Signs-Thoughts and Reviews [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

dh1989

07-31-2002, 11:49 AM

I am truly looking forward to this movie. Mel Gibson is one of my favorite actors and M. Night Shymalan is one of the best directors working in Hollywood today. The trailers look scary. I am really looking forward to the violent dogs, that should be a scary scene if done right. I hope M. Night Shymalan does a cameo because it is fun to look for him in the movies. I am thinking this movie is going to be the best of the year up to The Two Towers in December.

P.S. This is not totally about Signs, but is related. I was reading my local paper and there were some reports about a blue sphere, or a U.F.O., in the wee hours of Firday morning. I thought this story was kind of cool because my local Naval base actually said they saw an unidentified flying object and sent up a pair of jets(F-16) to check it out, but it could not be found. A night security guard noted that they saw the jets and the sphere take off incredibly fast to the right. It is probably a hoax, but I thought it was an fun hoax.

[This message has been edited by dh1989 (edited 07-31-2002).]

[This message has been edited by dh1989 (edited 07-31-2002).]

[This message has been edited by dh1989 (edited 07-31-2002).]

Moviefan1234

07-31-2002, 12:27 PM

Yes, M. Night Shymalan does make a cameo appearence like usual. Secondly, I read that same UFO/F-16 story on Netscape news. I read that eyewitness story. But, the military said that there WAS an unidentified flying object over Maryland so they sent up fighter jets after it. Kind of spooky huh?

Americana

07-31-2002, 02:08 PM

TWO DAYZ AND COUNTING BABY!!!

I soooo cannot wait for this movie man. I mean fuck it's gonna rock hard baby. I mean JoBlo just gave the movie an 8/10 for crying out loud. And trust me JoBlo don't give any movie a 8/10 unless it was more then great so I know this movie will be worth my yours and everyone else's money and maybe even more. Two fucking dayz man can you feel the pain in your heart yet for having to wait that fucking long??? http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

dh1989

07-31-2002, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Moviefan1234:
Kind of spooky huh?

Yeah http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

The Other

07-31-2002, 09:35 PM

Yikes, over at the IMDB it's only (yes only) got a 7.3/10 average with 242 votes. Usually when it has that few amount of votes it starts waaay higher and then gradually evens out lower. Six people gave it a 1 already. There are just some movies I cannot even imagine anyone giving a 1/10 too. Some people!

Then again, maybe SIGNS will even out higher...

Americana

08-01-2002, 03:10 AM

Well then those fans must have been high at the time and was wigged out because they didn't see any alien titties or something. Oh maybe they were just plain assholes who wanted to make other people feel bad.

Horror whore

08-01-2002, 07:23 AM

It FINALLY opens tomorrow! I can't fucking wait!

The Heart Collector

08-01-2002, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by The Other:
Yikes, over at the IMDB it's only (yes only) got a 7.3/10 average with 242 votes. Usually when it has that few amount of votes it starts waaay higher and then gradually evens out lower. Six people gave it a 1 already. There are just some movies I cannot even imagine anyone giving a 1/10 too. Some people!

Then again, maybe SIGNS will even out higher...

There's a huge, HUGE group of fucking imbeciles that give 1s to movies they obviously haven't even seen.

Michael Corleone

08-01-2002, 09:28 PM

Saw a sneak preview of this on Tuesday, but I haven't gotten around to typing out a review until now.

Signs is a beautifully crafted, intelligent film that takes its time, which is one of the things that I respect most about this film and about Shyamalan as a director. He takes the time to explain everything that is happening in the film to us the viewers so we wouldn’t be lost and not know what is happening. All throughout this film I sensed the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock with its intelligent and thought provoking way of telling the story and keeping us involved in every frame and every twist. I particularly enjoyed the performance from Mel Gibson who turns in one of his most touching and convincing performances in years. There isn’t much more that I can say about the film except that it kept me involved and kept me on the edge of my seat with its suspenseful story, haunting score, and Hitchcockian feel. Not since “The Talented Mr. Ripley” have I sensed so much Hitchcock in one movie. Shyamalan proves to me once again that he is truly the new master of suspense.

Final Grade: **** (out of 5)

[This message has been edited by Michael Corleone (edited 08-02-2002).]

Riddick

08-01-2002, 11:32 PM

Wow. I just finished watching this and it went way beyond my expectations.

I'd been looking forward to seeing it since I saw the first trailers, and I expected a lot from it. I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as The Sixth Sense, but I did. And let me just say, this is Shyamalan's best work to date.

It's my favourite movie of the year, and it definitely has a place on my all time favourites list.

Perfectly played out, incredibly well acted, it was simply a perfect movie. I won't spoil anything for anyone, you'll want to go in cold.

10/10

Americana

08-01-2002, 11:38 PM

ONE MORE DAY!!! ONE MORE DAY!!! ONE MORE DAY!!! ONE MORE DAY!!!

I'm sooooo ready for tomorrow guys that I'm even taking off work to see it. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

BoxOfficeGuy

08-02-2002, 03:18 AM

I downloaded Signs 1 week before the theatrical release. I think it will do great at the box office this weekend. It was a cool movie.

Rating 4.5 of 5 stars

Moviefreek

08-02-2002, 06:41 AM

Hopefully I get to see it, if i don't have to work this weekend. Started a new job this past week and the people i'm going to see it with want to see it early. Oh well, if I work I'll go see it at night, I don't care, but i gotta see it!

Horror whore

08-02-2002, 07:17 AM

Roger Ebert gave it ****, that's always a good sign (no pun intended). Anyways, I'm seeing it tonight at 8:10, I can't wait!!!!

blankpage

08-02-2002, 10:03 AM

I have to wait until Monday to see it http://www.joblo.com/ubb/frown.gif .But oh well.I'll make do.

FUCK!!!I WANNA SEE THIS MOVIE SOOO BAD!

--blankpage
http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Lazy Boy

08-02-2002, 10:29 AM

While Ebert's 4-star review has made my excitement level rise, I have to be cautious, as one of the recent 4-star reviews he gave was to MINORITY REPORT, a disappointment in some aspects.
I'm still seeing it, later tonight. I'm going with my sister and a best friend. Can't wait!

Moviefreek

08-02-2002, 11:40 AM

I'll be seeing it at 5 http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif...YES YES YES

dh1989

08-02-2002, 11:43 AM

I can't believe Signs actually came out today. I watched a special on Starz movie channel today and it showed some great footage. One character in this film annoys me. It is that military guy who says the aliens are checking out the area for the rest of them. He asks Merrill(Phoenix) why he quit baseball and why he is not making millions and having pretty woman suck his toes. The guy is really a bad actor(his voice annoys me, does anyone agree) and if some jerk said that statement to me, I'd ahve to say "none of your f*cki*g business a*shole", but still I can't wait till 9:50 tonight, when I see it. It is probably better too see it at ight, more scary coming out. If only the night would come faster.

Strider

08-02-2002, 04:43 PM

Damn! The day has finally arrived... Signs is now opened everywhere! It's a damn shame I'm not gonna see it until Sunday. Oh well, at least I'll still see it on opening week! But damn, I so can not wait anymore!!!

Strider

gyro_44

08-02-2002, 08:15 PM

What can I say? I loved it.

This movie is so many things in one. It's an exploration of feelings and emotions if the end of the world were just around the corner, it's a story of one man searching for faith, and it's a spooky alien invasion tale. M. Night Shyamalan is probably the most exciting young talent in Hollywood today. You would have to be, to mix all those elements together with such a deft hand.

"Signs" has the most realistic movie family I've seen in quite a while, it will make your skin crawl, and it engages your mind. It's a great film for many reasons.

9/10

Fergus

08-02-2002, 08:32 PM

I saw a 3:15pm showing here Pacific time; I can not tell you how much I have wanted to see this. Was I disappointed, yes and no. Is it the best thriller of any kind to come out this year, HECK YEAH.

I loved the opening shot, as it pulls back from a window, and the outside looks a little wavy. Cool stuff! Anyway, it starts off right into the action, there isn't any exposition before the plot, no ten minute introduction of the characters. And its a good thing. We learn about them as the story moves along, and that's the way it should be. I love the way it just builds and builds from the ground up, this excellent story. I'll tell you one thing, I would not dream of giving away anything about the movie that you don't already know. That's how Shyamalan wanted it, and I'm going to keep true to what he was trying to do.

Whenever I'm watching a movie, I always think of the grade before the movie is even finished, and I was prepared halfway to give this film an 8/10, and when it ended, that was going to be the official grade, until I realized something. I was often thinking during the experience how it wasn't exactly the most original film on earth, and that is why the grade wasn't as high. But then it clicked how much I was drawn into these characters. I was there right next to them, experiencing every emotion, fear, fright. That may sound corny, but its true. We don't often get a film that draws you in as well as this one.

First point is definitely the humor. I didn't laugh a lot, but the dialogue spread throughout the opening hour is quite funny. Now it could be a burden to the movie, or it could work, and I'm leaning towards the latter because it made these people interesting to watch. The aluminum foil hats--funny stuff. The characters are marvelously well written, and it is basically 4 people: Gibson, Phoenix, Culkin, and little Abigail Breslin. Gibson has one of his best performances in awhile. The use of the flashback scene is a good addition, and helps out one specific character very much.

The technical side is just terrific. Very Hitchcockian; Shyamalan has learned well from the Master of Suspense. What I noticed while watching the film is how LITTLE we see of anything. Shyamalan leaves more to the imagination than any other "high on their horse" director would. We are put in a situation where we believe things are happening, when they are not. And it is TEN TIMES BETTER than seeing the actual thing. Which makes some of the camerawork so cool because its always looking away. That way, when you do see what everyone is gasping at, you gasp too. Great trick, I must say.

This is overall, a superbly crafted suspense film. This is what PANIC ROOM wanted to be. And the reason Signs is so much better than PR, is not the technical parts, but it has SUBSTANCE. Signs is a film that will last over the years; it is going to age well because of its substance. PANIC ROOM will fade in time, because there is no going back to it once you see it the first time, there isn't anything holding it up, except for style, but that doesn't help much.

SIGNS deserves a ****1/2 of five, or a (9/10). And no, I wasn't disappointed, I got more than my money's worth.

[This message has been edited by Fergus (edited 08-02-2002).]

jackson13

08-02-2002, 08:59 PM

Im going to the 10:45 show, the last show of the night. I cant fucking wait!! Only an hour and 45 minutes left!!!!!!

usuallysuspected

08-02-2002, 09:00 PM

I saw signs at 1230 this morning, and HOLY FUCKING SHIT ON A 3 LEGGED MONKEY it was good. Well acted , well written, and some of the best cinematography since crouching tiger hidden dragon. It was pretty funny too. It packed everything that is great about movies today into a tight little bundled and that alone brought a smile to my face. It will carry a diffrent level of "scare factor" I think for each induvidual person. Personally Im so scared right now that I not even going outside(I live near a corn field). People will definately have differing opinions on this movie but so do most movies. This ones a keeper in my book and easily one if not the best movie I have seen so far this year. Peace Out

Horror whore

08-02-2002, 09:25 PM

NO SPOILERS

Oh my God. I just got back and am still trying to calm down. Let me start off by saying "I LOVE THIS MOVIE!" I don't think I've ever screamed that loud so many times during one film. There are so many excellent things about Signs! The acting, directing, script, scares, sound, EVERYTHING is perfect! It's taken me at least 20 minutes to ease myself to walk upstairs and go into my room to type this message, the movie got to me that much. This will probably end up being my favorite movie of this year. M. Night Shaymalan has definitley outdone himself.

10/10

(P.S.- I'm not giving anything away but the birthday scene will stay with me for days! *shudder*)

FZFamilyGuy

08-02-2002, 09:51 PM

Went and saw it first showing, 11:20 AM, OH MY GOD it's great, how great you ask?!? Well let's just say I went and saw it again 8 hours later, that's right I saw it twice in one day, and I loved it even more! I went and saw it, came back and told my parents how great it was, so they wanted to see it too, so they offered to pay, so why not, I went.
M. Night is a God. Bring on the next masterpiece.

thompsoncory

08-02-2002, 09:58 PM

This is a great movie! I saw it this afternoon, and it is one of my favorites of the year thus far. It has everything. Laughs, drama, and most of all suspense are present in this excellent film with great performances. See this movie now!

9.5/10

blankpage

08-02-2002, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Strider:
Damn! The day has finally arrived... Signs is now opened everywhere! It's a damn shame I'm not gonna see it until Sunday. Oh well, at least I'll still see it on opening week! But damn, I so can not wait anymore!!!

Strider

Luck Bastard http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif I have to wait until Monday to see it.

"I think God is mocking me.Just like he mocked Jesus in the dessert!"

--blankpage
http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

The Heart Collector

08-02-2002, 11:19 PM

Excellent, excellent film, my favorite one of the year so far. The acting was excellent, and the comedy bits worked pretty well. Not only that, but it managed to scare the living hell out of me at least twice. I only had a problem with it (takes off half a point):

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

My only problem with the movie was the ultimate resolution to the invasion. I mean, all of a sudden, Father Graham wakes up and is informed that the invasion was repelled. They never say how or why, just that we fought them off. That wasn't a particularly good way of capping it off. especially since it seemed to be over so quickly (the world invasion, not the attack on their house). other than that, it was excellent.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

8.5/10

[This message has been edited by The Heart Collector (edited 08-03-2002).]

bob

08-02-2002, 11:19 PM

What can I say other than that I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH YOU GUYS!!!! This movie is the best movie of this year in my opinion, beating Amelie(technically a 2001 release, but give me a break) with one hand tied behind it's back! The most important things I picked up from this movie were A) Mel Gibson can act, and B) Shyamalan IS the new Hitchcock! A lot of things about this movie were very Hitchcockian:
SPOILERS**
SPOILERS**
SERIOUSLY, THIS WILL RUIN THE MOVIE**
1
2
3
The first thing that struck me is that here, like in Unbreakable, M.Night uses the everyman almost to the same extent that Hitch does. I mean, there's nothing remarkable about Mel Gibson's character, except that he must go through this encounter with the aliens. I was shocked when I walked out of the theater with my friends and the said they were disappointed by the ending, and that they wanted a big Alien war. The first thing that struck me was:did these people watch the movie? I mean, it was fairly obvious to me that the alien plot was just a tool to get Mel Gibson to regain his faith(another Hitch tool: I mean, was North by Northwest about a man on a crazy journey through america or about a Wall Street guy falling in love with a double agent?).
Was I the only one who was REALLY glad the crop circles didn't turn out to be a hoax? I mean, that would be kind of cool, but I wouldn't want to see M.Night paint himself into a corner by being known as the twist guy. I thought the ending was awesome, and the final battle between Merril and the alien was better than watching a million mini ufo's get blown up in Independence Day.

Overall: 9.5/10. The best movie Night's made yet.

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-02-2002, 11:30 PM

Great movie1 The best I have seen so far, this year. I thought it was both very funny, and very tense. And the birthday scene was one of the scariest things I have seen on film. I saw this with a big crowd of people, and it was even better because of it. I love being in the theater when people are scared.

dmdubie

08-02-2002, 11:33 PM

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

My only problem with the movie was the ultimate resolution to the invasion. I mean, all of a sudden, Father Graham wakes up and is informed that the invasion was repelled. They never say how or why, just that we fought them off. That wasn't a particularly good way of capping it off. especially since it seemed to be over so quickly (the world invasion, not the attack on their house). other than that, it was excellent.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

-------------SPOILERS-----------------

The Radio just mentioned that the people found a low-tech solution to fighting the aliens. The solution they found was the same solution that the family found, water. Kinda "War of the Worlds"-like. I guess the aliens should have thought of that, considering Earth is 80%, or so, water http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif. Other than that, I thought this was definitely a great movie.
I love the suspense approach to the alien invasion type movie, rather than the cute and cuddly family approach or the big explosion, FX-laden, summer blockbuster. I also love how the movie was actually pretty funny, "I am insane with anger!" http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif. I would definitely give this a 9/10.

[This message has been edited by dmdubie (edited 08-03-2002).]

Moviefreek

08-02-2002, 11:39 PM

Signs has been seen by me. Finally after viewing the trialer many times and reading many reviews on how it was scary and all that good stuff, I could not wait. I saw it and I must say it was good but also dissapointing at the same time.

The acting was great. Mel Gibson gives of very good emotions as he always does. His brother played by Joaquin Phoenix was good also. The emotion was the key part to this film and they all did their job in doing it. I was moved by the characters. That is what the movie does it makes you feel close to the family. Whenever there were tense family scenes, I would just get a chill down my spine or a smile on my face. This is what I enjoyed the most about the movie was the family.

The story was good. You really don't know where its ever going untill it gets there. Like M Night's past films he wraps it up in the last minutes. I must say I enjoyed this ending more than the previous two movies. Won't say what goes on. I wish I could but it would ruin the movie for others. The film was funny also. I laughed much more than I jumped.

The reason I was dissapointed with the film is I didn't get scared like many reviews said. Many of the reviews stated that the movie was edge of your seat chills and jump scene galore. I jumped once maybe twice. I must agree with them on one thing the b-day video gave me a huge chill. But the reason I look past the lack of chills is once again the focus on the emotions of the family.

See the movie for some thrills. See the movie for great human emotion. See it for great directing from Shyamalan. Don't see it for a scary movie. See it with somone besided yourself it will be more enjoyable. It's my favorite movie from Shymalan yet. It suprasses The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. I would have rated it higher if it would have scared me more than it did. The cornfield has created a sign that reads 8/10.

NomadKnight

08-02-2002, 11:58 PM

SPOILERS

I'M SERIOUS

OK GO

The alien actually didn't seem to know what was water and it's because of this that there invasion totally failed.

The Heart Collector

08-03-2002, 12:48 AM

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Lemme be the first to mention that i find it weird that aliens wouldn't know about water, considering it's one of the freaking bases of life.

dmdubie

08-03-2002, 12:55 AM

--------------------SPOILERS---------------

Well, life, as WE know it, depends on water. Who knows how life could have evolved on other planets where water may not have been as plentiful.

adamjohnson

08-03-2002, 01:21 AM

first off, well first off SPOILERS.

but second off, the invasion of the planet wasnt the point. otherwise it wouldhave just been another independence day. we kno what happened o them, aa the radio and the water. the point wasthe invasion of graham an dhis family. not about the planet itself. none of us schmoes would have written an invaion of the entire planet fro the eyes of just one family. thats why shyamalan is a mastermind, ad he gets paid the big bucks. next hitchcock?????

jackson13

08-03-2002, 02:05 AM

WARNING SPOILERS, REPEAT, MAJOR SPOILERS, THIS WILL RUIN THE MOVIE FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN IT!!!!:

"Dont see it alone"

I did just that, except there were about 200 other people in the theater, but you get my point. I just got home from the 10:45 show (sold out by the way, curious to see opening day numbers on this baby), and im still replaying the movie in my head. What a thrill this movie was. For so long now I've been waiting for a movie to just put me on the edge of my seat, waiting for the next moment to come. This movie did just that. To help my experience, I sat next to a group of high school girls (not on purpose mind you) and whenever a scare came along, those girls made it worth my while. The whole theater screamed and jumped and laughed and sat on the edge of their seats all at the same times. The 1st scare came when the dog lunged at Bo when she gave him the water, mainly because it was so loud and unexpected, that got us going for the rest of the ride. The next major scare came when Graham looked out the window and saw the thing (I couldn't really tell what it was), it wasnt much of a big scare, especially since we were all dying laughing about 2 seconds later ("Im insane with anger! Theres an ass-kicking coming!). Then, later, Graham drops his flashlight and picks it up in time to catch a glimpse of a leg crossing his path in front of him (I knew this was coming from the previews, but I still jumped a little). Then, the biggies:
#1 The Birthday Party. Holy shit, that scene will forever be imbedded in my mind. I had no idea what the alien would look like, and when it ran across the screen and stared into the camera, I almost pissed myself (I said almost damn you!). Then, we get the instant replay, with the still frame shot of the alien looking into the camera, that is going to be in my nightmares tonight.
#2 The Pantry. I knew right away something was going to happen with the pantry ("Don't look in my pantry father, I saw one of them and trapped it in there"). The 1st time Graham stuck the blade under the door, I was waiting for the scene I saw in the preview, but it didn't happen. Then Graham went back to the door, and got closer, and then...it lunged! The claws getting cut off was damn scary, and pretty cool. Everyone screamed when the claws came under the door, and the girls screamed louder when the blade came down. Awesome, awesome scene.
#3 The Coal Shaft. When they said that they used to dump coal into the basement, we knew right away that one was going to get in there, but none of us were expecting it to happen while Morgan was standing in front of the opening. When those "fingers" came through and grabbed his neck, the girl next to me actually jumped so bad that she clocked my elbow and hurt me, but it was worth it. I loved how M. Night didn't show anything during that sequence, just the flashlight and then Bo picking it up. Great suspense during that scene.
#4: The T.V. Screen. I had a feeling that when Graham unplugged the T.V. something was going to happen, but I had no idea that once he rolled it into the living room a fucking alien would be standing there holding his son. Great, great sequence with the whole "flashback, swing away, poisonous gas, alien bashing, water fight". I wasnt expecting the movie to end that way. Not at all, I was thinking that Merrill would bash it a few times and then the thing would jump out the window and escape, luckily, that didnt happen. Perfect ending in my opinion. When the camera panned back into the house and focused on the door, the girls beside me were waiting for something scary to jump out or something, and I admit I was too, but, that didn't happen, and I'm glad it didnt.
I walked out of the movie thinking a lot of things. "What was the method used by Middle Easterners that drove the aliens away?" "What happened to the 'wounded' (not dead apparently) bodies that the aliens left behind?" "What happened to the dead alien in the house?" What happened to the family, and the rest of the world?" Never, I repeat, NEVER, has a movie left me asking so many questions when walking out, and to be honest, I'm glad those questions weren't answered, I'm glad everything was left to the viewers imaginanation because mine is certainly running wild right now.
There was so much I loved about this film. The aliens, the crop circles, the birthday party scene, the lights over Mexico City, the "invasion", the suspense, the comedy, the scares, the acting, the score (damn that was great, anyone know where I can buy the classical score to this film?), the camera work, the flashbacks...basically everything in general. A perfect film in my opinion.
Perfect.
10/10

(Job well done Mr. Shyamalan, or should I just call you "Ray"? Can't wait for your next flick, although, what would it be about? Bigfoot? Loch Ness? Its gotta be something else supernatural, and I'll definitely be waiting to see it.)

P.S. Im going to see this move again tommorow, and Sunday as well. Maybe even Monday too, I have the day off.

[This message has been edited by jackson13 (edited 08-03-2002).]

Americana

08-03-2002, 02:59 AM

Okay people I just got back from the best fucking day at the theaters ever and here's what I have to say...

This movie was by far the best movie I have ever seem along with Unbrakeable and Sixth Sence. I loved every single moment of this film and more. At first I thought it was just a rumor or something but now I know for sure that M. Night Shymalan is in fact a "God" and a "Mastermind" of moviemaking. He is indeed the best out there today and with only three movies no less. I mean this movie had me rocking off the edge of my freaken seat the whole time and the ending was just amazing as hell. A true classic is born ladies and gents. Swing Away Merrill... Swing Away!!!

He had me thrilled with The Sixth Sence, he had my blown away with Unbrakeable, but now.... NOw he has me scared shitless with Signs and I don't think I'll ever respect a Director more then this man M. Night Shymalan people. Never.

Ron3484

08-03-2002, 03:11 AM

My god!! I havent been scared liked this since........hummm....actually this scared me more than any other movie that I have seen in the past(i cant think of any right now). Go see this right now! But I have few questions for those who have seen the film...

---------------Spoilers---------------------
1. Did the alien at the end save the kids life, because it looked like it gave a medicine from his arm or somethin.

2. Were the aliens good guys or bad guys?

3. How did mels wife in the movie know about what was going to happen?

-----------------Spoilers--------------------

dmdubie

08-03-2002, 03:28 AM

---------------Spoilers---------------------

1. Did the alien at the end save the kids life, because it looked like it gave a medicine from his arm or somethin.

2. Were the aliens good guys or bad guys?

3. How did mels wife in the movie know about what was going to happen?

-----------------Spoilers--------------------

-----------------SPOILERS-----------

1) It was a poison gas, they were using it to kill people around the world. His asthma actually saved him. Since he was having a hard time breathing, he apparently didn't breathe in the gas.

2) They're bad guys

3) I don't think she knew exactly what was going to happen. She may have just been giving last minute advice to Graham about the kids and his brother.

At least, that's what I gathered from the movie. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by dmdubie (edited 08-03-2002).]

Silverload

08-03-2002, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Ron3484:
My god!! I havent been scared liked this since........hummm....actually this scared me more than any other movie that I have seen in the past(i cant think of any right now). Go see this right now! But I have few questions for those who have seen the film...

---------------Spoilers---------------------
1. Did the alien at the end save the kids life, because it looked like it gave a medicine from his arm or somethin.

2. Were the aliens good guys or bad guys?

3. How did mels wife in the movie know about what was going to happen?

-----------------Spoilers--------------------


******Spoilers******
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

1) No, the alien was trying to kill the boy with the gas that was talked about on the radio. But because of the boy’s near fatal Asthma attack his lungs blocked out all the air keeping him from breathing in the gas, which really ended up saved his life

2) The aliens where definitely bad guys, the radio said they killed many people with the gas and then sort of harvested them. Also they killed their dog before they came to the house, and that one viciously tried to grab Mel Gibson and that is why he knew they were hostile.

3) She didn’t know, but the movie is about signs, her dieing made her disillusioned and she told him to swing away (talking about baseball) but her saying that was a sign. Nothing just happens, everything has a reason.

[This message has been edited by Silverload (edited 08-03-2002).]

Ron3484

08-03-2002, 03:53 AM

Thank You so much! I will diffently see this film again! I cant sleep tonight, the birthday party scene keeps flashing in my head!

Fergus

08-03-2002, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Moviefreek:
Signs has been seen by me. Finally after viewing the trialer many times and reading many reviews on how it was scary and all that good stuff, I could not wait. I saw it and I must say it was good but also dissapointing at the same time.

I think Moviefreek, that you shouldn't get too pumped up about seeing a movie. Trust me, I've gone to several movies and having been very disappointed by their outcome, just by being too excited. I think you wanted Signs to be more than it could've ever been. Its the best crafted thriller since last summers "The Others". i'm sorry you were a tad disappointed, but when the anticipation levels get that high, it's bound to happen. Did you see how disappointed JoBlo was with last years "Ocean's Eleven". Everybody else loved it, but his review was barely positive. Stay away from that big thing called "Hype", someone is always bound to be disappointed. When there is a movie I particularly am excited to see, I watch the trailers once. I would never watch them countlessly, it ruins the film and you start to pick out little shots from the trailers, a big "no no". I know if you go to movies often, and see the same previews that's bound to happen, but if you're seeing them because you want to, I wouldn't recommend it. And I just distract myself with other movies, because hype ruins the possibility of seeing a really good, or even great film. Also, try to see the movie before reading any reviews, they are a bad thing, made me hate a movie called Snake Eyes. These are just suggestions, you don't have to listen to me, but it shocked me how you were disappointed with it. Anyway.......

wfaulk

08-03-2002, 07:22 AM

SPOILERS

I've read the mostly positive reviews here and I have to disagree with you guys. This was not a very good movie. Of course, the cinematography was excellent, and there was some good direction and acting, but the story just doesn't work for me.

Let me just says that claims that I just wanted to see an alien invasion movie are totally incorrect. I like the idea of setting this everyman story against the backdrop of an alien invasion is a neat idea. I just thought that the everyman story doesn't hold up.

However, there may be some merit to the concept that I have anti-religion biases. But I'll let you decide.

At it's most basic level, I thought that the story played out as if when it was initially written, it was discovered that there was a deus ex machina resolution to the alien encounter and small tidbits were then put back in throughout the plot to make it not seem that way. I realize that I'm not doing a good job of describing this, and for that I apologize.

It also felt very formulaic. It's as if MNS watched his other movies and said ``Well, there just has to be a twist at the end.'' The reason that those other twists worked so well was that it made you look back at everything that had happened throughout the movie and realize that much of it meant something different with that added context. But this one didn't really change anything other than the Rev's point of view on God. The rest of the film is exactly what it appeared to be. So it's also failed formula.

I also felt that the ``scares'' were cheap. It was all just something jumping out of a dark room-type scares. Okay, except for the alien at the end. That one worked for me, because it had an actual emotional basis.

And the humor felt the same way. Just cheap gags. That doesn't mean I didn't laugh, but they had no real impact.

In addition, while people seem to claim that this is a story about the characters, I feel the exact opposite. The characters existed solely for the benefit of the plot, yet we were supposed to be interested in them nonetheless. For example, the only thing we really know about Merrill is that he swings baseball bats real hard, and he's a screwup because of it. And the only reason that's important is the resolution of the plot. The same thing can be said about Bo's water issues. None of these things have any real bearing on the characters themselves.

What I'm getting at is that everything in the movie is set up to converge on how to defeat the alien. And the only reason that exists is to prove to Graham that these things are not coincidences, which, to him, means that God exists.

Personally, I find the concept that God would invent these people with their problems just to manipulate one person into start believing in Him again to be a rather repugnant idea. Maybe, though, that's what MNS wanted this movie to say. If it is, then I think that this is one depressing-ass Calvinist movie. But I don't think that's what he intended. I think that his plot just fails to do what it's intended to do, which is to shine light on these characters. And it fails because there aren't really any characters in the movie -- just caricatures.

[This message has been edited by wfaulk (edited 08-03-2002).]

flowrchild

08-03-2002, 07:56 AM

My opinion of Signs:

Worlds better than "Unbreakable" but nowhere near as good as "Sixth Sense."

Pros: The night sequences, a few very scary moments, Joaquin Phoenix, loved the atmosphere and look of it.

Cons: Ending isn't as strong as the rest of the movie, the "swing away" absurdity, too much cutesy acting from the kids.

"Signs" was an interesting creepy time at the theater, but it ultimately could have been better. 7.5/10

bskutle

08-03-2002, 08:49 AM

"Signs"- A+
(#6 "Must-See" for Summer 2002)
M. Night Shyamalan's crop circle thriller is the most original "What if?" alien encounter story ever made...at least from my seat. It's a fascinating story of lost- and renewed- faith that centers around a paranoia reminiscent of that which occured during Orson Welles' infamous "War of the Worlds" broadcast back in the '30s, with a twist; what if the broadcast had validity to it? Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix are pitch-perfect as the brothers at the story's heart, and Shyamalan and his collaborators- like cinematographer Tak Fujimoto and composer James Newton Howard- keep the atmosphere of impending dread flowing- though not at the expense of heart and humor- in the latest example of terrific sci-fi in this landmark year for the genre.

Lisabeth

08-03-2002, 12:48 PM

Spoiler ** Spoiler** Spoiler ** Spoiler**

Signs....ummmm, suspenseful? Yes, it kept me on the edge of my seat anticipating what was coming next. The silence in the theater was incredible, unlike anything I’ve experienced before. The not knowing was more exciting than what actually materialized.

Walking out of a movie asking myself whether I liked it or not is usually not a good sign. For me, there were one too many holes in Shamaylan’s story line. I’m always a little confused when faced with depictions of clergy losing their faith after disaster hits home. Tending their congregation, they view human suffering on a daily basis and speak of a resignation to whatever as it has a place in the Divine/Cosmic plan. Then, when it knocks on their door, it’s a totally different story. It’s not that I’m not allowing them their humanness, as I can see where they could drown in their own words of comfort and reassurance, but I’m puzzled when I see this being used as the guts of the film.

Mel Gibson is one of my favorite actors. He’s versatile and skilled in his craft. As Graham, I found him believable, but a little stiff. Actually, I found most of the characters, with the exception of Joaquin Phoenix, a little wooden and controlled. The main characters in Shyamalan’s other two movies also seemed that way and might reflect his own slant on life as he seems to have this type of personality.

I loved the way Shyamalan used the camera for close-ups and the way he played with the lighting of different scenes. The scenes in the cornfield were spooky and tense.

Other things I stumbled with: the fact that aliens were smart enough to create an invisible force field over one of our cities and yet not be able to get through a wooden door. After it was discovered that the aliens’ intentions were not friendly, there was absolutely no military response from our government or retaliation of any kind. Maybe I missed this part, but I never understood why the creatures left. I heard Mel Gibson say something but it didn’t make sense.

The message of the movie I totally embraced. A man finding the part of himself that he lost. He found the connection to Life that he lost with the death of his wife. That’s what it’s all about; pulling the pieces back together to feel whatever it is that makes us whole.

M. Night Shyamalan is a very talented, creative man. “The Sixth Sense” absolutely blew me away and changed my life forever. As he continues to experience life, we will see more of his reflections on the big screen. This I’m counting on...

dh1989

08-03-2002, 12:49 PM

Signs = A+

This is the best film of the year. It is plain amazing. Mel Gibson was great. He played a flawed man and that was good. He was not sure everything and I like that. This was a better role than What Women Want. Joauqin Phoenix was hilarious. He was great. That line about the Scandinavian Female Olympian on the roof was hilarious. The film also was creepy. The final scene in the living room was awesome. I was terrifed. The birthday scene also rocked. When it wlaked by, I had a heart attack. The film was has creepy vibe from the very dtarting point to the fianl scene. The ending was more interesting than a simple twist. I saw it twice yesterday and both times I thought the film was awesome. This one should win Best Picture. Beautifully Done M. Night Shymalan.

P.S. Did anyone else dig the opening credits. They had great music and the big letters were very original. Good Job to who ever did them.

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-03-2002, 01:51 PM

Ya know, with some of the questions some of you are asking, I have to ask wether or not you actually paid much attention to the film. Maybe you were too busy looking for aliens in every scene, and didnt catch the answers to the questions you were asking.

First off, it is made easily apparent, TWICE, that the aliens could be repelled by water. The first time is at Rays house (the veterinarian) and the second time is at the climax of the film. "Im going to the lake." So when the radio announcement is made that they found a "primitive" way of defeating the aliens, I think it is only too clear.

I think it was bob that mentioned that it was "fairly obvious that the alien invasion was only a tool to get Mel Gibson to regain his faith." Well, I disagree wholeheartedly. The film is first about one family, in a world being invaded by aliens. Than the film is about a man who has lost his faith. He doesnt regain this faith until his son is saved from the aliens poison, by his asthma attack. He doesnt believe anyone is watching over him until than, and you know this because when they were still in the cellar, he mentions that he didnt think they would get through the night. So, no, the alien invasion was not a tool, it is called a story - and it is a damn good one at that.

As for the aliens not knowing that the Earth was 80% water - did anyone ever stop to think that maybe their planet didnt play host to H20, and therefore, they had only the slightest idea that it could hurt them? I think they knew enough about the water, as to make all of their landing points (crop circles) away from large bodies of water. But if they were trying to invade, than I dont think they would have been to picky about the planet, if you follow me, and risk or not, if they needed something from us, they were going to try and get it.

Complaints about the film itself are personal opinions, but let me say that I had seen some of this film from a screener, and was still freaked out many times. The dog sequence, the baby monitor, all of that shit on the T.V. (the birthday party especially), the pantry, the entire ending sequence from the basement to the encounter, and the scenes at night with the aliens. Its a tense film. The complaints about the acting are also personal opinion, but let me just say this about the characters;

Mel Gibson: plays a man whose entire way of life, his faith, has just been turned around only 6 months before. Obviously trying as hard as he can to keep rational, and as this type of character, he played it perfectly. Subdued, and a little suspicious.

River Phoenix: a younger guy who doesnt want to admit it at first, but it scared as hell. he deals with this with humour and skepticism, as most people would, and eventually just puts his hope in Graham.

Kids: they acted perfectly I thought. Bo, though a little weird and calm, didnt cry when she was born - rememeber that? well, that certainly says something about her character. and Morgan, he acts like a kid scared, but wants to protect his sister at the same time. and the fact that both of them just lost their mother AND their father (who is obviously a different person) and are having to deal with that while all this is going on.

wfaulk, I think your "analysis" of the film,is a little off. First off, you were expecting a twist ending, but didnt get one - not the films fault, thats yours. The story wasnt very formulatic either - it didnt follow the natural progression most stories would take. We're thrown right into the story, and from there it kind of unfolds, if you follow me. As for the scares being "cheap" - how exactly did you want scared if a dog jumping out at you, and seeing space-crafts floating over a city didnt work for you? I think that if you had been less worried about the twist ending, you would have been more emotionally involved, and able to put yourself in their position, and realize just how scary all that is. You were probably more worried about the ending being a hoax, or them all being aliens or something. As for the humour, I thought it was great. The humour felt very unscripted, and I liked that about it. Your ananylsis of the characters is just as flawed. Character developement is not always in-your-face, im thins way, im that way, ect. The mere fact that Merrill chose to live with his brother after his wife died speaks alot about his character. Pay attention to what they do, and say next time, and maybe you will see how well-crafted they are.

Im not going to keep going, just because I dont feel like it. I will say that I realy liked the film, and the ending, and that it made perfect sense for Gibsons wife to say something like that - I didnt see what she was saying as some sort of premonition, I just saw it as, Merrill has 5 records for baseball, he obviously loves it, but has stopped playing - she wants him to keep playing. Gibsons character in the movie obviously saw it as something different, but like I said before - that incident isnt what brought back his faith, his sons asthma attack is what did it.

Anyways, great movie - 8.5/10!!!! Should have been even longer.

The Heart Collector

08-03-2002, 02:03 PM

Well, you know, I'd like to think that if there WAS an alien invasion on earth, and we found a way to repel them, then the news might just mention HOW it was done so that other people can protect themselves.

Mind you, i downloaded the movie, and that part wasn't very clear in the dialogue.

Bronco

08-03-2002, 02:10 PM

SIGNS (2002)

RATING - ***1/2 (out of ****)

M. Night Shyamalan took the country by storm in 1999, when his film The Sixth Sense became the second biggest money-maker that year (Phantom Menace being number one). Then 2000 rolled around, and Unbreakable was released. That was a slow-moving film, but I found it fascinating and engrossing. Now, Shyamalan has released his alien tale in the form of Signs.

Mel Gibson plays Graham Hess, a man who is taking care of his two kids (Rory Culkin and Abigain Breslin) alone, since his wife died in a car accident six months earlier. He lives on a farm with his brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), who is a former Minor League Baseball player. Then one morning when mysterious formations start appearing in their cropfields, mysterious and strange things start happening.

I won't reveal anything more about the premise, as that could ruin the experience. Signs is probably Shyamalan's most intense film, but it's also the funniest. This isn't a comedy, but it has more laughs then a lot of comedies I've seen this year.

Mel Gibson is very good in his role as a caring and loving father with some emotional scars dealing with his past. However, while he is good and believable, he is a little too low-key; this is a problem that all of Shyamalan's films have had, we need to care about the characters in the film, and we're always emotionally detached from them. The kid actors are both pretty good without become too cute, and Joaquin Phoenix is also good.

While the flaw I mentioned could be interpreted as a huge flaw, it's really not. Signs is a very intense and gripping movie that doesn't rely on special effects for its thrills. It is about one family and the fear they go through dealing with the situation. And while I'm not a character in the film, I feared the worst too. That's a sign of an effective motion picture.

[This message has been edited by Bronco (edited 08-03-2002).]

PackBacker

08-03-2002, 02:45 PM

SPOILERS- SIGNS AND UNBREAKABLE-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

What the fuck is up with Night's (easier for me to spell than SHmayasyalaluauan) water fetish?

Willis's character in Unbreakable could be bested by water (despite the fact that 80% of his body is water...). Now aliens can be bested by good ole H20. It's been too long since I have seen the Sixth Sense, but I don't remember water playing a vital role in that one.

Did Night have a traumatic child hood experience with water? Does he walk around with a raincoat on all the time? Does he love water so much that it has to play a vital plot role in his films? Come fucking on!

That being said, I enjoyed Signs. Beautifully woven story. All of the angles were woven in nicely. When the dog was sick early in the movie, Graham said to call a doctor (not a veterinarian). I was a bit pissed at that (personal rant) but later we find out why he passed on the vet. The bat theme was woven in nicely even if the ending was a bit absurd (Why was Phoenix not wailing away but looked like he was waiting for a pitch?)

jackson13

08-03-2002, 03:11 PM

Because a true baseball player waits for the perfect moment to swing. You dont just swing wildly and at everything, you wait for that perfect moment so you can make effective contact with the bat. Merrill holds the record for the longest home-run ever hit in the Minor Leagues. That proves he waited for the perfect moment to swing. He also holds the record for must strike outs, because "It seemed wrong to not swing." I can identify with him there, I've played baseball all my life and everytime I let a pitch go by, I feel bad that I didn't swing at it. To fully understand why he acted the way he did at the end with the bat, you have to understand baseballs finer points. I loved the ending, very original, just like the entire movie.

PackBacker

08-03-2002, 06:02 PM

jackson- I was thinking if he was such a free swinger that he wouldn't be standing there with a goof-ass grin on his face. He would be beating the fucking alien to death with swing after swing of the Louisville slugger. It just played out comically in my opinion.

Raena

08-03-2002, 06:13 PM

Well color me disappointed and chit.

I was expecting full-fledged sci-fi. I've always been fascinated with the crop circles and such, and he!!, this movie ain't even about crop circles!

It's a d@mn character study, that's heartfelt and Twilight Zonish, and of course reminiscent of Hitchcock.

In fact, I think the same story could have been told in a different venue.

The crop circles are just a ploy, d@mnit! I was tricked!

Phoenix was funny as he!! though.

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-03-2002, 06:32 PM

The crop circles arent what the movie is about, but they are the first Sign of things to come. The aliens use them as a type of communication to eachother, and in that respect they are very important to the film, because every space-craft was seen has been, at most, 1 mile from a reported crop cirlce. I seriously loved the premise of this movie, and wish it would have been much longer. But hey, maybe there will be an extended DVD.

Raena

08-03-2002, 06:40 PM

To drive my point home, here's a review of what someone posted on the main page for SIGNS over at the Internet Movie Database. SPOILERS included.

*********************************************

My Favorite Sign of All

Last night I attended a screening of 'Signs', the latest motion picture written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan ('The Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable'). I looked forward to seeing it! The trailer, already airing on TV, portrayed the movie to be a very exciting sci-fi thriller.

Mel Gibson stars as Graham Hess, a former reverend whose wife was killed in a grisly car accident six months earlier. After that, he quit the ministry and abandoned all belief in the existence of a higher being. The supporting cast includes Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, Abigail Breslin and Cherry Jones. All turn in good performances.

The movie opens with the discovery of giant crop circles in Hess' corn field. Who made them? Do they have some profound meaning, or is it just a prank? Without exposing the plot, I will tell you that the crop circles are just one of many 'signs' that lead the characters toward the conclusion.

Some early scenes have a good sense of humor, taking full advantage of Gibson's wry wit. The funniest involves Phoenix, Culkin and Breslin in silly tin-foil hats. But the film is frequently as dull as its dark lighting and subdued atmosphere.

**** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ****

At one point, the screen goes totally black -- for what seems like an eternity -- while noises are heard. Then, a face is illuminated (chin up) by a flashlight beam. For a split-second, I thought I had stumbled into a rerun of 'Blair Witch' by mistake. But no, this was just one of several scenes that mimicked other films a bit too closely. I spotted near-perfect renditions of scenes from 'War of the Worlds', 'Field of Dreams', 'Children of the Corn' and others.

The scariest moments are the classic 'bump-in-the-night' variety. Special effects are nearly absent unless you count the alien, who looks like a tall man dressed in two-dollar spandex tights from a Halloween close-out sale.

Yet, the film is spellbinding because you constantly feel as though something really extraordinary is about to happen. Unfortunately, the anticipation is never rewarded and the story ends suddenly with a disappointing and unsatisfying conclusion. (As the credits began to roll, I stared at the screen in disbelief.)

'Signs' is really not the movie portrayed in the trailer. The sci-fi story you came to see -- dealing with extraterrestrials and crop circles -- is merely a subplot to the internal, spiritual strife suffered by Hess (Gibson). Sci-fi is simply a colorful wrapper used to conceal the movie's true focus: a ponderous message about human spirituality.

That brings me to my favorite 'sign' of all. It was bright. It was red. It had four letters. They read: 'E-X-I-T'. So I did.

As I filed out of the theater, I overheard several conversations expressing the same sense of disappointment that I was feeling. A teenage girl, talking to her girlfriend, said it best: "Well, I never want to see that again!"

Ditto.

*********************************************

My sentiments exactly.

FZFamilyGuy

08-03-2002, 06:46 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PackBacker:
[b]SPOILERS- SIGNS AND UNBREAKABLE-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

What the fuck is up with Night's (easier for me to spell than SHmayasyalaluauan) water fetish?

Willis's character in Unbreakable could be bested by water (despite the fact that 80% of his body is water...). Now aliens can be bested by good ole H20. It's been too long since I have seen the Sixth Sense, but I don't remember water playing a vital role in that one.

I admit it is kinda weird having water kill aliens, but there aleins, nobody knows for real, that's why its si-fi. You can do whatever you want.

My main reason for replying to this comment is about Unbreakable. He can't just die from water, he needs to drink it and can bath in it, but his only weakness is he can drown in it.
For the raincoat? it was raining and an umbrella would be lame.

ScottTheScooter

08-03-2002, 09:09 PM

SIGNS is my favorite movie of the year. Joquain Phoenix was the highlight of the movie for me. He was hilarious. Mel Gibson pulled off another great performance as the struggling man trying to hold the family together. M. Night Shymalan is now one of the best directors ever. He gave us PLENTY of scares. I will definatly go back to see this one again.
SIGNS 10/10

bankholdup

08-03-2002, 09:17 PM

7/10

I thought it was pretty funny when Mel Gibson was screaming "I'm really upset! I'm angry!" Good stuff.

LAW

08-03-2002, 09:39 PM

People will find this movie surprisingly funny. Also it is mostly a very quiet movie (which is a welcome relief to recent fare) that only bangs at the right times, and you won't be expecting it. And if you feel cheated by the ending, it's only because Shyamalan is a much smarter person than the rest of us. He gave us a blueprint to the whole film in it's one word title, but we, like the characters weren't paying attention. He shows us what looks like the big picture, but it's only the frame. This is true and original story telling that is all but extinct these days. It's good to know there is a truly creative writer/director out there who has the guts to make his unique vision happen while going against the grain of summer block-busting. Good for him and those who appreciate it.

The Dude

08-04-2002, 12:40 AM

SPOILERS

I absolutely loved this movie. Definitely my fvorite movie of the year. Can I just say, this was the perfect summer movie- short, suspenseful, scary, funny, fun in general.

But what I'm really curious to is this- does anyone know of a book similar to the one that Morgan Hess was reading? A book about extraterrestrials and what an invasion would be like? Or just good ET books in general?

jackson13

08-04-2002, 01:38 AM

Saw it again tonight and loved it again. Can't wait to see it again tommorow night. This time around though I caught something that some might consider a plot hole. Possible Spoilers ahead.
When they are trapped in the basement and are searching for the coal shaft, and then they find it and Morgan is standing in front of it and the alien grabs him, why didn't the aliens all focus on that grated doorway and somehow use that to "get" the family? The aliens used the gas that came out of their hands to kill a bunch of people, so why didnt they focus on that grated door and spray a bunch of gas into the basement and kill everyone?
Maybe im just looking into it to much, I still love this movie and it still gets a 10/10 from me.

Lazy Boy

08-04-2002, 01:38 AM

I loved this movies. No, I loved, loved, loved, loved, LOVED this movie!

M. Night Shyamalan has crafted, IMO, his best film, ranking right up there with THE SIXTH SENSE, possibly even higher. The "signs" of the title have less to do with extraterrestrial life than...well, I don't want to say too much for those who have yet to see it. This is a great film, a film that is about ideas instead of explosions, a film that explores touchy subjects such as faith and spirituality. Shyamalan, obviously influenced by Hitchcock, has been inspired to create a film with a mood and several creepy camera angles that don't just draw attention to themselves, but add to the story. If the word of mouth is good, and I hope it is, people should be willing to sit through a cerebral flick, disguised as a "popcorn" picture, and take in the images on the screen.
The audience I was with seemingly ate up the film, and this is where Shyamalan strikes gold. He has taken over the storytelling style that Steven Spielberg used to excell in and he draws the audience in. Every scream, every laugh, every gasp, every sob, all of it is honest and comes out of connection with the characters. I'll bring this up further down, as I get into heavy spoiler territory.

**SPOILERS**

- Several moments where the audience came alive happened during the pantry scene and, especially, the videotape scene. What especially creeped me out about that scene was not just the appearance of the alien from behind the wall, which I expected, but the balloons. Was it just me, or were the balloons being pulled behind the bushes? If that's true, Shyamalan did great job of show-and-don't-tell.

- The alien reflected in the TV monitor got another great reaction. I've never heard so many screams from just one shadowy image.

- I totally agree with Ebert's 4-star review, for once in my life. Shyamalan uses as little sound as possible and heightens up the mood and tension so much, it's impossible not to squirm, even when there is no on-screen action. Case in point, the cornfield at night. I wouldn't go out there, especially if I heard those clicking, alien grunts. When Gibson ran after seeing that tail (or leg?), the roof blew off the joint.

The acting was solid, nothing award worthy, but believable. You actually BELIEVE these four are a dysfunctional family, and you care for their plight.
Gibson is fine in the lead role, able to convey the stiffness and emotional pain that has entered his life, causing him to leave the church. Phoenix is cool and goofy, creating most of the humor the film (wisely) needs. Rory Culkin proves that, despite Macaulay, the Culkin clan does produce good actors. Abigail Breslin is as adorable as can be, cuddly without being too precocious.

The ending of the film has caused some dissension with people. Myself, I bought into it, although I don't understand what Ebert is trying to get at when he says Shyamalan avoids a payoff. There is a payoff: the aliens do leave (a little too easily) while Gibson and Phoenix kill the one remaining alien. As quickly as the aliens arrive, they disappear. They are MacGuffins (a Hitchcock trademark); the viewer can assume from this point that the enitre story they've been watching was not about invasions, but about reconnecting with faith. The "signs" are all things or objects in Gibson's life (recounting the wonderful monologue he gives about God and miracles) and the audience finally connects the dots. Bo's obsession with water, Morgan's asthma attack, the wife's death and subsequent uttering of "Swing away"; all these things bring us to understand these characters, and help them come together, to not give up hope, but to believe. In what, a higher power? God? That is up to the audience to decide.

I've rambled, perhaps incoherently, but I did it out of love and respect. I respect Shyamalan's vision and unique ability to take B-level ideas and transcend the material into something otherworldly and touching. I love what this guy is doing. His economical use of characterization, dialogue and aesthetical skills make him a filmmaker that I hope continues to make...films.

Grade: **** stars (out of ****)

Marchesk

08-04-2002, 10:45 AM

Yeah, I agree with most of you that the movie was very well done. Unfortunately, there were a bunch of people up front in the theatre who were laughing, joking, screwing around, and making noise throughout the movie until I got security to kick some of them out. They completely ruined the mood.

<SPOILERS>
One thing that did bother me was that the aliens had no weapons on them. Just their poisonous gas. Granted, this did work to make things more suspenseful than if the aliens had been shooting the place up with lasers. Also, seeing as how the aliens had no weapons or shielding on their bodies, it would seem that guns would have been just as effective as water against them (wonder if they were defeated with water pistols?). And if all they wanted to do was harvest humans, why make their presence obvious by shining their lights over all the major cities in the world which would give us humans plenty of motivation to mobilize. And finally along these lines, the news mentioned how the gov'ts of the world were mobilizing ground troops. What about the Air force to engage the crafts over the cities? Oh yeah, one more thing - I highly doubt that an advanced race would need to make crop circles to navigate. There are plenty of landmarks already in existence - namely the cities themselves!
</SPOILERS>

Ok, I'm being picky here. I realize the reason for this stuff was to set the tone/mood of the movie.

jackson13

08-04-2002, 11:21 AM

The reason they didnt activate air troops was because they believed that the aliens had invisible force shields around them. Merrill explained this when he was watching tv, he told about the bird that flew on screen and then dropped straight down and was later found with a crushed head. If they scrambled the jets (i love that term) the jets could of flown right into the force shield and not known it was there because the "lights" had gone transparent during the day. Another reason might of been because the air tatcics were used in Independence Day and M. Night wanted to do something a little more original.

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-04-2002, 11:23 AM

Actually, there is no proof that the aliens could be harmed by weapons such as guns and fire - it is highly likely that their skin was impervious to this type of attack, as the aliens wouldnt have stood a chance if it were. Think about it, there really wouldnt have been any battle if we could just shoot them. And as for them needing weapons - I dont think they did. The poison is enough. And lets remember that they are also very fast runners, and very high jumpers - in fact, they could probably win the Olympics. So, basically, the shielding could be their very skin, and that water could have penetrated this, and I find it very plausible. And as for the crop circles - well, they werent necessarily JUST to navigate - I thought while watching it that they used these as plans, or map systems of attack or whatever. And the aliens didnt intentionally make their precsense known, until they were almost ready to attack. Besides, what would have been the point in hiding their attack? Anyways, these were just my ideas while watching the movie - im sure they could be interpretations, so,......yeah.

The Heart Collector

08-04-2002, 12:36 PM

SPOILERS

Are we absolutely SURE that what they wanted to harvest were humans? I mean sure, some guy says he saw them taking humans... but that seems like a stupid fucking reason to invade.

jackson13

08-04-2002, 01:38 PM

Spoilers

What did Graham see outside of Bo's window that first night? My dad said it was an alien hanging onto a tv antenna and it was looking into her bedroom. I thought it looked like a spaceship sticking out of the cornfield, I even had my glasses on (which i never wear, only when i drive, sometimes) and I thought it looked like a ship. Im going to see it again tonight, so I'll pay closer attention.
Also, can someone somehow post a picture of the alien standing in the alley way? I loved that scene and would love to see a picture of the alien as it walked across the alley posted in this topic. That scene will be in my mind for a long time, maybe even forever. Hell, the whole movie will.

jackson13

08-04-2002, 01:43 PM

They didnt come to only harvest humans. They were hostile and killed a bunch too. Merrill said they used posionous gas and a lot of people died. They tried to invade to take over our planet, but also harvest some of us humans too. Then some people in the middle east saved the world by scaring them away, even causing the aliens to leave "wounded" behind. So it kinda works out both ways. Humans died, some aliens did too, aliens took some humans, and humans captured some aliens because they were left behind.

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-04-2002, 02:42 PM

The routing of the aliens was cause by the Middle-Easterners finding out that water was their weak source. The aliens, not sure of the effects water would have on them, decided to stay away from the large bodies of water, but when it began to be used to defeat them, they retreated. The aliens left the wounded, because they were obviously in a hurry to leave, and get to the next planet that they could attempt to take over, because the aliens obviously needed some source of resources. Im surprised alot of people havent caught on to the fact that the Middle-Easterners routed the aliens by using water. I thought it was made pretty apparent.

Horror whore

08-04-2002, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by jackson13:
Spoilers

What did Graham see outside of Bo's window that first night? My dad said it was an alien hanging onto a tv antenna and it was looking into her bedroom. I thought it looked like a spaceship sticking out of the cornfield, I even had my glasses on (which i never wear, only when i drive, sometimes) and I thought it looked like a ship. Im going to see it again tonight, so I'll pay closer attention.
Also, can someone somehow post a picture of the alien standing in the alley way? I loved that scene and would love to see a picture of the alien as it walked across the alley posted in this topic. That scene will be in my mind for a long time, maybe even forever. Hell, the whole movie will.

It was an alien standing on the top of the barn where Uncle Meril sleeps. I thought it was really creepy, but it did remind me of Jeepers Creepers, when the creeper was on the cop car.

notchreturns

08-04-2002, 03:28 PM

SIGNS

Plain and simple, M. Night Shyamalan has shown the world he is a master at what he does. He has a brillant gift of showing the audience one thing, but in the end, it changes drastically bringing us closer to his characters. Describing the plot will just waste my time, so I'll just go straight to my thoughts. The direction was masterful. Each scene was handled with such care and left nothing incomplete. The story pushes foward, never leaving a blank thought, or unwanted feeling. The acting was fabulous, especially from Gibson who proves he is one of the best actors working today. He plays a man, a priest, who has lost faith. He has lost the thing he was searching for his whole life. Each moment he speaks we get a hint of his extreme disspaointment with the lord, or maybe with himself. A great, realistic performance. Joaquin Phoenix was funny and a great anchor for Gibson to lean on. They worked as a great team. The kids were simply marvelous. Spurting out great one-liners and humourous bantering, they actually made me want kids. They handled the dramtic scenes with great force, as well.

The scares were great and very plentiful. I swear, I have never jumped some many times in my life. The birthday tape(very shocking!), the scenes in the cornfields, the pantry scene, dogs barking, loud banging noises, alittle something that is reflected on the TV. Very frightning and tense film. Kudos to Shyamalan.

I adore the score to this film. I can listen to it over and over and over and over again. Very hitchcockian, very fast paced and intense. Really good stuff.

But, overall the thing that struck me the most was the story. The beautifully composed story of fate, love, family, and the fear of not letting go. It was all handled wonderfully and with a great amount of care. The flashbacks scene were very emotinal and well done.

And, Shyamalan's had a great part, important that he handled like a perfectly. He shined through really well with his character.

Overall, a 9/10. A masterfully told and directed film filled with fascinating perfomances, frightning scenes the made me jump and throw popcorn all threw the aisle and, some extremely funny moments and a score that is sure to be my favorite of this year.

What can I say? If there is one film to show to aliens, this it it...

PS - I'm going to see it again in about an hour...

[This message has been edited by notchreturns (edited 08-04-2002).]

BarkingSparrow

08-04-2002, 03:54 PM

Rating: 6/10

A disappointing film. Technically proficient, with some nice individual scenes, but it just did not work for me as a whole. At times, blatantly manipulative and cliched, a contrived plot with a deus ex machine ending that left me feeling insulted and cheated.

And yes, fact that the aliens would be defeated by mere water is just plain ludicrous. Hello? Water isn't exactly unique to the Earth!

PenguinGurl

08-04-2002, 04:08 PM

SIGNS was a really kick-ass movie with humor and complete creepyness that scared the crap out of me. It's an all around great movie that only left me with 1 question. (I usually have sh!t loads of them)

I don't really understand how the aliens could have been defeated just with water. It seems too simple. Couldn't it have been SLIGHTLY more complicated?

Oh well. I'm gonna see it again anyway 'cause it's so cool!

Luv y'all

~*OneByOnePenguinsAreStealingMySanity*~

usuallysuspected

08-04-2002, 04:12 PM

How many people have seen this movie more than once already. I know ive seen it twice, but back to the reviews. I dont see why people dont like the movie based on the water thing. I personnally think that it would be possible that they had no knowledge of h20. Im sure there are elements from other planets that arent indigenous to earth that we dont know about. it would be like us going to their planet and them throwing goo at us. Its not that far fetched. MNS just challenges the audience to use their problem solving abilities with this film. Thats another reason why i think its so great.

Lazy Boy

08-04-2002, 04:18 PM

I'm definitely gonna see this one again. I've told all my friends and family members to see this flick, pronto. It's that good.
In fact, you could say this is the first time this summer (or this year) that I wanted to get back on the cinematic rollercoaster and take another ride.

Raena

08-04-2002, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by BarkingSparrow:
Rating: 6/10

And yes, fact that the aliens would be defeated by mere water is just plain ludicrous. Hello? Water isn't exactly unique to the Earth!

My sentiments.

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-04-2002, 05:42 PM

BarkingSparrow, I dont want to sound rude, but stating something that you havent the slightest clue about as "ludicrous" is just plain stupid. The aliens "home planet" is never even hinted at in the movie, and it is more than entirely likely that the aliens knew only that water could harm them, and not much else. Water is a basic form of life ON EARTH. These creatures could have came from somewhere that thrived on some type of chemical we dont even know about. The possibilities are endless. Maybe the aliens skin was able to be penetrated by the water, because it caused a chemical imbalance in their bodies. So before we go throwing out stupid comments, lets just sit back and remember that we knew almost nothing about the aliens in the film - because that wasnt the point of it.

The Heart Collector

08-04-2002, 07:28 PM

I'm finding it weird that an advanced organism doesn't have freaking water in his body... I mean, seriously.

EDsoulsurvive*

08-04-2002, 07:59 PM

this movie, kicked ass, it was better than unbreakable and the sixth sense by tons!!! i was scared shitless, thgis probably being the scariest movie i've ever seen. um.... i had more i wanted to say... can't remember, o well, 9.5/10, the second best movie of 2002!

gyro_44

08-04-2002, 08:00 PM

SPOILERS-----------

Perhaps there are no substances even resembling water on the alien's home planet. It's entirely possible. Having no knowledge of such a thing, they could not predict the effect it would render on them. There's my argument.

I loved the movie, I truly did. As for the ending: I can see how it may not satisfy some people. But I think it's really clever about how Shyamalan plays against our expectations in a certain sense. It's the same as it was in "Unbreakable": at first, I wanted to learn more about Bruce Willis' "gift", but the twist ending just cements the reason for his existence (with Samuel L. Jackson revealing he's the arch-villain to Willis' superhero). In "Signs", you kinda expect to learn more about the aliens. But Shyalaman ties it all together in a completely different way. I like that; I didn't want a stunning revelation about the aliens anyway, because the movie was about the characters. And one other major thing, I guess: coincidence. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-04-2002, 08:09 PM

Heart, think about it for a second - the "blood" in these creatures could be Uranium for all we know - they probably had the faintest idea of what water would do to them, but wanted to be safe nonetheless. They attacked, were routed, and killed alot of people because they got pissed off (because its obvious in the final part of the film, that these things hold a grudge) and killed a bunch of people, while leaving. Before that, they were just trying to harvest them, for whatever reason (not that it matters).

BarkingSparrow

08-04-2002, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
BarkingSparrow, I dont want to sound rude, but stating something that you havent the slightest clue about as "ludicrous" is just plain stupid. The aliens "home planet" is never even hinted at in the movie, and it is more than entirely likely that the aliens knew only that water could harm them, and not much else. Water is a basic form of life ON EARTH. These creatures could have came from somewhere that thrived on some type of chemical we dont even know about. The possibilities are endless. Maybe the aliens skin was able to be penetrated by the water, because it caused a chemical imbalance in their bodies. So before we go throwing out stupid comments, lets just sit back and remember that we knew almost nothing about the aliens in the film - because that wasnt the point of it. 

The aliens were humanoid for all intents and purposes (note the two hands, eyes, and feet) not to mention they seemed quite comfortable gallivanting around in our atmosphere (btw, which has plenty of water vapor) which would suggest that their biology is not all that much different from ours.

And note that they were not wearing any form of external protection, which would suggest that they *knew* the planet was safe for them -- c'mon these are creatures with such advanced technology that they are able to pinpoint our planet from millions of light-years away for a visit.

It's just a stretch to believe that water is deadly to them, because water is so prevelant -- in the atmosphere, on earth, in our bodies, that they HAD to know of it's existence. Hell, you'd think sneaking around at night they would have been 'burned' by the dew at some point. Or rain? Did the invasion take place during a world-wide drought???

No, the water was just a weak plot device. I really wanted to like this film and had looked forward to it, but I was just turned off by the internal logical inconsistencies.

dmdubie

08-04-2002, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by BarkingSparrow:

And note that they were not wearing any form of external protection, which would suggest that they *knew* the planet was safe for them

One possibility could be that what we saw was their external protection, similar to what the aliens in Independence Day wore. But the fact of the natural water in our air (rain, dew, etc.) is a good point. Unfortunately, we really didn't get too many details on the aliens, so I guess I'll have to suspend my disbelief, and just enjoy the movie http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif.

[This message has been edited by dmdubie (edited 08-04-2002).]

The Other

08-04-2002, 09:03 PM

Well, the only thing I could think of about water vapor/dew stuff is that maybe they are slowly affected by it to a point of where they can't feel it yet since it's too small to compute, like what Parkinson's Disease or Multiple Sclerosis does to us. Those diseases effect us slowly and slowly deteriorate are muscles and all and just take a long time before their are noticeable effects. And Water vapor/dew/whatever could do to them what those kind of diseases do to us (i.e. it takes a while for them to notice it eating away at them) and maybe it takes straight up water like you splash a glass of water directly on them to have effected them that quickly like it did in the film.

Anyway, Dumb-Fokker, you rule! I've been agreeing wholeheartedly with everything you are saying. You know, maybe they have NO idea what water is and that they aren't made of water and that they've never been to a place that had water and when they came here they finally found out what water is and what it could do to them.

[This message has been edited by The Other (edited 08-04-2002).]

Senefra

08-04-2002, 09:09 PM

***spoilers***

Well if what you're saying is true, why not something in the water. Bo was always talking about the water tasting funny. Most of the water she drinks is tap, and since tap water is generally chemically treated and or/contains minerals and fleuoride, it might have been something in the water, or just the combination of the water and other added materials that coud have caused such a reaction.

Another theory, involves our know forms of life. It is a know fact that a lot of known life forms, especially the aquatic, amphibian, and reptilian species, have an evolutianary developed thin membrane on their skin and appendages to filter out threatening substances. And marsupials-mammals like the kangeroo and koala bear- are born early with a membrane surrounding so that they can be placed in the males pouch for a certain amount of time. When they break through, they won't be subsebtible to any natural dangerous elements. Also there is another marsupial called the platypus who lays eggs, which is rare for mammals, since they usually give birth to live young. The theory is maybe the aliens skin and appendages are covered by a membrane (either natural to their species or synthetically manufactured), which filters out the water in it's surroundings, so it might have been able to walk around with those minute percentages in the atmosphere. But an abundance of such a substance thrown in one area could have broken the membrane and thus caused a chemical burn.

Anyway I enjoyed the film, even with the inside nods to other movies of this genre as well as the director's other efforts, and gave it an A-. My entire review can be found at MFO (Movie Fan Online), so if you feel like reading go to this link...
http://www.moviefanonline.com/cgi-bin/ultimate/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000167.html#18 .
And if ya don't, well that's ok too. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

gyro_44

08-04-2002, 09:27 PM

And note that they were not wearing any form of external protection, which would suggest that they *knew* the planet was safe for them -- c'mon these are creatures with such advanced technology that they are able to pinpoint our planet from millions of light-years away for a visit.

I disagree. Initially, I think they were just checking out the planet - scouting it out to analyze Earth's habitat. Listen to what the military dude says earlier on in the film. And somehow they overlooked the fact that there is an element in Earth's water has a lethal effect on them? Sure, why not. No one ever said these were smart aliens, just beings with the technology to travel through space and invade distant planets.

No, the water was just a weak plot device.
Maybe. But I think it's rather silly to criticize a film for points like this (and "the alien looked cheap!") when they have so little to do with everything else. Shyamalan had me in the palm of his hand. He is a master filmmaker, and I think in the end his ability to tell such a spellbinding story will prevail over the small flaws that exist in it.

dmdubie

08-04-2002, 09:50 PM

Wow, good points from both sides.

One theory could be that they're fully aware of the horror's of water. They assume that since it's so dangerous and lethal, they couldn't imagine that a species would not only be comfortable around water, but also thrive off of it. Sort of like the same mistake some people on Earth make assuming that water is the basis of ALL life.

Of course, this could be their first attempt at this whole "invasion" thing, and they realize that they have some areas which definititely need some improvement http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif.

The Other

08-04-2002, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Senefra:
***spoilers***

Well if what you're saying is true, why not something in the water. Bo was always talking about the water tasting funny. Most of the water she drinks is tap, and since tap water is generally chemically treated and or/contains minerals and fleuoride, it might have been something in the water, or just the combination of the water and other added materials that coud have caused such a reaction.

That is a good theory...that maybe it was the chemical's we use to clean water that killed them since it was tap water that fell on them. But then what about those third world countries that don't chemically treat their water that were using it in defense? (unless they do and I just don't know).

Santa Claus

08-04-2002, 09:57 PM

My Review For "Signs"

Okay, so I have been dying to see this movie for literally months now. I've seen all the teaser trailers and previews for the past seven months. Seen all the interviews, read all the reviews, and I couldn't wait to finally see it and I saw it today.

And I loved it. I was not disappointed. It was probably the scariest movie I've seen since "The Blair Witch Project." [No jokes, please.]

I love movies that mess with your head, and this movie did have a "Blair Witch" theme to it almost. It really played with your mind a lot and as I said, I love movies like that. Those are some of the most scariest types of flicks out there in my view. Goes to show that the human mind can be the most dangerous thing to a person.

I'm also really into Aliens and UFO's. And I do believe in Aliens, UFO's, and yes, crop circles. And I believe one day, we will be contacted by Aliens. Rather it be a good or bad contact is another issue.

NOTE: When I say I am "into" the above stuff, I don't mean I am some computer geek who thinks that kind of crap is "cool."
I don't find Aliens any cooler than rapists. But I am interested in that type of stuff. The same way some people are interested in studying serial killers.

Back to the movie: So even though, this film had it's funny moments, [which was a good thing for what was a very scary movie IMHO], I took this film very seriously.

One thing that was really annoying however, is that the theater was packed with lots of stupid people. With all due respect, they laughed at everything like it was the funniest thing on earth and wouldn't stop laughing.

Really. The whole time I felt like yelling, "Hey! It's not THAT funny!"

A lot of the stuff did have funny moments where maybe you would chuckle briefly, but these people were rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off, and acted like they were watching "Jay and Silent Bob Strike back" or something. And it kind of annoyed me, because again, I take Alien related stuff VERY seriously. As serious as you take any movie about crime.

Warning: **Minor Spoilers ahead, please don't read if you don't want to know some key elements of the film, I don't want to spoil it for you**

-One of my favorite parts in this movie, was probably the scariest part in the movie.

It's the "video birthday party" scene. The reason why this part is so scary is because it seems so real. The look on the children's faces look frightened beyond belief, and the camera moves just like an actual video taped segment. This scene was so creepy, it's one of my favorites in the film.

I thought the second best scene was when the family is in their house and they hear the sounds of their dog die off and see shadows on the porch and start hearing noises. That was so scary.

Anyway, this was the best movie I've seen in a long time. It is going in my list of "Scariest Movies Ever". And that list is very short, because I don't find a lot of scary movies, truly scary. But movies like this, and "The Blair Witch Project" and "The Devil's Rain", I do find very scary. Mostly because it is stuff that can really happen and all three of those movies really mess with your head.

[This message has been edited by Santa Claus (edited 08-04-2002).]

dk789

08-04-2002, 10:20 PM

Spoilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Maybe the aliens are fully aware of what water can do to them, but they didn't count on the fact that humans would use it against them as a weapon. Now if you were in the same situation, how many of you would think to use water a method of self defense? I wouldn't have. I would have gone for the nearest knife, gun, axe, baseball bat, etc I could find.

darkface

08-04-2002, 10:48 PM

AWESOME MOVIE

-SPOILERS: but then again so is every post now.

Haven't seen a movie like this ever. One thing i liked is how we stayed focused on one family, we didnt' have an ID4 invasion.
Liked how the whole signs thing worked in the end.
Still might be some flaws in the invasion thing, but i'm sure after a while we'll learn more about it as people see it more.
Before seeing this i thought M. Night would be the next Speilberg, but after seeing it now i think he'll be the next Hitchcock.

-but its like the kid says, either the ALiens are victorious, or they get defeated and come back with more aliens within the next 100 years. So there's gonna be a sequal! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif j/p but fun movie!

8/10

idealdiscountdude

08-04-2002, 11:08 PM

******POSSIBLE SPOILERS******

Everything that happens is not by coincidence, it is fate, it is meant to be. That is the basic message of Signs, a superbly crafted film from M. Night Shyamalan.

The film stars Mel Gibson (in his best performance in years) as Graham Hess, a former Reverend who loses his faith when his wife Colleen (Sisters' star Patricia Kalember) is killed in a car accident. He along with his two children Morgan (Rory Culkin) and Bo (the amazing Abigail Breslin), and his brother Merrill (the alwaya competent Joaquin Pheonix) live on a farm in Pennsylvania. One morning the children discover mysterious crop circles in their corn fields, and soon after thousands of them are spotted throughout the world. (Giving anymore of the plot away would be a crime IMO)

Director Shyamalan reminds me of an Alfred Hitchcock for the new millenium, turning simple stories into smart and scary tales.

The direction of this film is perfect. The film looks, sounds , and feels absolutely dead on. Signs does not rely heavily on special effects to bring on the suspense, he uses real life objects and situations to do that.

The screenplay is both scary and witty at the same time. It's not often to have a real good chuckle and to leap from your seat in the same scene in a film, but it happens here.

Mel Gibson easily gives the best male performance I have seen thus far this year. Joaquin Pheonix proves yet again that he is one of the best younger actors in Hollywood.

The big surprise here are the two children played by Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin. The two outshine everything in this film. They demonstrate joy, fear, sadness, hope, and laughter in the film and do so with ease. I hope to see great things from these two children in the future.

Signs is scary and suspenseful as hell. It is also witty and will have you laughing out loud. It is also terribly moving, and will affect your soul.

When a film can make a person show multiple emotions during the span of watching it, something is definetly working here. Signs is phenomenal, pure movie magic at it's best.

10/10

inglourious basterd

08-04-2002, 11:08 PM

Fuck me, this movie was great!

**spoilers**

The movie was incredible because it had the perfect balance of what we could see and what we could imagine. Similar to Hitchcock, much of the horror and suspense comes from what is suggested rather than what is shown. Furthermore, this movie was not a simply for entertainment. Although its deeper themes almost slipped past me, my brother and I decided that the film posed interesting questions: What is faith? What is coincidence? What is reality? The movie painted an incredible picture that blurred the lines and connected each of the different questions together. Add the incredible performances, the great directorial skill, and the excellent quality of writing and you have a masterpiece. If you were unsatisfied with the suspense, give it another shot and try and expose the layer underneath...it makes it even more rewarding. 9/10

[This message has been edited by psudoazn (edited 08-05-2002).]

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-04-2002, 11:12 PM

Listen, it isnt as complicated as you are making it out to be. So the aliens are smart enough to make inter-stellar space-craft - that doesnt mean they know everything about our atmosphere. For instance, lets use this water "thing" as an example. The aliens need a source for resources, as the resources on their planets were all used up. Maybe on their planet, the aliens harvested lower life-forms for some type of energy, or whatever, and they looked for an "unsophisticated" planet to drain of its resources. The scouts, while scouting out the planet, discover that the planets water (not vapor, or dew, real, full water) can hurt their exoskeleton (as I saw it to be, when the water burned through the aliens outer layer) and decide to leave the Signs of invasion away from large sources of water, as to avoid being hurt. Now, on the home planet of the aliens, the lower life forms werent capable of fighting back, so they never assumed that we would either, being less sophisticated (probably) than those on their planet. When we do find out their weakness, and exploit it, they go looking for another planet with lower life-forms to colonize - preferrably without water. Now, I know alot of this is speculation, but its speculation based on clues from the movie (even though none of this really matters to the movie anyways). So, there you go. The aliens, in their arrogance, attempted to exploit us for our resources (which turned out to be the human race, more than likely) and were taken aback, when we used a weakness against us. Now, this took little to no thought - it was ALL inferred from the film, which I have only seen once. If you are going to aruge about the aliens behaviour in the film (such as, why cant they get the pantry door open,....maybe because they have never seen this kind of "thing" before) than at least rememeber that they are ALIENS!!!! Not humans!! They are vastly different than us, and,......im done. Great movie!

The Other

08-04-2002, 11:34 PM

**SPOILERS, of course, this whole thread is one big SPOILER**

As for what I thought of it, I thought it was excellent. I would give it a 10/10. Best film of the year. I loved it, I loved the "what if?" factor, and the suspense was great. The whole part where the aliens start to invade the house was incredible and I felt scared for the family the whole time and their were also moments that made me jump...that fucking dog bark when the girl put the water in front of him.

I also loved the humor, the performances by Gibson and Phoenix (and the kids), the memorable score, and the direction, writing (shit I loved everything). Just go and read the other positive reviews of the film by people here, cause I pretty much agree with them all.

[This message has been edited by The Other (edited 08-05-2002).]

Senefra

08-05-2002, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by The Other:
**SPOILERS, of course, this whole thread is one big SPOILER**
[This message has been edited by The Other (edited 08-05-2002).]

There's an understatement, but true...

I'm just curious about that radio announcer's "harvest" statement. Since the human body's mass is made up of at least 2/3 water, were those aliens looking to harvest organs/fluids and dry them out for consumption or were they just doing what most scouting parties do (survey the area, leave markers and bring back cultivated materials for compatibility)?

And someone mentioned third world countries not having chemically treated tap water. Well some of them do have chemical water plants, just not in as high of an abundance as countries like North America or Europe. But isn't it entirely impossible that they may have been imported and sold or given as bottled water (which is usually just treated tap water with minerals added, with the exception of brands like Evian and Perrier) thorugh stores or charities? I'd like to think so anyways..... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Strider

08-05-2002, 03:02 AM

Signs (2002)

Rated PG-13 for Some Frightening Moments

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Starring Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, and Abigail Breslin.

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0286106/27-SIGNS-Photo1.jpg

Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) is a former minister who has lost all his faith after his wife dies in a tragic accident. One day, he and his family discovers large crop circles in their fields. Graham's faith is put to the test while he and his family try to figure out what these mysterious crop circles mean.

M. Night Shyamalan's latest film, "Signs", is like a really long episode of "The Twilight Show"... and this what I liked most about the film. "Signs" is an incredibly creepy film that manages to deliver enough laughs and scares to keep you entertained.

Mel Gibson was just a perfect choice to play the main character in this film. Gibson delivers a flawless performance, and he just really gets into this role. He does a great job playing the caring and loving father, and the tormented minister who has lost all his faith in God. As for the rest, Joaquin Phoenix is great as Gibson's brother. And the two kids, Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin... well, all I got to say is that M. Night Shyamalan really does bring out the best in child actors.

I must point out that "Signs" is nowhere near being a perfect film. And this is all due to the completely unsatisfactory ending. I found the ending to be very disappointing, and it just did not work for me at all.

M. Night Shyamalan has proven once again that he is one of the most promising directors out there today. While his latest film is creepy, funny, and exciting to watch... "Signs" stumbles once it reaches it's final moments, and it fails in becoming a masterpiece in the mystery/suspense/thriller genres. But still, the movie's still very good, but never comes close in matching the sheer brilliance of "The Sixth Sense" or "Unbreakable".

Running Time: 2 hours 1 minute

Grade: 8/10

Strider

The Shadow

08-05-2002, 03:09 AM

Whew, long topic. I saw the movie with my mom (yeah, yeah) and she brought up the "don't they know about the water thing"...after reading this topic, I agree with Fokker and the rest of the gang.

There is another interesting thing she said though - What if the aliens can control animals? Think about it - The dogs and other animals go nuts whe nthe aliens come right? Then they start attacking people. But remember when the dog barked at Bo? She was pushing WATER towards him. Maybe the alien controling the dog knew what this was, and although it wouldn't affect the alien (because he is controlling the dog's body and not his own), he still had the impulse to react to it. Or, maybe the alien was a shape-shifter as well and actually became the dog and was reacting because he knew it would kill him. The last one is far-fetched because it was not mentioned in the movie, but I think the first one is a good guess. Whaddaya think?

Riddick

08-05-2002, 04:07 AM

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

I think it was intended that the aliens knew that water could harm them, as evidenced in the "No crop circles near water." conversation between Graham Hess and M. Night's character.

The way I saw it was, the aliens probably had no idea that we had water routed into our homes through sinks, baths and such, so thought they would have been safe enough from water when they attacked human homes.

Although I didn't catch it when I saw it, the line on the radio about humans finding a "primitive way of defeating the aliens" sound stupid, wouldn't they be broadcasting "Water harms them, fill up a cup and kick some ass."? It sounds like it was just put in to tie in to the revelation at the end of the movie.

I can't really say this detracted from my enjoyment of the movie though,since I didn't hear it when I saw the movie, and I love the movie the more I think about it.

jackson13

08-05-2002, 10:46 AM

The line about the primitive way of defeating them was on t.v., not radio. The line was "It started in the middle east. 3 small cities there were able to come up with a primitive solution to defeat the aliens, but nothing more is known at this time." They never said the method was water, they didnt say what it was, we just assume its water because thats what defeated the alien at the Hess farm.
For those interested, I finally caught the name of the book Morgan was reading throughout the movie. When Graham is flipping through pages, at the top of ever page it said the books title. The title was: We Are Not Alone; Evidence of the Extraterrestrail. When I got home I went to amazon.com and typed in the name, but no book exists by that name. However, another book came up, and it has the same design on the cover, the book is called "We Are Not Alone: The Continuing Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" and is written by Walter Sullivan. The picture of the book showed a cover similar to the one Morgan was reading, except the title was changed. Both books feature a galaxy on thier covers. Im going to the library in about 15 minutes to get this book. If it's any good I'll let everyone know.

rtatick

08-05-2002, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Riddick:
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***
Although I didn't catch it when I saw it, the line on the radio about humans finding a "primitive way of defeating the aliens" sound stupid, wouldn't they be broadcasting "Water harms them, fill up a cup and kick some ass."? It sounds like it was just put in to tie in to the revelation at the end of the movie.

**SPOILERS!!**

Yeah, but they ALSO said they didn't know what it was yet. Since we don't know what was going on in the rest of the world, it's possible that communications in the middle east were down, etc. etc. The whole point of us hearing that radio broadcast is so that we can know that the aliens are GONE and they left in a HURRY (But left wounded behind!) Everything happened quickly and the word has not come out yet as to HOW the aliens were defeated... It's a setup for the big scare to come!

[This message has been edited by rtatick (edited 08-05-2002).]

max

08-05-2002, 01:07 PM

A silly, silly movie. Mel Gibson plays a clergyman, a man in black who busts aliens and ghosts from his past. He plays it with the same kind of bug-eyed intensity he displays in every role. Here he's bug-eyed with grief, bug-eyed with guilt, bug-eyed with fear or bug-eyed from seeing too many crop circles. It's an eye-bugging performance only he is capable of inflicting on us. Joaquin Phoenix plays his younger brother, a failed minor league baseball player who'd swing his bat at anything. He plays it with the same kind of shoulder-crouching intensity he displays in every role. Here's he's perfectly cast. With shoulders stooping forward more conspiculously than ever, he looks like he's been swinging a bat all his life. But it's the kids who fare best with their plot-driven characters. Director M. Night Shyamalan seems better at directing child actors than he does older actors, including himself (here he's written for himself a longer role and he plays it with the same kind of I-can't-act intensity he displays in each of his cameos). Rory Culkin, the least annoying of the Culkins, is an asthmatic child who has a knack for misplacing his asthma medicine at the most crucial moments. The young girl (can't remember her name) has water issues, a problem she conveniently shares with the aliens. Oh yes, have I mentioned the aliens? Apparently, extraterrestials with too much time on their hands have decided to invade the earth and redecorate the cornfields. The first thought that crossed my mind was "Get a fucking extraterrestial life!" Fortunately, the alien story is just a distraction. Thank God! If I see another movie alien with slanty eyes, bad posture and looking like Manute Bol, I'm definitely going to make sure I see dead people sitting next to me in the theater. Anyway, as soon as crop circles pop up, so do flashbacks from Gibson's past. His wife was intentionally killed by the writer/director so he could have a crisis of faith. The movie, you see, is really about Gibson and his family battling their inner aliens. Get it? SIGNS is not all that bad. It's best when it's trying to be funny. Unfortunately, most of it is only unintentionally funny. It's also more scary when heard than seen. Shyamalan skillfully uses natural sounds and strange noises to generate suspense. Unfortunately, the more he shows, the less suspense and the more signs of Hitchcock and Spielberg and his other mentors you see. If he continues doing other people, I see dead pupil.

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-05-2002, 02:00 PM

Dont take this as insulting, but do you like anything, max? It seems to me, that you dont like many movies deemed "non-independant",.....or something.

max

08-05-2002, 02:10 PM

Dont take this as insulting, but do you like anything, max? It seems to me, that you dont like many movies deemed "non-independant",.....or something.

Sorry, Fokker, but I've already answered this question about a million times. Maybe I just don't like the movies you like. Of course, my question to you is, do you dislike anything? It seems to me that you like many movies deemed "Hollywood."

notchreturns

08-05-2002, 03:38 PM

Max, I leaning with Fokker on this. I think your a real smart, cool guy, but it seems you find the smallest details and make them the biggiest issue. The same old facial expressions ruin Gibson and Phoenix's performances? I mean come on, Max. Name me one actor that isn't prone to giving the same expression in every single film. Of all of the actors working today I know I can't think of one. You don't have anything to say about the score? Shyamaln's crafty, intelligent direction? His abilty to make you think one thing, but in the end the story is about another? The suberb building of the story leading to a powerful climax? The character development, something most films lack? The fact that there weren't any lpot holes, something I have noticed you hate? I'm not picking on you. I would just like for you to give more in depth analysis of the film and not consider it silly because the aliens have evaded us, or Gibson gives the same old bug eyed look.

BTW - I do believe I have heard Fokker say his favorite film is Donnie Darko. If that isn't "hollywood" then I don't know what is.

BarkingSparrow

08-05-2002, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by gyro_44:
And note that they were not wearing any form of external protection, which would suggest that they *knew* the planet was safe for them -- c'mon these are creatures with such advanced technology that they are able to pinpoint our planet from millions of light-years away for a visit.

I disagree. Initially, I think they were just checking out the planet - scouting it out to analyze Earth's habitat. Listen to what the military dude says earlier on in the film. And somehow they overlooked the fact that there is an element in Earth's water has a lethal effect on them? Sure, why not. No one ever said these were smart aliens, just beings with the technology to travel through space and invade distant planets.

No, the water was just a weak plot device.
Maybe. But I think it's rather silly to criticize a film for points like this (and "the alien looked cheap!") when they have so little to do with everything else. Shyamalan had me in the palm of his hand. He is a master filmmaker, and I think in the end his ability to tell such a spellbinding story will prevail over the small flaws that exist in it.

Most times, I can overlook the flaws, and generally enjoy the movie, other times, the flaws hit me like a sledge hammer. This movie was one of those times, I find it aggravating when a movie is just plain scientifically shallow.

Why is it that recent movies seem to portray the aliens as stupid? In all reality, with that kind of advanced technology, we'd be like cockroaches to them. Portraying them as stupid is mere plot contrivance, indicating that the writer has pinned himself into a corner with the plot, or lacks imagination.

Scrunch

08-05-2002, 04:57 PM

Well, here's my thought. To us, fire is good. Fire is bad. Hey - it's both. It has its uses and sometimes we get burned. Getting burned hurts. But if someone decides to blow torch you that's bad news.

Our fire is their water.

I thought this movie was fantastic. It's a story movie. Not a special effects or what have you - it's all about the story. I walked out of the theater very content and entertained, somewhat spooked but also inspired.

Looking forward to his next film.

Scrunch

08-05-2002, 04:59 PM

One more thing - there was one scene that I not only jumped but I screamed. My husband says I was the lone voice in the theater that made that much noise at that particular moment.

Haha.

[This message has been edited by Scrunch (edited 08-06-2002).]

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-05-2002, 05:00 PM

max, there are alot of "hollywood" films I like, this is true; but I feel rather well-balanced in this respect, as some of my favorite films are smaller, or independant films. Im just saying - do you walk around with the same look on your face most of the time? Yes, everyone does. Just because we see it in a movie, doesnt mean we critisize it. I mean, really, I know people whos facial expressions dont change for anything, so,.....yeah. Great movie!

notchreturns

08-05-2002, 05:12 PM

BarkingSparrown, I understand what your trying to say, but I disagree.

I think we all agree they have, most likely, lived in another galaxy for a thousand, maybe a milion years beforing deciding to inhabitant are galaxy.

Is it not possible they evolved on their planet to become what there are know? How do we know over the thousands of years they were able to think and evolve with their thoughts and actions. Maybe, they were taught. Who knows? Maybe, they were taught by the resources they had. The poison, the atmosphere they lived with, etc.

This all could have been learned, or taught to them over thousands of years.

What I'm saying is I don't think they are stupid, or they were portrayed as stupid beings. They were new to are world. For all we know they never breathed oxygen before.

So, Isn't possible that they had to start a new leaarning period of are atmospehere and the tools that inhabit it just like there old planet? Why couldn't this happen all over again? I think it could...

And, honestly, why are we even arguing this? The aliens were technically a sub splot. The true story was that of a man who has lost his faith and his inabilty to regain it.

Why can't we talk about that?

max

08-05-2002, 05:30 PM

Well, notchreturns, I could name a dozen other actors who could convey more modes of expression than Gibson. Yes, all actors possess mannerisms that carry over from film to film. And stardom usually serves to magnify these mannerisms. But the really good actors are able to overcome familiarity and incorporate these mannerisms into the characters they're playing. They're also able to add fresh character nuances. Gibson, in my opinion, just doesn't have the depth or the technique to make us forget that we're watching anyone else but Gibson. It doesn't help that he's played the same moralistic father figure in his last three or four films. To me he just basically bugs and rolls his eyes. He could also use a little more restraint in his big, dramatic scenes. But I do have to give credit where credit is due. At least he no longer exposes his butt like he used to quite frequently in his younger days. Phoenix, on the other hand, is a more subtle actor than Gibson. But he doesn't really have a character to play here. Actually, no one in the movie is playing a recognizably human character. Each character is formulaic and movie-ish. They behave according to the demands of the plot ad the conventions of the genre. As for Shyamalan's writing and direction, they have become increasingly predictable. Yes, even the great directors have their signature styles and thematic obsessions, but his slow, deliberate style, his blend of supernatural and spiritual, the Shyamalan cameos, and the twist endings have become more like exercises in self-parody. He's found a formula that works and he's content to play it out. He hasn't grown since THE SIXTH SENSE, a movie I loved (see, Fokker, I don't hate all movies).

BTW - I do believe I have heard Fokker say his favorite film is Donnie Darko. If that isn't "hollywood" then I don't know what is.

And one of my all-time favorites is JAWS. If that isn't non-indedependent, then I don't know what is.

Marchesk

08-05-2002, 06:50 PM

Yeah, continuing this water debate and obsessing about minor details in an otherwise very well done movie (IMO) is a bit silly. But because I enjoy debating ...

I suppose by this point spoiler alerts are no longer necessary. Water, H20, is a very simple molocule/chemical. 2 Hydrogens (which is the most abundant element in the universe), and 1 Oxygen (which is also fairly abundant). The surface of our planet is 80% water. Water used to cover quite a bit of Mars as well and still exists there underground. There is even some water on the Moon as well as Europa (frozen ice may cover an ocean) and no doubt other plantets & moons in the solar system in varying degrees.

The idea that these aliens were not familiar with water is ludicrous. Even if it did not exist naturally on their homeworld, one would think that they would have formed it early on.
In addition, being a space-faring species, they would no doubt have come across it - likely in their solar system. So there is no reason why they wouldn't be aware of the full danger of water to them.

So they decide to invade the Earth despite all that water. Even though they have the sense to stay away from bodies of water, as one poster mentioned, what about the rain? And it's silly to think that they wouldn't be worried about humans having a supply of water always available. Wouldn't they know that all life on this planet is based on water for survival?

Given all this, there is no good reason why they didn't invade with some kind of shielding to protect themselves from water. And I can't believe that water is the only thing that can hurt them. Mel was able to cut off the fingers of the alien in the pantry with a knife, and Mel's brother did damage to the alien at the end with his baseball bat (though the water did kill it). So surely bullets would harm them as well? If not regular, then how about armor piercing bullets (like in Aliens), bazookas, explosives, flame throwers, tanks, etc?

And as to the air, naval, and other non-ground forces not being mobilized because the aliens could make their ships invisible and protect themselves behind force fields, so what? Even though they could evade radar detection, shouldn't we have been able to see them with infared? Like on the show The Invisible Man?
How can they disguise the heat they give off? And we wouldn't even attempt to get through their shields? - yeah right. Also, we would no doubt have our nukes ready to go (hopefully as last resort though).

Finally, two last minor complaints. Where was the president? He didn't given a speech? Was this because the Bush Admin was still worried about the war on terrorism? Just kidding! And why was there no attempt made to contact the aliens?

But still a very good movie.

ParileseMonster

08-05-2002, 08:18 PM

I thought it was a good well thought out kind of flick with emotion. I think that is was slow paced and quiet and probally could have used a constructive trimming here and there. I do however recommend seeing this movie while most of the youngins and rude teens are elsewhere. I say this because it has been awhile since Ive seen a movie with the opening being only music and credits, most movies anymore start out and then credits run. It was nice to see that but the restless teens took this time to be loud and rude chatterboxes and that took away from the enjoyment. The title music was very good and it explained everything you were about to get yourself into ( just listen ). It is slow paced and quiet at times and there were these dumbass rude teens behind me just hamming it up and when they kicked my chair thats when I said something. Then some others teens again took the cat scare moments to act like major assholes by fake screaming and shouting oh my god. Now Im not saying all teens are bad but now here this to those teens who are totally disrespectful, Noone finds your behaviour funny, it makes you look like an ass and one of these days you will get yelled at and have your ass kicked. Have some respect!
I enjoyed myself considering and I did enjoy this movie and I am glad that they did not overly exploit meaning I am glad they didnt show much yes you can over do cgi and you can overdo a great villian also. They took care into not doing that and while it may be a let down to others I found it refreshing. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/tongue.gif

dk789

08-05-2002, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Marchesk:

The idea that these aliens were not familiar with water is ludicrous. Even if it did not exist naturally on their homeworld, one would think that they would have formed it early on.


Perhaps so, but as you said H2O exists in various forms. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that H2O in its liquid form is only harmful to the aliens. Water can only exist between the 0 and 100 degrees celsious
(assuming it does not have any chemicals added to it that will lower its freezing point). That's a pretty small temperature range considering the vastness of the universe. If the Earth was any closer to the sun, our global temperatures could be way above boiling point. Any farther and this could be an ice planet.

Anyways, you're right. It is kind of silly to argue over such a moot point. I still enjoyed the film for what it's worth.

notchreturns

08-05-2002, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by max:

And one of my all-time favorites is JAWS. If that isn't non-indedependent, then I don't know what is.



Max, my new favorite schmoe, Jaws is my favorite film of all time. I take back all of the bad I have said towards your opinions and your taste. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

But, I have to ask. You say you can name a dozen other actors who are able to incoporate fresh character nuances, right? Well, would Deniro(menacing and intimadating, hard eyes, same, over-powering presentation of dialouge), Pacino(over the top and loud, that same repetive release of dialouge, etc.), Brando(Mr. Mumbles and sad eyes), Freeman(wise, beyond his years characters, mysterious) make this list? I do believe they are all great actors and Freeman is one of my favorites, but they have always stuck with the same mold. I honestly don't mind. Honestly, the only actors I can think of that "change" from role to role would be Hoffman, especially the 70's, and Ed Norton, who could be the next Hoffman if he wanted too.

PS: I'm glad you love Jaws. That's all that matters...

Riddick

08-05-2002, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Marchesk:
And I can't believe that water is the only thing that can hurt them. Mel was able to cut off the fingers of the alien in the pantry with a knife, and Mel's brother did damage to the alien at the end with his baseball bat (though the water did kill it). So surely bullets would harm them as well? If not regular, then how about armor piercing bullets (like in Aliens), bazookas, explosives, flame throwers, tanks, etc?

I think the point was that not everyone in the world has that arsenal at their disposal. The story centred on the family, not the military, not every family keeps a gun in their home, but almost every family has near-immediate access to water.

And since the aliens seem to be hurt to a much greater extent by water than by anything else, using water would kill them a lot quicker and save far more lives.

As for the infra-red idea, how do we know the craft gave off heat, it might have been powered by some magnetic propulsion system, or some other technology we have yet to conceive of. These craft, I'm assuming traveled through many solar systems, galaxies, etc., so I'm guessing the ships would be armoured enough to keep us from seeing their body heat through the ships hull.

[This message has been edited by Riddick (edited 08-05-2002).]

inglourious basterd

08-06-2002, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Marchesk:

Finally, two last minor complaints. Where was the president? He didn't given a speech? Was this because the Bush Admin was still worried about the war on terrorism? Just kidding! And why was there no attempt made to contact the aliens?


I agree that arguing about specifics is completely unnecessary. However, I couldn't help but notice that you did exactly what you thought was silly. The movie actually had very little to do with the aliens. The aliens were pretty much a plot device to the actual story: the loss/redemption of faith for the main character (Gibson). Everything else is secondary to that.

max

08-06-2002, 08:56 AM

Max, my new favorite schmoe, Jaws is my favorite film of all time. I take back all of the bad I have said towards your opinions and your taste.

Are you apologizing? If you are, then I forgive you.

But, I have to ask. You say you can name a dozen other actors who are able to incoporate fresh character nuances, right? Well, would Deniro(menacing and intimadating, hard eyes, same, over-powering presentation of dialouge), Pacino(over the top and loud, that same repetive release of dialouge, etc.), Brando(Mr. Mumbles and sad eyes), Freeman(wise, beyond his years characters, mysterious) make this list? I do believe they are all great actors and Freeman is one of my favorites, but they have always stuck with the same mold. I honestly don't mind. Honestly, the only actors I can think of that "change" from role to role would be Hoffman, especially the 70's, and Ed Norton, who could be the next Hoffman if he wanted too.

"Menacing and intimidating, hard eyes, same, over-powering presentation of dialogue" wouldn't be the words I'd use to describe De Niro's performances in BANG THE DRUM SLOWLY, AWAKENINGS, TRUE CONFESIONS or THE DEER HUNTER. And if and when those words do apply, the performances themselves are as different as night and day. The menacing and intimidating Neal in HEAT is not the menacing and intimidating Travis in TAXI DRIVER or the menacing and intimidating Conrad in WAG THE DOG or the menacing and intimidating Jake in RAGING BULL. They don't even sound alike. And, yes, Pacino, Brando, Freeman or even Nicholson belong to that elite group. They may have slipped a bit lately, but check out their earlier work. Pacino may be shouting a lot more, but he's capable of subtlety (SERPICO, GODFATHER I & II). Yes, Brando mumbles, but that's just how he talks, but do you honestly think Gibson is capable of doing LAST TANGO IN PARIS and STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE or Freeman's STREET SMART and DRIVING MISS DAISY or Nicholson's ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST or [b]FIVE EASY PIECES. As for Hoffman, I think he's great, too, but I could argue that he also has distinctive mannerisms whether he's playing an aspiring actor in drag (TOOTSIE) or a Hollywood producer (WAG THE DOG): the stuttering, the little steps, etc.. As for Norton, it's too early to judge if he's going to have the career that those legends have. He's certainly very talented. But he's only been in a few films and the mannerisms are already starting to get more pronounced. He looked and sounded very Norton in the few clips I've seen of RED DRAGON.

PS: I'm glad you love Jaws. That's all that matters...

Alright, already, I forgive you.

inglourious basterd

08-06-2002, 09:16 AM

Hey Max...

I think the reason people criticize you so much is because you focus specifically on the negative. For that reason, it gives us the impression that you are mostly negative.

Even if you did not like the movie, didn't you appreciate the fact that they returned to the standard filming techniques? Thats something that I definitely liked about this one. In the last year or so, there were so many movies that substituted blood and noise out of the back speakers (rather than through storyline) to bring fright.

Shymalan (sic) may not be using original techniques. But that does not mean he is a bad director. We dont get mad at directors for using close ups or cross-cutting; why is this different?

max

08-06-2002, 11:38 AM

Hey Max...
I think the reason people criticize you so much is because you focus specifically on the negative. For that reason, it gives us the impression that you are mostly negative.

Nope, people in general criticize when you're bashing a movie they love. I admit that I love to focus on the negatives of a movie I think is overrated. There's so much hype surrounding a movie before its release that I think people tend to respond more to the hype rather than the movie itself. I didn't totally hate ROAD TO PERDITION or SIGNS. Both are obviously well-crafted. But it angers and frustrates me when people have nothing but good things to say about movies I find terribly flawed. The other reason I'm mostly negative is simply because films these days are mostly crappy. I was just involved in a heated debate with Tuukka about THE DEER HUNTER, a movie I really liked. Who was focusing on the negatives and who was focusing on the positives there?

Shymalan (sic) may not be using original techniques. But that does not mean he is a bad director. We dont get mad at directors for using close ups or cross-cutting; why is this different?

I never said Shyamalan is a bad director. Didn't I say I loved THE SIXTH SENSE? I just feel disappointed that his last two films were mere variations of it. I'm not mad at directors who pay homage to their favorite directors; I'm mad at directors who lose themselves in the process. My growing problem with Shyamalan is that he's not only paying homage to directors like Hitchcok and Spielberg, which he does in his own unique way, but he's starting to use them to pay homage to himself.

notchreturns

08-06-2002, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by max:
). Yes, Brando mumbles, but that's just how he talks, but do you honestly think Gibson is capable of doing LAST TANGO IN PARIS and STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE
[/B]

Well, Gibson was able to take on Spakespeare's Hamlet, and do a pretty good job, so it wouldn't surprise me if he could and would take on Streetcar Named Desire, another popular stageplay. Last Tango In Paris, maybe. I honestly think he could, but would he? I doubt it.

Could Brando play Riggs in Lethal Weapon, or Graham Hess in Signs? Maybe, in his younger days, but it would never be as good as Gibson.

I'm not saying Gibson is a better actor than Brando, because he isn't. But he can take on roles Brando can't. Every actor has something their good at. Freeman, quiet and intellectual. Hopper, a druggie and crazy. Gibson, the father figure and herioc. Hanks, everyday man and happy., etc.

Does that mean they are bad, or average actors? No. Does that mean they are the best at what they are able to do? Yes...

max

08-06-2002, 04:15 PM

Well, Gibson was able to take on Spakespeare's Hamlet, and do a pretty good job, so it wouldn't surprise me if he could and would take on Streetcar Named Desire, another popular stageplay. Last Tango In Paris, maybe. I honestly think he could, but would he? I doubt it.

He did an ok job. Certainly no Olivier or Branagh or even Brando, who was great as Marc Antony in JULIUS CAESAR, also a more superior adaptation of Shakespeare than Gibson's HAMLET. And I honestly think LAST TANGO IN PARIS is beyond Gibson's range. I can't believe we're actually comparing the two. They're not even on the same page.

Could Brando play Riggs in Lethal Weapon, or Graham Hess in Signs? Maybe, in his younger days, but it would never be as good as Gibson.

Why should Brando bother appearing in a LETHAL WEAPON movie? And if he did, I could see him doing it differently, with more complexity. It would be a thinking man's action picture. And I'm sure there would be no bugging and rolling of the eyes, too. Same with SIGNS.

I'm not saying Gibson is a better actor than Brando, because he isn't.

I could've sworn you were.

But he can take on roles Brando can't.

You don't know that for a fact. But I'm glad he didn't go that route. That would've been a waste of his talents.

Every actor has something their good at. Freeman, quiet and intellectual. Hopper, a druggie and crazy. Gibson, the father figure and herioc. Hanks, everyday man and happy., etc.

I suppose if you do it often enough, you'd either get better or audiences would get used to you in that role. I, personally, don't think Gibson is as good as can be as a hero/father figure. As for Hanks, I still don't get the appeal. In case you didn't know, Hopper was a druggie and a crazy guy.

[quote]Does that mean they are bad, or average actors? No. Does that mean they are the best at what they are able to do? Yes...[quote]

Vanna White is good at what she does. Britney Spears is good at what she does. Vin Diesel is good at what he does. But are they really talented? They're getting by on looks and charisma, in my opinion.

Dumb-Fokker-**

08-06-2002, 05:46 PM

Key word here, max, is "I" (read: you) - as in, "But it angers and frustrates me when people have nothing but good things to say about movies >I< find terribly flawed." Opinions are opinions - not much you can do about that, and there is certainly no need to get angry about them. I didnt find the movie flawed - I liked the performances, the story, the dialouge, the message, the cinematography. I dont care what movie it borrowed this or that from - because I liked this movie.

syxxpac

08-06-2002, 07:26 PM

Max, I have one question: How in the hell would Marlon Brando in the Riggs role make Lethal Weapon a "thinking man" action movie? Brando would have his own unique touch to the character of course, but it would be the same goddamn role! It wouldn't be more or less complex just because a different actor took on the part. Unless they changed the character in the script or something...

YF Manson

08-06-2002, 07:43 PM

This movie was fun to watch. It grabs you and doesn't let go till the end.
********SPOILERS************
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The only minor disapointment I had was that I thought the movie was leading up to a more exciting ending instead of all but one alien just up and leaving the planet. But the ending worked and I thoroughly enjoyed it all.

Mr. Orange

08-06-2002, 09:01 PM

I think that the one alien at the end didn't decide to be left behind. I think he was trapped in the pantry the whole time and when he got out the rest left!

syxxpac

08-06-2002, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Orange:
I think that the one alien at the end didn't decide to be left behind. I think he was trapped in the pantry the whole time and when he got out the rest left!

That could be it. And when he got out and found the rest of his homies to be gone, he probably just said "screw it" and went looking for some good old fashioned revenge.

bluegopher

08-06-2002, 09:21 PM

Max, how could you hate or dislike Tom Hanks? He and Gibson are probably two of the more talented actors working today. I think that Kevin Spacey would have been good in Signs also but that's a moot point now.

notchreturns

08-06-2002, 09:50 PM

I don't believe Max dislikes, or hates them. He has stated they are fines actors, but he would like to see some diversity in their work. There is nothing wrong with him thinking that...

HEM1014

08-06-2002, 09:51 PM

First off I wanna say that I loved the movie!But actully the scarest thing that happen while watching the film was that I was sitting next to steven spielberg look a like,or it might been him who knows!

BarkingSparrow

08-07-2002, 08:09 AM

.... Attention, this is your captain speaking... Now I know you have all gotten bored with the whole "bombard them from space and mop up later" thing, so this time I have a bit of distraction planned. We are going to invade a water based ecosystem for a bit more challenge. The poisonous environment should help restore our edge.

Now in case that isn't enough, we are going to hover our ships in the night sky, with the lights on, to really whip our quarry into a frenzy.

Crikey! Here is the best part, we are going down naked! and without weapons!

.... our scouts report the wily creatures are worked into to quite a frenzy, it's time to wrestle some humans....

Crikey! now didn't that get your blood pumping? We have a lot of good footage of the wily creature defending themselves, they really didn't want to be captured and put up quite a struggle.

I hope everyone is exhillerated as we head out now to capture a planet with a compatable
ecosystem....

Tyler_Durden_208

08-07-2002, 09:52 AM

This is my second fav movie of this year. Remember The Two Towers comes out December 18. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

max

08-07-2002, 10:45 AM

Key word here, max, is "I" (read: you) - as in, "But it angers and frustrates me when people have nothing but good things to say about movies >I< find terribly flawed." Opinions are opinions - not much you can do about that, and there is certainly no need to get angry about them. 

Yes, not much anyone can do about other people's opinions, but I certainly have the right to get angry and frustrated at opinions that don't agree with mine. That's what this forum is for: to share and discuss and argue. You can agree, disagree, agree to disagree, get angry, be happy, as long as as it doesn't become too personal and insulting.

I didnt find the movie flawed - I liked the performances, the story, the dialouge, the message, the cinematography. I dont care what movie it borrowed this or that from - because I liked this movie.

And I found the movie flawed and didn't like the movie as much. And I do care that it was heavily borrowed. I also wanted to be more scared, more moved, more challenged, more entertained - things that Shyamalan, I'm sure, hoped to accomplish. There were some creepy moments (the alien's reflection on the TV set, for one), but most of the scares were of the Boo! variety. I wanted more emotional involvement, but the family dilemma was too formulaic. I wanted to be more challenged but all I got were heavy-handed symbolisms, recycled themes, your typical Shyamalanic twists, and a pat ending. I wanted to be more entertained, but I was merely mildy curious and watched with curious detachment.

max

08-07-2002, 11:07 AM

Max, I have one question: How in the hell would Marlon Brando in the Riggs role make Lethal Weapon a "thinking man" action movie? Brando would have his own unique touch to the character of course, but it would be the same goddamn role! It wouldn't be more or less complex just because a different actor took on the part. Unless they changed the character in the script or something...

You're right. It would be a different action movie, the kind I much prefer. It would be an action movie relying less on stunts and goofball antics, more on story and well-developed characters. But, let's say that Brando took on the part with the character and script intact, would he have been as shallowly entertaining as Gibson? I believe so. Probably even more. In my opinion, not only is Brando more talented than Gibson, he was also more charming and good-looking in his younger days than Gibson. I'm a guy and don't know much about what appeals to women. All I know is that I'd rather look like Brando (in his younger days, that is) than Gibson.

jetblac

08-07-2002, 11:25 AM

Well when I left the theater I was calling shyamalan "THE MAN". But I did start cracking on the whole water thing... Until just now reading these post... It wasn't simple water(H20) But the shit that was in it!!!! The little girl even knew it. It was the amebas!!! and the rest of the contaminants from our planet. These aliens did not anticipate our use of water as a weapon against them. They wanted to come, Kick ass and chew bubblegum and then get the hell out of here, but... plans fail no matter how smart or well thought out.

syxxpac

08-07-2002, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by max:
You're right. It would be a different action movie, the kind I much prefer. It would be an action movie relying less on stunts and goofball antics, more on story and well-developed characters. 

What are you talking about? Compared to other brainless action movies out there, Lethal Weapon was one of a few that DID emphasize story and well-developed characters. Just compare it to Commando and see what conclusions you can come up with. Was John Matrix a flawed human being whom we could empathize with? Maybe, if you're a Rambo wannabe who blows away terrorists by the dozen on a daily basis and constantly spit out one-liners...

max

08-07-2002, 01:58 PM

What are you talking about? Compared to other brainless action movies out there, Lethal Weapon was one of a few that DID emphasize story and well-developed characters. Just compare it to Commando and see what conclusions you can come up with. Was John Matrix a flawed human being whom we could empathize with? Maybe, if you're a Rambo wannabe who blows away terrorists by the dozen on a daily basis and constantly spit out one-liners...

Well, if you compare it to RAMBO, COMMANDO and the other 3 LETHAL WEAPONs, you may have a point. But, regardless, I thought LETHAL WEAPON was just loud, violent and totally unbelievable. And it just got stupider and stupider. There's enough action (some of them spectacular) to distract us from the movie's cliches. As for the well-developed characters you were referring to, credit should go the stars' presence and their genuine chemistry and not to the writing. Perhaps if it weren't for the bad quality of the sequels, I'd have fonder memories of the original.

austin2408

08-08-2002, 02:20 AM

tom hanks wouldve been horrible in that movie- his voice isnt deep and possibly spooky like gibsons......i think hanks wouldve been horrible in that movie even tho i think hes a great actor.

blankpage

08-08-2002, 02:34 PM

SIGNS
starring:Mel Gibson,Joaquin Phoenix,Rory Culkin,Abigail Breslin
Directed by:M. Night Shyamalan
PG-13(some frightening moments)

Story:Graham Hess(Gibson) plays a reverend who has lost his faith.One morning his children discover strange crop circles in the fields.At first they think it is just some pranksters.But then strange things begin to unravel.Alien spaceships are beginning to appear.This leads to possibly then end of the world.

Going into this film I had high hopes.This film was getting lots of positive reviews,and this movie was on my must see list.The director M.Nigh Shyamalan the director of The Sixth Sense,and Unbreakable is coming onto a great Hollywood hot streak.He was named The next Speilberg,but that I disagree with.Although I do think he is the next Hitchcock.The man is good at what he does,soild peoples pants.This effort was enjoyable to watch,and was quite freaky and scary,but by then end it didn’t hold up.Espically with the let down of an ending.

I jumped out of my seat from beginning to end.And I am not just saying that.Shyamalan plays with our minds with his camera angles,and that bloody music.This guy’s timing is perfect.He knows when he cane get a scream or a laugh out of the audience,which he got.You can tell when he is setting up something.It is also important to pay attention to what is going on.Even the slightest word can effect the whole film.

Signs surprisingly turned out to be a funny movie.Most of the laughs come from the children and Phoenix’s character.Funny one liners as well make this more enjoyable.It is used by intelligent wit,instead of potty humor.I laughed probably more in this movie then 2/4 of the other films released in the past couple of years.It’s the power of Shyamalan,once the lights go dim he has you under his palm for two hours.

Acting wise everyone did their fair share.Shyamalan makes another cameo in this film.Something he does in all the rest of this film.*cough*Hitchcock.I actually found his performance to be one of the best performances in the film.He is actually maturing in his acting.In Sixth Sense he played a doctor with a few lines.Then in Unbreakable he played a bad dude,with a few lines.But in this film he plays one of the most important characters in the film.

So back to the film itself.It sets up as a masterpiece.The first two acts were mind bending and creepy.By the time the film gets to the third act it runs dryer then a man trying to breast feed.The ending was a let down.All of the tension that leads up to it.It really disappointed me.But in a way it teaches us to not take life for granted.And there are always second chances.And to never loos your faith.

So in the end Signs was a great film.It played with my scared girlish bone.The lady a few roes down would always scream AH!Shyamalan is a film making master.He is good at what he does.Even though the film runs out of breathing by the third act,it still managed to keep me well entertained.Shayamalan is the man.

**** (out of 5)

mattjk_17

08-08-2002, 06:28 PM

SPOILERS AHEAD

I've just finished watching Signs, and this has got to be contender for one of the top movies of the year. Shyamalan knows how to direct a movie, and having seen this I really want to go and watch Unbreakable.

The movie had me in suspense all the way through, and when the creature showed up in Brazil it freaked me out, mainly because I wasn't expecting it. I really dug the ending. I had a feeling that the water would be involved, and hey, whaddya know it was! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Great film, gonna have to watch it again!!

Signs: 9/10

[This message has been edited by mattjk_17 (edited 08-08-2002).]

Ron3484

08-09-2002, 04:06 AM

Again, this movie kicks ass! I hope this movie beats XXX!

9/10

[This message has been edited by Ron3484 (edited 08-09-2002).]

Benny

08-09-2002, 10:10 PM

I'll make my review short since everyone else has basically said what needs to be said. Anyways I thought this movie was a very good summer blockbuster, even though there were a few flaws. Gibson and Phoenix are great and as we have come to accept from a Shymalan film, the children are great as well. It's funny, touching, and scary at the same time; in many of the scenes I laughed and gasped at the same time. By the way, did anyone else notice that Mel Gibson has the same exact look on his face throughout the whole movie, just like Bruce Willis did in The Sixth Sense? Overall, it's not as good as The Sixth Sense, but on par with Unbreakable and a very good way to spend $8 in these dog days of summer.

8/10

B-ball Dude

08-10-2002, 07:29 PM

I liked it. It was intense. But also to funny to be a horror movie. It had some jumpy parts. The water thing was cool. 8/10

crook38

08-12-2002, 02:34 PM

Reasons why i thought this film completely sucked.
1.Mel gibsons acting.I didn't believe in this character for a second.All that stuff where he's asking his brother how to act angry and swear was fucking stupid,even if he was a priest he'd still understand the concept of anger and bad language.Also even if i believed in this 1 dimensional,bleak man there is no way he'd ever been a preacher,don't they need to have some sort of people skills to be good at that job.and incase anyone points out "well he did lose his wife" i don't think that makes sense either because in his flashbacks he behaved in the exact same cold detatched manner.
2.All the other weird towns people.Mel Gibsons brother bordered on the retarded (watching tv in cupboard,wearing childrens tin foil hat),the crazy army recruit sargent,the dum chemistgirl asking for confession.Again i didn't find them believable,they were like characters from twin peaks.This would only have been acceptable if the ending explained why they acted this way.i believe the movie deliberately left significant clues suggesting some or all of these characters inc. Mel Gibson were themselves aliens and at the end when it is revealed they are not we were mearely left with a bunch of paper thin weirdo characters.
3.So let me get this straight.these beings can travel the vastness of space,they have mastered intersteller flight and can probably travel at near light speed,they can direct themselves to our specific planet...but when they get hear they have to rely on cropcircles to find they're way around.FUCK YOU SHYAMALAN.This is stupider than the single bullet theory.so they don't have radio's,maps or apparently compases but can master space flight.right.
4.these creatures who have developed space flight without developing radar,compases or maps are allergic to WATER.DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON HOW STUPID THIS IS.Apparently they are descendants of the wicked witch of the west!!!
5.The ending,a lot of what i didn't enjoy about the film i could have forgiven to an extent if it had a good ending.As i have said i think there were deliberate clues to suggest mel Gibsons family were aliens(mels lack of understanding or signs of emotion,the daughters premonition in dreams,the fact that the aliens have come to this remote farm,mels discloure that his daughter smiled at an age when human children are not phisically able to,When down in the basement mel says he's "not ready" and the aliens back off).Then for the ending to be somehow about god(and i do not mean this in anyway as an attack on christianity)and Mel somehow being blessed i just thought was incredably stupid and pointlessly vague.
having said all this it would appear i'm in the minority on this one and most people enjoyed it.go figure.

syxxpac

08-12-2002, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by crook38:
4.these creatures who have developed space flight without developing radar,compases or maps are allergic to WATER.DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON HOW STUPID THIS IS.Apparently they are descendants of the wicked witch of the west!!!


Do we really have to go over this again? I mean, it's already been discussed. I definitely know for sure that YOU don't know where the aliens' home planet is, so you're argument isn't valid. You don't know anything about the creatures, as does anybody. It's already been stated before that they're obviously not human, so they don't necessarily have to have human frailties and depend on the same elements that we do. They could breathe nitrogen or carbon dioxide for all we know. But you do raise some good points in your other reasons. Nothing I'd really agree with most of the time through the movie, except the weird characters part. To each his own though, so neither of us is really right or wrong.

MsMoviefan

08-12-2002, 08:58 PM

I thought it was better then I expected, and that was a pleasant surprise-since the only reason I went was because seats were sold out for "My big fat Greek wedding" Good story,good acting. I liked it, although I thought it was a wee bit stupid. Bottom line though, I was entertained.

dellamorte dellamore

08-13-2002, 07:54 AM

Can anyone say war of the worlds meets predator?

Although an obvious amount of talent is behind this film,it's not entirely original,in fact it's a bunch of spare parts thrown together,add the crop circle phenomena,a big name(director and star),some slick marketing,and voila,an overrated blockbuster is born.

MS thinks he's some trailblazing,ingenious,original director,but even Sixth Sense was a rip off of Carnival of Souls.Yes,the dead main character who does'nt know they are dead was done at least 30 years before Sixth Sense,and yes,the audience and the main character realize this at the end.

I'll give him Unbreakble because that was a nice twist on a tired genre,superheroes,but Signs?Did it have to be Aliens?Could'nt he,in his "infinite wisdom,come up with something more original or intriguing.It was an interesting set up that devolved into cliche and sappiness.Alins taking over the world(heck even Bad Taste had that very same plot,they came here for food or something).

And Aliens that blend into there environment by changing colors,chameleon like has already been done in both predator films(at least in predator they only came for sport).What seperates this from that film,in this respect is the acting and the production values,but that's about it.

The aliens are unsuccesful in their bid to take over the world because of something so simple and so innocent as water.Wait,in War of the Worlds it was something as simple,but nonetheless annoying,as the common cold(was'nt it a computer virus in Independence Day?).Should have known the girls love of water was a red herring,MS loves red herrings,sometimes too much,to the point of distraction.

Night of the living dead comes to mind,just replace the zombies with aliens.They both dealt with a world on the brink of destruction,and the remaining survivors are holed up in a farmhouse.Signs featured a threat from another universe,NOTLD was an internal threat,but it's suggested it was a virus brought back from a lunar mission.So there;s not much difference there.

I'm not saying Signs is terrible,it's definitely enjoyable,and somewhat suspenseful,but so much more could have been done with this material,that the end product not only feels rushed and glossed over,but disappointing,cliched and derivative.Does it always have to be aliens?Please someone rack your brains and do something intriguing with the crop circle phenomena.

As far as i'm concerned,Blair Witch is still king with regards to subtle,suggestive horror.Everyone complains about it,but it seems everyone is trying to emulate that same raw,genuinely creepy,maybe even frightening feel.And The Ring,what a joke,not even in the same league.(i think that's why people hate it,it does'nt make you feel safe or happy,there are no conflicted heroes,just pure,unadulterated chills.And not the kind where something jumps out with the requisite loud music accompanying it.)

But Signs is a mainstream horror/alien invasion film,an easily digestible form of "horror".Everything looks nice,and everyone feels safe so everyone can go home happy,but that is'nt horror to me,or even suspenseful.A horror film for the family,not a bad thing,but definitely not scary.

Scorsese

08-13-2002, 10:55 AM

I saw Signs for the first time last night. I have not had such an amazing trip to the movies in a very long time. This movie grabbed me from the first scene and my eyes could not come off the screen for the nearly two hours the film runs.

*Spoilers*

Lets just say this movie is not about aliens. If you go into it expecting a special effects popcorn flick you will be in for a suprise. Aliens are just a tool. This story is about the signs we give each other and the signs we recieve from God that everything has a purpose and everything has a divine order. Anybody who knows Shymalan's work knows that his films are full of hidden jewels and compelling dialogue. This is no different. Mel Gibson was amazing!!!! He was born to play this role. The kids were great, and the rest of the charachers were well acted as well.

Some will complain about the lack of explaination at the end, and other various parts of this film that didn't go into detail but that is exactly what Shyamalan was trying to do. He didn't want the focus to be in that direction.... that is why the alien was blurry at the end. In the end I sit there with my girlfriend teary eyed and didn't leave until the last credit roled. JoBlo was right, this film isn't for everyone.... but it is for those who dig deep into movies and can enjoy subliminal ideas and hidden meanings. I will have to see it again but this film is among my favorites ever.... easily.

Favorite Scenes:

Birthday!!!

Pantry!!!

Last time he spoke to his wife(talk about tear jerking)

Mel's talks with his daughter and son about their births(another emotional moment)

Last shot of Mel in cloth

Exellent film.... I'm ready for Shyamalan's next masterpiece!!!

The Sixth Sense 9/10

Unbreakable 9.5/10

Signs 9.5/10 (could rise to 10 after next viewing)

The Heart Collector

08-13-2002, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore:
Can anyone say war of the worlds meets predator?

No I can't say it? WTF?? PREDATOR?!?

Ron3484

08-15-2002, 01:37 AM

What do you think sylamans next movie is going to be about?

jetblac

08-15-2002, 03:24 PM

Unbreakable II
Yeah!!!!

Dark_One79

08-16-2002, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by crook38:
Reasons why i thought this film completely sucked.
1.Mel gibsons acting.I didn't believe in this character for a second.All that stuff where he's asking his brother how to act angry and swear was fucking stupid,even if he was a priest he'd still understand the concept of anger and bad language.Also even if i believed in this 1 dimensional,bleak man there is no way he'd ever been a preacher,don't they need to have some sort of people skills to be good at that job.and incase anyone points out "well he did lose his wife" i don't think that makes sense either because in his flashbacks he behaved in the exact same cold detatched manner.

SPOILERS....

Ummm... in those flashbacks he had just come upon the scene of a fatal accident involving his wife. So please, forgive him if he didn't have a sparkle in his eye and a spring in his step. Geez.

2.All the other weird towns people.Mel Gibsons brother bordered on the retarded (watching tv in cupboard,wearing childrens tin foil hat),the crazy army recruit sargent,the dum chemistgirl asking for confession.Again i didn't find them believable,they were like characters from twin peaks.This would only have been acceptable if the ending explained why they acted this way.i believe the movie deliberately left significant clues suggesting some or all of these characters inc. Mel Gibson were themselves aliens and at the end when it is revealed they are not we were mearely left with a bunch of paper thin weirdo characters.

Left clues they were aliens? Huh? Explain please. Also, what do you mean "weirdo characters"? Okay, I'll admit the army guy overacted a lot. That part didn't work IMHO. But to jump all over his brother and the pharmacy girl is a bit of a reach. So both were acting a bit strangely? Well, there were multiple hovering spaceships over many of Earth's biggest cities. I have a feeling that could make anyone become a little unglued. Besides, the parts you mentioned were put in for a little comic relief.

Also, what about the side characters you failed to mention? The character played by the director, what was silly, or "weird" about him? What of the female police officer who plays an important role in the film? Does she also fit your stereotype that all bit players in Signs are "weirdos."

You know they aren't.

3.So let me get this straight.these beings can travel the vastness of space,they have mastered intersteller flight and can probably travel at near light speed,they can direct themselves to our specific planet...but when they get hear they have to rely on cropcircles to find they're way around.FUCK YOU SHYAMALAN.This is stupider than the single bullet theory.so they don't have radio's,maps or apparently compases but can master space flight.right.

I don't recall the film ever stating the purpose of the crop circles. Phoenix's character postulates that they were created to serve as a marking system. Shyamalan never explicitly states their purpose. So for you to criticize the film on that basis makes absolutely no sense. For all we know they created the circles to imtimidate us, or some other unknown, dare I say, "alien" reason.

4.these creatures who have developed space flight without developing radar,compases or maps are allergic to WATER.DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON HOW STUPID THIS IS.Apparently they are descendants of the wicked witch of the west!!!

Yeah, you are right. Aliens, from another galaxy, should respond the same way we do to planet Earth's elements. How stupid is it that they, beings from thousands of light years away, differ from us genetically.

5.The ending,a lot of what i didn't enjoy about the film i could have forgiven to an extent if it had a good ending.As i have said i think there were deliberate clues to suggest mel Gibsons family were aliens(mels lack of understanding or signs of emotion,the daughters premonition in dreams,the fact that the aliens have come to this remote farm,mels discloure that his daughter smiled at an age when human children are not phisically able to,When down in the basement mel says he's "not ready" and the aliens back off).Then for the ending to be somehow about god(and i do not mean this in anyway as an attack on christianity)and Mel somehow being blessed i just thought was incredably stupid and pointlessly vague.
having said all this it would appear i'm in the minority on this one and most people enjoyed it.go figure. 

How did Mel exhibit a lack of emotion? Where you getting your popcorn bucket refilled during the dinner scene, the asthma scene, or when he was explaining each of his children's births?

Also, when does the film state that aliens demonstrate a lack of emotion, premonitions, or the ability to smile at a very young age?

But anyway, let us pretend those all are "alien" traits... even though it is nowhere in the film...

Those are reasons that his family should've been aliens? Please. How about these reasons then. I noticed the humans all have two legs and two arms, just like the aliens. I also noticed that the aliens get pissed off when you cut their fingers off... just like humans. Oh, the aliens travel around in vehicles... just like... you guessed it... HUMANS.

You read way too far into things, just so you have a basis for your criticism. Weak.

If you don't like the movie... fine. Just don't be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. If you want to trash the film, at least grab some facts next time.

You know what they say about opinions, right?

[This message has been edited by Dark_One79 (edited 08-16-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Dark_One79 (edited 08-16-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Dark_One79 (edited 08-16-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Dark_One79 (edited 08-16-2002).]

FilmFreak87

08-16-2002, 11:48 AM

I liked this movie a lot. I just hated the ending. HUGE HUGE SPOILER!!!!

What was up with the "swing away!" thing? I thought that was really stupid and not needed. End Spoiler!

But I still liked the movie a lot. 8/10!

http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/edoom/spacecraft.gif

[This message has been edited by FilmFreak87 (edited 08-16-2002).]

jackson13

08-16-2002, 02:11 PM

Hmm, I believe that 'swing away' was explained in the film when Graham told Merril that was his dying wifes last words. She was dying and the nerve endings were going off in her head and she remembered being at a baseball game watching Merril "Swing away". The kid at the army recruit office said Merril swung at everything and Merril said "if felt wrong not to swing". Then at the end, they are trying to figure out how to kill this alien and get his son back so they can stop his asthma attack and Graham remembers what his wife said and then remembered that Merrils home run record bat was on the wall next to Merril, so he told Merril to do what he does best "Swing away". How could you not understand that? Did you even pay attention to the movie? The movie is called "Signs" and its about "Signs". Not just crop circles but signs like 'everything happens for a reason'. Merril was a careless batter for a reason, it felt wrong to not swing. Then later in life, when faced with an extreme problem (an alien trying to kidnap his nephew) Merrils talent of "swinging away" came in handy. It saved the day. He was a careless swinger for a reason, because he would one day save the day with his careless swinging.

Scorsese

08-19-2002, 03:59 AM

Thank you.... glad somebody else understood the film.

jackson13

08-21-2002, 10:46 PM

BUMP

*refusing....to let....topic die....*

Jess

08-23-2002, 12:51 AM

I just saw it.
Meh.
I guess because I heard so much about it, my expectations were unreachable. Same thing happened when I went to go see Spider-Man...people were telling me it was the best goddamned movie ever and then I went to see it and thought it wasn't even close to being the best goddamned movie ever.
But aside from that minor setback, I thought it was kinda creepy especially when Joaquin's watching the news and they show that clip from a b-day party and the scene in the living room involving a shot with the tv and rory culkin...creepy shit. Overall: 7/10 for being okay.

Ron3484

08-26-2002, 03:06 AM

Yes!! Signs is back at # 1 at the box office!! Its beating XXX!

Scorsese

08-26-2002, 02:15 PM

I need to go see it again

jetblac

08-28-2002, 12:33 PM

did I mention my leg was shaking for 2min straight??? You gotta love this guy.

myers67

08-30-2002, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Silverload:
******Spoilers******
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

they killed their dog before they came to the house.

[This message has been edited by Silverload (edited 08-03-2002).]

How did they kill the dog.

[This message has been edited by myers67 (edited 08-30-2002).]

xirtam

09-05-2002, 09:42 PM

Well, you can tell this movie is going to have a LOT of money at the BO, not to mention DVD sales. I noticed countless posts that said they were going to see the movie again. I myself want to see it again. One of my favorite movies of all time, and definitely the scariest. 10/10

The Heart Collector

09-05-2002, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by jackson13:
Hmm, I believe that 'swing away' was explained in the film when Graham told Merril that was his dying wifes last words. She was dying and the nerve endings were going off in her head and she remembered being at a baseball game watching Merril "Swing away". The kid at the army recruit office said Merril swung at everything and Merril said "if felt wrong not to swing". Then at the end, they are trying to figure out how to kill this alien and get his son back so they can stop his asthma attack and Graham remembers what his wife said and then remembered that Merrils home run record bat was on the wall next to Merril, so he told Merril to do what he does best "Swing away". How could you not understand that? Did you even pay attention to the movie? The movie is called "Signs" and its about "Signs". Not just crop circles but signs like 'everything happens for a reason'. Merril was a careless batter for a reason, it felt wrong to not swing. Then later in life, when faced with an extreme problem (an alien trying to kidnap his nephew) Merrils talent of "swinging away" came in handy. It saved the day. He was a careless swinger for a reason, because he would one day save the day with his careless swinging.

Yeah, but c'mon... the big sign is to HIT the alien?!?

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!?