The Shoutbox
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
I was going to post a link to my review but don't know how to do that in the Shoutbox.
Like this. You can quote this shout to see it, or it's just this without the asterisks:

[*url=address]Text[/url*]

Also, you can just copy and paste the URL and it'll automatically link it:

https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1752226-signs.html
I also want to say that all of my bickering and wall of text is only to stress how important I think it is to have your set tight. I don't think I can do any better, at least, not technically. M. Night makes really, really good movies...


that always seem to have a foul agent thrown in that sticks out like a sore thumb. Just my opinion. Maybe I'll watch SIGNS again sometime. I did enjoy it for the most part. And maybe I'll make peace with my hang up about it. It's been over 15 years.
Originally Posted by ynwtf
I agree. I would add to the technical design. Great stuff. Mood. Framing. Pacing for suspense. But to me that's as far as it goes for him. All the effort to tell a potentially great story but the payoff never aligns (mostly). I read him as a salesman, ever perfecting his craft. Unfortunately, it's the only the craft of the sale that matters and not so much the quality of product. All the effort to paint a Michelangelo but the real painting is the completely arbitrary sailboat you see miraculously floating before your eyes if you're willing to stare long enough faithfully believing it had purpose.
exactamundo!

all the craft in the world cannot save a bad sensibility. You get these actors who are so invested into their roles and their presence and commitment coupled with amazing technical feat is meat headedly undermined by a doofy bit of writing in the form of flashback audio hallucination of a character phrase and then revealed as this corny and silly awakening where "this dude sure can swing a bat to defeat them aliens, yes sir, I said ah'! My momma told me so! Git them aliens, son. Git Em!"

Whoops!
Originally Posted by Austruck
Joel, I'm curious to know what about the "Swing away" line made you pause and rewind. That moment seemed almost too tailor made for me, if anything. (I loved SIGNS, though, so it didn't bother me in the least.)
Pretty much what you say about it. Tailor made=convenient. And it wasn't profound, no...about as profound as dropping a sack of dumplings.

I guess it bothered me because that kind of writing undermines such an otherwise mostly incredible picture, and because I remember that blunder because of the contrast between it and the rest of the film, mostly.

I figured in dailies they'd tidy it up and put more weight behind it with a re-write but I guess that just never happened.
I reviewed Signs actually here on MoFo. I liked the premise and the little details, but the ending seemed to cliched/Hollywood for me. I was going to post a link to my review but don't know how to do that in the Shoutbox.
I loved Signs world building but can't take his work seriously now because of its conclusion: I expect the unexpected now.
Joel, I'm curious to know what about the "Swing away" line made you pause and rewind. That moment seemed almost too tailor made for me, if anything. (I loved SIGNS, though, so it didn't bother me in the least.)
I agree. I would add to the technical design. Great stuff. Mood. Framing. Pacing for suspense. But to me that's as far as it goes for him. All the effort to tell a potentially great story but the payoff never aligns (mostly). I read him as a salesman, ever perfecting his craft. Unfortunately, it's the only the craft of the sale that matters and not so much the quality of product. All the effort to paint a Michelangelo but the real painting is the completely arbitrary sailboat you see miraculously floating before your eyes if you're willing to stare long enough faithfully believing it had purpose.
I agree that his movies are amazing technically, and it's interesting to hear a theory about him visualizing the film for years prior. What always catches me off guard are some of the ridiculous moments that pop up amidst all this grand cinematic art. "Swing away" comes to mind. I had to rewind and pause for a good long while when I saw that. To this day I wonder if I missed something, and my perception was off. But the trend seems to repeat in way, shape or form, and I think that is some of the critical, I know it's a big part of audience and critic reception. It's like Dario Argento..he makes these beautiful films, only to get a close up of a beating heart getting stabbed. But at least Argento uses extreme shock and bad taste to jolt ppl. Shyamalan kind of seems to be fumbling loudly without knowing it? Can't put my finger on it but it reminds me of Michealangelo painting on a McDowell's bag.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
I actually have a Shyamalan DVD that someone gave me, The Happening, I've never watched it...Maybe one day I'll get up my courage and just do it
It's not good, but it has some good moments. All his films have some really good moments or ideas, really. They just don't seem to get the extra 10% they used to.

The script, incidentally, was significantly better than what ended up on screen. Not good exactly, but better.