Posted by
ell, 18:15, 14th September 2002:
Title: Signs
Rating: 5/5
This is one of the best scifi films I've ever seen. From the haunting b-movie-esque themetune (which I didn't like at first, but fits the atmosphere perfectly), everything is great. The ONLY think you're allowed to do is
watch the trailer if you haven't already, and know these 2 facts: Mel Gibson, Crop Circles. DO NOT find out anything else, lest you diminsh your expectations.. trust me, it'll be worth it.
GO SEE NOW!
Posted by
chris, 22:27, 14th September 2002:
yes yes yes yes yes amazing!!!!! 6/5 :)
Posted by
ell, 22:48, 14th September 2002:
Cal, we demand you add a 6/5 option, or alternatively a "Fuck me, this is good! YOU GO SEE NOW!" option. :P
I'd use it all the time!
Posted by
chandler, 01:25, 15th September 2002:
good but vastly overrated.
It was like an episode of the X-files without the bonus of Scully, to start with (I do like the X-files) and then reminded me of an Outer Limits episode (but I do like that too)
Um, but in a cinema enviroment you need something a little faster paced. I didnt jump once. I just wanted them to get on with it. Music was good. but again Signs was just like any other film of this type, but without any kind of "hook" to draw you in. It was really quite shallow. in a childrens picture book kind of way. I didnt find any of the buildup scary. but maybe I was just having an off day.
I normally love this kind of stuff, crop circles are my thing. Yes CROP CIRCLES that what they are called not "Signs" signs are road signs or notices. C R O P C I R C L E S
:)
Mind you it is nice to see an American film that doesnt rely on heavey weaponry. Though I found it strange that an American farm wouldnt have at least one shotgun. And the little girl was great, just on the right side of freaky. Normally kids annoy me in films but both of the kids impressed me.
I would say 3/5 no maybe 4/5 hmmm definitly not 6/5. that is reserved for Shawshank Redemption
Oh and the dog at the start when it is snapping at the little girl (this doesnt ruin the plot BTW) looks REALLY REALLY badly composited. I guess the budget wasnt exactly big. but that was some bad blue screening right there. Note: I will probably find that it wasnt composited at all!!! but to my semi-trained eye it loked real bad!!!
Posted by
cal, 09:59, 17th September 2002:
it was average. a good episode of the outer limits, not a stunning film. but nice in places and the kids were very good
Posted by
jlittle, 17:09, 18th September 2002:
From the Director of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable comes Signs, staring Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin.
Signs is basically a scary version of Independence Day, but without Will Smith. Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) abandoned his faith in god after his wife was killed in a freak accident. Aliens decide to invade the earth and use Crop signs as a way to navigate and one appears in Grahams field. The film goes on to show Graham getting his faith back and humans overpowering the Aliens (I won't spoil it by saying how).
It has some very good acting, strong family values, some nice sci-fi thrills and a few bits of comedy.
Overall, it's better than most films this summer and is definitely worth the trip to the Cinema for, but if you are a Si-Fi fan, prepare to be slightly disappointed.
exWebJunkie rating : 3-4/5
Posted by
chandler, 19:45, 18th September 2002:
"I won't spoil it by saying how"
But you are happy to tell everyone almost the ENTIRE plot of the film. :)
"a scary version of Independence Day"
Yep, but without the budget, the silly jokes, and the big guns
Posted by
chandler, 19:47, 18th September 2002:
CAL!!! I petition for you to either write spoiler above jlittle's post, or remove the plot bit, cos it kind of ruins the whole suspense thing. and lets face it that is the whole film.
Posted by
jlittle, 20:53, 18th September 2002:
Chandler - that is not the point - I havn't spoiled it and there is plenty more to the film that a few lines!
Posted by
chandler, 21:58, 18th September 2002:
"Aliens decide to invade the earth and use Crop signs as a way to navigate and one appears in Grahams field. The film goes on to show Graham getting his faith back and humans overpowering the Aliens"
All this happens in the last act of the film. I would consider this spoiling it.
The last bit is equivalent to telling someone who hasnt seen the Shawshank Redemption that "He is put in prison but is innocent and then towards the end he escapes, and later Red joins him on the beach...oh and the young guy is killed by one of the guards"
Posted by
chandler, 21:59, 18th September 2002:
In signs the true power of the film is that you dont know whether they will win, and whether he will get his faith back. but you have told everyone the ending.
