Signs (2002)

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.

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.

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.

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.

The page is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint is available from the page provided.

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.

The available page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its description singles out Gibson’s reassurance to his spooked dog.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.