Signs

[FightingforGod]

i liked it overall, i think it went too fast tho, and i didnt like the ending all that much

[delta557]

[quote name='FightingforGod' date='Jan 21 2005, 01:23 PM'] i liked it overall, i think it went too fast tho, and i didnt like the ending all that much [/quote]
Too fast? Ehh, I think that they pretty much had to make it kinda short. You can only keep people fixated on corn fields and farmhouses for so long. The ending was a little lame, with the alien being there, and the little girl having foresight and all...but I did like that Mel became a preacher again!

[jinx]

i just didnt like the movie in general. i dont like scary movies all that much, cause i think they are predictable, and they dont scare me, any got a scary movie that will let me know!

Jessica

[cathqat]

I enjoyed [i]Signs[/i], but I think [i]Signs[/i] and [i]The Village[/i] are Shyamalan's weakest work. Both needed substantial revision and rewriting. [i]Sixth Sense[/i] and [i]Unbreakable[/i] were much stronger; really great movies. Anymore movies like [i]Signs[/i] and [i]The Village[/i] and Shyamalan's reputation is kaput.

In the case of [i]Signs[/i], there were a few problems. One was too many unanswered questions, like "How come aliens that have the technology to travel across immense spatial distances cannot break through wooden doors?" That's a really bad practical problem to leave your audience with: implausibility ruins stories. Another problem was the aliens themselves. Aliens lack that "numinous" quality about which C.S. Lewis speaks. But worse than this, they were much "scarier" or "creepier" offscreen than on. Once it appeared onscreen, the alien ceased to be scary. Also: Shyamalan cannot act. It's fine for a director to appear in his own movies a la Hitchcock, but he should not play such big parts.

Problems with [i]The Village[/i] were more thematic. This movie couldn't decide what (or who) it was about, and ended up being about almost nothing. The scary creatures weren't particularly scary to begin with, and were even more disappointing at the "reveal."

I see these two movies as evidence that Shyamalan's probably gotten too cocky about either his work or --worse-- his good reputation. If he doesn't sharpen up his writing soon, he's history.

But I do see some hope for Shyamalan in the near future.

It is obvious, based on Shyamalan's work, that he admires Hitchcock. He's been doing thrillers, like Hitchcock, with deeper philosophical and religious themes, like Hitchcock. Like Hitchcock, he likes to make an appearance in each of his own movies. Etc. Any Hitchcock fan can see the influences.

But there is a big difference: Hitchcock did not write his own scripts. Hitchcock [i]selected[/i] good scripts to direct. Some of Hitch's movies are weak, but overall they are very strong. He knew he was a director, knew his strengths, enjoyed challenges, and played his strengths.

Shyamalan can write, but he's not a consistent writer. I really don't know that he has either the chops or the humility necessary to continue writing movies. But he is a brilliant director, and that is the strength he most needs to play. He should probably follow Hitchcock's lead: Don't write so much as direct.

Here's the hope I see in Shyamalan's future: He's planning to adapt and direct [i]The Life of Pi[/i] by Yann Martel. This is a brilliant choice. In adaptation, there will be enough writing that he's not totally out of the game but little enough so that he is less likely to botch it. The story has ample space for Shyamalan to explore the religious themes that intrigue him so much (e.g. the commonalities between Hinduism & Christianity). The story has an ending which can be interpreted more than one way, which is close to the "twist" Shyamalan likes to use and yet a little different. He even shares something in common with the main character: they come to North America from the same city in India.

So there's my $.02.

[Socrates]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 25 2005, 03:05 PM']

Problems with [i]The Village[/i] were more thematic. This movie couldn't decide what (or who) it was about, and ended up being about almost nothing. The scary creatures weren't particularly scary to begin with, and were even more disappointing at the "reveal."

[/quote]
Although this has been discussed at length in earlier threads, I think The Village did have a theme, and raised interesting questions about the nature of innocence and whether it can or should be preserved.

(I've known people who probably would think the whole "Village" concept would be a great idea if the Village was Catholic.)

I think whether people liked that movie or not had a lot to do with whether they say it has having deeper themes, or simply as a not-too-scary "horror" flick with a cheap gimmicky "twist".

[cathqat]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 25 2005, 03:20 PM']Although this has been discussed at length in earlier threads, I think The Village did have a theme, and raised interesting questions about the nature of innocence and whether it can or should be preserved.[/quote]

Please explain what you saw developed in it, because I looked and searched and found nothing. I saw many interesting directions the movie [i]could have[/i] taken, if Shyamalan had been willing, but the movie didn't actually [i]commit[/i] to any of them. It simply "dropped the ball" altogether.

[quote](I've known people who probably would think the whole "Village" concept would be a great idea if the Village was Catholic.)[/quote]

Unfortunately, I have too. I'm happy to say that I've successfully convinced a few of them to abandon the idea.

[quote]I think whether people liked that movie or not had a lot to do with whether they say it has having deeper themes, or simply as a not-too-scary "horror" flick with a cheap gimmicky "twist".[/quote]

I did not go into the movie hoping for a scary a "horror flick," though it was unfortunately advertised that way. I did go in hoping Shyamalan would redeem himself after [i]Signs[/i]. In fact, I was confident that he could. But [i]Village[/i] wasn't even as good as [i]Signs[/i], imo.

A lot is at stake for [i]Pi[/i]. I think it will make or break Shyamalan's career.

[Socrates]

Basically, the Village was an attempt to keep the younger generation in a state of perpetual innocence. However, this was done by the use of lies and the instilling of false fears.
However, original sin entered this "garden" of innocence, in the form of the most apparently innocent of characters, who became the one of the very "monsters" used to instill fear of outside evil. The Village could not overcome human nature.

The movie seems to be saying that true innocence cannot be maintained, and that evil is part of the human condition, not something "out there."

I'm not saying the movie was perfect, and perhaps I read too much into it, but that's my 2 cents. I definatley thought The Village was better than Signs, buit that's just my opinion.

[cathqat]

I agree that all of that was in the movie, and I don't think you're stretching at all, but I think the story is almost superfluous to such a simplistic, underdeveloped theme. If that's all the movie was about, I could have left long before it was over without missing anything. I'm not sure how to best express what I am trying to say here, but I hope you get the gist anyway.

There were too many missed thematic opportunities, opportunities to strengthen, develop, and explore nuances.

I will say this for the movie, though: the conversation on the porch alone was worth the price of admission. Well done.

[Specter]

Signs was brilliant. It was about the fact that there are no coincidences. Everything happens for a reason.

The Village was also brilliant. It's about LOVE and what that drives us to, and what that brings out of us. It wasn't trying to decided who to be about at all. It was always about Ivy. From the beginning to the end. I find M. Night's films to all be pretty well executed, and I like to look at them, not from the standpoint of critics, which it seems that most people are reading and agreeing with, but rather from my OWN standpoint. One that looks at things for the spiritual lessons, with entertainment coming in second.