Signs

Kong, of course, thinks that all of your hang-ups are valid except for this last one. Mel Gibson was a priest, but not a Catholic priest. Kong believes he was supposed to be an Episcopalian priest, and they don't have chastity vows.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

There are as many different types of films as there are film goers. I think back to the days when Gene Siskel was still alive and reviewing movies with his good friend Roger Ebert. Back then, Siskel was a reviewer that focused on how a movie made him feel and not so much into breaking a film down to impossibilities. If it was completely implausible he would, of course, but mainly that was how Ebert would critique it. After Siskel’s death though, Ebert softened, and became much more forgivable.

I am more of a film goer that could relate to Siskel, and less with Ebert. That’s why Signs is my favorite Shyalaman film. Whether the most important plot device to this movie is about the family, the aliens, or the loss (and subsequent regaining) of faith, is beside the point. It all comes down to what kind of audience you are. First, and foremost, I want a movie to heighten my emotional level to some degree. I don’t necessarily want a flimsy tear jerker, but a movie like Signs is right up my alley. I personally didn’t think it was the same as a movie of the week or a subject relative to an episode of Oprah. I thought that its portrayal of a man torn from the love of his wife and the love for his God heartbreaking and beautiful. The emotion I felt for the brother, for the kind person he is, and for his failures because of who he is, terribly poetic. And as for the children, I loved them both.

Kong has some very valid points for his reasoning to not like this film, and I won’t presume to judge what type of audience he belongs to, but it seems apparent that certain things are important to him in order to enjoy a movie. There were no plot holes in Signs, but there were things that don’t make a whole lot of sense. Why did the aliens decide to come to our planet, when %85 of it is completely lethal to them? Maybe they presumed we would not know or conclude what theie weakness were in time for us to put up any resistance. Why would a species that are capable of interstellar flight not be able to open a door? Who knows, and frankly, I don’t care. Even though there are some less than credible aspects to the aliens as a whole, the way they were presented was classic. I’m not the type to really care about these things so much, because the movie delivered in the way I wanted it to be delivered. The way the signs were dished out to us from beginning to end, yet only revealed to us as actual signs near the end of the film was beautiful to me. The way the brother had his day at the end gave me goose bumps. And one of the things that I loved most about it was the music. I’m hard pressed to remember many films where the music pitched my emotional state in so many different, and powerful, directions as it did in this movie.

In my opinion, arguing about the infeasibilities of the aliens is pointless. If you are of the type where this will annoy you to the point of ruining it for you, then it isn’t for you. If you are the type that forgives, because it just made you feel so damn good, then this movie is going to be one of your favorites.

__________________
"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."

Man, this is like the fourth thread where there is a discussion, then it ends with me. Am I a thread killer??? That's my new name...TheThreadKiller

Hmmmm

I have to jump on the wagon that this is not a film about aliens. This film was clearly about Faith (and keeping it) and the loss of loved ones and how it affects even the most faithful of people. As far as trying to guess the aliens point of view, we can't. They are aliens and things that seem logical or illogical to us would not apply.

Why did they come to a planet with 80% water? Maybe there is another chemical component that is exclusive to Earth that they need, who know's? As for acting in a way that intelligent aliens would act, we don't know how intelligent aliens would act as they would have an absolutlely foreign paradigm for life in comparison to ours, as well as a completely different and totally foreign way of thinking.

I also think Shamy was going for an old-skool invasion flick feel to his film (the credits look 50's era for example) and I think he achieved it. Hence some of the cheesey 50's style alien shots and the "Childhood's End" style of invasion the aliens use make more sense as mechanics in the film.

nuff said for now, and I would recommend watching Unbreakable again folks, as it is a great character study and one of my fav films of all time....

_Sedai

Why can't people grasp the concept that a movie can be about two different things at the same time!? It's driving Kong fricken' crazy here.

Is Signs about an alien invasion? YES!!!!!
Is Signs about the importance of faith and family? Yes!!!!

They aren't mutually exclusive!

How can anyone say the movie isn't about aliens when the plot is about aliens invading the earth? It's like saying that Gremlins isn't about gremlins, or that Jaws isn't about a big maneating shark!

Actually Jaws was about overcoming a large obstacle in a....haha just kidding. I see what you are saying here, and I agree. Signs is of course about aliens, however I do not believe they were key to the telling of this story. Do you not think that if they were so important to the film that MNS would not have answered alot of these critcal questions that you have wondered about. This would tend to make me believe that he was a lazy director. Granted, maybe he was; but his past work (to me anyway) leads me to believe that he definitely likes the audience to be able to relate to and understand the "main" charaters. I for one have no clue what the aliens were thinking or what they even wanted. So what I am saying here I guess is that if the aliens were supposed to be "key" to the telling of this story then the director would have explained alot more about them. Maybe the name "Signs" had nothing to do with crop circles, maybe it had to do with other things in the movie, and I am sue you know what I mean. Again, I do not disagree with you about the aliens being a part of the plot, but I still do not think they were what the movie was about.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Yes we can.

Hold it, aren't you making an assumption about the aliens' point of view when you assume that their point of view isn't anything like ours? And didn't you just say that we can't do that? So, not only does that make this sentence hypocritical, it makes it a refutation to your previous one.

[quote=Sedai]Why did they come to a planet with 80% water? Maybe there is another chemical component that is exclusive to Earth that they need, who know's? [quote=Sedai]

Don't know. Obviously they are morons. At any rate, Shyamalan better damn sure well know the answer to this question, because you can't write convincing characters without understanding their motivations.

Wait a minute.... Shyamalan didn't write convincing characters did he?

Whatever. Cats and penguins and beetles all have different ways of thinking too, but that doesn't mean we can't learn anything about the ways that they think. You observe, and you learn. Kong observed that the aliens in Signs don't just simply have a different way of thinking, but that they just simply don't think at all!

Did Kong mention that he has some swamp land down in the everglades that he'd like to sell you?

Plotwise Kong feels that the aliens were extremely important, but that Shyamalan was simply trapped in a corner. If he made the aliens act as intelligent as they would have to be then he wouldn't have been able to get across the big message of the film. So, Shyamalan chose to fudge the aliens in order to get across the deeper issues.

Kong just can't handle this fudging. There are plenty of ways of tackling the underlying themes of this movie, and he should have chosen one that could have been handled without all the comprimises that the alien plot required.

He isn't so much of a lazy director as he is a lazy writer.

The title was a double entendre.

Just so you know I totally respect your thoughts here, and I even admit that you may be right. Maybe if we could ask MNS directly we could get a straight answer. Until I am convinced different, however ,I will stick to my original thoughts. Thanks for the great debate so far, it is threads like these that make me come back again and again.

Glad to see your receptive and understanding.

Kong can actually easily understand people who can ignore the faults and have fun with the movie. Heck, Kong loved the first 30 minutes or so. Kong just isn't capable of ignoring certain parts, and, for him, they are extremely crucial.

So it is...

I didn't say that it wasn't about the aliens.

Kong didn't mean you. Sorry for the confusion.

I know you didn't. I was trying to confuse you.

You tricky devil.

Did my avatar give that away? Because he's really an angel you know.

Just wondering, who was that directed to?

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

The same guy Kong quoted in that post... 7th Son.

I see... ...how silly of me...

Personally speaking, I loved "Signs" when I saw it in the theater, and I loved it even more after I bought the dvd and watched it a few more times. No amount of quibbling over the most minor of details would change that. Hey, didn't anyone think it was crazy how all of the glasses the girl drank out of were clear, and not one of them was blue, or red, or yellow, or green??? What was M. Night thinking!!?? How could he ruin the movie like that!!?? Why was her hair straight when it should have been curly due to the 74% humidity that Pennsylvania is known to experience throughout the fall season???

Oh yea, please note the sarcasm.

I remember the good ol' days when people actually watched movies to ENJOY them, not strictly so they could look for plot holes to point out and mistakes to correct. How many people pay $10 to see a movie just so they can run home, get on their computers, and bitch about all of the minor details that were missed or screwed up?? My guess is a lot. I'm not one of them. I loved "Signs", big-time. Mel Gibson's performance?? Perfect. I thought he played his role absolutely perfectly. Joaquin?? Awesome. His performance was my favorite of the movie. His interactions with Mel and the female cop were all great. That scene where Mel and Joaquin run outside in the middle of the night to try and scare off the 'Wolfington Brothers' or whatever their names were, and Mel is supposed to curse and scream and act real pissed off?? That scene was hilarious!! That scene around the dinner table?? Heartwrenching. Rory Culkin's athsma attack scene?? Speaking as someone that's had asthma their entire life and suffered several attacks, that scene got to me. I related to it 110%.

I could go on about this movie for awhile, and I'll probably end up writing a few more posts in this thread, but I just wanted to point out the fact that while the movie maybe wasn't 100% accurate, it was still enjoyable, and last I checked, that's a pretty important thing when you're watching a movie.

"Signs" gets an 'A' outta' me.

It's, of course, cool that you loved the movie, but Kong just wants to defend himself very briefly.

Kong may have taken this post the wrong way, but it seems as if you are insinuating that Kong is quibbling over trivial details and, in doing, betraying the spirit of going out to see movies.

Kong doesn't feel this way at all. Kong isn't picking on continuity problems or anachronisms. He's pointing out the problems he had with the way the antagonists (who are a hardly minor) were written, and how he feels the film didn't stick to it's own rules about the water issue.

Your comments aren't sarcasm; they're hyperbole.