Signs
Performance & Direction: Signs Review
Last updated: February 19, 2026
Quick Verdict: Hit or Flop?
Is Signs (2002) worth watching? According to our cinematic analysis, the film stands as a HIT with a verified audience rating of 6.7/10. Whether you're looking for the box office collection, ending explained, or parents guide, our review covers everything you need to know about this Thriller.
Cast Performances: A Masterclass
The success of any Thriller is often anchored by its ensemble, and Signs features a noteworthy lineup led by Mel Gibson . Supported by the likes of Joaquin Phoenix and Rory Culkin , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
Final Verdict: Is it Worth Watching?
Story & Plot Summary: Signs
Quick Plot Summary: Released in 2002, Signs is a Thriller, Science Fiction, Horror film directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The narrative builds tension through unpredictable twists and keeps audiences guessing until the final reveal. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict involving Mel Gibson.
Story Breakdown
The plot weaves a complex web of mystery and suspense. A family living on a farm finds mysterious crop circles in their fields which suggests something more frightening to come. Information is revealed strategically, keeping viewers engaged as they piece together clues alongside Mel Gibson. The narrative maintains momentum through well-timed revelations and unexpected turns.
Narrative Structure
- Opening Hook: The opening scene plants the seeds of mystery, introducing questions that will drive the narrative forward.
- Character Arc: The main character shows growth throughout the story, though some supporting characters could have been more fully realized. Mel Gibson's arc is present but occasionally predictable.
- Climax & Resolution: All mysteries converge in a climax that recontextualizes earlier events and delivers satisfying answers.
Thematic Depth
The film operates on multiple levels, using its genre framework to explore deeper themes about human nature, society, and the choices that define us.
What Works & What Doesn't
✅ Strengths
- Solid execution of genre conventions
- Engaging moments that showcase the creators' vision
- Competent performances from the cast
⚠️ Weaknesses
- Some narrative choices that feel predictable
- Occasional pacing lulls in the middle act
Ending Explained: Signs
Ending Breakdown: Directed by M. Night Shyamalan, Signs concludes its story with a mix of closure and open interpretation. The finale presents its approach to thriller resolution.
The final reveal recontextualizes earlier scenes involving Mel Gibson, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
Ending Analysis:
- Narrative Resolution: The story concludes by addressing its primary narrative threads, providing closure while maintaining some ambiguity.
- Character Arcs: Character journeys reach their narrative endpoints, reflecting the film's thematic priorities.
- Thematic Payoff: The ending reinforces the thriller themes established throughout the runtime.
The final moments of Signs reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Who Should Watch Signs?
Worth Watching If You:
- Enjoy Thriller films and don't mind familiar tropes
- Are a fan of Mel Gibson or the director
- Want suspenseful moments and mystery
Box Office Collection: Signs
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Production Budget | $72.0M |
| Worldwide Gross | $408.2M |
| Trade Verdict | CLEAN HIT |
Signs Budget
The estimated production budget for Signs is $72.0M. This figure covers principal photography, talent acquisitions, and visual effects. When accounting for global marketing and distribution, the break-even point is typically 2x the base production cost.
Top Cast: Signs
All Cast & Crew →











Where to Watch Signs Online?
Streaming Hub🎟️ Rent on
Google Play Movies🏷️ Buy on
Google Play MoviesSigns Parents Guide & Age Rating
2002 AdvisoryWondering about Signs age rating or if it's safe for kids? Here is our cinematic advisory:
⏱️ Runtime & Duration
The total runtime of Signs is 106 minutes (1h 46m). Ensuring you have enough time for the full cinematic experience.
Verdict Summary
Analyzing the overall audience sentiment, verified rating of 6.7/10, and global performance metrics, Signs is classified as a HIT. It remains an essential part of the 2002 cinematic calendar.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Signs worth watching?
Signs is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Thriller movies. It has a verified rating of 6.7/10 and stands as a HIT in our box office analysis.
Where can I find Signs parents guide and age rating?
The official parents guide for Signs identifies it as PG-13. Our detailed advisory section above covers all content warnings for families.
What is the total runtime of Signs?
The total duration of Signs is 106 minutes, which is approximately 1h 46m long.
