Oh, how previews are so very, very deceiving.

Rating: 2/10 (17 January 2003)

Where do I begin? I sat down to watch 'Signs' just the other night. I had been wanting to see it ever since it was still playing at the theaters. My aunt rented it and the only thing that came out of my mouth, along with a few swear words here and there, was how I was so glad that I didn't waste my hard-earned money on such garbage.
This is the kind of film that gets everyone's attention when those clever but sneaky advertising jerks decide to air the trailer picking out the ONLY half interesting scenes in the entire film. Man, I hate when they do that. However, I would do it too if I were in their position. Why wouldn't I? Anyway, the previews looked really good; little did I know that they were extremely deceiving, and the film managed to stay at the top of the box office list for a while, so I figured that it couldn't be all bad. Don't believe it!
Aside from the terrible acting, lack of excitement, scares and intelligence, it moved at a pace that would irritate anybody, or so I thought, but being that a lot of people did like it for some reason, who knows anymore. 'Signs' also lacks...what's that thing called? Oh, yeah, dialogue. Was it just me or did it seem like there was absolutely no talking in this picture? It was all show, actions, and not enough speaking. It reminded me of 'Cast Away' in that sense, and I don't even want to get into that disaster. So, moving along.
The acting shown here is pathetic. I know that everyone likes Mel Gibson and the guy earns up to $25 million a pic, but honestly, for what? He looked out of it for the most part; what is Shyamalan really doing behind those cameras? He didn't react to anything like he should have, his very few speaking parts were boring, drawn out, and a lot of them really had nothing to do with the plot itself. Those really long monologues were unbearable. Joaquin Phoenix was just a tad better than Gibson, but still had nothing to show for it. Another Culkin pops onto the screen and I have to say, he was probably the best actor in this film. Most people found the young Abigail Breslin to be impressive while I found her to be purely annoying. Oh, and the biggest laugh of all, you guessed it, the man behind this terrible project, M. Night Shyamalan, works his way onto the screen. That's right, he's not only the writer, director and producer, he's also an actor. Who are you kidding, M? It really bugs me to no end when those hot shot directors and all happen to make a cameo in their films just because they're their films and they can do whatever they please.
I can at least see where this plot would have been a good idea, but it gets ruined. The ending was a big mistake. For some reason, I thought that it would pick up just a bit toward the end, but it didn't. It was a huge disappointment as was the entire film as I have pointed out. The script, the actual writing was so boring. I found 'Signs' to move at a slow pace, yet it seemed to me that just as I had slipped the tape into my VCR, it wasn't only but a half hour or so after that I was finishing up the film. I guess I should be thankful for that.
I would not recommend 'Signs' to anyone, and I mean anyone. The writing, the acting, the directing, the beginning, middle and end were all poorly projected. Shyamalan managed to rake in the bucks (and the rave reviews) yet again, though I don't understand how. Between 'The Sixth Sense' and this trash, it's a wonder this guy can find people to back him up whenever he comes up with a new idea. 'Signs' is a horrible film that only seemed good due to its misleading previews.
I would have avoided this film all together, but it's not like they warned me it would be as bad as it was.