Opinions on 'Signs'?

Katie1289

Yes the Shyamalan one

Now before we all get out backs up with rage and say how terrible it is.
Is it though?

I asked my brother the other day what films ever truly moved him and he said the typical 'one flew over the cuckoos nest', 'american history x' etc.
Today he came back to me with 'Signs'!
I thought it was an odd one so I watched it and while I may disagree on the fundamentally moving part it is a fine film in my opinion.
It's extremely atmospheric, very different to the typical scary movie.
I don't know- what's the general consensus out there on this one?

kryogen

I liked it, after a while.

krudler

It's an effective little thriller, has some great moments. The dog snapping at the kid, the alien on the roof, the one in the kitchen, the hand in the cellar etc. The ending is either a cop out or the way it's set up the whole movie whatever way you choose to look at it.

indough

i think it is a bit much to expect the audience to suspend disbelief for not only the existence of extra-terrestrials, but also divine intervention by way of an awful deus ex machina

edit: also the aliens must have been the dumbest race in the universe in choosing to invade earth of all places, given the way water affected them

krudler

indough wrote: »

i think it is a bit much to expect the audience to suspend disbelief for not only the existence of extra-terrestrials, but also divine intervention by way of an awful deus ex machina

edit: also the aliens must have been the dumbest race in the universe in choosing to invade earth of all places, given the way water affected them

I read someplace that it was the chlorine in the water but that could be a bs afterthought. Can imagine that alien conversation.

"We've arrived at earth! commence invasion and domination!"
"What's all that blue stuff surounding, ohh...two thirds of the planet??"
"It matters not!"

Thargor

krudler wrote: »

The alien on the roof.

Absolutely fooking terrifying, one of the scariest things Id ever seen in a film, still makes the hair on my neck stand up. That and the one at the birthday party were worth the price o admission on their own.

ScrubsfanChris

The roof bit, but also the aliens caught walking in the back of news footage, scared the sh*t out of me when I was younger.

The whole water thing is a bit dumb (slighly stolen from War of the Worlds anyway) but I remember it being a fairly good alien/horror flick.

Will need to back and watch again soon....

krudler

Thargor wrote: »

Absolutely fooking terrifying, one of the scariest things Id ever seen in a film, still makes the hair on my neck stand up. That and the one at the birthday party were worth the price o admission on their own.

It's a great moment, it just comes out of nowhere and at first you're not even sure what you're supposed to be looking at in the dark. I totally forgot about the birthday party scene, what a jump scare, you know its coming and it still makes you jump, I remember seeing it in the cinema and the whole cinema shrieked.

biko

Katie1289 wrote: »

I don't know- what's the general consensus out there on this one?

I speak for everyone when I say it's a pretty good movie. Starts off very "normal" and spins out of control..

LuckyLloyd

I really liked it. Remember jumping a couple of times when seeing it in the cinema, and I think it generally has a nice feel to it.

I loved it, but it was very similar to the Kelly Hopkinsville UFO story !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjjjEnPXimU

A Neurotic

I was 11 when this was out. Put the sh*ts up me so it did. Would always be afraid that aliens would be standing over me when I woke up in bed.

Katie1289

Yes I did see this when I was younger aswell actually!

The Roof scene, the scene where he goes out with his flashlight to the crops and sees the foot, the knife under the door at the vets house, and most certainly the video scene from the birthday party were effective.

It's very subtle thrills and jumps throughout the film, alas the ending was a tad lacklustre I agree. Joaquin Phoenix was rather good in it I though too.

Glad to see the consensus is positive.

Armonline

Yes loved Signs, so atmospheric, in fact I love all of M Knights films up to and including the Village. After that it went so wrong

brianregan09

Yeah i loved it too watched it a good few times , love that line at the end swing away merle !

krudler

Love James Newton Howard's score for it too, the opening credits are brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8czt8R7Z4I

Noo

That birthday party scene still gets me, brilliant.

Katie1289

krudler wrote: »

Love James Newton Howard's score for it too, the opening credits are brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8czt8R7Z4I

That really is a fantastic number. So effective!

krudler

It really is, and it plays over simple black text on white background credits, its odd at first as its a big bombastic piece of music with not much going on screenwise to accompany it but it kinda throws you as to what to expect.

All of Shyamalan and Newton Howard's collaborations are good tbh, The Village has a beautiful score

tupac_healy

Must watch this again, remember seeing it years ago , remember the roof scene but not much of the rest......

Remember the ending being a let down..

Reading this and listening to the soundtrack i have decided to watch this tonight. I am looking forward to it now.

Zombienosh

Love this film also, the scenes mentioned above , the roof, the party and also those damn freaky corn fields with the leg.

