View Full Version : Signs
FiLm Fr3aK
07-20-02, 12:16 AM
Oh my god, you guys.
Signs is awesome!
I still have tears on my face as I write this.
This movie takes you on a whole series of emotion everything for hair standing up on the back of your neck freakin out, to tears on your face from a combinaiton of joy and sorrow!
For any of you who havent heard of/seen the trailers for:
Signs is a thriller from the same guy who made Unbreakable & The Sixth Sense. A movie about a man, his brother and kids who finds crop circles in their filed. Since that is really all the trailers let you know for sure that is all I will put here.
Visit the official site HERE (http://bventertainment.go.com/movies/signs)
Other then that I just say go see it.
This movie begs to be seen on a huge screen with surround sound so go fork out the $8/$9 to see it in the theatre on August 2nd, I know I will.
firegod
07-20-02, 03:20 PM
A movie about crop circles... :rolleyes: Right about now, the 3 or 4 British guys responsible for most crop circles on this planet are laughing their asses off.
Booo.
We already had this discussion in the "other" thread on this flick; the crop circles are as much a McGuffin as anything else. Like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, this film is going to be about finding your place. It'll also be highly suspenseful.
Anyhoo, I happen to think the idea of crop circles being warnings or signs of some sort is a rather clever one. The whole crop circle phenomenon is worth of just one major motion picture, don't you think? I certainly do. Especially if that motion picture is helmed by the man (M. Night Shyamalan) himself.
FiLm Fr3aK
07-20-02, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
Booo.
hehehe.... yea! BOO!!!!!!
this film is going to be about finding your place. It'll also be highly suspenseful.
yup.:yup:
Yoda, you are gonna love it as much as I did.
It causes you to question things about your life, even though they have absolutely NOTHING to do with crop circles or phenomona in any way. There is so much underlying in this movie. It was beautifully done.
Originally posted by FiLm Fr3aK
Yoda, you are gonna love it as much as I did.
It causes you to question things about your life, even though they have absolutely NOTHING to do with crop circles or phenomona in any way. There is so much underlying in this movie. It was beautifully done.
I think you're right. :) I expect to really, really enjoy this flick. I'm a huge fan of M. Night's work (you'll all see how much I like him sometime within the next month or so, by the way), and I love a well-written, well-shot, suspenseful movie. This appears to be all these things and more. I can't wait!
Thanks for your review. It's cool as hell as that you've seen it and bothered to talk about it here with us. :cool:
Originally posted by FiLm Fr3aK
It causes you to question things about your life, even though they have absolutely NOTHING to do with crop circles or phenomona in any way. There is so much underlying in this movie. It was beautifully done.
Shyamalan's work to date has already accomplished that, Sixth Sense definately, and Unbreakable also did to a marginally lesser degree. A decent film usually contains some form of underlying symbolism and or meaning. There are many movies which can cause you to question your existence/life.......it's just so many people manage to overlook most of them.
If you cannot find enlightenment here, what makes you think you can find it anywhere else?
Buddha
I agree...'cept I don't quite follow the relevance or importantance (or even the alleged validity) of that quote.
:confused:
It is a quote concerning the "questioning of ones life and existence" which is why I thought it fitted nicely.
It could also be construed as a compliment for MoFo. Read it how you like.
Well, I understand that, of course. I'm curious, though; what context does it come from, specifically?
Hard to be entirely specific with a quote from Buddha but......for example. Instead of travelling the world looking for mental and spiritual enlightenment or a sense of personal identity (knowing yourself). The answers to all of the questions you seek are not really as difficult to find as you thought and can be found in one place......inside you. Therefore if you really want to know who you are, why you are here etc. Then look within yourself, you don't need to travel far and wide to do that as you are more likely to glimpse the "truth" you desire at home.
Oh, I don't mean that. I understand what the quote is trying to say...I was, rather, just wondering who he was saying it to, and when, possibly. Thanks anyway, though. :)
Sexy Celebrity
07-21-02, 02:11 AM
I agree with that quote very much, Logan.
firegod
07-21-02, 02:23 PM
We already had this discussion in the "other" thread on this flick; the crop circles are as much a McGuffin as anything else.
I don't care WHY that silly part of the plot is there; it's THERE, which is enough for me. Am I supposed to think that the idea is a good one because it is not supposed to be serious, but is supposed to draw people in? Uh uh.
It'll also be highly suspenseful.
The suspense won't work as well for me (if I ever see this thing) and many others because of the ridiculousness of concentrating on crop circles in any way other than as the hoax it is.
Anyhoo, I happen to think the idea of crop circles being warnings or signs of some sort is a rather clever one. The whole crop circle phenomenon is worth of just one major motion picture, don't you think? I certainly do. Especially if that motion picture is helmed by the man (M. Night Shyamalan) himself.
No.
I don't care WHY that silly part of the plot is there; it's THERE, which is enough for me. Am I supposed to think that the idea is a good one because it is not supposed to be serious, but is supposed to draw people in? Uh uh.
Well, it is supposed to be serious...it's just not the driving force, really. The movie's concept isn't what's going to make it good.
The suspense won't work as well for me (if I ever see this thing) and many others because of the ridiculousness of concentrating on crop circles in any way other than as the hoax it is.
Pfft. It's a movie...it's just a possibility. It's a "what if?" kinda thing. Now, here's something you might find interesting: from what I understand, in the film, it's acknowledged that several people are able to create such a hoax...however, the crop circles start appearing too quickly and in too many places to be accounted for that way. Seems consistent with the world of today in my opinion...just with a little something extra thrown in. I love it, personally.
Sexy Celebrity
07-21-02, 04:11 PM
Ol' Fireman isn't going to change his mind anytime soon. Surely, he must have found The Sixth Sense as equally, if not more, ridiculous since it deals with ghosts and the afterlife, something he's positive about that doesn't exist. M. Night Shyawhatta must give you headaches, eh?
FiLm Fr3aK
07-21-02, 04:44 PM
ok...apperntly FireGod there isnt a sci-fi fan...
to each his own. His comments eerily were the EXACT same as my husbands...
Anyhoo..
I will add this :
A Crop-circle is a pattern impressed into fields of grain, usually, but also into ice, soil and reportedly even stands of trees.
The designs are usually comprised of circles. The crop or other medium is laid down in spiral patterns, sometimes woven.
Symmetry is a common principle in formations. Features include circles, rings, spirals, mathematical representations, straight lines, triangles and bars. They are most common in the southwest of England, and also found in Europe, North America and Australia.
The working definition of a 'real' crop circle is one which researchers agree is real, and which is not proven to be a hoax. This is only possible when:
experienced researchers are the first to reach a new formation. Most circles formed in standing cereal crops.
Stalks bent over at 90 degrees, unbroken.
Often pattern is layered, each layer with perfect swirl in unique manner.
Many circles have perfectly flat appearance, shiny in the sun.
No approach tracks in the crop. Especially noticeable where circles are in the middle of strips where no wheels have made worn paths.
EM effects upon people and video, audio equipment. (Illness; equipment failure; effects upon film, magnetic tape.)
FYI-->Some circles seem to cause illness of the stomache, headache. Others, euphoria.
Fact: In the area where 'real' crop circles occurs crops continue to grow, but do not stand up again.
When crop circles were first found in the 70's they were just that. Circles and were proven to be hoaxes a few years later. Over the years crop circles gained new features and behaviours.
circles
rings
multiple circles in patterns
bars; 'avenues' between paired circles
"insectograms"; combinations of circles, rings, bars with tributaries of spiral or key-shaped design
mathematical theorems; mandelbrot and julia fractal sets; proportional symmetries
Is it plausible that the original circles, proven to be hoax, caught the attention of someone/thing else. They Can be seen from VERY high altitudes. Could they not have been mistaken as a form of communication, thus starting the rash of circles that CANT be proven as hoax?
Yes, I think 99.3% are infact ******** out for a good funny. But the simple FACT that ALL cant be ruled as hoaxes can not be ignored.
THE MOVIE
the movie DOES address the fact that some crop circles are hoax.
The movie is about crop circles. But more so the movie
is about a freakin preacher whom loses his faith after his wife dies in a horrible accident. Imagine HIS surprise when his children find crop circles in his field. This man who has no faith in ANYTHING that he cant see/prove. He even thinks the town red necks are responsible, refusing to believe anything else is possible.
When one of his dogs go nuts and attacks one of his kids, he STILL doesnt believe.
When the circles start being on the news popping up everywhere... he still doesnt believe.
Then the man, whom killed his wife calls and hangs up, so he rushes over there to kick his arse. Only to find him freaking out in his car, packed up ready to leave.... He apologizes to father, and tells him that the accident HAD to be, and that one of THEM is locked in his pantry....
He still DOESNT believe. ( I am not refferring to believe in aliens either.)
Anyway....
In my opinion, (and my dad's) the movie kicks ass.
For anyone who likes sci-fi, or even just the mooshy "finding yourself" movies.
firegod
07-21-02, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Jason
Ol' Fireman isn't going to change his mind anytime soon. Surely, he must have found The Sixth Sense as equally, if not more, ridiculous since it deals with ghosts and the afterlife, something he's positive about that doesn't exist. M. Night Shyawhatta must give you headaches, eh?
Nah, I liked Sixth Sense well enough. I also like some Christian mythology movies, vampire movies, zombie movies, etc. I'm not sure why I find crop circles to be so much more ridiculous, but I do.
Originally posted by FiLm Fr3aK
ok...apperntly FireGod there isnt a sci-fi fan...
You definately need to learn a little more about me. Hell, just check out my top ten for crying out loud.
FiLm Fr3aK
07-21-02, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by firegod
Hell, just check out my top ten for crying out loud. [/B]
I did, and laughed. You like Terminator but REFUSE to see a movie that has crop circles in it...
hehehe...
So a time traveling mercinary robot is good, but circles in field..
no freakin way....
:laugh:
That is amusing.
:laugh:
Really man. to each his own. Dont see it...
You probably wouldnt like it much any way. I have read some of your posts and the movie
Heavily represents ones belief in God. In fact it is about a Father who has lost all faith and through the happenings of this movie is shown that his Faith is ttruly the only thing he had to begin with. Great movie... but for you.. probably not.
firegod
07-21-02, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by FiLm Fr3aK
I did, and laughed. You like Terminator but REFUSE to see a movie that has crop circles in it...
hehehe...
So a time traveling mercinary robot is good, but circles in field..
no freakin way....
:laugh:
That is amusing.
:laugh:
Really man. to each his own. Dont see it...
You probably wouldnt like it much any way. I have read some of your posts and the movie
Heavily represents ones belief in God. In fact it is about a Father who has lost all faith and through the happenings of this movie is shown that his Faith is ttruly the only thing he had to begin with. Great movie... but for you.. probably not.
How many people believe in time traveling cyborgs? Not too many. Unfortunately, there are many gullible people like you that believe in crop circles, and I find that to be very sad. Maybe that is one of the reasons why I don't like the subject. *shrug*
I can see how that would bug you...it's the same logic as Titanic's historical inaccuracy bugging me: some people are gonna believe it, and it spreads ignorance. However, I still think an excellent point is being made: it's not the fact that you don't "believe" in crop circles that has you less-than-excited about this flick. It's the fact that some others DO "believe" in them that seems to be causing the trouble.
If it helps you enjoy the flick any more, I seriously doubt M. Night (aka "The Man") Shyamalan believes his movie to be factual...just interesting and suspenseful. I don't think he's trying to spread anything more than an interesting over-the-top theory that should be fun to watch.
firegod
07-21-02, 07:04 PM
Yeah, I see your point. Despite what some newb claimed, I never said I wouldn't see this movie. I'm not sure yet.
FiLm Fr3aK
07-21-02, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by firegod
Unfortunately, there are many gullible people like you that believe in crop circles, and I find that to be very sad. Maybe that is one of the reasons why I don't like the subject. *shrug*
What I find is sad friend, is that some people feel that they should close out all possibilities of ANYTHING unexplainable simple BECAUSE it is unexplainable. And worse would miss out on an evening of fine science FICTION veiwing because it dealt with a subject that they felt people shouldnt believe in.
And worse still, they feel need to degrade anyone whom also has not closed off themselves to the possibility as well.
Whether it be phenominon, religion, what ever...
just to say because "it cant be proven therefore it isnt" is sad. Not to mention all of the fantastic people THEY miss out on knowing simply becuase they didnt agree with that person's ideals and branded them as idiots or such.
There is alot more to this world then what has been PROVEN, but I dont think that makes me stupid or gullible because I am not positive on some things.
It makes me sad, to know that there really are some people in this world that take day to day for just that, and dont have faith in anything or HOPE for anything other then what their day to day life has become. I wonder what could happen to make someone truelly believe there is NOTHING going on around them other then what they see.
THAT makes me sad.
If what I wrote is alittle hard to comprehend, I apologize, sometimes my mind works a hell of a lot faster then these old fingers... and stuff just kind of comes out jumbled.
or perhaps it is my gullable ignorance.
hmmm...
such a deep topic from a product of fiction.
amazing.
Sexy Celebrity
07-21-02, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by firegod
How many people believe in time traveling cyborgs? Not too many.
That makes me sad because I am a time traveling cyborg.
