Certainly overrated, but not all bad.

Rating: 4/10 (16 August 2002)

-- MILD SPOILERS --
Reviews I've read of 'Signs' seem to either praise it up to the skies or lambast it as a complete waste of money. I'd say it was neither of those - simply a poor to average film.
I enjoyed both 'The Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable', but not 'Signs'. All the elements of the previous films were there - MNS' slow, deliberate pacing, excellent performances from the central actors and the building suspense. But I could not care about the paper-thin characters, and without that, the suspense was meaningless. Sure, I was curious as to what was going to happen, but I didn't *care*. For the most part, the handling of the religious overtones was hokey and heavy-handed. Again, the poor character development might have interfered with my appreciation of these aspects. The ending to the film was distinctly unsatisfying, and raised more questions than it resolved. Finally, the poor special effects (if so they can be called) and 'alien invasion' plot aspects were ridiculous enough to be distracting.
That being said, there were several redeeming moments scattered throughout the film - some of genuine humour, some of genuine fear. Scattered as they were, these moments were all entertaining. I was fortunate enough to be able to observe the reactions of the woman seated next to me in the cinema to some of the more frightening scenes - that was worth my $14 all in itself. Luck or miracle?
I've read elsewhere that the entire movie was a dream - that this was its 'genius'. If I were to ever give it another viewing, I might be persuaded that it was Bo's dream, but so what? It might explain the film's shortcomings, but it doesn't excuse them. I see a film to be entertained, and be it reality, fantasy, sci-fi or dream, I still want a quality story with characters I can make an emotional investment in. 'Signs' fails to deliver.
4 out of 10.