You know that thread about "Sucker Punch"? Maybe we should have a similar thread, every damn week, about many different kinds of movies. Let's tear them apart -- what works, and what doesn't work. Sharing of ideas -- that's what makes this forum so great.
Should anyone care to take part in this first dissection, I chose "Signs" because, as far as I can tell, it seems to be polemic. Some love it, some hate it.
Also, you can take it as a straight-up alien-invasion movie. Or, you can view it on a deeper, more symbolic level. And it's not an either/or, there are varying interpretations, in-between.
Me? I love that movie. But I'm going to save my thoughts on it, until (hopefully) some other people have chimed in.
Oh man I just love Signs. The acting is sublime and yes it is an alien invasion film but it's more about people than aliens. Also I just love the James Newton Howard score. He's one of my favorites and apparently he wrote the main theme after talking to Night about the film (so way before shooting)
Also
The scene where you first see an alien sighting via home footage at a kids birthday party on TV is amazingly effective.
Love this film.
Great character background and development. Immensely satisfying film for me.
I'd have to say I'm on the fence for "Signs", but edging more towards the love it side, than the hate it.
I thought the development of Mel Gibson's character, with the flashbacks to the death of his wife, worked really well. I also thought the slow build of tension was really good, I especially like the scene when they first see the alien on the home-video footage.
I thought the ending was a bit of an anti-climax, but the build-up was pretty nice.
I saw it twice at the theater and I came home and checked to see if all the doors were locked. I have to say, for an M. Night Shyamalan movie I was expecting more crop circles and was shocked that you actually got to see aliens in it! It was actually more than I was expecting from his suggestive style. I agree with Michael's comments, above.
Funny as hell - I work with guys who hunt and have arsenals of some of the largest guage weapons you've heard of. To them, they couldn't fathom a bunch of gunless farmers, so they hated the movie.
Not on the top of my Science-fiction list, nor up there with Sixth Sense. An enjoyable movie, but nothing special.
M. Night Shyamalan's stories seem to be dropping in quality a bit. Unbreakable was not as good as Sixth Sense, Signs not as good as Unbreakable, The Village, Lady In The Water, The Happening... ending with (story) Devil...
I have always been able to figure out M. Night Shyamalan's endings, mid way into the story (because he is an honest story teller -- giving you clues in the process). Trust me on this, it is a curse. Very few surprises at the movies.
I hope he will come up next, with something fresh. I have seen all of his work after The Sixth Sense, at least once. I own The Sixth Sense & Signs (on DVD). Along with Unbreakable (a Bruce Willis vehicle), I would recommend the three films to anyone, who has not seen them. I would not recommend his other films.
I loved Signs. It seemed a light-hearted homage to the alien films of the 50s. The score was amazing, and Mel Gibson was absolutely fantastic in it. I found the film to be funny, start to finish, but in a loving way rather than a mocking sort of humor. With that in mind, the sillier plot holes (water? really?) make a lot more sense...hell, the entire opening premise about crop circles YEARS after that was confirmed as a hoax. How can you get away with putting them in your movie (and hey, crop circles are beautiful so why not)? Do an homage to the sci-fi films you loved as a kid.
As for why the film is so divisive, I think a lot of people were expecting a more serious sci-fi film out of it. It's a weird, funny film, but if you go into it looking for a modern alien invasion movie, you'll be sorely disappointed. It's also really light with the "M Night Twist Ending" that so many of his films lean too heavily on, particularly later in his career. If you know the twist in Sixth Sense, it's still a pretty entertaining movie. The same can't really be said for the Village.
Anyway, I love the movie, and good choice for the thread. It'll be interesting to hear what people who really dislike this movie (and I know you're out there) have to say about it!
Wow, this I did not expect. There is a person out there, possibly several evidenced by this post, that liked this movie.
Score was good yes, Mel's acting yes, but as a movie this was an abject failure for me. My main complaints were drab unimaginative cinematography, boring characters, dull locations, massively underwhelming SFX, and an ending that you could fall asleep during.
However, these together could not equal the movies worst flaw, undelivered promise. Not that this is rare in low budget films, but to see it in a potential blockbuster made me literally angry when I watched it. I understand that when I rent a super low budget horror film from the 50c isle, I may not see anything in the film that matches the cover art, but from a then top tier Hollywood director, this was a shameless write-around where he clearly kept the budget he was given and put out an 8 dollar film.