Hasta la vista, baby.
See? I even write like one. Need anymore proof?
I'll be back.
Watch. You'll see that I'll be back.
firegod
07-21-02, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by FiLm Fr3aK
And worse still, they feel need to degrade anyone whom also has not closed off themselves to the possibility as well.
I really don't think I degraded you until you degraded me; I degraded an idea in a MOVIE.
What I find is sad friend, is that some people feel that they should close out all possibilities of ANYTHING unexplainable simple BECAUSE it is unexplainable. And worse would miss out on an evening of fine science FICTION veiwing because it dealt with a subject that they felt people shouldnt believe in.
Whether it be phenominon, religion, what ever...
just to say because "it cant be proven therefore it isnt" is sad.
I never said anything like that, but if I am to believe that something exists, I have to have a good reason.
Not to mention all of the fantastic people THEY miss out on knowing simply becuase they didnt agree with that person's ideals and branded them as idiots or such.
Except for the idiots part, this description sounds an awful lot like YOU.
It makes me sad, to know that there really are some people in this world that take day to day for just that, and dont have faith in anything or HOPE for anything other then what their day to day life has become.
I have hope for something better; EXCUUUUUUUSE me for not agreeing with you on heaven, if that is what you are referring to.
I wonder what could happen to make someone truelly believe there is NOTHING going on around them other then what they see.
Obviously Ii believe there are things going on around me that I can't see; I'm going to assume you aren't being very literal. I'm so sorry that my lack of belief in anything spiritual, magical or superstitious bothers you so much. When I find good reason to believe in something like that, I'll let you know.
THAT makes me sad.
No. What makes you sad is trying to pick a fight with someone just because they think an idea for a movie is a silly one.
hmmm...
such a deep topic from a product of fiction.
amazing.
You're the one who made it deep. I was just bashing a movie premise I thought to be silly. Nothing too deep there. But deep is often good, even when pertaining to movies, don't ya think?
FiLm Fr3aK
07-21-02, 09:09 PM
Except for the idiots part, this description sounds an awful lot like YOU.
I am not missing out on anything friend, because I dont care what you thnk or believe. Your mind is you own fill it how ever you choose. I dont judge you for what you believe, but I will stand up and say something when you call me names and/or insuate at my stupidity.
No. What makes you sad is trying to pick a fight with someone just because they think an idea for a movie is a silly one.
No fight picking intended. but offended alittle @ the whole I'm gullible remark. Very offended. Sad? no, Offended yes.
But deep is often good, even when pertaining to movies, don't ya think?
Absolutly, that is why I want EVERYONE to see this movie. Even you....
eh-heh-heh....
Dont not see the movie because it's about crop circles, because it is, BUT it isnt.... Dont see it cause you hate Mel Gibson or something...but dont NOT see it just for that. You would miss out on a good movie.
No fight intended....
I am "Sign'd out for today".
Sexy Celebrity
07-21-02, 09:10 PM
Hi folks. I just wanted to say that I'm back, and the future was horrible! As you know (but some of you don't believe it), I am a time traveling cyborg. I first discovered that there will be a Signs 2 coming out in 2006, starring Pee Wee Herman and Shirley McClaine! There's a very disturbing love scene between them in a crop circle. Then, because of the money it will make from that, there's going to be a Signs 3 in 2010, starring Michael Jackson as an alien and a hot newcomer babe named Beverly Frydo who plays a crop circle expert.
But the really scary thing about the future is that in 2012, they're going to make a sequel to Battlefield: Earth. We're doomed!
Do you believe in time traveling cyborgs now?
firegod
07-21-02, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by FiLm Fr3aK
No fight picking intended. but offended alittle @ the whole I'm gullible remark. Very offended. Sad? no, Offended yes.
I thought you were taking a few stabs at me, so I thought it would only be polite to return the favor. :)
Originally posted by Jason
Hi folks. I just wanted to say that I'm back, and the future was horrible! As you know (but some of you don't believe it), I am a time traveling cyborg. I first discovered that there will be a Signs 2 coming out in 2006, starring Pee Wee Herman and Shirley McClaine! There's a very disturbing love scene between them in a crop circle. Then, because of the money it will make from that, there's going to be a Signs 3 in 2010, starring Michael Jackson as an alien and a hot newcomer babe named Beverly Frydo who plays a crop circle expert.
But the really scary thing about the future is that in 2012, they're going to make a sequel to Battlefield: Earth. We're doomed!
Do you believe in time traveling cyborgs now?
Lol. That is frigging hilarious.:laugh:
FiLm Fr3aK
07-21-02, 09:22 PM
I thought you were taking a few stabs at me
I would NEVER stab you in PUBLIC...
I would politely pm you and it would more then likely start off with "you suck" since that IS my favorite phrase... LOL...
POINT....
I WOULD NEVER STAB YOU IN PUBLIC.
:D
firegod
07-21-02, 09:24 PM
*Steals all sharp instruments from FF*
FiLm Fr3aK
07-21-02, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by firegod
*Steals all sharp instruments from FF*
Fair enough...
**hides nail file DEEP in purse.**
Sexy Celebrity
07-21-02, 09:28 PM
What's more hilarious is that Michael Jackson's crop circles are actually on his face. They're the scars that the doctors leave after they crop off some of his skin.
*grabs reins*
I'm getting this thread back on the road. :D Surely a flick as cool an interesting as Signs provides us with more on-topic courses of conversation, yes? :)
I'll probably end up seeing SIQNS twice this summer. From the trailers, the atmosphere looks pretty creepy (the music is as well). Do you guys think M. Night will be doing thrillers for his whole career?
And so, M. Night Shyamalan has made his masterpiece. Signs is the most marvelously directed movie I've seen this year, not to mention the most atmospheric cerebral thriller in ages, the most tense 2 hours in a theater since I can't even remember, and along with Minority Report, the best film Hollywood has offered this summer.
From the opening credits until the closing shot, I was in the palm of Shyamalan's hand. It's almost like reading a story by Edgar Allen Poe - unity of effect is used to such an advantage that it's impossible to focus on anything but what's happening on the screen. He has a tremendous command of actors, too - Mel Gibson is miles better than I ever imagined he could be, and both children are subtly, and suitably, both bizzare and compelling at the same time. Not a shot is wasted in achieving the emotional payoffs in the last act of the film, which is wrapped up not with the typical "twist" of Shyamalan's previous 2 movies, but in a much more poetic and interesting way. I admired The Sixth Sense, liked Unbreakable, but I love Signs :love:. It's one of my favorite movies I've seen this year.
C'mon Steve, you know better than that. The thread was only a few clicks down, too. For shame. :D The threads have been merged now, though.
Anyhoo, I saw the flick today...expect a review tomorrow. :yup:
My bad, I didn't see it. You like the movie, yes? :yup:
This movie took me for a ride, one helluva emotional ride. I've never been so scared during or after a movie. I can think of absolutely nothing that would have made this movie better. Shyamalan owns everyone that sees this movie.
I often say movies are the best movie ever, but I rarely say they are masterpieces. Signs was a flatout, hands down, masterpiece. Signs kicked my ass.
Austruck
08-03-02, 01:22 PM
I'm posting this here (I posted it in another Signs thread as well), because I'm incredibly curious to get an answer to my question.
It seems I am the only person this has happened to, but I want to confirm it.
I saw Signs yesterday afternoon with my two daughters and husband. In every scene that had characters talking but not with any close-up shots, we could see the boom microphone hanging down in the shot. And I mean REALLY see it. It hung down about a third of the height of the screen. And it would move to whichever actor was speaking. All told, I'd say that microphone was visible for close to half the movie when you count up all the scenes it was in.
After a few shots of this boom mic, people figured out what it was, and we'd all giggle when it came on screen because it just looked so OBVIOUS hanging there and moving around. I wasn't sure whether to find it funny and unique (an experience to tell about later), or to be ticked that the suspension of disbelief was so much harder. I mean, really, it's kinda tough to be totally scared when Mel Gibson is telling Joaquin Phoenix about something scary about to happen when there's this obvious set microphone bopping back and forth from one guy to the other right over their heads!
I assume this didn't happen to anyone else? Has anyone ever heard of this happening -- and so OBVIOUSLY? Does anyone know how they mass produce copies of movies for theatres? Could it have been cut wrong from the get-go?
My husband seemed to think the projectionist just had the tracking wrong...because the movie usually spreads out past the screen anyway, but I've been to movies where the tracking has been off (Austin Powers last week, for instance), and you can't see any mics. You just see the seam of the film at the wrong spot, and the bottom is cut off and is at the top of the screen instead.
I just can't imagine any film director sending off copies of his film ON PURPOSE with the boom mic hanging down 1/3 of the screen in EVERY OTHER SCENE, hoping that a thousand projectionists in a thousand theatres will track the thing right so you can't see the microphones.
Someone help me out. This was too weird for words....
Or is it just...a sign???
Linda
Your husband was right, the porjectionist just got the tracking wrong. The entire widescreen (with the boom mics) is sent out to theaters and it is the projectionist job to frame it right so that those parts aren't projected on to the visible screen, you just got unlucky.
Austruck
08-03-02, 02:33 PM
I don't mean to question you, but how do you know? This just sounds so weird to me, especially since I'm 41, and have never seen or heard of this happening before.
And, if this is true, why is it that when they get the vertical tracking wrong, you don't seem boom mics, you just see the "seam" in the wrong spot, and the top of the screen contains the bottom part of the image?
I would have thought that I'd have heard of this happening before now if it were all up to the projectionist (I've seen a lot of screen screwups in my time), but no one I've talked to has ever heard of this.
Just curious, not trying to be a skeptic....
Linda
well honest answer:
I was watching an SVCD of Undercover Brother that I downloaded and it was fullscreen with the mics in it. I had already seen it in theaters twice so I was really surprised to see the mics on screen, since I hadn't noticed it in theater. I orignially asked Steve if he saw them, because I knew he had seen it multiple times too, and he gave that explaination to me. Then I asked my friends uncle who owns a movie theater and he told me the exact same thing. Not all movies are shipped out like that, just a majority of the ones, it saves time on editing the entire movie. You just got unlucky and the projectionist did a bum job on cropping those sections of the film out.
Austruck
08-03-02, 10:04 PM
Thanks for the answer, Og. That's the kind of answer I was looking for -- someone who owns a theatre, etc. And perhaps the Austin Powers film was distributed without the mics in it, because we didn't see any mics when the vertical hold thing was off for a few minutes.
Darn, so it's not a Sign then? Bummer. :(
Linda
(who really needs some hobbies)
Sorry for the delay. Saw it again. :D
"Signs" - Shymalan's Latest, and Greatest (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/index.html?id=198)
Excellent, excellent flick. I can't stress its brilliance enough. Wonderfully refreshing. Any doubts I had that Hollywood was headed in the wrong direction (not that I had many) have been completely vanquished.
Austruck
08-04-02, 12:39 PM
I love the review, and agree with all of it except this part:
"Every other scene, it seems, offers up a cleverly placed shot. Night's framing of his characters in just the right position turns tedium into tension."
Then again, I had boom mics in every other scene, so what do I know?
:)
Just kiddin' -- even WITH the mics in every other shot, we were thrilled. It was everything I'd hoped for, and more. I wasn't the biggest fan of Unbreakable, but I did love The Sixth Sense. This surpasses it. The only weirdness was Shyamalan as the vet. Because the part was bigger than others he's cast himself in, he kinda stuck out like a sore thumb. I kept thinking, "Oh look, there's the director." But that's a minor point.
Can't wait to see it again ... this time at a different theatre.
Ironically, I said the EXACT same thing after coming out of the film...it was really the only flaw I could find with the movie. It wasn't that he wasn't good (he was)...he's a fine actor. It's just too difficult to forget that he's M. Night Shyamalan. He was the only character that I recognized as an actor rather than a character at any point. It didn't ruin things, but I do think it was a bad idea...he should've had a smaller part.
Saw it again yesterday -- twice in as many days. Loved it just as much the second time.
Austruck
08-04-02, 12:46 PM
I'll have to talk you into a third time next weekend. :)
And, saying "Oh look, there's the director" was still better than all the times I was thinking, "Oh look, there's the microphone."
I'd like to see it again to see how much more I like it when I can pay attention to what's going on rather than staring at the bouncing microphone. We missed several small scenes of dialogue because we'd all be whispering to each other, "Is that a microphone?" or "Look, there it is again!"
Very distracting. And yet we still loved the film. I guess that says something right there.
FiLm Fr3aK
08-04-02, 12:56 PM
I too loved your review... but ummm......
all except this one little phrase....
local zit-infested video store clerk
I do not have zits.
That is a very biggoted remark, you can not stereo type ALL video store employees because you have un attractive ones at your favorite video store.
I am appauled, offended....
:rotfl:
sadesdrk
08-05-02, 01:35 AM
Okay. Instead of reading any more of the discussion, NOT really related to reviewing this movie...
I'll go ahead and post my thoughts on Signs.
I thought this movie was brilliant. If you left the theater and all you had to say was something along the lines of," It was SO scary...blah blah, jumped in my seat! Blah blah blah, gotta go see it, you'll be SCARED."
Then you missed the movie completely and you're a sad sap.
I was told to go see the movie because it was scary and that's what I went for: To see a scary movie.
Guess what horror movie fans, it wasn't scary. Well, it was and it wasn't.
This film comes in the form of a thrilling sci-fi, but delivers a heartfelt, emotional rollercoaster. Mel Gibson just about ripped my heart out with every line. The rest of the cast was just as gripping; down to the little girl with the big soulful eyes and the sugary voice. The emotional and spiritual turmoil behind the context of the movie, was enough of a distraction to me, that I didn't get hung up on the fear--which i found interesting...considering one of Mel's lines towards the middle of the movie...:) Anyhoo--
I loved Signs.
It's my favorite movie that I've seen this year...just a notch above Insomnia.
If you haven't seen yet; you gotta go, straight away, before someone ruins it and tell you something you wouldn't want to know going into it.
rudeboyben
08-05-02, 10:08 AM
I liked this film but is no way worth 4 and a half.
It was all to quiet, they just over played the whispering but i think it is sad that you all think it is so great and i don't i feel like i am missing out on something.
It just seemed like an old idea to me with a few touch ups for now days audience.:(
What old idea is that? Suspense? Heartwrenching emotions? :rolleyes:
I Love Signs! I only saw it once though...:(. Oh well, I guess I'll have to make sure that they stock Boom-mic-free copies of it :yup:.
sadesdrk
08-05-02, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by rudeboyben
It was all to quiet, they just over played the whispering but i think it is sad that you all think it is so great and i don't i feel like i am missing out on something....well, you did.
It just seemed like an old idea to me with a few touch ups for now days audience.:( [/B] :rolleyes: Hmmm...yeah. Okay.
rudeboyben
08-05-02, 12:15 PM
don't get me wrong i thought this film was ok but it just lacked something. The idea of alain invation has been done before. Maybe it was because the name Signs made me think it was going to be a jolly film about crop circles. Maybe it just lacked something in the storyline. I think i will see this in the cinema to see if it makes any difference but then again watching it on a 28" widescreen isn't that bad.
I give it a 2 1/2 out of five. :p
You're right, the concept of aliens (or the potential for aliens) has been done before...just not like this. The crop circles were inconsequential. It could've easily been something else. The story is about a man and his family. That's where the focus is. This was NOT like any other "are aliens among us?" movie. Not by a long shot.
Originally posted by rudeboyben
It was all to quiet, they just over played the whispering but i think it is sad that you all think it is so great and i don't i feel like i am missing out on something.
The silence is what I appreciate most about Signs. Of all the American movies I've watched this summer, it is the quietest, the most willing to let images speak over words (and yes, I'm including the awful Road to Perdition). That fascinates me, but if it's not to your taste, then, you know, whatever blows your hair back. It really is your loss.
Shyamalan is one of the few directors working within the Hollywood system whom thoughtful moviegoers can rely on, in my opinion. And my feelings for this movie haven't changed. I'm not much interested in Signs for its religious undertones, nor for its plot, really. I'm interested in the craft, the manipulation, the complete control Shyamalan has over the viewer. I haven't seen another movie this year that feels so claustrophobic. And the fact that he accomplished this within the studio system gives me much more hope than, say, trash like Men in Black 2 grossing however many millions of dollars its opening weekend. Signs is most definitely a gift to us all, and one of the finest movies of the year.
I don't think the undertones are necessarily religious, Steve. At least, not specifically. When I think of religion, I think of a specific religion. The undertones here are more about fate. And, whether you agree with it or not, I think you'll have to agree that the point was made masterfully.
Night's movies are a sign (forgive the pun...I swear, it wasn't intended) to us in big, red letters: movies can definitely be amazing AND financially successful. The two don't need to be exclusive.
I'm hesitant to say so...but he may be my favorite filmmaker at this point. He's three-for-three in my tally (though I've yet to see two of his features...but that'll be remedied before long).
He's one of the few directors who, at this point, I feel completely confident with. I know that whatever he puts out next, I'll enjoy it. I know he'll take me for an incredible ride each time. I can't say the same for anyone else, I don't think.
Originally posted by Yoda
I don't think the undertones are necessarily religious, Steve. At least, not specifically. When I think of religion, I think of a specific religion. The undertones here are more about fate. And, whether you agree with it or not, I think you'll have to agree that the point was made masterfully.
Personally, I thought the movie was ambiguous toward the subject of religion. It was implied but it wasn't made explicit. But it was all about faith - one of the more prominent character traits of Gibson's ex-priest was that he had lost his faith...and by the end, had found it again.
And I doubt Shyamalan's decision not to name a specific religion was without tact - the movie could be a recruiting poster for a religious cult if it had named Christianity or Islam as its focus. Don't think I'm nitpicking, by the way. I loved the movie, just for my own set of reasons.
Night's movies are a sign (forgive the pun...I swear, it wasn't intended) to us in big, red letters: movies can definitely be amazing AND financially successful. The two don't need to be exclusive.
I don't think they need to be...but more often than not, they are. When Signs grosses $100 million, I don't think there's any way of knowing if its gross has connections to its quality and not its ad campaign and theater count. After all, Men in Black 2 made money as well.
I'm hesitant to say so...but he may be my favorite filmmaker at this point. He's three-for-three in my tally (though I've yet to see two of his features...but that'll be remedied before long).
He's one of the few directors who, at this point, I feel completely confident with. I know that whatever he puts out next, I'll enjoy it. I know he'll take me for an incredible ride each time. I can't say the same for anyone else, I don't think.
You could definitely choose a much worse director. Good call on him, if he's really your favorite.
LordSlaytan
08-05-02, 11:14 PM
And I doubt Shyamalan's decision not to name a specific religion was without tact - the movie could be a recruiting poster for a religious cult if it had named Christianity or Islam as its focus.
I believe the only preists that can get married and have children are the Episcopalians.
I enjoyed myself tremendously watching this movie. There are soooo many bad movies made with the invasion plot. Luckily, invasion is not this movies real plot. It's about how a man who lost so much gets a chance to get some of it back under extraordinary circumstances. I shed a couple of tears during this film, like (to ambiguous to be a spoiler) the big meal at the dinner table scene. I enjoy it when a movie can do that.
The acting was all exceptional, and the score was excellent. I think alot of times it was the score that got my nerve endings twanging away. There were also other parts of the film that was able to give me a chill, like (and this is in the trailer, so it's not a spoiler) when the Joaquin Phoenix character is watching the news and puts his hand over his mouth and gasps. That whole sequence was quite chilling to me, but there were also others.
IMHO this is Shyamalans best work so far, Sixth Sence being second, and although I like Bruce Willis just fine, I'm glad someone else got a chance to star in one of his movies.
Four Stars! Two Thumbs Up!! A Must See!!! And Gene Schallit liked it!!!!!...wait Gene likes everything!!!!!
Thank you Mr. Shyamalan, for giving me a third wonderful theatre experience.
Originally posted by LordSlaytan
I believe the only preists that can get married and have children are the Episcopalians.
Naw. I believe Presbyterians can, too. I think Baptists can, as well.
Anyhoo, I completely agree on the music: Shyamalan uses music very well in his movies...which is lacking today, in my opinion. I hate it when the score is played down in a flick. It should be a big part of movies like this.
LordSlaytan
08-06-02, 12:04 AM
Naw. I believe Presbyterians can, too. I think Baptists can, as well.
They're not collar wearing priests.
Well, I don't know if Episcopalians always are, either. I think it depends. I've been to three Episcopalian churches around here and all of them had priests in long robes (usually white, I think). Maybe there's a certain sub-section that wears that, though. I'm not sure.
moviefan20
08-06-02, 06:53 PM
This movie was amazing, i was left in suspense the whole time, it kinda plays with the thought of God and the end time, which really gets your mind thinking about what you really believe.
LordSlaytan
08-06-02, 07:31 PM
Yoda, all I meant was that in the group of Catholic sects, Episcopalians are the only Priests that are allowed to get married and have children. Babtists and Presbyterians are sects of standard Christianity. All sects of standard Christianity are allowed to get married and have children. Besides, there are no Priests among them, rather Ministers, Reverands, and Evangalists. ALso they are not called Father, because Women can be any form of church leader but Priest. I hope I made more sence this time.:goof:
Austruck
08-06-02, 09:41 PM
Yes, Episcopalians are definitely not Catholic. They had a Reformation just as the Presbys did.
But, he's definitely not Presby or Methodist or Baptist. The fact that people called him "Father" and he wore a collar and he was a priest and was married ... all seem to point to Episcopalian.
Presbys, Baptists, Methodists, etc., are called ministers, are not called "Father" but rather "Pastor" or "Reverend," and some wear collars and some don't.
But, they never actually called him an Episcopalian ... because that wasn't really the point. It was a tangential issue.
L.
firegod
08-06-02, 09:42 PM
I hope I'm not being too picky, but the Episcopal church is a Protestant denomination, not Catholic.
Edit: Yeah, what she said! :)
Austruck
08-06-02, 09:45 PM
P.S. You can call an Episcopal priest "Father." Well, if he's a guy. :)
A woman Anglican priest we used to call "Reverend."
Saw this flick for a third time. I love it even more now.
My friend Adam was utterly terrified by this film. I've never seen him in that sort of state before. He literally bit a hole in his shirt. He kept grabbing my sleeve and pulling me next to him and was constantly saying things like "are they gonna be okay? Seriously, tell me if something's about to jump out at them. Seriously."
I didn't, of course...and as a result he jumped out of his seat more than once. He was seriously freaked out. His eyes were watery on the drive home...he was like yelling about how everyone needs to see it because it scared him "sh*tless," as he likes to put it. He repeated that maybe half a dozen times. He was genuinely terrified. It was surreal.
sadesdrk
08-07-02, 11:57 AM
I have a question.
Anyone else get distracted by all the emotional content? Or was it just me?
I keep hearing about how scary it was...but I almost thought it was more emotional than frightening. Anyone?
I saw Signs a couple of times already and I do think it's creepy--- yet emotional???? Yes. To me with the "end of the world"or "Losing of faith" and especially I was literally teary eyed with Mel's performance at the kitchen table. Don't forget his son as well .....I almost thought he was gonna die :( .
It was truly emotional.
Austruck
08-07-02, 12:30 PM
I think that's part of what made it so scary -- the emotional parts that tied you to the characters themselves. They were so well-cast and well-acted that you cared about them, and therefore anything that threatened them scared you.
Originally posted by jrs
I was literally teary eyed with Mel's performance at the kitchen table.
Ditto. I've glazed over all three times I've seen that scene.
Originally posted by The Lady
I have a question.
Anyone else get distracted by all the emotional content? Or was it just me?
I keep hearing about how scary it was...but I almost thought it was more emotional than frightening. Anyone?
Definitely. It's a scary film, no doubt (amazingly suspenseful), but that's not what knocked my socks off. I was far more impressed with how well the movie made its point about fate, and faith. In the end, the movie was indeed about Signs -- just not the ones we expected. When you think about it, the movie's title is one of the cleverest things about it.
The emotional connection with the characters was amazing. It drew you in...it made you the fifth member of their family...and then it put you under fire. You're not thinking "run from the aliens" as much as you're thinking "please, please, please, please let this family survive.
FiLm Fr3aK
08-07-02, 03:55 PM
though I rarely agree with Roger Ebert.
This is one of the best Review for Signs (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/08/080205.html) I have read to date.
:up: :up:
Austruck
08-07-02, 05:01 PM
This is a very good review. He puts it all very well, exactly as I felt too. Thanks for posting this link!
sunfrog
08-07-02, 07:03 PM
I didn't like it, nothing happened, I didn't like M Night's smiley face, I didn't see how you know who got in the pantry. It felt like a bad remake. They couldn't fight.
I have no idea what you just said, sunfrog.
mecurdius
08-08-02, 06:30 AM
sorry been gone for a couple of weeks.
I thought this movie was great ****ing great.
I only have one problem, i cant find the theme anywhere, where the hell is it i need help!
and as for the hoax thing dont argue until you have seen the movie. If you are still argueing it, see it again, and realize how much of an idiot you are.
firegod
08-08-02, 10:43 AM
Bite me.
:rotfl:
I love it:
If you are still argueing it, see it again, and realize how much of an idiot you are.
Blunt, much? :D
Anyway, the hoax thing just doesn't hold up. In the movie they fully acknowledge that it can be done, and has been done, as a hoax...in the movie, however, they start showing up very rapidly, in such a way as to imply one helluva conspiracy.
Am on vacatiion in bucks county PA, and just went out to this theater in Prussia, where I saw signs on a 7 story screen. freakin-awesome. Even cooler because the movie takes place in bucks county. My uncle even took me out to the farm where they filmed it, everything was dismantled, but still definitley a plus. I'll agree with everyone when they call M. Night the next Spielberg, but it just sounds so weird, and wrong to say. Espescially because Speilberg is still out there, actively making movies. I dont know...
SIgns was good, and I think Shyamalan is definitley getting better direction-wise.
sunfrog
08-08-02, 05:55 PM
I can't believe you guys loved this movie so much. :D
Yod, I said the movie was very suspenseful but after 2 hours nothing happened, then when it did the aliens couldn't fight. If someone hit me with a baseball bat I wouldn't stand there and watch him do it again. Hmm.. that hurt, I wonder if it'll hurt if he hits me again. As for finding religion again he could have just gone to the zoo and looked at a platypus. How did that naked guy get in the pantry? I didn't like M's smiley face in the movie saying I kiiled your wife. Blah, as soon as I saw him all I could think about was how he put himself in the movie. It was VERY distracting.
