"Signs" is a film whose greatness isn't apparent until one wonders at what it did wrong.

Rating: 9/10 (4 August 2002)

Laughter filled the theatre nearly a dozen times while I watched "Signs," significantly more than some comedies I've seen of late. It is this achievement that proves Shyamalan's mastery of his craft--he is able to juggle both tension and relief without sacrificing one for the other.
-Possible Spoiler Warning-
The plot itself is thick with mystery and skepticism. The characters wonder about the circumstances they find themselves in, the loyalty they have to each other, the faith they hold dear, and their ultimate fate. Every aspect of "Signs" is held up and analyzed, with the audience trying to piece the answers together with what little is revealed. The issue becomes the 'neatness' with which the answer is given: how could it have been that easy?
However, one cannot truly criticize a film for the tale it tells so much as how it is told. It is for that reason that "Signs" is a film whose greatness isn't apparent until one wonders at what it did wrong. It was perfect. It was Shyamalan's vision come to life, and whether or not we agree with his creation, we cannot help but marvel at the process.
***SPOILER WARNING***
I do have one bone to pick: near the end of the movie, Mel Gibson's character moves the TV so his son can watch. A newscaster is heard saying that a 'primitive' method to fight off the invaders was used, but not disclosed. Why was that (news) segment necessary? I don't believe that the audience needs that "clue" and that the ending would have been better without it.