Signs.
 

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

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.

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.

hehehe.... yea! BOO!!!!!!

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.

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:

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.

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. :)

I agree with that quote very much, Logan.

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.


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.

No.

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.

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.

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?

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


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.

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.



You definately need to learn a little more about me. Hell, just check out my top ten for crying out loud.

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

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.

Yeah, I see your point. Despite what some newb claimed, I never said I wouldn't see this movie. I'm not sure yet.

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.

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.

I really don't think I degraded you until you degraded me; I degraded an idea in a MOVIE.




I never said anything like that, but if I am to believe that something exists, I have to have a good reason.


Except for the idiots part, this description sounds an awful lot like YOU.


I have hope for something better; EXCUUUUUUUSE me for not agreeing with you on heaven, if that is what you are referring to.


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.


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.

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?

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 fight picking intended. but offended alittle @ the whole I'm gullible remark. Very offended. Sad? no, Offended yes.


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".

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?

I thought you were taking a few stabs at me, so I thought it would only be polite to return the favor. :)


Lol. That is frigging hilarious.:laugh:

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

*Steals all sharp instruments from FF*

Fair enough...

**hides nail file DEEP in purse.**

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?

Signs
 

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.

Weird phenomenon at the theatre?
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I too loved your review... but ummm......
all except this one little phrase....
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:

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.

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:.

...well, you did.

:rolleyes: Hmmm...yeah. Okay.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You could definitely choose a much worse director. Good call on him, if he's really your favorite.

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.

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.

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.

i am late commenting
 

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.

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:

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.

I hope I'm not being too picky, but the Episcopal church is a Protestant denomination, not Catholic.

Edit: Yeah, what she said! :)

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.

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.

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.

Ditto. I've glazed over all three times I've seen that scene.

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.

though I rarely agree with Roger Ebert.

This is one of the best Review for Signs I have read to date.

:up: :up:

This is a very good review. He puts it all very well, exactly as I felt too. Thanks for posting this link!

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.

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.

Bite me.

:rotfl:

I love it:

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.

I can't believe you guys loved this movie so much. :D



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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

i hear ya sades
 

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.

The point was

Okay, there are several things wrong with what you said, in my opinion. :)

Why waste space with so called "spoilers" .....just write.

He said he hated God during his boys asthma attack. He says it twice.

We don't want to spoil things for anyone who may not have seen it yet.

Anyhoo, onto the rebuttals. :)

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.

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 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. 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.

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?

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.

And by good, you mean bad. But in the end, aren't the worst things really the best? The answer is "no."

:D

The dream is over.
But is it really over?
Yes. Yes it is.
Or is it?

It wasn't a film about aliens already!!

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.;)

F*ckin' A. Because it contains aliens at ALL, the movie has to FOCUS on them? WTF?

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.

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.