And ALL crop circle are fake. The fact that you can't explain 7% means, you can't explain 7%. If you can't name 7% of the Phillies that doesn't mean they are aliens. If you can only identitfy 99% of ufo sighting that doesn't mean that other 1% MUST be aliens, they could be funky birds, or planes, or balloons or flying platypuses. One of them doesn't HAVE TO BE an alien they could be anything.
Hmmm, a few things.
1 - Nothing happened? What does it matter if the movie is eventful? It's a story...it doesn't have to be action-packed. Real life isn't always action-packed.
2 - Have you ever been hit square in the spine with a baseball bat? Do you really think you'd do such a hot job of stopping the next blow? What if your fingers had been cut off, too?
3 - I don't get the platypus thing. It sounds like some sort of joke.
4 - The alien was locked in the pantry by Ray. He said so.
As for crop circles: I think you're missing the point. The idea is that you'd need one helluva conspiracy going to have all these circles showing up all over the world around the same time.
FiLm Fr3aK
08-08-02, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by sunfrog
And ALL crop circle are fake. The fact that you can't explain 7% means, you can't explain 7%. If you can't name 7% of the Phillies that doesn't mean they are aliens. If you can only identitfy 99% of ufo sighting that doesn't mean that other 1% MUST be aliens, they could be funky birds, or planes, or balloons or flying platypuses. One of them doesn't HAVE TO BE an alien they could be anything.
You made our point there too there froggy.
7% cant be explained, doesnt mean that they are fake, just means they cant be explained. This movie CHOSE to use the alien thing as one possibility, it could've used funky birds, or planes, or balloons or flying platypuses, reguardless the explaination for the circles wouldnt have changed the POINT of the movie.
Like Yoda said: the hoax thing just doesn't hold up. In the movie they fully acknowledge that it can be done, and has been done, as a hoax...in the movie, however, they start showing up very rapidly, in such a way as to imply one helluva conspiracy.
that doesnt even matter because it wasnt the POINT of the movie... Mr M wasnt trying to tell us about crop circles... he was trying to tell us a story about fate. Hell the title SIGNS isnt even refferring to the circles.
Anyhoo...
that is my 2 cents.
--Peace.
sadesdrk
08-09-02, 12:33 AM
Sunfrog~ I read through your posts, and they don't make sense, pal. Nope...not even the littlest bit. Getting hung up on the crop circle thingie, is really lame, too, by the way. The movie isn't even about that...in fact, no! Dwell on it as much as you want, it just proves how little you understood the film.
I agree with a point that Steve said, the quietness and stillness of the movie is what made it so sweet; you Action Junkies can keep your Men In Black, Signs was my kind of "alien movie"--it was smart.
moviefan20
08-09-02, 01:37 PM
It was emotional in the sense of having faith, and losing loved ones and not believing in God and stuff, i mean maybe 1/3 of it dealt with Aliens, and the other 2/3 dealt with believing. I mean the guy was a Father for crying out loud, and his wife died right there in front of him.
Edited by Sades:Gee wiz, moviefan. Use some spoilers when you talk about film plots like that. Throw me a freakin' bone here. :rolleyes: I'm glad you agree with me, though. Cool.
sunfrog
08-09-02, 08:16 PM
The point was
He lost faith cuz his wife died and didn't believe God would do that, he is a priest and whutnot, then he saw an alien and saw God in it. The crop circles could be done easily by a bunch of mofo's on the internet that decided to do it. My gripe is that if there are going to be aliens in a movie I want to see some mass destruction. ;D After being hit in the spine it was like 10 minutes later that he was hit again. Also people who hate God and say they don't believe in Him haven't really lost faith because you have to believe in Him for you to hate Him.
Okay, there are several things wrong with what you said, in my opinion. :)
1 - It's never spelled out for us WHY he loses his Faith. It's probably a combination of things. I thought it was obvious, however, that he sees no good reason for his wife's death, and assumes there is no Divine Plan, or anything of the sort. He sees it as a random, painful act.
2 - M. Night is hardly responsible for what you expected the aliens to do. I think the fact that it wasn't all ID4ish is its STRONG point...not its weak point. The movie was not about aliens. I think everyone needs to get that through their head. The focus was not, nor should it have been, on the aliens. If he'd gone with the standard alien movie formula, like some are suggesting, he'd just be churning out more assembly-line crap. Instead, he did something new...and it was f*cking brilliant.
3 - It wasn't anywhere near 10 minutes later. It was more like 30 seconds later. Do you think you'd be back in attack mode 30 seconds after being hit in the spine with a baseball bat by a young man specifically known for his power when it comes to hitting baseballs? I think not.
4 - He never said he hated God. Maybe you imagined that part...I've seen the film three times, however, and his character doesn't say anything like that at all.
sunfrog
08-09-02, 09:53 PM
2. Why did it have aliens in it at all? It could have been- wife dies, he turns from God, one day his cute daughter says "daddy take me to the zoo", he sees a platypus and regains his belief in God.
Well he hit him with the bat, the alien kinda hung out for a while, Mel got the boy and walked calmly outside, did some praying, Joaquin and the alien looked at each other and came to a mutual agreement that he would be hit with a bat again, then he hit him with the bat. That had to take more than 30 seconds. I didn't say he hated God, you're the one who can tell so much from facial expressions. It's clear he hates God by the movement of his eyebrows. :laugh:
This movie felt kinda like a remake to me. Like stuff had to happen and they couldn't change the story too much because it was a remake.
Why waste space with so called "spoilers" .....just write.
LordSlaytan
08-09-02, 10:11 PM
He said he hated God during his boys asthma attack. He says it twice.
Why waste space with so called "spoilers" .....just write.
We don't want to spoil things for anyone who may not have seen it yet.
Anyhoo, onto the rebuttals. :)
1 - It had aliens in it because it was more interesting that way. If he'd done it in the zoo, you'd probably be asking why he didn't choose a more interesting setting. :rolleyes: I think you're really grasping at straws with this "complaint." Every movie can go in a million directions...I don't see why you'd question this particular one.
2 - The alien did not "hang out." He dropped the kid and kinda twisted around a bit. While this was happening, Gibson took Morgan outside, and Bo followed him. Then, she peeked back in the window, and the alien was bracing to attack Merrill...he then smashed some glasses of water in its direction, though. At least, that's the rough order of things. I saw no problem whatsoever.
Maybe they're just not very fast. Maybe the ones sneaking around in the fields were the quick ones...the scouts. The ones sent to actually grab us and take us away, however, may have been stronger and slower. There's a dozen reasons for why the fight could have gone that way.
3 - I don't get the joke you're making. My point is the same: he never said he hated God. He didn't believe in God anymore...or, if he did, he didn't think God was someone who looked out for anyone. So, whatever the reason, he stripped religion from his life. I don't see where you're finding complaint with that. I really don't.
4 - The remake thing is just a gut reaction I suppose...though I honestly have no idea what you're getting at. I can't really imagine how a movie could feel like a remake...how it could feel like it's just following some old plot, when there's no old plot to compare it to. It's not like other alien movies at all...you said so yourself, more or less. Because of that, I find it odd that you would say it seems like a remake.
Originally posted by LordSlaytan
He said he hated God during his boys asthma attack. He says it twice.
No, he said "I hate you." It's never specified that he's talking to God. However, his son says "I hate you" to him earlier...so I think it's implied that he's saying it BACK to him. That's the impression everyone I've seen it with got. There are other potential explanations, too, but that one seems far and away the most fitting.
sunfrog
08-10-02, 09:05 PM
My complaint is that it had aliens but it wasn't about aliens, it was about a guy and his faith. Why have crop circles and aliens just for background story. When the aliens did the distraction thing I thought, oh! the aliens are geniuses! but they didn't go that way.
What if crop circles are not fake. What if the very first one was real and it freaked the farmer out. What if people made fun of him so to prove them wrong he made some fake crop circles himself in an attempt to contact the aliens. What if he made a couple more in desperation then the locals made some without his knowing to tease him and then it made the news and copycats arose around the country and that's how the whole crop circle thing really started. Meanwhile on the mothership, through coincidence and bad spelling the aliens mistake our tomfoolery as a declaration of war and wait for reinforcements while Mel's wife dies in a car crash and the whole Mel story goes on then the aliens attack and they are geniuses. They do all kinds of genius moves on Mel's family and only by accident and lots of running do they escape. Maybe Mel prays and it rains That would explain crop circles, work them into the story and allow Mel's faith story a divine ending.
No offense, but are you on crack?
You can "what if" all day. I have nothing against legitimate criticism, or a simple difference of taste, but I fully admit I have no sympathy for criticisms that make no sense. Your criticisms can be applied to any film...that's why they're not really valid criticisms. It's just a bunch of "hey, why did it go THIS way?" If you want to ask a question like that, you have to show what was WRONG with the way they went.
My complaint is that it had aliens but it wasn't about aliens, it was about a guy and his faith.
That's a complaint? If a movie has aliens in it, it has to be ABOUT those aliens, primarily? :skeptical:
And why is it just aliens? What about The Silence of the Lambs? It had Hannibal, but it wasn't really ABOUT Hannibal. But I'll bet you liked that flick, yes?
I also don't understand (at all) what most of your post is getting at. Are you suggesting an alternative plot?
The Silver Bullet
08-10-02, 09:14 PM
This might be offensive, but as I haven't seen the film and I've read the spoilers anyhow, can I just say, that Sunfrog is writing some of the stupidest posts I've read in a long, long time?
Stupid in a good way, of course.
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Stupid in a good way, of course.
And by good, you mean bad. But in the end, aren't the worst things really the best? The answer is "no."
:D
The Silver Bullet
08-10-02, 09:21 PM
The dream is over.
But is it really over?
Yes. Yes it is.
Or is it?
sunfrog
08-10-02, 10:11 PM
Who said I was complaining. I said I didn't like the movie because after 2 hours of suspense the suspense wears off and I wanted something to happen. It didn't. The aliens just left. An alternate plot would have been good. I don't have to prove that. How do I prove I didn't like it?
If it has aliens yes, it does have to be about aliens. I wanted to see a movie about aliens. The alien was in it what 10 minutes at the very end? And then it just flopped over.
The Silver Bullet
08-10-02, 10:23 PM
It wasn't a film about aliens already!!
LordSlaytan
08-10-02, 10:27 PM
No, he said "I hate you." It's never specified that he's talking to God. However, his son says "I hate you" to him earlier...so I think it's implied that he's saying it BACK to him
You've got to be kidding. Why would he say that to his son while he may be dying? Plus, he was saying, "Not again". Of course he's conversing with God. He's pissed because He took his wife, after countless years of selfless service to Him, and now it looks like He's taking his son too. He says, "No, not again", then, "I hate You"...twice.
BTW, I think you just want to argue with me, because the only responses I've gotten from anyone, is you telling me I'm wrong about something. No offence, but I'm pretty sure about this.;)
It wasn't a film about aliens already!!
F*ckin' A. Because it contains aliens at ALL, the movie has to FOCUS on them? WTF?
You've got to be kidding. Why would he say that to his son while he may be dying? Plus, he was saying, "Not again". Of course he's conversing with God. He's pissed because he took his wife, after countless years of selfless service to him, and now it looks like He's taking his son too. He says, "No, not again", then, "I hate You"...twice.
I'm not kidding at all. Why would he say that to his son? Because he's mad at the fact that he may be about to endure all that pain over again. He doesn't MEAN it, for crying out loud. As for "not again," he could just as easily be saying that to himself.
He could've been talking to God...but I saw the flick three times, and I got the impression there was no conversing with God there whatsoever.
HOWEVER, let's assume for a moment he was talking to God: that doesn't interfere with the notion that he didn't believe in God, because that scene came late in the movie...and obviously, near the end (an exact moment is never specified), he starts to believe again.
BTW, I think you just want to argue with me, because the only responses I've gotten from anyone, is you telling me I'm wrong about something. No offence, but I'm pretty sure about this. ;)
No offense taken. I hope you won't take offense when I tell you that you're most definitely wrong, though. :) I wouldn't argue with you if I didn't genuinely disagree.
LordSlaytan
08-10-02, 10:40 PM
It just blows me away you can't tell who he was speaking to. To my freinds and I, it was obvious. Oh well. I was part of no other argument about the film, I just piped in that he did say it at one point. Sungods views are his and his alone. I've seen Signs twice now, and have to say its the best movie I've seen this year.
No offense taken. I hope you won't take offense when I tell you that you're most definitely wrong, though. I wouldn't argue with you if I didn't genuinely disagree.
