Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Signs (2002)
Shyamalan flails for another twist ending
28 March 2004
Signs revolves around a tragic family living an isolated life on a farm, headed by Mel Gibson's lapsed cleric. Mel plasters on his brooding face, pretty much he does in the Lethal Weapon films whenever something bad has happened, only here it's on for over an hour and a half. In tow are a slightly annoying Joaquin Phoenix as the odd younger brother, plus a brace of very annoying kids in the form of Abigail Breslin and a Culkin (it almost doesn't matter which one) who spends most of the film going out of his way to do exactly the opposite of what a normal kid would do in any given situation. Farm life plays out against the background of an 'is it/isn't it?' alien invasion scenario, cleverly played out via new reports on their TV to emphasise their isolation.

Things plod on in relatively suspenseful fashion for a while; a backstory element explaining the reason for Gibson's character ditching the cloth crops up in flashback (the sections of the film which are most satisfactory), but suddenly Shyamalan does the unthinkable and repeats his error from Unbreakable in delivering a staggeringly botched ending.

Wisely refraining from SFX for most of the film, heightening tension with suggested threats as opposed to onscreen violence, the aliens suddenly show themselves and the film stinks up the screen until the credits roll. All trace of claustrophobic thriller is suddenly jettisoned in favour of a final act which comes across as the unwise marriage of Day Of The Triffids and Bull Durham. The final twist in particular borrows wholesale from...Triffids and smacks of a lack of imagination to carry through what was a fairly intriguing vision.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I demand an hour and a half of my life back
28 March 2004
First of all, I should've known better than to go to see a film that was being flyposted around London with a recommendation from The Daily Star emblazoned at the top of it. Second of all, the only reason I went at all was because my girlfriend was in a post-Shakespeare In Love Joseph Fiennes phase.

And oh dear god it's bad. It doesn't help that it makes absolutely no sense, mainly due to some of the most jarring cuts I've ever seen outside a GCSE film project. One scene in particular threw me entirely when Rhys Ifans' character was in London one minute, being vaguely threatened by some cliched heavy, but once I'd glanced away for a second (probably checking my watch) I looked up to find that he was suddenly in Russia, being sneered at by some different cliched heavies. Elsewhere the editing is seriously misguided - several times the film lingers on pointless scenes featuring female flesh, while seemingly integral plot points are rushed through, patched together unsatisfactorily by a hammy voiceover.

Both Fiennes and Ifans - actors I rate - are quite terrible, but words can only hint at how appalling Steven Berkoff is in this film. He pretty much only says one word (several times) - "Beeeeeeeezneeeeeeesss", and every time he did I couldn't help but think that he was gradually making his villain in Rambo 3 seem like an acting tour de force.

I've never once walked out on a film before. I'm clearly too stubborn - we were the only two people that DIDN'T walk out at the screening we attended. Comfortably the worst film I have ever paid so endure.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed