--- title: "Signs: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/signs/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/signs" critics_score: 57 critics_reviews: 15 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): what the critics said Critics' score 57 from 15 reviews: 5 positive, 7 mixed, 3 negative. 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. ## Total Film — Total Film Rating 4/5. 13 September 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. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/signs-review/) ## The AV Club — Scott Tobias Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 5 August 2002. 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 the review](https://www.avclub.com/signs-1798197712) ## The Guardian — Rob Mackie Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 7 February 2003. 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 the review](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/feb/07/artsfeatures.dvdreviews1) ## The New York Times — A.O. Scott Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 2 August 2002. 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 the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/movies/film-review-finding-faith-or-something-in-a-cornfield.html) ## RogerEbert.com Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). The page is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint is available from the page provided. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/signs-2002) ## Screen Daily — John Hazelton Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 1 August 2002. 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 the review](https://www.screendaily.com/signs/4010041.article) ## Time Out — TCh Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). The available page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its description singles out Gibson’s reassurance to his spooked dog. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/signs) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Rating 2.5/4. 30 July 2002. 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 the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/signs/) ## Radio Times — Jason Caro Rating 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 the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-r2qzbv/signs/) ## The Hollywood Reporter — Kirk Honeycutt Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 29 July 2002. 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 the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/signs-review-movie-2002-1235190900/) ## Empire — Colin Kennedy Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 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 the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/signs-review/) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 29 July 2002. 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 the review](https://variety.com/2002/film/reviews/signs-2-1200547091/) ## Evening Standard Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. 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 the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/signs-7381807.html) ## Collider — Aidan Kelley Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 7 October 2023. 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 the review](https://collider.com/signs-m-night-shyamalan/) ## Eye for Film — Jennie Kermode Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 27 June 2007. 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 the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/signs-film-review-by-jennie-kermode) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/signs.md