We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: Terry McCombs Aug 05, 2002 - 05:57 pm

I saw the new film Signs Friday and...... well, if you have not seen it, it's hard to talk about without some spoiler space so if you have not seen it and want to see it with out surprises being given away read no further.

(Though given the nature of this site that will be a little hard to do if there are more messages... you could squint I guess.)

The films did not really have much in the way of speculation on crop signs or inovative ideas about them. In fact you could find much better on the internet.....

=

=

=

=

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

_

_

_

_

To tell you the truth while I enjoyed it's not a movie I would set though a second time. I was pretty disappointed for the most part.

It was not really all that scary, and was not science fiction, or even very good fantasy in my opinion.   I mean millions have to die on Earth so Mel can get his faith back?

And am I the only one who though the little girl should have had a small but brave pet dog and that it should have ended with her grabbing a couple of her glasses of water and tossing them at the booger man?

I can see it now.   `SPLASH -- SPLASH´ "click clickity click pop gurgle gurgle" Says the booger man as he spins around and we see the translation as a close caption. " I´m melllllltinnnnng Ohhhh what a world! What a world! All my lovely wickedness."

I mean come on, these guys can span the galaxy but they are stimed by a pantry door and boards half-assed nailed across a window?

If the human's had not been even dimmer they were that would have had to content themselves with the cattle they have been mutilating all these years.

In the end I found it entertaining enough while I was watching it.

but after I left the theater the plot holes that were big enough to skip a small island though were just to hard for me to ignore.

I give it a C+.

And I'll miss you most of all Mad Braveheart Crow.

Terry

Posted By: fanuilh Aug 20, 2002 - 06:06 pm

You missed the point. It wasn't about an alien invasion. It was about faith. The crop circles weren't addressed because they weren't important. The aliens were stymied (correct spelling) by a door lock because they weren't armed with lockpicks or axes and apparently don't have phasers. In fact I didn't notice they even wore clothing. The boards nailed across the windows only slowed them down, they didn't stop them.

It was never explained fully why they showed up, either. Did they want the planet? Did they want to raid the place for minerals? Did they want to eat us? Nothing was explained about the military's possible attempts at repelling them. The Middle Eastern ritual that scared the aliens so badly that they left was not explained.

That's because that information wasn't important. The movie wasn't about the aliens or their invasion. It was about a man's crisis of faith. Perhaps you didn't notice that there wasn't a single throw-away line in the entire movie. Every single word that came out of everybody's mouth had significance, most of which wasn't obvious until the end. Even the props in each shot were there for a reason, although we had to wait until the end to find out what that was. Not everything happened on screen, everything wasn't in your face, sometimes you had to use your imagination.

Maybe that was what bothered you. You prefer to have everything spelled out, made obvious up front? Hmmmm. I prefer subtlety. It was a movie for people who like to think, I guess. I don't mean that as an insult, although it looks like one, I just can't think of another way to put it. This is not a movie for sitting back and turning your brain off.

I thought it was outstanding.

Posted By: Magus Sep 18, 2004 - 04:31 am

I liked the movie. M. Knight Shyamalan strikes again! This is one I plan on buying, but it's not as high on the pecking order than others. Overall, a good quality movie with an ending I loved.

Posted By: Hyperion Sep 18, 2004 - 05:30 am

Wasn't my type of movie this one, I watched it and it just convinced me of my taste in movies being superior to that of the director of Signs

Hyperion

Posted By: Magus Sep 18, 2004 - 08:50 pm

He also did The Sixth Sense, The Village and Unbreakable.

I haven't seen The Village yet, but want to. I heard that it was a little dissapointing, though.

I saw The Sixth Sense. I enjoyed it. It was original and had a very nicely done ending. It's just not one that I'd see again.

Unbreakable was an awsome movie. It's easily one of my all time favorites, in the top five. It is a must see and the ending is one of the greatest I've ever seen. A must see must own, in my opinion. I have done both.

Posted By: Gnollslayer Sep 19, 2004 - 07:26 pm

M. Night Shyamalan is the second best director alive right now, in my opinion (second to Peter Jackson, of course), and I've liked most of his movies. Signs and the Village are my favorites of his, and I can't decide which one I liked better. The Village was much scarier, but Signs was more thought-provoking. That isn't to say that The Village didn't have its share of profundity, but I just like how well done Signs was. Everything they did had a purpose. That's what makes great movies.

Posted By: Magus Sep 20, 2004 - 12:40 pm

He's in my top 3 (Peter Jackson, Stephen Speilberg and M. Knight Shyamalan). I don't know in what order I'd place them in, but they're all awsome.

Posted By: Pat0214 Nov 02, 2004 - 11:36 am

Magnus, of the three directors, I would place Spielberg on top. He as shown a wide range of movie making that I think the other two still haven't reach as yet. Of course they are a bit young and have time to catch up.
It is very difficult to compare them because neither Jackson or Shyamalan have done movies like Shindler's List or Saving Private Ryan.
But I believe we still haven't seen the best from them yet.

Posted By: Magus Nov 02, 2004 - 12:51 pm

I agree. Spielburg is the all time greatest director in film-making. The others each haven't done much. Shayamalan is more consistant, having 3 awsome movies I've seen and one movie I haven't (The Village). But Jackson did do The Lord of the Rings, the most daring and well made movie I have ever seen. But the director cannot be measured on a singular, or handful, of successes. Time must be granted to see what else they direct. Their careers must be examined, after said time has passed, and they must then be judged.