Just got back from a matinee showing of Signs,here in Milwaukee,and I have to say that it is the best movie I've seen this summer.The basic plot(which I don't want to get into detail on)is really about a man finding his faith after a terrible accident snatches it away.It really isn't about aliens or what happens to the world,which I liked about it.It focuses on one family,and delves into their feelings.
I recommend it,and you'll enjoy it a lot as long as you don't expect it to be Independance Day 2,and can withsatnd a personal story about loss and recovery.

*The ending isn't a huge shock,so don't expect that,but it fills in some of the missing parts and puts the family back together*

____________________

<================== Learn the name now before everyone gets dunked on

This was damn good. Although once again in retrospect there were parts of it that kind of annoyed me because they either weren't gone into in depth, or just shouldnt have been in at all (I will talk about these as soon as more people have seen this and posted on it. The two kids were really good, Mel was good, but I didnt much care for Joaquin Phoenix for some reason. What I really enjoyed was that there was alot of humor, but it didnt seem forced or unnatural, and it was good because it didnt make the movie too tense, since the fantastic music did that to a tee. M. did a fantastic job of building tension because there were plenty of times I thought something was going to happen to scare you, but those things didnt show up, so it made the actual scary things seem more random. However, like every alien movie, once you see it it isnt scary at all.

- Dub

I give rappers the biz for being m-izza-a-archaic.

You didn't like Joaquin Phoenix?I thought that his performance was the best in the movie.He acted like a tough older brother(to the kids)when he was supposed to,and a scared little child when it was meant.In my mind,he stole the whole damn movie

____________________

<================== Learn the name now before everyone gets dunked on

I saw it yesterday, and I REALLY liked it! The movie had me jumping in my seat a few times. The director does an incredible job scaring the shit out of the audience! He doesn't do this by relying on bloody scenes or scary looking creatures, but by really building up the tension to the maximum, and then...POP!!! I hope other directors take notice to the technique and stop relying on big budgets and special affects to create a "thriller" or a "horror movie". The 4 main characters(Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, and Gibson's 2 children in the movie) are all likeable and enjoyable. Even though the crop sign is revealed in the first 10 mins of the movie and the remainder of the time you're sitting on the edge of your seat, there is still satisfying character developemtnt. The acting was really good all around, especially Joaquin Phoenix. I was first impressed with him in "To Die For", but he hadn't played a role that i really liked since. The 2 young children are great and absolutely adorable. And Mel Gibson does a great job of playing the lead where the movie really focuses on his life(and not exactly about the crop signs). Like already stated, i dont wanna give away to much of the plot, but its a must-see!

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

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

I C how the writers tried to tie in all the "unrelated
incidents" leading up to the climax, however I didn't like
the spook explanation of it. Otherwise it was a good flick,
and gives a different perspective on ecosystem dynamics.
Peace.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

>I C how the writers tried to tie in all the "unrelated
>incidents" leading up to the climax, however I didn't like
>the spook explanation of it. Otherwise it was a good flick,
>and gives a different perspective on ecosystem dynamics.
>Peace.


what did you mean by "spook" explaination...

i assumed it was God does everything for a reason, even giving little kids aesthma...

________________________________________
It's A Boy and his name is MILES KHALIL YOUNG

at first.
the acting was much too mechanical for me.
but i either got used to it, or it got better.
dont have any complainst really. the ending wasn't bad at all. but could probably have been better.
i didnt expect to be so direct with it. it wasn't as...ambiguous as say sixth sense was. spoilers and more plot discussion later i guess.

*****************
With all due respect...
ask around.

The man knows his craft. He's reinvented the genre film by focusing on the characters rather than the events. Shamylan(sp?)is amazing, he imbues a humanity in his characters not found in either the typical genre film or the run-of-the mill drama.

Tight shots focused on the character, direct all our attention to whatever emotion they're trying to convey, fear, shock, wonder, and happiness. This dudes made only three movies and is better than most of his peers. His signature is all over this and he does use some of the same devices he's used in his other films (the re-cap of the forshadowing at the end)and it doesn't come across as tired. I love the tension he creates too, you could feel the audience waiting for the shoe to drop, the tension was that thick. The homage to the famous "Sasquatch film" was brilliant and spooky as hell.

This has to be one of the best movies I've seen all year (I have missed a lot of the big summer flicks). Shamylan does the opposite of the summer blockbuster even though the events in both films may be identical. His movies are personal and deal with the fantastic at the same time. I was a bit worried after seeing the commercial with the little girl's line "Theres a monster outside my window, can I have a drink of water?". I thought that line sounded cutesy and cheesey, little did I know it forshadowed the ENTIRE movie. Brilliant. I loved this flick, I can't wait for the DVD.

