|
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?
|