Ooohhhhh Yeeaaahhhhhh?!?!?!?!?:laugh:
Actually, it's sunfrog -- methinks you've performed some bizarre mating ritual with sunfrog and firegod -- AKA The Lowercase Gang. :D
You're right, though: it's the best of 2002 thus far. It's even (dare I say?) worthy of a Best Picture nomination at this point. Hell. The Sixth Sense got one...why can't Signs? I don't think it has a chance in hell of winning, though, and frankly, I doubt the Academy will even recognize it with the nomination it's likely to deserve. Ah well.
sunfrog
08-10-02, 11:47 PM
What? Ok, now I'm confused. You're saying it wasn't about aliens AND it wasn't about him being mad at God because he didn't even talk to God? So what was it about, baseball? Farming? Being a good parent? Now I'm really confused.
Yes, if it has aliens in it and it has a big crop circle on the poster it HAS to be about aliens.
He was talking to God when he said I hate you.
I like sungod. ;)
No, it WAS about God and Faith and Fate. Just because I'm saying I don't think he was necessarily talking to God, it doesn't in the least mean that I don't think the movie was about that. I don't see why that would confuse you.
Anyway, back on-topic. I want to make sure I have this thread:
You dislike this movie because the POSTER has a crop circle on it and it contains aliens. As a result, it was your assumption that the movie would FEATURE these aliens as the central characters...as the big, cool, focal point of things. Like in ID4 or something. But because M. Night went in another direction, you didn't like it? :confused:
I can understand why you might expect more alien stuff...but what I don't understand is why it's automatically bad when you don't get what you expect. I walk into lots of movies expecting things I don't get...but what I expected is irrelevant as to whether or not it was any good. And besides: M. Night can't be held responsible for assumptions people make before the film's release. The flick needs to stand on its own, aside from the marketing...and it does.
Anyhoo, the poster thing was probably deliberate. The whole point is that you THINK the "signs" the movie's title refers to are the crop circles...hence their prominence on the poster and everything. The trick is that the signs are actually other things. It's call misdirection...M. Night's known for it.
Originally posted by Yoda
Anyway, back on-topic. I want to make sure I have this thread:
You dislike this movie because the POSTER has a crop circle on it and it contains aliens. As a result, it was your assumption that the movie would FEATURE these aliens as the central characters...as the big, cool, focal point of things. Like in ID4 or something. But because M. Night went in another direction, you didn't like it? :confused:
To be fair, Independence Day wasn't really about aliens either.
I can understand why you might expect more alien stuff...but what I don't understand is why it's automatically bad when you don't get what you expect. I walk into lots of movies expecting things I don't get...but what I expected is irrelevant as to whether or not it was any good. And besides: M. Night can't be held responsible for assumptions people make before the film's release. The flick needs to stand on its own, aside from the marketing...and it does.
Right, right, and right. For once. :)
Anyhoo, the poster thing was probably deliberate. The whole point is that you THINK the "signs" the movie's title refers to are the crop circles...hence their prominence on the poster and everything. The trick is that the signs are actually other things. It's call misdirection...M. Night's known for it.
I thought the "signs" were the crop circles. But then, I loved the movie for its technical aspects and its rhythm. The religious implications don't interest me at all, really, nor does the plot itself. For me, M. Night Shyamalan was the star.
LordSlaytan
08-11-02, 01:18 AM
The real meaning of the title is that there are signs of proof that God is there. The fact his son has asthma, is a sign that God had a purpose for it. The fact that his wifes last words to Graham is, "See, tell Graham to see". She wants him to see the signs that will later save him, his family, and his faith. He loses sight of those things when his wife is taken from him, he doesn't quit believing, he justs closes his eyes, heart, and mind, to God. He hates God for what he's done to him and his own. That's why he doesn't hate Ray, because it was Gods fault, not Rays. The poster with the crop circles is meant to lead us. It did for me, I had to think about what the real message is for this movie. That's why I like it so much.
Road to perdition did the same thing with it's title. At one point during the movie, we find out that they are running to the city of Perdition. But Mr. Rooney tells us later what the title really means, "There are only murderers in this room, Michael. Open your eyes. This is the life we chose. The life we lead. And there is only one guarantee--none of us will see heaven." Mike is on the Road to Eternal Damnation.
Sunfrog, I respect your opinion, but I don't think you will change anyones opinion around here. Stick to the big special effects extravaganzas, and we'll stick to the deeper, more thought provoking movies. I have personnaly never believed that a persons taste in movies is an indication of intelligence. My Father is VERY intelligent, and he only likes light comedys. He's always ran from emotions, and that's one easy way to do it.
Oh, Yoda. HE WAS TALKING TO GOD! ;)
FiLm Fr3aK
08-11-02, 01:40 AM
hmmm.. I sure hope noone reads that that HASNT seen the movie.
LordSlaytan
08-11-02, 01:59 AM
Sorry, I edited it.
To be fair, Independence Day wasn't really about aliens either.
That depends on what you mean. With ID4, the "payoff" shots were all alien-related: seeing the aliens, seeing their ships, and seeing a big, climactic battle, etc. The aliens were the stars of the movie...not the actors, or the story, or anything like that. It was what it was: cool alien-related sh*t. In Signs, the aliens are inconsequential to the real purpose of the flick.
Right, right, and right. For once. :)
:p
I thought the "signs" were the crop circles. But then, I loved the movie for its technical aspects and its rhythm. The religious implications don't interest me at all, really, nor does the plot itself. For me, M. Night Shyamalan was the star.
Well, regardless of why you loved the movie, I think it's beyond obvious that the "signs" the title refers to are most definitely NOT the crop circles. This becomes evident through many things...least of all through the fact that the crop circles are only prominent in the beginning, and fade into the background very quickly.
That whole speech about seeing things as "lucky" or as "signs" makes it even more clear: he says, late in the film, "it can't be luck." I don't see how there can be any doubt as to what the "signs" really are. :nope:
As for the star of the movie: sure, he was the star...but I don't feel I have to focus on any one aspect like that. The movie is indeed technically brilliant...but in the end, it's just a story. A story with a message. And a damn good message at that, in my opinion. Even if you disagree with that message, I think you'll agree it made its point, and made it very, very well.
Originally posted by LordSlaytan
Oh, Yoda. HE WAS TALKING TO GOD! ;)
Oh, since you put it like THAT...
:rolleyes:
LordSlaytan
08-11-02, 02:45 AM
Oh, since you put it like THAT...
Wisenhiemer...:rolleyes:
Yep. And I'm a Smart Aleck, too. My full name is Aleck Wisenheimer. :D
Anyway, I saw this flick again today...and I have to say this: sunfrog is way, way off on all this baseball bat nonsense. I counted this time: after Merrill swats the alien in the back, he waits less than THREE seconds (literally...I counted) to hit him again...around the neck/face.
After the second hit (which came almost RIGHT after the first...I want to drive that point home), the alien sorta hisses at Merrill and gets ready, as if he's about to attack. Almost right after this, Merrill hits him again...he falls back and the water burns his shoulder. Then we see the humorous shot where Graham looks at Bo, as we realize the significance of her odd distaste for the water.
Graham runs outside with Morgan. Bo runs outside and stands by a window looking inside. We see the alien getting ready to attack again...Merrill and the alien circle each other for a bit. Then Merrill hits some glasses of water...splashing them on the alien. A few moments later, while the alien is still reeling from the water, we see Merrill slam the hell outta him (breaking the bat in the process) from the alien's first-person perspective.
In short: there's no way you can complain about the alien waiting around. The delays in-between hits are VERY tiny, and the entire thing makes a helluva lot of sense. It's perfectly realistic and no implausible delays take place. At all.
Austruck
08-12-02, 09:43 AM
Sorry, Yoda, but Graham is definitely talking to God when he says "I hate you." Keep in mind this comes not long after the dining room scene where he says he's not going to waste one more minute on prayer. He also can't believe that God is doing this to him again -- about to take someone away from him again.
And, the parallel of the son saying "I hate you" is precisely that: It's still a parallel. Morgan tells his father he hates him. Graham tells his Heavenly Father he hates him. Same diff.
It is the final breakdown of his faith. He never says he doesn't believe in God. It seems to me he does. But he gives up prayer, gives up touting God, gives up on God entirely.
Until....well, we all know that part.
Not sure who you're talking to who thinks he's talking to Morgan when he says that, but there is absolutely no prior evidence that would make that true. He is not that kind of father -- to say that through gritted teeth to the very son he's trying to save. It's God who's doing this to him that he hates at that moment.
Clear as a bell. Anything else can't be supported by other parts of the script. Sorry.
sadesdrk
08-12-02, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Austruck
Sorry, Yoda, but Graham is definitely talking to God when he says "I hate you." Keep in mind this comes not long after the dining room scene where he says he's not going to waste one more minute on prayer. He also can't believe that God is doing this to him again -- about to take someone away from him again.
Yep. :yup:
There's no other explanation...
Remeber when the brother says that line about what he saw in his brother's eyes, and he never wants to see that again? That was the moment he was talking about.
LordSlaytan
08-12-02, 10:23 PM
Thank You!!!!:D
Come off it. Majority does not make it true...not by a long shot.
Besides: there's still plenty of speculation. For example...the "He also can't believe that God is doing this to him again" part is rhetoric...he actually just says "not again." No reference to God whatsoever. The most viable evidence I've seen comes from Austruck, and her comparison of Father to Heavenly Father...which I considered some time ago, but which didn't totally convince me. The rest of the evidence being thrown about here is highly, highly speculative and incredibly unconvincing, to be perfectly frank.
There is another explanation. Ya'll may not agree with it, but you can't deny that it's there. That's just ridiculous. :p
LordSlaytan
08-12-02, 10:37 PM
Come off it? Come off it? Man, don't get so damn testy. I was just glad somebody else piped in with there two cents. I'm sorry Yoda, you're expanation doesn't make any sence. Graham is NOT the type of man to tell his son, that he hates him. All throughout the movie, he is shown as loving and fiercly protective of his children. He WOULD NOT say, "I hate you" to his son while he may be dying. Why would he be mad at his son? So his son said it earlier, so what? He was hurting, and they quickly reconciled after he said it anyway, when he saw how alike he and his Father were in their pain.
There is another explanation. Ya'll may not agree with it, but you can't deny that it's there. That's just ridiculous.
You mean like what you seem to have done? Sorry man, but your
Come off it. Majority does not make it true...not by a long shot. was really irritating. I didn't say, "I win". Did I?
Come off it? Come off it? Man, don't get so damn testy.
I'm cool as a cucumber...but, to put it one way: if I didn't know better, I'd think you had money riding on this. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry Yoda, you're expanation doesn't make any sence. Graham is NOT the type of man to tell his son, that he hates him. All throughout the movie, he is shown as loving and fiercly protective of his children. He WOULD NOT say, "I hate you" to his son while he may be dying.
A few things:
1 - Almost no man is really the "type of man" to tell his son that he hates him. But almost all fathers do at some point.
2 - Yes, he's shown as loving. He's also shown as somewhat bitter and at odds with Morgan. More of that is on Morgan's end than his, but it's there all the same.
Why would he be mad at his son?
He wasn't really mad, for crying out loud. He was frustrated. The impression I got the first three times I saw the movie was that he was saying "I hate you" to both his son and the situation in general. He was just upset, period. He wasn't necessarily saying he actually hated him. How often do we completely, literally mean the things we say?
You mean like what you seem to have done? Sorry man, but your
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm claiming there's another possibility...a viable one. One that you fail to even recognize as possible. That's what I'm referring to.
was really irritating. I didn't say, "I win". Did I?
Nope, you said this:
Thank You!!!!
C'mon, don't be coy. All your posts indicate a contest-like feeling towards this little discrepancy, and if my comment was "irritating," I don't see how you could understand why yours couldn't have been as well.
Now, if it'll calm you down at all (I can only hope) I've come to the conclusion that, regardless of what ended up on screen, Shyamalan probably intended for us to get the impression that he was talking to God. I don't think this was particularly well-conveyed, though. I maintain that other explanations are perfectly plausible, however, and I don't think what he was likely trying to say was conveyed to the film as well as it could have been.
That's my opinion, at least.
Austruck
08-12-02, 10:47 PM
Yoda, just going by sheer evidence from within the movie itself, your theory doesn't have any other supporting evidence. He is never anything other than loving with his son. The plot does not advance us anywhere near the point of him hating his son (it did, however, advance us to the point where Morgan said he hated his dad). The plot doesn't even take the first step. For your theory to be true, that line comes outta left field. Even if he *thought* such a thing (no evidence), he'd never have said it out loud to his son. Never.
Meanwhile, we have plenty of evidence of his mounting displeasure and anger with God. And, watching God hurt his son (as Graham sees it), and perhaps taking him away (as He took his wife), is too much for Graham. It is the last straw. His faith in God as a benevolent God is now gone and he declares it.
That's why the "Don't do this to me again" or "Not again" or "This isn't happening again" (whatever it is) line makes sense. In your theory, what had Morgan done BEFORE that would have made Graham link the two? Nothing. What links the two events is an all-powerful God that Graham now thinks is flippant about taking people away from him.
It's the only interpretation that accounts for all the facts, and doesn't introduce new thought patterns that aren't there anywhere else in the film, either before or after that point.
It has nothing to do with how many people agree with me. It's just evidence right from within the script itself.
I'm referring to Slayton in the "majority" comment -- not yourself.
If you want to go by evidence, there seems to be to be much evidence supporting the belief that he doesn't believe in God at all...and, as has already been pointed out, you can't exactly hate something you don't believe in in the first place.