The shot with TV was ill too.

didn't annoy the hell out of anyone else??

You know, we could all be reading a book right now.

I only wish the film's message of "faith" wasn't so trite and insulting.

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

>I only wish the film's message of "faith" wasn't so trite
>and insulting.

How so?

As we know, Mel Gibson sums up the movie's core message in his speech dividing mankind into two groups, those who have faith in miracles and those who don't. Like I said in the other post, no intelligent film exploring these themes would take sides and endorse one of these groups over the other as simplistically and condescendingly as this movie did.

Shyamalan's defenders have claimed he meant the film to remain ambiguous, and leave it to the viewer to decide which of those groups they should belong to. If that was his intention than he's even more inept than I thought, because the movie makes its value judgement crystal clear throughout.

It peddled the age-old hollywood cliche of using a lack of religious faith as a plot device signifying a fall from grace or turn to the dark side, and you could see the ending from a mile away because obviously redemption/healing can only come when the protagonist returns to his religious faith. It peddled this cliche in a painfully obvious, heavy-handed fashion.

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

>It peddled the age-old hollywood cliche of using a lack of
>religious faith as a plot device signifying a fall from
>grace or turn to the dark side, and you could see the ending
>from a mile away because obviously redemption/healing can
>only come when the protagonist returns to his religious
>faith. It peddled this cliche in a painfully obvious,
>heavy-handed fashion.

I didn't see it that way at all. The speech he gave about the two people was a product of who the character was (a priest) and who he currently is (not a priest). Where as you see the conclusion and resolution of the film as an acknowledgement of him finding his faith I think the bigger picture someone finfing themselves and hope where there was none. In his case hope came from the divine. After all he was a priest and he did curse God with the "I hate you" line. He was looking for God and when things resolved themselves positively he saw that as a "sign" from God. I think an athiest would have considered a fortunate tun of events, but that the point. When something happens to us it is our choice to rationalize why it happened. Its not far fetched or heavy handed for a former priest to rationalize it was anthing but divine intervention. As I said earlier its all point of view. The fact that we see the conclusion of the film completely differently further galvanizes the message of the film. Its what you percieve and what you take from it.I think Shamylan did an excellent job, but if that makes me a "defender" of his so be it, I'm definately a fan.

I agree. Personally, im not a religious person but I see the movie as a story of a dad who finds faith. I didnt feel as if Night was pushing his religion toward me. He was just telling a story, like all movies should.

"Now Lesbian Liz hasn't called a lot lately
She loved to lick the legends but she also loved the ladies
I had to let her go, before she led me to crazy
She was lousy in the sack, laid back and hella lazy"

To suggest that the movie was not endorsing religious faith, because Mel Gibson just happened to be a priest so that is the path he took, is about as convincing to me as a director saying "We're not promoting stereotypes, it just so happens that all the black men in our movie are pimps." Can you name one movie in the history of mainstream Hollywood cinema in which the protagonist chooses to identify himself as an atheist and this is portrayed as a happy ending?

Where does this movie offer any ambiguity as to which is the wiser, more rewarding choice, out of the two groups Gibson lists in his speech?

Gibson at first chooses to reject religious faith, and as always in Hollywood lack of religious faith is caused by some tragedy or loss, and indicates failure to heal from that loss. We see that choice alienate and horrify his family.

He goes to see the killer of his wife, who reminds him there is no such thing as coincidence and his wife died because "it was meant to be!"

Later he flashes back to his wife's last moments and she too tells him "this was meant to be!"

Then a serious of painfully contrived "coincidences" all come together at the end: the boy's asthma, the girls odd drinking habits, the brother's baseball bat, the wife's last words, all find their niche as plot points at just the right moment. Mel Gibson accepts these things as Signs, returns to his faith, regains the love and trust of his family, and everybody lives happily ever after.

Can you cite anything, anywhere in the film that suggests an interpretation other than Gibson's could be beneficial or rewarding in any way? Anything that suggests someone could find a happy ending by making a choice other than Gibson's?

I think the New York Times review (which i hadn't read until after I posted) said it very well:

"The lesson that "Signs" imparts — have faith! — is ubiquitous in the culture, from the pronouncements of certain politicians to television shows like "Touched by an Angel." (This version might be called "Mauled by an Alien.") The movie's fuzzy pop-spiritualism carries a disturbing implication. Unless
you have faith (in something tactfully left unspecified), it says, you are putting the integrity of your family and the very lives of your children at risk, and you no longer deserve to be called father — as if skepticism, or indeed any but the most literal-minded expression of belief, were a form of child abuse."