It's not that I need a ton of special effects to drive a picture, but if you tell me I'm buying a ticket for an alien invasion movie, It should have more than 2 actors walking around a cabin posturing about some religion for 2 hours. Oh wait, it did have more, A guy jumped out in a cheap latex suit and was on screen for 30 seconds. Good job revered multimillionaire director, You are so deep, it's amazing how your scriptwriting brilliance ends up with the exact same formula as the lowest budget horror directors in the world. Here's the formula:
Step 1: Trailer, box, and poster hint at a hugely exiting topic that is expensive to produce footage of
Step 2: Write 89 minutes of treading water dialogue that has nothing to do with advertised concept
Step 3: Throw in one scene that matches the box cover for 1 minute
Step 4: Act mysterious in interviews so you can get away with something that would get a normal director fired, by pretending you're "too deep" to lower yourself with petty concerns like delivering anything like what the audience believed they were paying for.
Seriously, this movie was one of the biggest disappointments from a major studio in my entire lifetime. Was there some resolution about the crop circles? If there was, it was so lame I can't remember it. I go back and watch made for TV Steven King movies, but not Signs.
I've seen Signs once or twice and its been a while sooo......What I rememeber of it is this: I did not like the fact that you see the alien, at least not in such a plain way. The build up was good, but the ending wasn't so good, to me.
Edit:Thanks Nate. Now I remember! Yes this thing was a huge let down. It really did build itself up to be this awsome thing in the previews/trailers. And even if you love the movie, you must agree, it was not the same film as advertised.
...if you tell me I'm buying a ticket for an alien invasion movie, It should have more than 2 actors walking around a cabin posturing about some religion for 2 hours. Oh wait, it did have more, A guy jumped out in a cheap latex suit and was on screen for 30 seconds...
I honestly don't remember the advertising campaign for this movie, but I'm sure I never expected it to be an "alien invasion movie". Certainly not to the scale of Independence Day or Mars Attacks. I seem to remember the advertisments showing a distressed family finding crop circles and trying to figure out where they came from. That's exactly what the film delivered.
Plus, I like the "cheap" latex suit. Better that than cheap CGI.
Signs is one of the only films I watched three times while it was in theaters.
(Primarily because I took new people each time I watched it, to enjoy their reactions. Heh.)
What I liked about it: The suspense, of course, and all the elements that accomplished that, like the dialog and the way the shots lingered for a while, in addition to the score.
Also, the fact that the aliens weren't in-your-face. Not showing them set things up for big "scare" reactions, allowing us to first build up anticipation before we caught even a glimpse of them. For example... the scene where Graham is in the room with his daughter, looks out the window to a nearby rooftop and sees the wiry silhouette of an alien that has - apparently - been watching them the whole time.
The handheld footage was excellent (as was Merrill's reaction to it. LOL!), as well as the nighttime cornfield scene (sound played a huge role there), the kitchen pantry encounter, and the TV reflection part.
One of the most suspenseful parts for me - which didn't seem to be for others - was the shot where Graham is slowly backing away from a window. He's clearly troubled by what he's seeing, but there's never a shot of it. According to the script, here's what was originally planned:
LINES EMERGE IN THE CROPS; THE KIND OF LINES MADE BY SOMEONE
TRAMPLING THROUGH A FIELD. WE CAN'T SEE WHO'S MAKING THEM.
ALL WE SEE ARE THE COUNTLESS LINES BEING FORMED. THE LINES
MOVE FROM THE DARKNESS TOWARDS THE HOUSE. GRAHAM WATCHES
THEM CLOSE IN ON HIS BACKYARD. THIRTY FEET... TWENTY FEET...
TEN...
I think it worked so well because we DIDN'T see what he was seeing.
What I didn't like: The often-mentioned point about supposedly intelligent, yet water-sensitive aliens invading a place made up mostly of water. The CG part at the end.
Mixing faith and aliens. Blake Snyder explained this pretty well in his book, but essentially... the theme of the movie centers around faith in God... yet we're asked to accept aliens as well. Seems it should be one or the other.
Devil, the best example of bait and switch in film history.
Let's start with a title that conjures up images of an incredibly inventive script, or SFX bonanza, and then give them a group of C actors cowering in an elevator for 90 minutes. The nerve of this guy is unbelievable. Jeepers Creepers looked like Citezen Kane compared to this film. The only way I see any kind of Devil associated with this film is that Night must have signed a deal with him to get anyone to let him near a film set after Lady in the Water.
I don't know if this is the official trailer, but it feels right.
What I see in this is a family that is a part of a much bigger problem. A la Independence day, 2012, etc. We don't see anything about his dead wife, religion, "messages", etc. It is a bait and switch..
And really, where is this farm that there are no weapons. Most of my family are farmers/ranchers, and it is simply unheard of to be without a rifle. Small point, but a valid one.
I saw Signs years ago, when it came out on VHS, and I remember not really liking it then.
But I haven't seen it recently enough to really make any fair comment about the film. I'm a bit The Sixth Sense fan but I hated The Village and I think the Signs may fall closer to my 'Village' line of thinking. But who knows?
I wonder why people tend to be on such opposite ends of the spectrum, when it comes to Shyamalan. They're usually either major fans or can't stand the guys work. I guess it's better than just having a lot of so-so neutral fans.