Yes, the script points more to him saying it to God than Morgan...but the script points to him not believing in God quite a bit, too. "There is no one looking out for us. We're on our own." If that doesn't imply the abscence of God, what does? So we have conflicting evidence here.
Given the evidence, as I stated in my last post, I think Shyamalan does intend for us to see him as talking to God...but I think that part was poorly executed given the fact that he didn't even appear to believe in God at all anymore.
Austruck
08-12-02, 11:00 PM
There are plenty of theories out there that say there IS a God but that He doesn't (or can't) help us. That's very common.
And most people who slip away from faith don't slip into total atheism. Many of them just don't like God any more or don't feel He is doing for them what they want. Or they slip into agnosticism.
When Graham said there is no one watching out for us, that could just as easily have meant, "Because God doesn't care--He didn't care enough to save my wife." It could also mean "God is impotent and CAN'T help us."
The fact that he was so ANGRY (while talking about prayer, etc.) implies that he still believes in God. Otherwise, who is he angry at? He's very angry with God for disappointing him. I think people in Graham's situation are usually confused, hurt, and ready to blame someone. So they blame the very God they believed in. Remember it's only been six months since the accident. He's probably still in a very hurt phase, crushed (pardon the pun), and hasn't surfaced back to real life yet.
His words don't imply belief in no God. They just as easily (or more easily?) imply belief in an uncaring or impotent God, someone with whom you can still be angry.
P.S. We could keep talking this to death, I suppose... but you sound very convinced that M. Night wasn't clear. I think he was crystal clear. Honestly, I'd have never thought of your interpretation of the "I hate you" line except that I read it here. It wouldn't even have dawned on me to think anything other than what I did because it made perfect sense on all levels.
LordSlaytan
08-12-02, 11:00 PM
Hmm...Ok so this difference of opinion is all on my end. Ok. I said Thank You!!!:D in jest. I'm trying to be part of this group, and get a rapore going with someone. I don't have $$$ riding on this, and I also noticed for every response one of us submit, the other always seems to reply. I think the old proverb is, "It takes two". I was keeping it friendly, or so I thought. You were fighting for your opinion with sunfrog, and I was with you. I don't think I'm the only one in this forum to do that. I don't want to deal with rudeness any more than you do. Sorry if my hackles got raised by your, "come off it" post. I didn't realize that my thanx post was going to make you upset. I wasn't trying to be coy with, or rude to you, and if I made you feel that way, I apologize sincerely:blush:
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm claiming there's another possibility...a viable one. One that you fail to even recognize as possible
Will you agree with me, until your final post before this, that we both may have been guilty of this? Oh well. Good forum, I don't want a battle with the moderator, for I like this site too much.:)
I disagree. I think it makes perfect sense on many levels -- but not all. If you want to be TECHNICAL, yes, it's possible he believed in God but hated him...but it didn't sound that way. I thought the implication was crystal clear: it wasn't "God did this to me" -- it was "God wouldn't do this to me." Hence, if it happened, God must not be real.
The fact that he was so angry implies that he was fighting with his beliefs internally -- not that he believed in God. Many atheists are very, very angry at the mere concept of God. You may argue that deep down they believe in Him, and hate him, and the only way they can fight Him is by denying He exists at all...because if He exists, there's no use fighting. I'm sure some atheists are like that...but that's a big assumption to make. The anger is just that: anger. Anger over what's happened. He's searching for a place to lay his anger.
It seems to me that he had to start believing in God against mid-way through the movie for him to being hating Him again. I think the movie would have made much more sense if it were somehow made evident that he did believe in God all along, but had no Faith in His goodness. A simple line would have done it: "There is no one watching out for us" could've been changed to "There is no one up there who cares about us." The "watching out" part implies existence as much as goodness.
I'm trying to be part of this group, and get a rapore going with someone.
Don't let this discourage you...as far as I'm concerned, you are part of this group. A welcome part, at that. :yup:
I wasn't trying to be coy with, or rude to you, and if I made you feel that way, I apologize sincerely
You don't owe me any apology. :) I appreciate your frankness.
Will you agree with me, until your final post before this, that we both may have been guilty of this?
Perhaps a bit, yes. I'll unhesitatingly concede that, whether he executed it well or not, his intention probably was as you've said, though. :)
Oh well. Good forum, I don't want a battle with the moderator, for I like this site too much
Don't back down on my account. I'm not a Moderator anyway -- I'm an Admin. :laugh:
I've been compared to a member of the KKK before without taking action...so don't sweat it. Disagreeing with me isn't going to get you in trouble. Too many people do it for me to ban them all. ;D
LordSlaytan
08-12-02, 11:33 PM
Yoda, disagreements are one thing, but our "discussion" seemed to be leading to anger, and I didn't ever want that. So, without further ado; I never really got the impression that Graham didn't believe in God anymore. I understand that he did say to his Brother that, "No One is up there". I didn't take that to be a statement of dis-belief. Rather, I took it as a sign that this is one extremely hurting man, and at this stage of his grief he has completely turned away from God. His anger won't allow any acknowledgement towards one, if not the, biggest loves of his life. I for example was raised in a very religious home. My Mother preached, My Brother was a minister, and my Uncle was an Evangilist. Now, my Uncle abused me terribly for 4 years of my young life. For years I said I didn't, and don't, believe in God. The screwed up people I have witnessed in charge of some very large churches made me turn away from religion. Science and modern thinking has turned me away from God. But still, there is that GO***MN seed in me that still believes. Do I want it there? No, Yes, I don't know, but regardless of how I feel about it, I can't help it. If I, with so many reasons, cannot entirely turn away from God, how can a Man that was a reverend, just stop? I seriously doubt he could. He could deny God, but not stop believing.
My point? We are all different, because of my lifes history, I saw Graham differently than you may have. I think that he is a character that many people will identify with differently, that doesn't happen often. What you and others may see as his motivations, others may see something else entirely. Am I making sense?
Thanks for toning it down with me.:)
FiLm Fr3aK
08-13-02, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by LordSlaytan
Graham is NOT the type of man to tell his son, that he hates him. All throughout the movie, he is shown as loving and fiercly protective of his children. He WOULD NOT say, "I hate you" to his son while he may be dying. Why would he be mad at his son?
I do agree with you that he was talking to God,
but
one possibilty would be He did say it meaning his son, trying to make his son angry enough to fight the attack. Get the kid angry at him and mind OFF of the pain he was feeling. I can see that. Actually I think that is highly plausible. Both ideals are very realistic. I am afraid however, this one we'll never know for sure unless Mr. M gets on here and posts it himself.
;)
sadesdrk
08-14-02, 11:54 AM
I saw the movie again last night. It couldn't be more obvious that Mel is talking to God. While he's sitting there, rocking his son...he is in another place entirely. He is having a direct conversation to God. He's angry, he's hurt...and it looks very much like this is the first time in a very long time, he has "spoken" to God. He just can't help it, though. Think about the situation that led him away from God...then think about what he's going through with his son. "Not again" has a very clear meaning. Sorry Chris, I have to side with your mom and Lord Slaytan. :yup:
Well, as I said, I think that's what Shyamalan was going for...but I think he made a mistake in his execution. The implication, I thought, was clearly that he didn't believe in God at all. It's an easily remedied situation, too. I think it definitely would've benefitted from a slight dialogue change in the exchange with Merrill in front of the TV.
sadesdrk
08-14-02, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
Well, as I said, I think that's what Shyamalan was going for...but I think he made a mistake in his execution. Oh right...it would be the fault of the director or writer...not the misinterpretation of the viewer. ;D Silly Bear.
I think Chris is right.
At dinner, Morgan says "I hate you " to Graham. Why wouldn't Graham say it to Morgan? I also think that sunfrog is wrong to think that it's suppose to be about aliens. Who says? M. Night can make his movies the way he wants, thank you very much! The movie was about signs. They just used a situation where aliens attack earth to show you that. If M. Night used different circumstances, I doubt you would say it was a bad movie! What if it's set in a situation where someone's kidnapped. Would you still not like it and be comlpaining about how it wasn't about kidnapper's, just how a few "coincedences" happen to save a few characters' lives? I couldn't disagree anymore.
LordSlaytan
08-14-02, 09:58 PM
Beacause Graham is an adult and Morgan is a child, that's why he wouldn't say it. Plus, they reconciled 30 seconds after Morgan said it, Graham knew Morgan didn't mean it. He was just a very hurt boy.
sadesdrk
08-15-02, 12:58 AM
Thank You. :)
sheesh, come on people...this is almost laughable. I don't care how you think it can be preceived; there's a right and wrong way of seeing that scene. I know how that sounds, but really...the ones who doubt who Graham is talking to; missed it.
LordSlaytan
08-15-02, 01:01 AM
I may look mean, but I'm just a big softy.;) Not too metion a Dad, I can empathize better than these junior mints:p
sadesdrk
08-15-02, 01:04 AM
Come on you! Don't go all off topic now! You and I have to fight against the misinterpreters! Meanies unite! BLAAAAAAAAAAAH!! :#
Originally posted by sadesdrk
Thank You. :)
sheesh, come on people...this is almost laughable. I don't care how you think it can be preceived; there's a right and wrong way of seeing that scene. I know how that sounds, but really...the ones who doubt who Graham is talking to; missed it.
There's a right and wrong way to interpret it...and there's a right and a wrong way to convey it, too. I think M. Night could've conveyed it better. Simple as that. :)
LordSlaytan
08-15-02, 01:07 AM
Come on you! Don't go all off topic now! You and I have to fight against the misinterpreters! Meanies unite! BLAAAAAAAAAAAH!!
Yipe!:eek:
umm, ok...just dont hurt me...:bawling:
The Silver Bullet
08-15-02, 08:05 AM
So, I saw Signs at an empty matinee here today, it's opening day.
Well.
I still don't believe Night is a genius. He's got something going on, and I like his near poetic writing Oblivion, but I digress...] I prefered it over both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable and like Spielberg before him, he's working himself into the prime position to start making his Schindler's Lists and his Amistads. I have no doubt he will become one of the best, but a genius? Not yet. I'm content to watch a film like Signs though. Very much.
Shyamalan knows how to shock. Put it that way. While the payoff at the end of this film is less of a complete narrative-altering shock transition, he has plenty of edge-of-seat moments in his film. The dog and his water, the Brazillian home video, the second look under the pantry door. I need not put these moments in spoilers, as I haven't given away the jolts, and when you get to those moments, you'll be on the edge of your seat regardless.
Shyamalan knows his stuff with kids, too [the weakest child performance he's gotten is the Gladiator kid's performance in Unbreakable in my opinion]. Shyamalan creates a small and finely tuned cast here, I feel, with Gibson delivering a fine performance and Phoenix a tremendous one. Even Shyamalan himself as Ray turns in a wonderful performance I think. The film and it's characters are doused in a sense of hopelessness, and the performances are finely tuned. And the little girl rocks.
Technically, the film is decent. I didn't feel it was extremely well photographed in the second half [the opening sequence and the sequence with Mel in the night-time cornfield were fantasticly shot]. The sound is wonderful. But, as some may argue, Shyamalan is truly at his best in the realm of characters and writing and plot.
Not really here, I didn't find. The moments other MoFo's have raved about were adequete [Mel's "which type are you speech" was fine, but not brilliant] and I felt that it borrowed quite heavily from some other recent films. Maybe not borrowed, but it just seemed reiterated:
Did anyone else feel as though the asthma attack was a flashback to Panic Room's diabetic crisis? I did. Very much so. And for a moment I was thinking about how well that attack was executed, as opposed to what Mel was saying.
To God, by the way...
I was not frightened nor chilled by Signs. I felt my heart racing in moments, and I certainly jumped in sections [I never jump, so I was thrilled] and I was sucked in for the most part, enjoying the story and it's pacing and editing and structure and ultimately, it's numerous pay-offs.
But Shyamalan's masterpiece? I didn't think, call me crazy. He has more to offer, and he has better to offer. Signs is a step in the right direction, perhaps, but ultimately, he has so much more left in him that could have totally made this movie. I don't know how to explain what I mean. The film worked well, and I enjoyed it. It was constructed perfectly [by the book, suprisingly -- everything is there for a reason] and elicits some strong emotions from the audience. Unlike the other films, I didn't feel that the emotional response was milked so obviously, it was done in a much more subtle fashion than in his previous films. Hopefully, by the next it will be completely gone, and Night will have reached his ultimate potential.
It's a good sign.
Interesting points...
You're right, it did feel like a Panic Room flashback...but Night can't be blamed for that. He probably wrote this significantly before that flick came out. He certaintly didn't copy it, anyway. Just bad luck in that regard.
As for the acting: you said it. The girl was magnificent. I've spent a good deal of my life around little girls, and I can honestly say that they are just like that for the most part. The way she moved the dog's water bowl, for example, was perfect. She kinda dragged it awkwardly, the way little kids always, always do.
She dressed kinda goofy. It looked like she was wearing a dress, some big, giant fake pearl necklace, and even boots, at certain points. Again: this IS how little girls act quite often. And her voice, of course, was beyond adorable.