But I'd say I'm still a fan of Shyamalan too, and though he disappointed me on this level he still impressed me on many others.

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

I thoughtthe message was clear too. How the main character can be a priest and no mention of his calling be attributed to his character development is beyond me. Your argument would be valid if say dude was a plumber, or a spy, or a baker. But to be upset that a priest found his faith again sound far fetched? I didn't see the religous pandering you saw, I honestly didn't.

Let me clarify again, I don't agree with "organized religion" I claim no religious affiliation or any denomination, (but I respect others and their faiths and I'm not so arrogant as to believe I'm right). Thats said I'm pretty sensitive to religous pandering (especially the Christian-right, because face we live in the U.S.). I just genuinely don't see a problem with the direction with the movie, other than having a chip on your shoulder about religion. Me personally, I'm like to each his own. Please understand I'm not trying to be combative and I appreciate your opinion and respect the fact you've articulated yourself with out name calling and the other dumb shit that happens on other boards. Its just that I find it hard to believe one could get upset at a preist finding his faith again.

I also need to add that it was Shamaylan's overall story telling approach that I enjoyed more so than any religious subtext or alien invasion. The camera work, the dialouge and the pacing was his best yet.

>I thought the message was clear too. How the main character
>can be a priest and no mention of his calling be attributed
>to his character development is beyond me. Your argument
>would be valid if say dude was a plumber, or a spy, or a
>baker. But to be upset that a priest found his faith again
>sound far fetched? I didn't see the religous pandering you
>saw, I honestly didn't.

I am not offended that a priest, or anyone else, might find his faith again, and I think my posts make it clear my objections run deeper than that. This is not really addressing the substance of my post or answering the questions I asked...which is cool, we could certainly agree to disagree at this point.

>I also need to add that it was Shamaylan's overall story
>telling approach that I enjoyed more so than any religious
>subtext or alien invasion. The camera work, the dialouge and
>the pacing was his best yet.

I agree, I liked the movie on most other levels, just objected to this one aspect. Like I said in the other thread, "You Can Count On Me" is a great example of a movie where these themes are dealt with fairly and intelligently. We see a priest represent his faith there too, and argue in favor of it, but the issues are presented in a far more nuanced, even-handed manner.

Heck, even Pulp Fiction is mainly about Sam Jackson finding his faith again, and that's my favorite movie of the 90's.

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

I still disagree.

"Now Lesbian Liz hasn't called a lot lately
She loved to lick the legends but she also loved the ladies
I had to let her go, before she led me to crazy
She was lousy in the sack, laid back and hella lazy"

Im with you 100 %.

"Now Lesbian Liz hasn't called a lot lately
She loved to lick the legends but she also loved the ladies
I had to let her go, before she led me to crazy
She was lousy in the sack, laid back and hella lazy"

you sound like some of the christians that hate all rap music just cause its rap. since when do you have to agree with a movies stance on certain issues to fully recognize it as a good film?

I have said over and over that I think it was a very good film in many ways. In almost every way except this one, actually.

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

>I have said over and over that I think it was a very good
>film in many ways. In almost every way except this one,
>actually.

simply because you don't agree with that point of view

It's not that I merely disagree with the point of view. I love many works of art that express views I disagree with. I object to the one-sided, simpleminded, heavy-handed way in which these particular views were articulated.

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

..you just wanna argue....over something silly i might add...the movie's about a small family and their renewal of faith...that's it...it's not even a religious movie really, cuz you don't have to be religious to believe things have a reason for happening and they will work out in the end...it's called hope, faith, whatever....once agin. you don't need to be religious for that...

MNS didn't shove ANYTHING in peeps faces, cept a damn good movie...

...i respect your opinon, but c'mon now....

"yes, sometimes my rhymes are sexist, but you lovely bitches and hos should know i'm tryin to correct it"- hiphopopotamus

doesn't make it silly.

But I respect your opinion too.

And I agree it was a damn good movie in many ways.

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

I couldnt buy some of it...it is creative filmmaking tho and good filmmaking...not sure how I really feel about some of it. I think it was hard when the events and characters werent so diametrically opposed making it kinda of a disconnected movie at times...I thought the kids were dope, mel was aight..I liked the lady cop actress..joaquin was wack.
The ending was too simple also.

i thought it was really good, one of the better movies this summer. the ending was too simple tho...

