Signs

Hmm...Ok so this difference of opinion is all on my end. Ok. I said Thank You!!! 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

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.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

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.

Don't let this discourage you...as far as I'm concerned, you are part of this group. A welcome part, at that.

You don't owe me any apology. I appreciate your frankness.

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.


Don't back down on my account. I'm not a Moderator anyway -- I'm an Admin.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
it's better to have loved and lost
than to live with the psycho
for the rest of your life

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.

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.

Oh right...it would be the fault of the director or writer...not the misinterpretation of the viewer. Silly Bear.

I think Chris is right.

__________________
"I bet one legend that keeps reoccurring throughout history, in every culture, is the story of Popeye."

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.

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.

I may look mean, but I'm just a big softy. Not too metion a Dad, I can empathize better than these junior mints

Come on you! Don't go all off topic now! You and I have to fight against the misinterpreters! Meanies unite! BLAAAAAAAAAAAH!!

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.

Yipe!

umm, ok...just dont hurt me...

Indeed. Yeah.

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 [in fact, it's quite comforting when someone like Shyamalan writes similar dialogue to that in 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:



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.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Interesting points...


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? ). 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.

Interesting Fact: The stories about the two children's births in the film? Actual stories about Night's two children. Isn't that cute?

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].

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. 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.