What do you get when you mix celluloid and chloroform?

Rating: 2/10 (19 August 2002)

The movie "Signs." To be fair, the line between hypnotic and soporific is a fine one (and Shyamalan drifted dangerously close to it in "Unbreakable") but "Signs" is set deep in the Land of Nod. It tried to weave a spell, but it knitted an Afghan. Let's hope this film is just the inevitable clinker in any genius's career, and that "Sixth Sense" was not a fluke. I, myself, intend to give M. Night-baby one more chance, but only because "Sixth Sense" was so very good, and because he's bucking the Spielbergian slide-show formula.
If you don't go see this one, you won't be missing a thing but nonpareils. If you must see it, rent it, but don't come crying to me to get your money back. It's that bad. It's not even so bad it's funny. It's just slow and obvious and improbable and sketchy. It reminds me of the teleplays of the 50's, with one set, one camera, a cast of several, and radio-era special effects that happen offscreen. But don't think that it's good in the way that those old-time adaptations could be good, and don't think that it consciously harks back to them (though that may be what it was trying for). If "Signs" had been adapted from a play, that play would have sucked out loud, too.