Another tiny thing I noticed: this is one of the few movies I've seen where children are carried realistically. I mean literally carried. Parents tend to carry children a certain way -- it's never the "what do I do with this thing?" kind of pose that most Hollywood flicks have men carry babies with, for example. Gibson and Phoenix pick these kids up the way you really DO pick kids up. And the kids lean on their shoulders the same way, etc. That probably sounds stupid and obvious, but it stood out for me.
I can't pick a favorite performance here. Phoenix was subtle and perfect (can you believe he wasn't even originally cast in the role? :eek: ). Gibson, as Mattly has said to me, gave his best performance in the dining room scene. Hats off to Night, who obviously has a firm grip on family dynamics...both in a broader, and more specific sense. Little things like that really add up; especially in a movie like this.
Rory Culkin was the only actor within the four-member family that I would give a "very good" rating, as opposed to an "excellent" one. That's not a knock on him, however. He was what he was supposed to be, but the others were just given more to work with, in my opinion. Gibson had a lot of emotional conflict and internal turnmoil, Breslin (Bo) was adorable and remarkably believable, and Phoenix's comic relief was so incredibly perfect.
I'd agree with Mattly on all points but one: this is a masterpiece. This movie has done some very, very crazy things to some friends of mine...scaring them half to death (I almost wish that were an exaggeration) and squeezing tears out've them at nearly every viewing. Hands down the best of the year so far, and easily Night's best. :yup:
Interesting Fact: The stories about the two children's births in the film? Actual stories about Night's two children. Isn't that cute? :)
The Silver Bullet
08-15-02, 09:36 AM
I'll definitely be seeing the film again, but I won't be calling it a masterpiece. I believe Night's greatest film is somewhere lurking in the back of his mind at the moment; but it is his best, yes.
And yes, the flashback to another movie in question can't be helped and is bad timing, but I must say; comparing the two, the other film's moment did more to me [not to say that the same thing here wasn't badly done, just, well, yeah].
LordSlaytan
08-15-02, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Gibson delivering a fine performance and Phoenix a tremendous one.
I agree whole heartedly with your Phoenix comment. I always liked the guy, but in this movie, I loved 'em. He's sooo much better when he's cast as the good guy, and the ending seen got me rooting the most since I saw Karate Kid in the drive-in when I was a teen.:p By far his best role to date.
sadesdrk
08-18-02, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by LordSlaytan
I agree whole heartedly with your Phoenix comment. I always liked the guy, but in this movie, I loved 'em. He's sooo much better when he's cast as the good guy, and the ending seen got me rooting the most since I saw Karate Kid in the drive-in when I was a teen.:p By far his best role to date. I haven't seen anything to top his performance in Clay Pigeons. Actually...have you seen, Inventing the Abotts? Not exactly the most wonderful film, but Phoenix was outstanding.
(out-standing-in-a-corn-field) Hee Hee.
Um...
anyhoodles,
He's just great no matter WHAT he's in.
LordSlaytan
08-18-02, 03:58 AM
I've never even heard of the Abott's, but I'll check it out. I like Clay Pidgeons, but Vaughn stole the show with that one. At least for me he did, I became a fan of his because of it. Dudes a stud:p
sadesdrk
08-18-02, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by LordSlaytan
I like Clay Pidgeons, but Vaughn stole the show with that one. At least for me he did, I became a fan of his because of it. Dudes a stud:p I totally know what you mean. ;)
I started my Vincey-Pooh (as he likes to be called) fan club, back when I first saw, Swingers. He's so money, man. So money.
Of course it's all about the talent on that one too...:D
Anyhoodles....
Signs. Right.
Oh wait! Reason number two to see Inventing the Abotts, and this one's for the fellas, Jennifer Connelly.
LordSlaytan
08-19-02, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by sadesdrk
Oh wait! Reason number two to see Inventing the Abotts, and this one's for the fellas, Jennifer Connelly.
I'm close to her age and had a huge crush on her when I was younger. She was so very pretty in Once Upon a Time in America.
sadesdrk
08-20-02, 03:12 AM
Have you seen the cover of this month's Vanity Fare?
Wowza. :eek:
I have a total Chick Crush on her. She's just breathtaking and I'm woman enough to admit it. Plus, she's not half bad in the acting department, either. :)
LordSlaytan
08-20-02, 03:14 AM
:rotfl:
I think I'm in love:blush:
sadesdrk
08-20-02, 03:19 AM
Yeah...me too. :skeptical:
LordSlaytan
08-20-02, 03:21 AM
I still haven't gotten over my teenage crush with that woman:blush:
sadesdrk
08-20-02, 03:25 AM
The Labyrinth, right? Yeah...I used to pretend I was her...David Bowie all wanting me and everything...*swoon* :p
LordSlaytan
08-20-02, 03:34 AM
DAVID BOWIE!?!?!?!!?
My opinion of you is shattered ~sigh~;)
sadesdrk
08-20-02, 03:36 AM
*gasp*
My sisters and I thought he was very sexy...in his Goblin King garb, looking all euro-punk. :D Yummers. Still a good looking guy.
LordSlaytan
08-20-02, 03:40 AM
Let' see, you're 26, right? I'm 34. The girls I had crushes on...~gasp~ I don't even remember! I should be put in a home...:bawling:
sadesdrk
08-20-02, 03:42 AM
Yes, 34 is ancient. You should be put to sleep. :)
LordSlaytan
08-20-02, 03:46 AM
:bawling: ya' really mean that? :bawling:
Hey wait a minute, I'm in the prime of my life, I can sing, I can dance, I can spit farther than Bubba....
Wicked Awesome Dream Sequence
I'm.... I'm sorry Sadie Lady, but we're gonna' have to put LordSlaytan down. He's just gettin' too old, it's for his own good.
And just like old Yeller, Sady would have to take pa's gun, and put LordSlaytan out of his age-induced misery.
Sniff, some powerful stuff I have going here, don't ya' think? I mean, it's just like how I had to shoot my parents when they turned 40. Powerful, powerful stuff.
sadesdrk
08-20-02, 03:51 AM
euthanasia (sp?) of 40somethings. Why didn't I think of that before? We could stop the madness before it begins! No more blue haired wrinkle-people driving around! yay! *Soilent Green is People!*
LordSlaytan
08-20-02, 03:52 AM
Ahem...Youngster, my sinewy musceles would tear you apart faster than....~gasp~call the medics....wheeze!!!!
sadesdrk
08-20-02, 03:59 AM
BWAHA! Foiled again, oldster!
you know you're not old, right? I mean...gimmie some hope for the future. If you're old, than I'm "getting there". :eek:
I'm still waiting to reach my prime!
Ha! Bow down to your successor you old spinsters!
I own the world now!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!
Cower at my maniacal laughter!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!
The Silver Bullet
08-20-02, 04:58 AM
How many threads can be destroyed in a small amount of time?
This many heaps much!
Austruck
08-20-02, 09:41 AM
I can't believe I still subscribe to this thread. Thread? Geez, it's not a thread any more. It's an entire frayed macrame rope.
And I don't even want to TELL you how old *I* am. You'll put me out of your misery faster than I can say "Bozo the Clown."
The Silver Bullet
08-20-02, 09:57 AM
Who the what?
:laugh:
sadesdrk
08-20-02, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
How many threads can be destroyed in a small amount of time?
I know, right?! I mean there's all those ones with you and Raz and all those ones with you and Ladies Man...
:)
The Silver Bullet
08-20-02, 08:25 PM
I mean there's all those ones with you and Raz and all those ones with you and Ladies Man...
I know.
I was literally asking a question, how many can we destroy? I mean I have a good idea of my thread destroying capabilities. The question is; can we break the record?
Myself and Kently were having a good time with Ladies Man. It was a very funny time, a very funny place...
:laugh:
sadesdrk
08-20-02, 10:17 PM
Mattly...'member the "Ladies Man PM"?? :sick: What in the hell was rotting in that kid's brain?
The Silver Bullet
08-20-02, 11:07 PM
Semen.
C'mon Mattly. Have some shame. :)
The Silver Bullet
08-21-02, 12:56 AM
Come on, you read the thing.
Terrible!
:D
sunfrog
08-22-02, 05:51 AM
No one delivered a tremendous performance in this movie, good grief. The movie had a quiet soundtrack and no payoff after the spooky parts, that's what kept you on the edge of your seat. That wasn't genius. Imagine this, you are in the recording studio, the sound guy asks you, what kind of music would you like here? Spooky. Okay, how about here? Mm.. well nothing has happened so.. spooky. And now? Spooky. Now? Spooky I guess.
The quiet soundtrack is a result of nothing happening. You can't have a big crescendo if nothing happens.
Also, I didn't believe that annoying kid was his son for a second.
So anyway, what was the theme Yoda? Signs, Unbreakable, Sixth Sense, aren't they supposed to have something in common?
No, they're not. You asked be before and I explained it then. :)
The Sixth Sense is seperate. Unbreakable was the first in a trilogy and dealt with finding your purpose (though The Sixth Sense had a similar message).Signs dealt with something similar, though it was more about finding your Faith/beliefs. The third will likely have the same sort of message.
As for music: obviousy you weren't listening. It wasn't just "spooky." That's like saying "all you do is play the guitar." Well, there are a million ways to go about it. Some of it was fast-paced and exciting and also spooky. Some of it was slow. Some of it was ominous.
But hey, if you feel comfortable labeling it all under "spooky," be my guest. :rolleyes:
I still don't know how you fail to see any "payoff," though, unless by payoff you mean "a hyper-climactic blow-up-the-mothership battle," in which case, I think you were projecting other alien movies onto this one.
The Silver Bullet
08-22-02, 09:01 AM
Sunfrog, nothing you say has any credibility to me...
If you can't see something in something, for example: enjoyment in Signs, that's fine, slam it all you will, but you don't seem to be listening to a word anyone else is even saying, and that's just plain ignorant.
sunfrog
08-22-02, 01:07 PM
Ooooh! So what's the third movie gonna be then? M Night eating a sandwich and everyone calling him a genius because he ate the crust first? lol. J/k
What's the third movie gonna be?
Yeah I would call it all 'spooky.' I didn't hear any banjos playing.
Lack of payoff means, you build suspense then nothing happens like a big scare or a funny moment to break the tension.
Mel wakes up (ominous music) then he makes a sandwich (ominous music) then opens the fridge for milk (ominous music) and gets a glass. He looks out the kitchen window (ominous music) then drinks his milk and eats his sandwich. (ominous music)
See, nothing happened to release the tension. He didn't cut himself with the knife, there wasn't a head in the fridge, he didn't see anything outside, someone wasn't behind him when he turned around, his daughter didn't come in and make a funny joke. It was very suspenseful but after a while you figure out nothing's gonna happen and your mind wanders to the secondary story about his wife. We all know Mel likes to put the womenfolk in his movies so the females in the audience can identify with them and he can make a PC statement. Like, that girl in The Patriot or his wife in We Were Soldiers, they could have easily been written out of the story. They didn't need to be there at all. So then you watch the scenes with his wife and say to yourself, why do I have to sit through this, just get on with the movie. The movie is about a priest who loses his faith because his wife dies in a car accident, then he sees an alien and regains his faith because if his son hadn't had asthma, and the alien didn't squirt poisonous gas, and if his son wasn't baseball slugger boy, etc.. He could have told the same story without aliens, just substitute something else. The aliens could have been a plague of locust they didn't have to be aliens. If it's gonna have aliens in it the aliens should do cool alien stuff like fly ships, or maybe it was the alien who lost his faith then he sees an Earthman. Something. Anything. If the story you want to tell is about faith then why have aliens in it at all? Aliens are for alien movies, that's it.
Are you nuts!?
I mean, jesus, man, you can dislike Signs all you want, but you seem to be doing it for all the wrong reasons.
Mel wakes up (ominous music) then he makes a sandwich (ominous music) then opens the fridge for milk (ominous music) and gets a glass. He looks out the kitchen window (ominous music) then drinks his milk and eats his sandwich. (ominous music)
This, in case you were wondering, was why everyone praised M. Knight for this movie. The story is about normal people, and the happenings in the story, are supposed to seem like they could happen. Still, something strange and eery is going on in this town, thus, the ominous music. In making it realistic, Shyamalan did something that I respected him for, he didn't pander to the impatient idiots in the audience. If he did have, as you put it, "a head in the fridge", or something similar, it would have destroyed the entire movie, a cheap thrill like that would detract from the story, but also be extremely unbeleivable.
As for letting nothing break the suspense, this is another thing that I praise the movie for. The keyword when describing this film, or what Shyamalan was shooting for is... suspenseful .
Yeah I would call it all 'spooky.' I didn't hear any banjos playing.
Lack of payoff means, you build suspense then nothing happens like a big scare or a funny moment to break the tension.
Had he broken the suspense every five minutes, like the average piece of action crap, the movie could e described much differently, specifically.... stilted, and half-assed.
I respect every decision M Night Shyamalan made in this film, so if you're going to be a Signs malcontent, at least do it in sych a way that you don't state what are obviusly poorly thought-over arguments against it.
I suggest sticking with making fun of the child actors, they generally have a bad rap, I'm sure that you can play off of that.
:D
The Silver Bullet
08-22-02, 07:28 PM
The fact that you simply and arrogantly refuse to give any credit [or any logical critisism, at least] to a movie that went out and made an effort, asking questions and requiring its audience to think makes me wonder about your level of intelligence, Sunfrog. Sorry.