Thats why I like the Outer Limits cos you dont know who they are going to kill off cos each story stands on it's own
Posted by
ell, 22:02, 18th September 2002:
Yes, but you've dimished a HUGE portion of the enjoyment- the best films are always the ones you know NOTHING about beforehand, so you're amazed when you watch them.
My review on Signs stands... those who say different have no appreciation of scifis historical roots. :P
[SPOILERS]
#################################
It's akin to the X-Files, but managed to execute spectacularly what the X-Files promised, but never delivered (to its detriment) - you actually SEE the aliens in full, after due buildup. I've seen a LOT of The Twilight Zone & The Outer Limits, and they simply don't have enought time to build up enough and execute the suspence AND climax that Signs does- all the best Outer Limits were only great because they were
able to forgo some large central element to the story.. the bad episodes were the ones that tried to do this, but couldn't achieve it without you feeling you'd missed out on the details somewhere.
The "rebuilding the faith" element is incidental to the story (being introduced after the crop circles / alien main elemnt) rather than being the other way round, as with all the most putrid morality tales.
Chandler, let me spell it out: calling the crop circles 'signs' is a wordplay for the underlying allegory in the movie ("There are no coincidences" - seeing 'signs' in events rather than insignificant coincidences). One of the clever things about the film is that you come out realising that the title was almost deliberatly misleading, actually having much more attached to it than the simple "Signs = crop circles" idea everyone goes into the cinema with.
I'm sorry, but if you didn't pick up at all on that blatatant neon-lit message, you either wern't in the right frame of mood for the film (i.e. after Independence Day 2) or were asleep. :P
A Scully figure had no part in the film- it totally left out a sexual undertone (unless you think the brother and the kids... you sick
sick people ;P ) in a very refreshing and uncommon way. By doing that, the director went a long way to eliminating the tongue-in-cheeked-ness of ID et al, going straight for chilling and scary.
#################################
[/SPOILERS]
*gets down of pedistool*
Posted by
ell, 22:07, 18th September 2002:
The film is enjoyable, thought-provoking, clever, believeable (enought that you empathise with the characters) AND pushes the boundaries of the genre... what the heck else do you want from a film?! o_O
Posted by
Joe, 23:19, 18th September 2002:
6th Sense - don't scare me again BANG *jump* FUCK!
Unbreakable - Hmmm what's the *real* story here
Signs - Hmmm what's the *real* BANG *jump* FUCK!
Posted by
cal, 08:50, 19th September 2002:
ell said:
what the heck else do you want from a film
naked ladies?
Posted by
chandler, 13:07, 19th September 2002:
**********SPOILER*************
"calling the crop circles 'signs' is a wordplay for the underlying allegory in the movie ("There are no coincidences" - seeing 'signs' in events rather than insignificant coincidences)."
Lots of movie makers put 'clues' and important elements into their movie so as to lead/mislead you towards certain conclusions. The cleverist films are the ones when all this is subtle and as you watch again you think "oh yes of course" I thought Signs was too heavy handed in this regard. When we heard about his baseball bat on the wall I thought "When is he going to use that then" and the same with the glasses of water. it was as it they decided on an ending and then thought "right we will put in 4 or 5 really big pointers and that will make it a good film, cos everyone will be all OH, wow so thats what that was about/for" Hmmm
Yes I know that this significant events thing was important but it just made me think, oh this is a film. Beging directed. not by God but by someone in a silly chair
but it was quite good
Posted by
ell, 16:50, 19th September 2002:
Cal: Oh alright, I missed that one. :P
Chandler: I thought the glasses of water were meant to be misleading, but it turned out they wern't.. open to interpritation of course, but I got the impression they were calling a double bluff.
And yes, you're right, it does lack a certain re-wartchedness that American Beauty has, for example, but the trade-off for that is that the film is better the first time around.. it's near impossible to recapture anything as much as the shock of the first time in the horror/scifi-ish genre, but that's just the nature of how it is. Doing what American Beauty did in 'Signs' genre WOULD practically an act of god, and put a film far and beyond AB, even if it only did in essence the same thing.
Still, you can hardly call Signs "average" :P By testing new frontiers in generic conventions, it promotes itself above that at least, story or no.
Posted by
Grim..., 14:31, 23rd September 2002:
Saw it at the weekend.
Loved it.
Would have been really angry if I had read JLittle's post before I saw it.
Also, JLittle says 'No Will Smith' like it was a
bad thing! And Mackauly (sp?) Culkins little brother was just as annoying.