Nerdlingr

Must watch it again. Remember at the time wondering why it had got the bad press it did...thought it was a pretty good little film. Cant fully remember it but I get the feeling the ending may had been a bit ...meh.

macslash

One of my favourite films, it has some great thrills in it. It was available on youtube, not sure if it still is now.

Katie1289

RopeDrink wrote: »

First time I saw it, I really liked it - It helps that I'm a fan of Mel, Joaquin, and Horror - So mixing them all together seemed great.

It's got atmosphere - Something a lot of other horrors lack - And while it does have a jump or two, they're often built up to or completely unexpected, rather than thrown out every 20 seconds like some crappy Horrors do.
Shame that it deflates at the end thanks to the worst looking CGI alien ever but everything before it had me thinking or squirming, before hand.

It's worth watching if you're a fan of slow-horror, or just horror in general. Not everyones cup of tea - And not the best movie in the world.

It really is much more effective than all these crap horrors that are out at the moment/recently.
The alien wasn't the deflator for me personally, it was some dark ass CGI though

Katie1289

A 6.7 on IMDB!

I'm not sure what to make of that one. A bit low maybe.

Katie1289

I found this post on IMBb! The op posted 'why do people hate signs now?' Quite an interesting response, particularly the comparison between Signs and movies from the 50's/60's.




'''''I think by adding "now" to the post, the OP is curious as to why no one seems to like the film anymore, when at the time it was hugely popular. You can bring up Not Another Teen Movie or any other guilty pleasure for context, but unlike those particular films, Sings was pretty much a major deal when it was first released. It's Mel Gibson's biggest box-office as an actor, Shyamalan's second biggest hit as a writer/director; it made over $400 million on a $70 million budget, made another $80 mill on DVD. It was top of the box-office for what felt like forever.

It also got excellent reviews and was actually considered a comeback for Shyamalan after the mixed response to Unbreakable. And of course it was Signs that gave Shyamalan the contentious "new Spielberg" tag (even though it was clear to anyone with eyes that he wasn't even aiming for that level).

People acknowledged the water "issue" but no one cared. People approached it on the same level as films like Back to the Future or E.T. and enjoyed it as a fun, scary "event movie" with a greater emotional resonance because it came out so soon after 9/11. America wanted something to believe in and this movie, which sees "signs" in everything and tries to find a reason to justify tragedy, clearly had its finger on the pulse.

But now people actively HATE the movie for the reasons you (and others) have mentioned. Why? The film went from being as much-loved and acclaimed as the Harry Potter movies or early Spielberg and Zemeckis collaborations to being a punch line. A lot of this is obviously anti-Shyamalan backlash (the guy is DESPISED, even though his subsequent films are clearly cut from the same cloth as The Sixth Sense, which everyone loves) and some of it is fallout from Gibson's breakdown, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with changing attitudes of the culture.

People are a lot more cynical now. They don't want to believe in things. They only want fantasy if it's dressed up as obvious myth (Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, Potter) or comic book sensation. They want grittiness, darkness, violence. Not families struggling to survive, but brooding loners using violence as catharsis. Signs is a throwback film. It's actually more like a film from the 40s or 50s than the early 00s. It re-enforces (largely) conservative values, has no on-screen deaths, no sexuality, uses children for their ability to embrace the wondrous, and has the alien invasion used solely to facilitate the discussion of its major themes.

Unlike the majority of big-blockbusters, it doesn't feel the need to resolve its action with a big bang, but has the resolution play as an after-thought to the more important emotional resolution of the character reclaiming faith and finding a reason to reconnect with life following the death of his wife.

Combine this was a more classical filmmaking approach (no handheld camera, very little CGI, long, theatrical dialogues, moments of quiet and stillness, carefully structured sequences, mostly one location) and the film sticks out like a sore thumb against a backdrop of noisy, disorganised, run and gun epics remade from old comic book movies and TV shows.

In a world where all blockbuster fantasy films have to please the R-rated crowd as much as their core demographic, Signs is almost defiantly PG [sorry, long post, but I'm largely responding to the thread in general]. '''''

AnonoBoy

The ending spoiled it for me.

Decent in parts but overall I was disappointed by it.

Ninjamonkey

Signs is a load of bollox

comongethappy

Ninjamonkey wrote: »

Signs is a load of bollox

Is one opinion.

I think its an effective, personal thriller that had a lot of heart.

Some scenes were chilling The amateur footage of the alien appearing at the kids birthday party was one of the most terrifying things I have ever seen.... "Move children... Vamanos!"

The watery ending was a tad disappointing.
As was its link from the directors cameo "they don't seem to like water".

