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.