User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 6 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 6
  2. Negative: 1 out of 6

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. RobertL.
    May 7, 2001
    7
    This movie leaves one with questions unanswered, irresolved suggestions, inconclusive interpretations, which is great because it leaves one's mind opened. The acting is great. The ambivalence of sentiments and the constant questioning of what's under the skin are very well treated. This is a movie that represents well enigmas of the human heart and soul. The mystical, sign This movie leaves one with questions unanswered, irresolved suggestions, inconclusive interpretations, which is great because it leaves one's mind opened. The acting is great. The ambivalence of sentiments and the constant questioning of what's under the skin are very well treated. This is a movie that represents well enigmas of the human heart and soul. The mystical, sign searching aspect of the movie doesn't work as well. Expand
  2. PaulaW.
    Jan 1, 2002
    3
    Just because a film cost many millions to make, that doesn't mean it will entertain you; on the other hand, just because it's grainy doesn't mean it's high-minded and authentic. Exhibit A: this pastiche of French bedroom farce, clunky art-film dialogue, pseudo-Chomskyite anti-Americanism, and Semiotics 101. The dialogue must have been written in French then translated Just because a film cost many millions to make, that doesn't mean it will entertain you; on the other hand, just because it's grainy doesn't mean it's high-minded and authentic. Exhibit A: this pastiche of French bedroom farce, clunky art-film dialogue, pseudo-Chomskyite anti-Americanism, and Semiotics 101. The dialogue must have been written in French then translated into English. Stellan Skarsgard and Charlotte Rampling, two of the best actors working today, are wasted on this straw-man exercise. Signs & Wonders has a little visual and audio style, but that's about it. The reason I hated this film, probably more than it deserves, is that it's a shoddy adaptation of one of my favorite books, Don DeLillo's wonderful and uncategorizable novel The Names, about an American's year in Athens circa 1980. What a shock to learn that Jonathan Nossiter is actually American: this looks like the work of someone who's never met an actual American in his life. Expand
  3. TimiT
    Sep 13, 2004
    9
    A great movie that bears repeated watching. Where in the world does Paula W. get the idea that this film is an adaptation of Don DeLillo's book The Names? The only similarity between the two is the Athens location. Signs & Wonders is a terrific evocation of the experience of florid paranoid mania. Ashley Ramey does a riveting job as the young daughter of Stellan Skarsgard, who turns A great movie that bears repeated watching. Where in the world does Paula W. get the idea that this film is an adaptation of Don DeLillo's book The Names? The only similarity between the two is the Athens location. Signs & Wonders is a terrific evocation of the experience of florid paranoid mania. Ashley Ramey does a riveting job as the young daughter of Stellan Skarsgard, who turns in a brilliant performance. Charlotte Rampling is, as always, enchanting to behold, even better as she gets older. Expand
Metascore
60

Mixed or average reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 17
  2. Negative: 2 out of 17
  1. 70
    Offers up keys and cakes and plunges its characters down a deep rabbit hole.
  2. 75
    As a drama about the ravages of mental illness, the movie works; too bad most of the critics read it only as a romantic soap opera in which the hero is an obsessive sap. They read the signs but miss the diagnosis.
  3. Smug, often tedious, and comically crude.