Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Signs

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Signs (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Signs

Mitchell Cope
Master Film Handler

Posts: 256
From: Overland Park, KS, United States
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-05-2002 12:48 PM

I was really disappointed that the ending was not as satisfying as the film leading up to it. I really felt cheated that there was nothing more to it.

I also question the wisdom of Mr. Shyamalan casting himself, when he is obviously out of his league acting wise. It is too distracting from the storyline. Hitchcock did it right... on, then off. If you blinked, you could miss him.

I predict this film will fall fast.

| IP: Logged

Jason Black
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1723
From: Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 08-06-2002 12:32 AM

I think it's the right wing movement who subliminally are trying to pass the anti firearms agenda they are pushing. Then again, maybe it's just me?

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 08-06-2002 01:01 AM

Right wingers are far from Anti-Guns. they are pro gun nut. NRA is definately right wing. It is the leftist that want to disarm.

Republicans want everyone to carry a gun, its much more fun that way.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 08-06-2002 01:18 PM

I've had several people tell me the "former preacher, small children" idea of why he didn't have a gun, but it just doesn't compute. You've got racoons and coyotes and fox and whatever else comes wandering on your property on a farm that, children or not, you would have a rifle and shot gun in the house. At the very least, the brother would have one.

As far as the left wingers (I'm assuming that's what you meant, Jason) pushing their agenda, Mel Gibson has gone against anti-gun nuts in his movies before, most recently "The Patriot" where he caught a lot of slack for showing kids killing men with guns. I can see M. Night making that decision, though, because I don't know his stance on that issue.

Regardless of why guns weren't there, it made it unbelievable to me. That and the fact that corn gets wet at night.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

| IP: Logged

Michael Gonzalez
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 790
From: Grand Island , NE USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 08-06-2002 03:09 PM

I don't know guys but I still thing that it was a great movie. A lot of you seem to be falling into the trap of analyzing things too much and wind up ruining the movie for yourselves. It's a lot better to just sit back, suspend belief, and lose yourself into a well made movie. Yes the ending was a little on the flat side (but the build up was awsome), the aliens were a bit unrealistic where as they are capable of intergalactic travel but have no weapons whatsoever and the one at the end just stands there and get the shit kicked out of him. But what is the point of seeing a movie if you are going to sit there and miss all the positives about the movie because you cannot get over the corn in the fields being dry. Sit down, shut up and enjoy the film for what it is.

| IP: Logged

Jason Black
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1723
From: Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 08-06-2002 04:26 PM

I meant to say left wingers...I always seem to screw that one up.. Left wing liberals... right wing conservatives.. correct? Yeah, I think I have it right again...At any rate, the post was out of jest to begin with...
To alleviate any doubts of my veiwpoint on the gun issue, I pack, daily.

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 08-06-2002 04:57 PM

Good for you, Jason.

Michael - We are seeing the movie for what it is, or at least what we thought it was. That's the whole point of these reviews. By your "sit down and shut up" theory, Runaway Bride should be just as enjoyable to watch, right?

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 08-07-2002 04:16 AM

Enjoy the film for what it is? I did that for star wars episode two, attack on my colon.

I enjoy every film for what it is. If I ruin it for myself by analyzing it then so be it. I don't do it in the theater, I do it LOOOOONG before I get there, and for about two minutes afterwards.

I enjoy most films, but I really get dissapointed on big let downs.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Michael Gonzalez
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 790
From: Grand Island , NE USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 08-09-2002 10:57 AM

The point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between writing a review and nitpicking every little thing that is wrong with a movie. As I wrote I enjoyed the movie the suspence and the build up to the end. And I can also say that I also felt said ending was flat as well as Mel's performance but that didn't take away from my enjoyment of the movie. In contrast I can watch a movie like Triple X and give it a bad review because with the exception of a couple of stunts, there really wasn't anything redeeming in it. The plot was bad, the dialogue was bad, the acting was bad, these are the reasons that I didn't enjoy the film. So those who are writing honest movie reviews and expressing their own opinions, I have no problem with. What I am taking about are the people who sit in the theater look for every single mistake that they can find so that they can post it on the internet be it this site or another so that they can get some sort of ego boost by feeling that they are smarter that the film makers. This internet culture, that has been developing, of tearing apart other people's work, is really starting to get to me.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-10-2002 05:35 PM

Dave,
I can't believe you didn't see this film...Its great. I too pretty much disliked 6th sense as well but this film is well acted, crafted, looks great and sounds great at the Villa where the immensity of the theatre plays in great in the surround channels. People were flying out of their seats a couple of times....it is intense. Again like War Of The Worlds a simple thing is found that the Aliens are not immune to. I thought all the acting was great, bet it gets alot of nominations. The first really great film I've seen this year.
Mark

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 08-11-2002 12:24 AM

With that word from you Mark, I now will go see it. And that is serious. Maybe when my drugs wear off a bit.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 08-12-2002 12:39 PM

I do agree that the ending was a little weak but I was not bothered by it. The only thing that troubled me about this movie was the poor sound presentation at the theatre I saw the film. My comments about the poor sound is on the Film Handlers Forum page. Some had complained elsewhere that the movie was dark and very hard to see but I had no problem because the picture presentation itself at the Waikiki #2 was flawless as usual. I understand that this is M. Night Shyamalan's third feature film and amoung the three, I still consider "THE SIXTH SENSE" to be his best and "SIGNS" to be his second best. I was not bothered by his brief appearence and his acting was not too bad in my opinion.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Dwayne Caldwell
Master Film Handler

Posts: 323
From: Rockwall, TX, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 08-12-2002 12:58 PM

Actually, Signs is his fifth feature film. His first two were Praying with Anger (1992) and Wide Awake (1998).

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-12-2002 10:47 PM

I really pretty much agreed with Roger Eberts review all the way.... http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/08/080205.html
Tak FujiPhoto's cinematography was really awsome and the the fact that the silence in the movie is the scarest part itself. Hitchcock woulda loved it.
Mark

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 08-13-2002 10:26 AM

For me, the measure of a good movie is not how many plot holes it has or anything like that. The movie has to make an impression that stays with me after it's over. Images that stick in the head, believable characters, a good story. Signs was like that -- I couldn't help thinking about it afterwards. Great cinematography, interesting story, characters you care about. A lasting impression. And I think it helps that the prints I saw looked GREAT, not to mention the very effective use of the surrounds as well as "quiet" to create the mood. I hope this film gets nominated for some awards.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.