LordSlaytan
08-22-02, 07:33 PM
You better like it, or we'll HATE YOU!!!:frustrated: :laugh: :laugh:
~sheesh~ :rolleyes:
I'm not arguing because I hate him for not liking the movie, but because his stated reasons for not liking the movie, were the exact things that I thought were brilliant about it.
I apologize if I went a little overboard, but I'll stand by my post.
LordSlaytan
08-22-02, 11:01 PM
I was only kidding.
~sheesh~ part II :rolleyes: :D
well, ummm... I was only kidding too.
:rolleyes:
heh...
:blush:
LordSlaytan
08-23-02, 01:16 AM
Oh Yeah?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes:
All Hail Lord Slayan, Contaminator of Threads. :p
The Silver Bullet
08-23-02, 10:57 AM
Chri-is!!
Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh!
:rolleyes:
He doesn't have to like it, LS, but he has to give logical reasoning. The fact that it had to be about aliens defies all logic.
LordSlaytan
08-23-02, 04:30 PM
Thank you. First I would like to thank the Acadamy, my parents, and of course, you Yoda...my most faithful fan.:rolleyes:
BTW SB, I understood where the argument derived from, I just think it's homorous how vehemently a fan will defend a movie he or she likes. Myself included.:D
The Silver Bullet
08-23-02, 10:12 PM
I didn't love the film. I just liked it. No change after seeing it a second time.
I just like arguments too.
:yup:
LordSlaytan
08-23-02, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
I didn't love the film. I just liked it. No change after seeing it a second time.
I just like arguments too.
:yup:
Hmm...okay. I only said like, or are you just being argumentative?;D Or am I?:drevil:
The Silver Bullet
08-25-02, 08:29 PM
A little from column a. and a little from column b.
Signs ....Back to #1 at the box office! :D
blibblobblib
09-15-02, 08:16 PM
Lordy LORDY!
Just got back from seeing "Signs" at our local cinema...
Without a doubt the BEST film of the year...GEEZ that was scary, really horrible twist to the alien encounter story, and talking of twists, i had heard that this was one of his films that didnt have one! but WOW it had a good one. It makes me teary thinking about it.
AWSOME film......making my nipples hard thinking about it....
:love: :eek: :laugh: :scream: :bawling: :)
LordSlaytan
09-15-02, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by blibblobblib
Lordy LORDY!
Yes? What do you want?
:rolleyes: include me in that movement of eyes in a rolly polly fashion!
blibblobblib
09-17-02, 06:15 PM
Slayton u silly thing....
AzhrarnX
09-23-02, 12:07 AM
No disrespect to anyone.
I like M Night's movies.
Sixth sense was his best..unfortunately it was also the first and all others will be judged by it until,he surpasses it.
Unbreakable was good almost great. I enjoyed it very very much.
This one I consider a very good AND very disappointing movie.
M Night seemed to borrow from many different styles in this movie.
From the Hitchcockesque soundtrack (which I found enjoyable)
To the various styles of cinematography. (e.g. the Blair Witch style when the lights go out in the basement and then the flashlight comes back on and all you saw was the little girls feet.)
There were many good things about this film and many inconsistencies.
Ok we have an alien race come to harvest humans on a world covered 70% by water...but their weakness is water?
They have invisible starships..but dont realize the spectrum of light their ships give off is viewable at night?
They can cross the immense interstellar gulfs of space and navigate to a small planet in a insignificant system...but they need crop circles for landing co-ordinates?
They use radio frequencies to communicate to each other..and they walk around naked. (you know that water problem could have been solved by an enviro suit)
They are seen over a major city but the area they are seen in is not immediately surrounded by helicopter gunships and fighter jets.
yet
The characters were very well done and M Night deserves a lot of credit. He also can make the most of child actors. The children in his stories are amazingly complex and well done characters portrayed by excellent actors and actresses.
This movie lacked M Night's trademark surprise ending. which I was expecting.
The movie was also just a bit too preachy for me. No pun intended.
It was very very suspenseful and tense. However it relied on visceral and sensual stimuli not mental terror tactics.
After all is said and done a very good but not great movie.
10=-10=0
This movie was not a zero but was a great movie with major detractions. M Night weakest movie to date but I expect great things from him and fully expect him to surpass Sixth Sense at least three times in his lifelong career.
I think it was so close to being a great movie that that in itself is scary.
This is my opinion and if yours differs I fully respect it.
I've gotta take issue with a few things. :)
Ok we have an alien race come to harvest humans on a world covered 70% by water...but their weakness is water?
Maybe they enjoy the challenge and sport of it, like the Predator. Besides: they scouted it first...they didn't LAND in the water. They kept to the land. Remember what Ray said? None of the sightings were near water.
They have invisible starships..but dont realize the spectrum of light their ships give off is viewable at night?
Maybe they don't care if they're seen floating there.
They can cross the immense interstellar gulfs of space and navigate to a small planet in a insignificant system...but they need crop circles for landing co-ordinates?
Perhaps it's part of their culture and tradition. Just because they're aliens with spaceships, it doesn't mean they don't have historical customs the way we do. They're not The Borg, after all. They're not necessarily 100% efficient in all ways.
That's my view, at least. There are lots of potential explanations for all this stuff. M. Night chose to leave explanations aside because, in the end, this wasn't about WHY or HOW the aliens did what they did...it was about the family reacting to the situation.
Austruck
09-23-02, 12:27 AM
Very true about inconsistencies in cultures, Yoda.
No culture is 100% internally consistent in their cleverness and intellect. After all, at one point Americans could land on the moon, but a few scant years later we invented the leisure suit.
The Silver Bullet
09-23-02, 12:55 AM
I don't think the merits of this film can really be debated without it all becomming a little silly.
Originally posted by FiLm Fr3aK
but
one possibilty would be He did say it meaning his son, trying to make his son angry enough to fight the attack. Get the kid angry at him and mind OFF of the pain he was feeling. I can see that. Actually I think that is highly plausible.
This is just wrong, sorry. When someone (especially a child) is having a severe asthma attack, you calm them, not excite them... agitation makes the attack worse. It's not pain that's being fought off, like a sprained ankle or something. Remember the scene in the basement, where his son has the first attack, and he holds him in his arms and tries to calm him? Same concept
The Silver Bullet
09-23-02, 03:28 AM
:eek:
u r a genius!
thats so right
LordSlaytan
09-23-02, 03:31 AM
:rolleyes:
Don't chase off the newbie, man.
;)
The Silver Bullet
09-23-02, 03:49 AM
This is just wrong, sorry.
But look! He's a genius!
I wonder if he read the rest of the thread...
LordSlaytan
09-23-02, 03:51 AM
Yeah I know, But everybody is entitled to their two bits...even if they are made up of plug nickles...:laugh:
blibblobblib
09-28-02, 07:25 AM
Yo guys! back from the edge and in with society again! My first Uni post! hurrah!:p
Saw "Signs" for the second time last night at my local uni, two screen, 3 employees, "Savoy Cinemaplex!" and still thought it wAS INCREDIBLE!
:eek: :eek:
All this talk about the aliens being silly for landing on the planet of water and navigation systems being too stone-age is just lookin into the film too much. The film is totally from the families point of view. We know what they know through the entire film. When a light goes out we feel as scared as they do, when they go to open a door, we feel just as the characetrs do. When we see a report on the TV we feel just as curios as they do. So just like the characters, (Morgan) we can make our own assumptions about what the aliens wanted.
I think this is possibly as good as "the Sixth Sense" and i never thought that could happen.
My only critisism (sp) is the large role played by M. Night. His not the best actor and i thought his role was maybe a bit too crucial for him to take on.
Otherwise.....AWSOME.
AlexDeLarge
12-24-02, 05:46 PM
4 out of 5 stars
FiLm Fr3aK
01-05-03, 08:49 PM
You guys MUST watch the extra crap on the DVD!!!!!!!
I have to say, this mkaes me love the movie EVEN more!
It streets Tuesday....
:D
In the deleted scenes: both flashback scenes made me well up with tears....not sure why but they did, The first one shows the mom humming and rocking one of the kids, and the next she is humming and dancing with Graham. Both are beautifully shot. AND THEN.... ALIEN IN THE ATTIC AND THE THIRD STORY....
OMG! The hair stood up on my arms! They realize they didnt block the attic door and go up to block it, OMG I cant beleave they cut that. And the third story.. you know when Graham is telling the kids aobut when they are born, well then he tells Merrill about when he dislocated his elbow...all in the while trying to convince them to go in the basement, but Merrill doesnt watnt o go... he says.. there is no way out... OMG! I so would have left both those things in.... LOOK.. see the hairs on my arms.. standing up just typing about it!
Beale the Rippe
01-09-03, 08:12 PM
5 stars. I saw this 3 times in the theatres. A record for me. A really enjoyable film, gave me butterflies, I could go on, see it. One of the years top 10 in my opinion.
jamesglewisf
01-16-03, 01:33 AM
Just bought this one. I love that guy's movies.
blibblobblib
02-03-03, 08:32 PM
Well, i 100% agree with FiLm Fr3aK. thanx to your tempting and arousing spoiler about the extras i just had to buy this on DVD immediatly. I hadnt read your spoiler and im glad i didnt but it was just incredible. any fans of the film need to buy the DVD. Its great. I cried my eyes out watching it on my own! Such a wonderful film about wonderful circumstances....kind of :love:
Here's my overview of Signs DVD:
The movie - I could see over and over. Great flick.
Deleted Scenes - Must have here. :yup:
Documentary (so-so)
I was turned away at the rest. There was
No commentary
No trailer
Silly short film
Did I forget anything?
Anyways, my grade is a C+. I could have easily rented it and watched the extras. Then got the DVD-Rom of Signs (w/extras, trailer and possibly documentary). The good stuff.....free.
theshape82
02-04-03, 06:54 AM
it was a very good movie and very well done
blibblobblib
02-04-03, 10:17 AM
Actually thats a good point jrs. I think i just got caught up with the deleeted scenes. i thought they were really good. theres some great documentries though. some really good ones on the special affects. But your right, there was no trailers or commentary. a commentary would have been awsome.:yup:
Night never does commentaries, it seems. Which really bugs me.
blibblobblib
02-04-03, 01:24 PM
Yeah he doesnt does he. :mad: how annoying. i wonder why he chooses not to do it?
SPIDEI2_MAN__
03-18-03, 04:06 AM
Although the movie is excellent,if you watch it again it looses the power it had the first time you saw it 9thats true for most movies but it was especially obviuos in this one). I went out and bought the DVD which has little to offer in terms of bonus stuff. All and all it was a good little movie if u wanna get away not too frighting but keeps your blood moving.
The Crow
03-24-03, 01:57 AM
this movie was such crap it was the prequel of that other crap dreamcatcher
blibblobblib
03-26-03, 09:36 AM
Dreamcatcher? The Steven King film? It wasnt a prequel to that, or are u just saying that it felt like it was and theyre both ****? Im really lookin forward to seeing Dreamcatcher.
The Crow
03-27-03, 04:57 AM
yes i meant it in a sarcastic way.save your self from that horrible movie and dont see it.unless your going to see Animatrix i would suggest see the animatrix then walk out
Dreamcatcher was NOT a horrible movie. Everyone is saying "well just because the book is one way and the movie doesnt follow it that way, it sucks.". That is stupid. Plus the movie basically is not terrible. thats a real understatement.
The Silver Bullet
03-27-03, 09:47 PM
...thats a real understatement...
Yeah, it's really terrible!
I declare Dreamcatcher as entertaining for the most part, and very compelling during the first 30-40 minutes, but overall, in terms of raw filmmaking, it was a disaster. Disjointed and sloppy beyond belief. Doesn't mean it wasn't fun to watch on some level, however.
Austruck
03-27-03, 09:56 PM
Oh, this is bad news. Sloppy? Sorry to hear it. The website for the movie was interactive and quite fun. Kinda like the Donnie Darko website. Creepy, especially late at night.
Sounds like the website was better than the movie! (I'm still waiting for the library to call me about being next in line to take out the book. Sounds like I'll enjoy that more than I would have enjoyed the movie anyway....)
The Crow
03-28-03, 10:22 AM
[QUOTE]...thats a real understatement... [/QUOTE
Yeah, it's really terrible!
you said it.it was terrible!
Originally posted by firegod
A movie about crop circles... :rolleyes: Right about now, the 3 or 4 British guys responsible for most crop circles on this planet are laughing their asses off.
Don't let initial impressions fool ya Fire. I'm sure you've heard you can't judge a book by it's cover. Crop Circles is really a backdrop to a deeper story involving a man and his inner struggle to come to terms with his world and place within it.
Originally posted by sadesdrk
Yes, 34 is ancient. You should be put to sleep. :)
I'm 38 but not ready to be put to sleep yet. Married with children. I don't think it's a pathetic sitcom either, it's a new adventure where your decisions and actions impact the lives of others in a direct and lasting way.
Don't be too concerned about putting the old guys out to pasture either. We spend all night on the important stuff and have more than a few tricks up our sleeves those young speeders may or may not ever figure out. ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.