I didn't really enjoy signs, it seemed a bit stretched out for my style. But then again it isn't the genre I most enjoy anyway.
Mixing faith and aliens. Blake Snyder explained this pretty well in his book, but essentially... the theme of the movie centers around faith in God... yet we're asked to accept aliens as well. Seems it should be one or the other.
Where is it written that you can't believe in the possibility of both? I'm one of those people, but I've had more than one UFO sighting, including a black hat saucer in broad daylight, while hiking in the Arizona desert. Daylight sighting man! It zipped about 100' off the ground and was silent, except for a high pitched buzz. Of course, when I got to my grandfather's house and told him, he said, "You watch too many movies." Now, it could have been some Air Force secret craft, but this was in the 70's, quite a bit before the Stealths were made. My other sighting was a glowing disc at dusk, while living in the same area. I'll never forget it in my life.
I wonder why people tend to be on such opposite ends of the spectrum, when it comes to Shyamalan. They're usually either major fans or can't stand the guys work. I guess it's better than just having a lot of so-so neutral fans.
I guess I'm a fan, but a disgruntled one. I refused to see his movie, THE LAST AIRBENDER. I want to force him to do an action script with no dialogue and require that something violent must happen every 4 minutes!
I actually liked THE VILLAGE, because it reminded me of a religious sect and felt like that could happen. I liked the twist. I didn't like the sound effects of the monsters, because people in costumes wouldn't make those sounds, so there was deceit in the filmmaking there. Very SCOOBY DOO!
I liked DEVIL, too.
I did not think SIGNS was mis-marketed. It was a global alien invasion movie, but from one family's perspective. It was a little like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD - lock ourselves in the farmhouse. I loved M. Night's cameo and the following "alien in the kitchen" scene. Damn, did I jump. Someone already mentioned the news footage alien, which I thought was effective.
Of course, the bit about the water was a little much. What do these things do when it rains? They could never take Seattle or Eugene, let alone Florida's humidity! I loved how the aliens looked though. Someone said CG, but it looked like some pretty cool makeup to me. That's one of the reasons I admired the movie - no fake VILLAGE monsters, or LADY IN THE WATER unseen creatures - there where actually aliens in this!
Nate and Murdock, I'm glad you pointed out the false-advertising. I had never considered that, and I totally understand -- the movie absolutely does not deliver on what was advertised. I guess I didn't have a problem with that, because I had already read a bunch of reviews before seeing, so I knew that it was an intimate story of one family, coping with the loss of mom. So, for me, it delivered exactly what I was expecting.
I absolutely love this movie. It gets an "A+" in my book. The music is spot-on perfect, the acting is some of the best, in all of the actors'/actress' careers.
Yes, there is a MAJOR plot-hole with the water thing. Really?! They're smart enough to figure out how to travel across a galaxy, but they're not smart enough to wear something that would keep them dry, on a planet that is 75% water? Doh!
I, however, am very good at ignoring plot-holes, if the movie keeps me engaged, in other ways. Heck, two of my favorite films, of all time, "Avatar" and "The Matrix", have premises that make absolutely no sense!
What really works for me, in "Signs", is the constant tension. I was on the edge of my seat, pretty much from the beginning of the movie, and it never let up. In my opinion, Shyamalan out-did even Hitchcock, in the suspense department (I know, that's blasphemy; sorry Ernest ).
And, yes, I do like a lot of the humor. Worked very well, in giving us a momentary break from the suspense. Mel's attempt at cursing, tin-foil hats, I love it.
Also, as for the criticisms of the ending -- yes, I will admit that it's rather anti-climactic. But that's only if you're expecting a big action-y battle sequence. It obviously delivers nothing like that. Emotionally, however, I think the ending is very satisfying. I mean, really, this movie isn't about an alien attack. It's about a man who's lost his faith, and he finds it by confronting his own demons, and re-connecting with his family. So, in that respect, the ending is perfect!
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned symbolism.
I really like the fact that the first alien he confronts, in the pantry, is the same alien they must confront at the finale. And where did he first confront that alien? At the house of the man who killed his wife. For me, I see the pantry working as a kind of skeletons-in-your-closet allegory, and the fact that that alien ends up at their house, later, effectively delivers the "confronting your own demons" allegory that I think pretty much sums up the central theme of the entire movie.
Something I rarely do, in movies -- clench my armrests, out of sheer terror. My hands were tired, after watching "Signs", because I was literally clinching my seat, for most of the movie. Mel's nighttime investigation in the field. The confrontation in the kitchen pantry. Watching the handheld footage on news. Staying holed up, inside their home, with noises outside. And then the basement -- holy crap I jumped so far out of my seat when you-know-what happened.
This was Shyamalan's last great movie. I've not liked anything he's done, since then. I still have hope that he'll return to his old self, someday.
).