Best Movies to Watch if you liked Signs
How Signs Compares & Where it Ranks
Critic Reviews for Signs
_**Is it really about aliens?**_ M. Night Shyamalan's "Signs" (2002) is about a disillusioned ex-minister (Mel Gibson) who lives in the country with his son & daughter and brother (Juaquin Phoenix). The reasons for his disillusionment become clear as the story unfolds. When a mysterious crop circle is discovered in their cornfield they wonder if it's a prank or an alien invasion! Although the plot deals with a possible alien invasion, the theme is faith. There are two general views of life: (1) That life and the universe are one big meaningless accident and you're just an insignificant bug that will soon be squashed out of existence and memory. And (2) that there's an intelligent design to the universe and, although it's somehow fallen (i.e. severely messed up), there IS meaning, love, hope and purpose, even if we are presently unable to fully comprehend it. The film addresses the clash of these two opposing views. We've all experienced the conflict of these two positions within our OWN hearts; it's the clash of flesh (id) and spirit (super-ego). On the one hand, we WANT to believe the latter position, but life dishes out so much crap that we are seriously tempted to give-in to the former. This is the struggle Gibson's character faces in the story. He's given up on God and is stumbling in the dark; he's just going through the motions to exist. His smile is mostly a facade. Many people diss the film for an obvious plot hole regarding the alien's weakness, but Shyamalan's too talented to not realize this. It's a sign to what the film is really about (sorry; I couldn't resist). **SPOILER ALERT** (Don't read further unless you've seen the film) It's possible that the aliens aren't really extraterrestrials but rather demons from the underworld (the dark dimension) invading the physical realm to take as many victims as they can. The idea that they are aliens is just a mass deception and, remember, the devil is the "father of lies". There are many clues: The spaceships are never seen, just lights in the sky (the devil's also called "the prince of the power of the air" in the bible). The "aliens" look decidedly demonic and have cloven hoofs. The “primitive method” of repelling the aliens is discovered in “three cities the Middle East” and is holy water, which is ordinarily used by Catholic & Episcopal exorcists against demonic manifestations (Shyamalan, by the way, attended Catholic & Episcopal schools). The daughter, Bo, was said to be a "gift from God" who is sensitive to impure (unholy) water. Her name in Old Norse means "to live" and she was able to discern the weapon of life needed to defeat the demonic menace. The dog and bird were clearly possessed. The crop circles are occultic symbols and possible portals to the underworld. The crop circle in the Hess cornfield resembles a pitchfork. When the disillusioned minister cries out to God that he hates him he actually displays his faith; after all, he has to believe in God in order to converse. At that precise moment his son recovers from the asthma attack and the news announcer declares that the "aliens" are retreating. You see, FAITH sends the enemy fleeing with their tails between their legs. Also, we see evidence that the demons are personal in nature. The "alien" locked in the vet's pantry was linked to the guilt and disillusionment that haunted the vet and the minister after the death of the latter's wife. Also, we see evidence that the demons are personal in nature. The "alien" locked in the vet's pantry was linked to the guilt and disillusionment that haunted the vet after the death of the minister's wife. Keep in mind that when the film debuted, Shyamalan was known as the king of the plot twist, yet the revelation that the aliens’ weakness is water wasn’t exactly a mind-blowing turn seeing as how the earth is 71% water and technologically advanced aliens who can travel the galaxy would know this. Moreover, the aliens curiously have no physical weapons and are easily trapped by a pantry door. It stands to reason that Shyamalan hid the twist in the movie. That twist is that the aliens are really demonic in nature. I'm not saying you can't view the movie as a literal extra-terrestrial invasion flick, but rather that the underlying demonic reading is a legitimate way of viewing the material because it all ties together and links to the story arc of the disillusioned ex-minister finding redemption. Also, I'm not suggesting that you have to believe in God to appreciate this movie, which is obviously not the case. BOTTOM LINE: This is a quality Shyamalan film and is about on par with "The Sixth Sense" and "The Village.” The film runs 106 minutes and was shot in Eastern Pennsylvania. GRADE: B+
Not my favorite M. Night Shyamalan film. Also not my least favorite...
It's barely over an hour and a half this film, but it seems much longer. Mel Gibson ("Graham") is a widowed former pastor who lives on a farm with his two kids "Morgan" (Rory Culkin) and "Bo" (Abigail Breslin) and his brother "Merrill" (Joaquin Phoenix). Their lives are all rolling along normally until one morning they discover some crop circles amongst the corn fields. Dismissing them as hoaxes, they are intrigued when television reports suggest a proliferation of these things all around the world. Now add to their now heightened suspicions some late night noises and mysterious happenings, and the family begin to suspect that they are being watched - and that their observer is not exactly benign. The last ten minutes or so redeem this story to a degree, but for the most part it is a terribly slow burn of a film. There isn't really much by way of action; Gibson and Phoenix don't really exude much of a compelling sibling relationship and the kids - usually a crucial conduit for M. Night Shyamalan stories have much less to work with here. This has more of the melodrama to it - the backstory of tragedy and grief all gets in the way of the gradually increasing sense of menace and I found the whole momentum of the story quite staccato. This is an adequate film, but it is definitely nobody's best work.
This is one of my favourite films ever and a top 2 spot for my favourite thrillers. Signs isn't you're average Alien film, it focuses solely on a widowed reverend and his family but it is still one of the best films ever made and one you can watch over and over and it never bores.
Rewatching M. Night Shyamalan's Signs brought back the same feelings I had the first time I saw it. The script is solid, the plot is engaging, and the acting, especially from Mel Gibson, is strong. Joaquin Phoenix adds a lot to the movie too, balancing emotional moments with some light humor. But even with all these positives, the movie still feels like it’s missing something—a spark that could’ve made it truly great. The story is told entirely from the family’s perspective, which creates a lot of suspense and intimacy. However, it also leaves the aliens feeling underdeveloped. We never learn much about their intentions, behavior, or even why they’re invading Earth. That final scene with the alien and the child is particularly intriguing. Some theories suggest it wasn’t attacking but might actually have been saving the boy. The alien didn’t defend itself when Joaquin Phoenix’s character hit it, which raises questions about its true motives. This ambiguity adds an interesting layer but also feels like a missed opportunity for the story to dig deeper. Overall, Signs is a well-made movie with strong themes of faith, family, and survival.
this movie's genuinely convinced it's suspenseful when it's really just a hunk of boring tropes with some christianity thrown on top. it took the whole hitchcock "don't show the monster" way too far, and i audibly laughed when we finally saw the alien. like... THAT'S what you were keeping hidden for the majority of the film? and everyone's so freaked out by it. to be fair, it made my mom shriek, but i could not take this film seriously. especially with all the dialogue about profanity. i can't tell if that was included as a joke, but it was funny. and i'm ex-religious, i grew up saying heck and frick, still didn't relate to any of it. overall just seemed kind of preachy as well. nothing stuck out about this film artistically. i'd recommend signs for bad movie night, it's definitely fun to make fun of.
I guess I just don't see what others see in this movie. It's pretty mediocre at best. Not scary and kinda lame duck story.
movieMx Verified
This review has been verified for accuracy and editorial quality by our senior cinematic analysts.
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.










