is most apparent, with no hurry to supply the next shock.

James Newton Howard’s music helps the suspense, but the sound is most unsettling when there is less of it. Silence leaves us listening for something the picture will not confirm, and the restricted view makes that uncertainty worse. The humour helps, too, particularly the disproportion between the size of the threat and the small business of reassurance. Graham attempting to comfort a spooked dog is funny without making the fear seem foolish, and allows some welcome awkwardness into the solemnity.

The weakness is M. Night Shyamalan’s writing, especially when the film insists that its religious concerns must carry the same force as its scares. The dialogue can be awkward, and the meaningful details begin to feel placed for our benefit rather than belonging to these people. We do not object to faith entering a science-fiction thriller; we object to being prodded towards a conclusion that the drama has not made convincing. The later explanations also expose gaps in the story’s logic, though describing those would spoil things better left alone.

Most critics disagree with us about how much the suspense compensates for these faults, and the complaints about contrivance are fair. We think they give the clumsy explanations too much weight when the sustained apprehension is what works on us most directly. At 106 minutes, *Signs* has enough restraint in its direction to survive the overemphasis in its writing, though anyone seeking watertight science fiction will have a difficult evening. Choose it for a quiet night when being made to listen nervously sounds like a pleasure.

*Fi1m score 76, published 25 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

The reviews lean mixed on Signs, with praise clustering around Shyamalan’s control of suspense rather than the story’s explanations. Critics repeatedly single out the restricted perspective, careful framing and use of sound or silence, finding that threats kept out of sight make the quieter scenes unnerving. Even several less favourable reviews admire the tense staging, while the children’s performances attract some of the warmer comments on the acting.

The main reservations concern contrived plotting, awkward dialogue and a conclusion that several critics find weaker than the build-up. Faith proves more divisive: The New York Times welcomes its suspenseful treatment, while other reviews find the spiritual themes heavy-handed or manipulative. The spread is wide, from enthusiastic responses to the film as a chiller to the Evening Standard’s rejection of both its storytelling and its capacity to frighten; agreement about individual sequences does not translate into agreement about the whole.

## Straight answers

**Is Signs worth watching?**

*Signs* is worth watching for its patient suspense and restricted view of the threat, and we score it 76 out of 100. We find the waiting more frightening than the explanations are convincing; it suits a quiet evening of unease, provided awkward dialogue about faith and gaps in the science-fiction logic are not deal-breakers.

**How long is Signs, and what is it rated?**

*Signs* runs 1h 46m. It is a thriller and science fiction film.

**Where can I watch Signs in Israel?**

*Signs* is not on any streaming or rental service in Israel at the moment. It is available in 44 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.

**How violent or frightening is Signs, and is it suitable for children?**

*Signs* has a UK 12A certificate, and its scares rely on waiting, silence and an unseen threat rather than constant shocks. We find that sustained uncertainty frightening; the certificate allows children under 12 with an adult, but the cornfield dread makes this a cautious choice for younger or easily frightened children.

**How does Signs compare to Take Shelter?**

*Signs* is the more straightforward chiller, while we recommend [*Take Shelter*](https://film.one/film/take-shelter) as the more searching account of fear, family responsibility and possible catastrophe. Choose *Signs* for patient scares despite clumsy explanations; choose *Take Shelter* for a troubling family drama anchored by Michael Shannon, with the caveat that its slow pacing sometimes prolongs a fear we already understand.