--

"You can't beat white people. You can only knock them out."

Here are some quotes from others who shared my concerns about the film, in addition to the NY Times review which hit it on the head:

--------------
http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/s/signs.html
In order to convey one of his key themes - that of the loss of faith and its restoration - Shyamalan resorts to sermonizing with a stridency that makes bludgeoning seem restrained. Instead of relying on subtlety and an audience's intuition and intelligence, he hammers home his point in such an overt manner that it's almost laughable. Even after the most obtuse viewer will have figured out his message, he offers one more "clue".

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/movie/0,6115,332889~1~0~signs,00.html
..even after we've learned that Merrill was once a minor-league slugger and that the final words spoken by Graham's wife were ''Swing away,'' the moment in the film when all of that connects may leave you drop-jawed in its goofy, contrived formalism.

http://www.oneguysopinion.com/review.asp?ID=715
His previous films have all had a distinct streak of mysticism (and even, in the case of "Wide Awake," blatant religiosity) about them, and so it's not remarkable that "Signs" should try to raise questions about faith in the face of such a crisis. In truth, however, his treatment of the subject is pretty shallow, even by Hollywood standards; the main character, tortured by spiritual doubt, may be called Graham, but his dilemma is portrayed with nowhere near the subtlety and power with which his namesake, the novelist Greene, would have rendered it... The entire plot thread about Graham's loss of faith is hackneyed at best, and the revelation of it through portentous flashbacks is a ham-fisted melodramatic touch.

http://apolloguide.com/mov_fullrev.asp?CID=4302&RID=5081
The film's overall philosophy however, is vapid, trivial material – an architecture that lacks real irony or introspection. Its cursory survey of luck versus fate and pessimism versus faith is adjacent to the tacky sentiment of quixotic love notes, rather than any deeper insights.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/80959_signs02q.shtml
In his insistently sincere need to pull meaning out of tragedy, however, Shyamalan's case for spiritual healing is sold short. Faith is belief in the absence of proof but "Signs" trades the wonder of mystery for literal divine intervention, hammered home in plodding flashbacks that suggest God is something between a micromanaging doodler and a playful puzzle master. If Shyamalan can't make the leap of faith, how can he expect us to?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=uklip7d7atqo9f%40news.supernews.com
The other plotline, the one following Graham's loss of faith, is also handled in a troubling fashion. I will not reveal any specifics about the resolution of the film, but as the closing credits rolled, I found myself thinking back many years, to when our minister told us that the essence of faith involves implicit trust without proof. If there was solid earthly proof of God, he told us, it would negate the spiritual investment of the faithful. Consider this as you leave the theater.
--------------

The last two understood perfectly why I said I'd probably be even MORE bothered by this film if I were christian. I thought faith was supposed to be the evidence of things not seen..if you need to be spoonfed such obvious, outlandish "signs" to restore your faith, what kind of faith is that, really? This movies' heavy-handed, simple-minded approach to such complicated issues does a disservice to everyone, on both sides of the fence.

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

http://nypress.com/15/32/film/film.cfm

"Is Shyamalan afraid to challenge Hollywood orthodoxy, or is he just another hack? Gibson’s Reverend returns to his flock in a halfhearted way that seems designed to please the religious right and cautiously slip by anyone else. Signs is disappointing because its banality is a sign of creative cowardice."

Not only for the message, which has already been stated (altho I didn't think that they were "brow beating" us with the message of religion like some may think) but also because it was scary without even trying to be. There was no blood and guts and gore, but it was an eerie kinda scary. Like, you knew what was going to happen (ex: at the kids birthday party, the home video camera was facing the alley...you knew what was coming but damn if you didn't scream anyway) or maybe knew that *something* was going to happen but you just didn't know when. And the kids were excellent in this movie. The Caulkins have definitely got some strong genes and the little girl played her roll perfectly. The ending was simple, I agree with the masses on that aspect but overall, it was a good movie and I'd reccommend it.

I see you...


Here I'm is...
http://www.myspace.com/jazzyredd


"Love like you've never been hurt..."

Signs -

Loved it. Absolutely loved it. This film made me feel like a kid again. It reminded me childhood and TBS and Jaws...that incredible feeling of awe. I loved Signs because it left me feeling utterly satisfied in every way a movie should. The acting? Top notch. I especially liked the 'last meal' scene at the dinner table towards the end. Gibson impressed me. The script? Very accurate/convincing dialogue.

Fuck it, I'm outta time. Go see Signs.

