Signs (2002)

“People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign, evidence, that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck. Just a happy turn of chance. I’m sure the people in group number two are looking at those fourteen lights in a very suspicious way. For them, the situation is a fifty-fifty. Could be bad, could be good. But deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they’re on their own. And that fills them with fear. Yeah, there are those people. But there’s a whole lot of people in group number one. When they see those fourteen lights, they’re looking at a miracle. And deep down, they feel that whatever’s going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope. See what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or, look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?” – Graham Hess

Number of Times Seen – 2 (Theater in 2002 and 9 Jan 2017)

Brief Synopsis – A former preacher living on a Pennsylvanian farm begins to suspect that something strange is happening when crop circles begin to appear in his cornfield.

My Take on it – Most of us probably remember that the “hot” director M. Night Shyalaman came out of the starting gate and delivered two great films (The Sixth Sense (1999) and Unbreakable (2000)], but after that, his ideas just didn’t go anywhere and most of his films no longer were considered worthy to watch (unless you want to laugh a lot)

This film was truly, the beginning of his end.

The story itself has so many problems with it, but the dialogue still works most of the time.

Unfortunately, the film feels too much like it keeps rambling on instead of giving us something concrete to show us.

The acting is fine here and Mel Gibson does a nice job in the lead, but it’s hard to blame the actors here for uneven performances because of the problems with the script itself.

The biggest problem here is that it’s easy to see that in the right hands, this film could have been so much better because it deals with themes of faith and hope, but apparently it was left in the wrong hands here.

Bottom Line – Beginning of the end of Shyamalan.  The story has some merits to it, but in general, it feels as if it rambles too much instead of finding something concrete to tell us.  Gibson is fine here, but since the script itself has so many issues, the performances can’t be blamed too much here. I understand what Shyalaman was trying for here, but things get lost along the way.

MovieRob’s Favorite Trivia – Mel Gibson didn’t realize that his director was playing the vet until the day that they came to shoot their scenes together. (From IMDB)

Rating – BAFTA Worthy

_______________________________________

Check out my *updated* movie stats here

To see my reviews of Oscar Winning Performances check out this link

To see my reviews of all Oscar Best Picture Winners click here (now complete)

Here is a link to my movie index A-Z