### Reviews we read (15)

- **Total Film**, Total Film (4/5): The critic finds Signs a highly proficient, gripping chiller, though plot holes and a hokey climax weaken it somewhat. They particularly praise Shyamalan’s suspenseful use of sound and restricted perspective to build fear. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/signs-review/)
- **The AV Club**, Scott Tobias (75/100, inferred): Tobias finds the film an effective, unsettling work of science fiction, despite its heavy-handed religious themes and Mel Gibson’s lack of conviction. He praises Shyamalan’s visual storytelling and the way the film builds fear by keeping shocks and threats out of view. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/signs-1798197712)
- **The Guardian**, Rob Mackie (70/100, inferred): Mackie finds the film classy and increasingly impressive, though its ending is a let-down. He praises its quiet, careful build-up of suspense and claustrophobia. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/feb/07/artsfeatures.dvdreviews1)
- **The New York Times**, A.O. Scott (70/100, inferred): The review is broadly positive about the film’s suspenseful treatment of faith. It singles out the cornfield setting as central to the film’s unsettling effect. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/movies/film-review-finding-faith-or-something-in-a-cornfield.html)
- **RogerEbert.com** (64/100, inferred): The page is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint is available from the page provided. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/signs-2002)
- **Screen Daily**, John Hazelton (64/100, inferred): The page is identified as a review, but its verdict is unavailable in the accessible text. No specific praise or complaint can be established because the review body is paywalled. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/signs/4010041.article)
- **Time Out**, TCh (64/100, inferred): The available page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its description singles out Gibson’s reassurance to his spooked dog. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/signs)
- **Slant Magazine**, Ed Gonzalez (2.5/4): Gonzalez finds the film earnest but often eye-rolling, with its spiritual themes becoming overemphatic. He praises the unnerving long takes and the mystery surrounding the visitors. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/signs/)
- **Radio Times**, Jason Caro (3/5): Caro finds that the film’s intimate approach does not fully suit its expansive science-fiction backdrop, and calls some meaningful moments awkward and manipulative. He praises the edgy, apprehensive atmosphere Shyamalan creates. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-r2qzbv/signs/)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Kirk Honeycutt (50/100, inferred): Honeycutt finds the film chilling but overly manipulative, with its spirituality and staged clues likely to divide audiences. He praises its humor, the child performers, and the cinematography, while finding Joaquin Phoenix underused. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/signs-review-movie-2002-1235190900/)
- **Empire**, Colin Kennedy (35/100, inferred): Kennedy praises the film’s early brilliance but argues that its ending fails to deliver on its setup. He singles out Shyamalan’s precise direction and the children’s performances, while faulting the contrived conclusion and its aliens. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/signs-review/)
- **Variety**, Todd McCarthy (30/100, inferred): McCarthy finds the film superficially creepy but ultimately thin and conventional. He praises Shyamalan’s tense staging and editing, which make several sequences genuinely effective. [Read](https://variety.com/2002/film/reviews/signs-2-1200547091/)
- **Evening Standard** (10/100, inferred): The critic regards the film as a badly made, slackly told failure. They complain that its aliens and invasion lack menace, and that it mishandles the spiritual themes and post-9/11 overtones. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/signs-7381807.html)
- **Collider**, Aidan Kelley (70/100, inferred): The critic finds Signs entertaining and effective overall, despite its flaws, and says it works better as a thriller than as horror. They praise Shyamalan’s direction, especially the striking cinematography and tension created through silence, while faulting goofy dialogue and dated alien effects. [Read](https://collider.com/signs-m-night-shyamalan/)
- **Eye for Film**, Jennie Kermode (60/100, inferred): Kermode finds the film flawed but ultimately interesting, despite its familiar genre conventions and clumsy writing. She especially praises Shyamalan’s inventive framing in the quieter scenes. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/signs-film-review-by-jennie-kermode)

## Details

- **Director:** M. Night Shyamalan
- **Director:** M. Night Shyamalan
- **Writer:** M. Night Shyamalan
- **Cinematography:** Tak Fujimoto
- **Editor:** Barbara Tulliver
- **Music:** James Newton Howard
- **Production design:** Larry Fulton
- **Costume design:** Ann Roth
- **Producer:** M. Night Shyamalan, Sam Mercer, Frank Marshall
- **Cast:** Mel Gibson as Graham Hess; Joaquin Phoenix as Merrill Hess; Rory Culkin as Morgan Hess; Abigail Breslin as Bo Hess; Cherry Jones as Officer Paski; M. Night Shyamalan as Ray Reddy; Patricia Kalember as Colleen Hess; Ted Sutton as SFC Cunningham
- **Runtime:** 1h 46m
- **Release (Israel):** 29 August 2002
- **Genres:** Thriller, Science Fiction, Horror
- **Budget:** $72 million
- **Box office:** $408 million

## Where to watch in Israel

Not streaming, renting or buying in Israel at the last check.

Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HR, HU, IE, IS, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, SI, TR, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *The Birds* (1963): The ordinary world turns hostile, with suspense built from watching and waiting.
- *Cure* (1997): Another patient chiller that lets uncertainty make familiar places feel unsafe.
- *The Devil's Backbone* (2001): Children confront fear in a ghost story with a stronger historical footing.
- *Take Shelter* (2011), Fi1m 83: A more searching account of fear, family responsibility and possible catastrophe. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/take-shelter.md)
- *The Vast of Night* (2019): Small-scale science fiction that understands how much terror a sound can carry.

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/signs