- Dan

Great way of putting it

"Now Lesbian Liz hasn't called a lot lately
She loved to lick the legends but she also loved the ladies
I had to let her go, before she led me to crazy
She was lousy in the sack, laid back and hella lazy"

~the end was yesturday~

~the end was yesturday~
http://www.livetheatregang.com/shaquan_young.htm

I really likd this movie, I think people are reading way too much into religion. At the end of the day, it made me think, What if I were in that situation? To feel that fear. I was scared for them. I think the overt clues were not to insult the audience, but to not leave out the younger audience. I can recall movies that I saw as a kid and some parts I got later on when I was an adult. I think it was smart, without being too easy. It kept me suspenseful the whole time. And when it comes down to it, the fear/acceptance of death, brings about a thought of who do you turn too? I would have panicked and gave up, before they started bainging and walking around the house.

But, am I the only one who heard that line when they were talking about being fast and being track stars, and Joaquin says, "I'm pretty fast, and I know the negroes are fast, but this person was fast" or something like that.

"Appreciate live music"

something like 'i'm fast and i know GIRLS are fast. . . '






peace.

peace.
~~~~~~~~~

my hard head makes me learn shit the hard way - t.i.

my greatest enemy is my inner me - lupe fiasco

[]real corny

Giving You True Lesson Moderation Since'03
******

Want something archived? thats what an inbox is for

elements were good. aliens were punks though. did give me a nightmare but...my nightmare was better than the movie.

*********************
www.dumhi.com

I might have been too blunted, but it was a wierd movie. the acting was great and so was the directing. ONE thing that they shouldn't have shown though was the aliens. NOT seeing the aliens leaves something to the imagination and that is what the movies took away from me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<----A few GOATS

I just saw it. I liked it alot...until I saw the end. It was a corny ending. The message was heavy handed also. I see that in life already that everything happens for a reason. In the movie it was evident they didn't have to keep saying it over and over again. I thought the ending would say "this is a recording".

This post was paid for by the following.

www.twitter.com/13Rose
www.debunkthemyth.org
http://dashaunworld.wordpress.com/
www.mothergreen.com

Remember MJ The Great!
PSN: ThirteenRose

i enjoyed it. religion aside (i'll save that for later) it was good filmmaking all the way down to the music in the opening credits! my questions though:

1) why is an advanced alien civilization whose weakness is water attacking a planet that is 2/3 water??? shouldn't they have attacked mars
2) why the hell would m. night tell mel's character "there's one in my pantry, don't go there?" cuz you KNOW he's gonna go in there now. i thought they could have set that up better.
3) did anyone else jump when the dog barked at bo as she dragged his water to him? i did cuz i wasn't ready for that.

now for religion. it didn't bother me that much because i could recognize both sides. i've been mad that things happen sometimes and i say "well shit just happens" and i don't think it's a sign or something. BUT then something else will happen and it DOES all come together. now it's up to ME to decide if i want to take that sign as a message or if i want to keep saying "shit just happens". the only atheist i ever saw in a movie was ray liotta's character in corrina, corrina. it just doesn't go over well in the main stream and m. night knows that. if he had made a movie about a priest who lost his faith and was BETTER OFF from that loss there would have been more slack than there is now about religion. it's funny to me that people are arguing about religion now when it was prevalant in the 6th sense too and i didn't hear anyone say anything. where did haley joel find his sanctuary from the spirits? A CATHEDRAL---several scenes were shot in one. m. night has always had a touch of the spirtual in his movies. even unbreakable was one of those movies where everything "balances" or "comes together". people are just now realizing this????

in unbreakable when sam jackson is explaining to bruce willis about why he went on this quest to find his 'opposite' i believe he says something along the lines of him knowing that god wouldn't make him like this without making a complete opposite because he balances things out. something along those lines. anyway, m. night's spirituality is evident in all of his work thus far. and even if people don't like him anymore or stop seeing his movies he will still be noted in film books in the future. that's already a given. he's one for the books definitely.

>it's funny to me that people are arguing
>about religion now when it was prevalant in the 6th sense
>too and i didn't hear anyone say anything. where did haley
>joel find his sanctuary from the spirits?

You are correct that most of us who criticized Signs did not have the same criticism about the religious sentiment in his other films. And this proves my point that we are not just wacky atheists who object to anything pro-religion in a film. I and others who spoke critically of the film were not offended by the presence of religious sentiment in and of itself. We had specific objections to the particular way these issues were dealt with in this film, which was quite different from Signs or Unbreakable.

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?