All in all a solid piece, sometimes quite funny & a great performance from Gibson as a father finding redemption in his faith.

veXual

There's a fan theory about how the beings seen in the film aren't actually aliens but are demons appearing on earth and their aversion to water has something to do with holy water etc...

I must find the full explanation its quite a good alternative view.

Found the explanation:

When I first saw this film, I didn’t realize that it wasn’t about aliens at all. It’s about the return of demons. Notice it’s all about a priest’s resurgence of belief, and a preordained moment of redemption-if-dared-and-attempted. There is no alien technology or weaponry or clothing of any kind, only a clawed, naked beast creature and lights in the sky.
Furthermore: The running joke throughout the movie is that people see these “invaders” in a way that’s related to their particular frame of mind: The cop sees them as prankster kids, the bookstore owners see them as “a hoax to sell commercials,” the Army recruitment officer sees them as invading military, the kids see them as UFOs…and the priest sees them as test of faith. This understanding of the film removed my hatred of the “You’ve got to be kidding me; they were killed by WATER!” concept. In fact, the priest’s daughter had been referred to as “holy” (as revealed during Mel’s key monologue)–recognized by all who saw her at her birth as “an Angel;” and her quite particular relationship to water is shown to be very special and spiritual: In other words, she has placed vials of what are, essentially, HOLY WATER all around the house. (And the creature’s reaction when coming in contact with this blessed liquid is EXACTLY like monsters/vampires being splashed by spiritual “acid.”)
This view of the movie also explains the creature’s actions: They act like superior tricksters, are not able to break in through closed doors, can be trapped behind simple wooden latches –all mythological elements of demons and vampire-like creatures of lore. It also explains the news over the radio at the end of the movie that an ancient method of killing the creatures has been found “in three small cities in the Middle East” –one would suspect the religious “hubs” of the three main Abrahamic traditions, each discovering the “mystic methods” of protection-and-dispatch that I’ve noted earlier.
Note also: All the Christian iconography throughout the movie, the references to “Signs and Wonders” (the true meaning of the title), the crucifix shapes hinted-at everywhere (check out the overhead shot, looking down on the street driving into town) and the ultimate fact that the entire movie is built around a Priest rediscovering he is not abandoned to a random, Godless, scientifically-oriented Universe but, rather, is part of a predicted and dreamed-of plan.
Now –these creatures may for all intents and purposes be some sort of extraterrestrial or inter-dimensional “aliens” –but the point of the movie seems to be that they are, in the ACTUALITY OF THE FILM WORLD, the dark stuff from which all the character’s tales of devils and night-creatures were born.

Thargor

But there were spaceships floating over major cities, with cloaking devices...

Playboy

Aliens who were allergic to water and couldn't figure out how to breakdown a wooden door. An absolute turd of a movie. Unbreakable on the other hand is fantastic.

expectationlost

there even less substance to this then the wind in the happening

stealinhorses

This is a good movie, but it is greatly misunderstood by most. Aliens are just a metaphor for what's going on in Mel Gibson's life; his wife's death, etc.
The water thing is stupid, sure, but overlooking that it's a nice flick about redemption and finding peace with uncontrollable things happening in your life.

kuang1

stealinhorses wrote: »

This is a good movie, but it is greatly misunderstood by most. Aliens are just a metaphor for what's going on in Mel Gibson's life; his wife's death, etc.
The water thing is stupid, sure, but overlooking that it's a nice flick about redemption and finding peace with uncontrollable things happening in your life.

Wow. 3 pages of posts prior to this, and finally someone sees what I saw.(ok...I'm 3 years late to the party... )
Grief, forgiveness, the pointlessness of resentment, but most of all, the acknowledgement and acceptance of there being so much that we have no control over.
These are the things this movie was about for me.

kerplun k

kuang1 wrote: »

Wow. 3 pages of posts prior to this, and finally someone sees what I saw.(ok...I'm 3 years late to the party... )
Grief, forgiveness, the pointlessness of resentment, but most of all, the acknowledgement and acceptance of there being so much that we have no control over.
These are the things this movie was about for me.

Swing away Merrill.. swing away

kuang1

Grief/acceptance of fate...
Yes!

eviltimeban

veXual wrote: »

Found the explanation:

I like that a lot. Has changed my view of it a little bit.

zoobizoo

When I saw Signs, I thought that there were only two good things about it.....

The muted sound and the almost monochrome / blurry cinematography ....

I was watching it on DVD.

It was only at the end of the movie, when I saw little people walking along the bottom of the screen that I realised that I was watching a dodgy DVD that had been recorded on a camcorder in a cinema.

Hence the dodgy sound and vision.