doctorgonzo23 I feel that the other comments made about this movie do not exactly do it justice. I just rented and watched a copy of it last night, and I feel a little more generous than some of the other posters. Firstly, one has to address the fact that this movie is highly derivative of "Signs". Basicaly, the premise is the same. Crop circles mysteriously appear in a farmer's field and trouble ensues.The acting is about what you would expect. Baldwin is far too over the top to really appreciate, but Billy Zane does a great job, as do most of the actors that portray the college kids trying to fix up the old farm house.The CGI aliens are not done very well and look really fake. The build up of tension throughout the movie, however, is well done. There are some scenes where I couldn't help but jump and, in general, I think that this movie actually did a better job of interpreting the possible uses of crop circles better than signs. In this movie, the circles are used as a type of portal system for the aliens to get from place to place. In terms of a further comparison with signs, the ending is a lot more bleak.I felt that signs included a cheesy supernatural element that, thankfully, was mostly absent from this film. Don't rent it expecting to see something on the same scale of Signs, but if you liked it and the ideas it presented, you should get some enjoyment out of this as well.

scherr If I hadn't seen SIGNS i might have been impressed by the whole cornfield/alien angle. But its been done before and I was hoping this film would take a whole new angle. It doesn't. Billy Zane looks like he's on drugs. Some time is spent revealing who the characters are and how they relate to each other, there's an obligatory semi nude scene but its pointless - all the characters are shallow and uninteresting IMHO. Considering the technology these aliens must have there are holes in the plot large enough to drive a monster truck through. NEVER have I seen such woefully depicted monsters/aliens. I know this thing was made on a budget but if they couldn't use CGI properly then stick to rubber suits. Forget the comparisons to SIGNS - this one STINKS!

chrisrk-1 The writer of this movie is obviously one of the people who liked the premise for M. Night Shyamalan's Signs, but didn't think it lived up to its potential. Warnings takes some of the ideas from Signs and carries them in a different direction, adding a few teens in place of the preacher and his family. There are all the stereotypes you're used to -- the hostile muscle-brained jock, the hip black kid, the witchy girl who has the situation pegged but can't get anyone to listen to her. The writing and acting are better than you'd expect from this kind of movie, and manage to make the characters interesting. There's some very rudimentary eye candy and Stephen Baldwin's performance as the crazy farmer is worth seeing all by itself.

finman81 I understand scifi channel could not afford big CGI effects,but COME ON!This movie was horrible in every way possible.the acting was pathetic,the plot was just stupid, and worse off,the aliens didn't even look real. this movie is about a guys cousin,who has seen these weird crop circles on his farm before finding out WHAT is really going on, disappears.this guy, some friends of his, and the sheriff(played by billy zane)all set out to find out what these crop circles are all about.they soon uncover these findings in his cousins attic that there are aliens involved somehow.this movie is a total signs rip off(which is a great movie itself.)and the scifi channel could have done a much better job with it.if you want a good laugh then feel free to watch silent warnings otherwise stay away from this movie if you can.