Shyamalan aims high but falls short
I agree with tabuno
"Signs" doesn't quite work for the reasons you mentioned.
But I also agree with Mark Dujsik
Shyamalan is a gifted filmmaker who uses the great cinematic conventions powerfully and knows how to construct a movie according to the classic mold.
In retrospect, while "Signs" has all the earmarks of mainstream perfection, it wasn't his best effort after all.
Maybe what's holding him back from achieving the promise of greatness is this:
There's something hokey -- and occasionally defective -- about his screenplays. Maybe he just ought to have a little more help in writing them.
Re: Shyamalan aims high but falls short
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Shyamalan is a gifted filmmaker who uses the great cinematic conventions powerfully and knows how to construct a movie according to the classic mold.
In retrospect, while "Signs" has all the earmarks of mainstream perfection, it wasn't his best effort after all.
Maybe what's holding him back from achieving the promise of greatness is this:
There's something hokey -- and occasionally defective -- about his screenplays. Maybe he just ought to have a little more help in writing them.
Well the material he's covered in his past three films is inherently hokey, but what he's done with all three of them is to take that material and make it about one specific person coming to grips with it.
Just curious, what do you think is his best effort so far? If we don't count Signs, I'd say Unbreakable.
Signs Still Has Raises More Questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dujsik
What local law enforcement? It's a small town, they're probably with their own families or at least useless against the aliens. In all seriousness, though, did you really wonder, "Where are the cops?" while you watching the film near the end? The brother is hardly extraneous. He's there for support for the family, and he serves as the antithesis to Gibson's character in regards to faith. If you had said (or mean) that his role as comic relief was extraneous, I would have disagreed with you, but I would have seen where you were coming from. I haven't read War of the Worlds (never got to it), but the ending to me just completely works. As for the aliens, we only see one, and when it comes down to it, that scene is not about an alien, just as the film is not really about alien invasion. And it's Night's first try at CGI, so we should cut him some slack. :)
(1) The local law enforcement, Officer Paski who was so prominent in the first half of the movie suddenly drops off the face of the earth in the movie, someone who seems to sincerely care about the people in her small town. It is just because it is a small town, how they all look out for each other, that her absence is strangely missed. It would be expected that she would have made one last call, to check on the Hess family and let them know what she knew.
(2) What made "The Others" with Nicole Kidman so successful was the intimate focus on her as a mother and her two little children. I found the brother in "Signs" distracting, an added excessive baggage that really wasn't needed. It would have been much more scarier having Mel Gibson having to face the unknown all by himself with his children. With the brother there it seemed to deflate the potential horror-thriller element that the movie could have been.
(3) The single alien - the ending is just too pat nowadays. The sophistication by which the alien population dominated the earth is so staggering that the concept of water which is obvious that the earth is composed most of and the cloud covering and weather patterns, again so obvious make the ending all too unbelievable. Again the alien doesn't seem to reflect at all what happened to the rest of the world outside. It's almost as if we're seeing two different movies, one not related to the other. The whole assumption that the aliens were bad appeared reversed as it seems that Mel Gibson was more of the aggressor from the get go. No wonder the alien was mad and hostile. For me, Signs was about the answer to the crop sitings, without the Aliens, their explanation, there is no movie. No serious Aliens, no serious movie.
Re: Signs Still Has Raises More Questions
Quote:
Originally posted by tabuno
(1) The local law enforcement, Officer Paski who was so prominent in the first half of the movie suddenly drops off the face of the earth in the movie, someone who seems to sincerely care about the people in her small town. It is just because it is a small town, how they all look out for each other, that her absence is strangely missed. It would be expected that she would have made one last call, to check on the Hess family and let them know what she knew.
Fair enough. I'll pay attention when I watch it again, but I've seen it three times now, and it never bothered me.
Quote:
(2) What made "The Others" with Nicole Kidman so successful was the intimate focus on her as a mother and her two little children. I found the brother in "Signs" distracting, an added excessive baggage that really wasn't needed. It would have been much more scarier having Mel Gibson having to face the unknown all by himself with his children. With the brother there it seemed to deflate the potential horror-thriller element that the movie could have been.
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that there was a sense of security with him around? Perhaps, though, he is just as scared as everyone else around him. And I thought the family dynamics were especially developed and were at the heart of the film.
Quote:
(3) The single alien - the ending is just too pat nowadays. The sophistication by which the alien population dominated the earth is so staggering that the concept of water which is obvious that the earth is composed most of and the cloud covering and weather patterns, again so obvious make the ending all too unbelievable. Again the alien doesn't seem to reflect at all what happened to the rest of the world outside. It's almost as if we're seeing two different movies, one not related to the other. The whole assumption that the aliens were bad appeared reversed as it seems that Mel Gibson was more of the aggressor from the get go. No wonder the alien was mad and hostile. For me, Signs was about the answer to the crop sitings, without the Aliens, their explanation, there is no movie. No serious Aliens, no serious movie.
Has anyone thought that perhaps the reason the aliens came to Earth was to take specimens to discover why we are immune to water, since our planet and its atmosphere is composed primarily of it? The alien is cut off from the rest of what's going on in the world outside. They left behind their wounded. Well, the aliens are bad because they killed people, although, it'd be ironic if Gibson's poor intergalactic social skills helped incite a full-blown invasion.
And if the movie was about crop signs and aliens for you, well then, you're right, there is no movie.
Comments about Best lists
The last two lists posted (ArpHagenbach and Mark Dujsik) represent film buffs at opposing poles. Arp's list contains a single english language film (the lovely Far from Heaven) and Mark D ignores there are films being made outside of Hollywood, California. Chris Knipp has a list for U.S.-made films and one for foreign-made (not foreign language like the Academy). Pmw's list is nicely balanced. I hope I like "The Son" as much as he does ( I loved Promesse and Rosetta). At least two call "The Hours" overrated; I'll wait 'til it wins the Oscar to do so. As usual, I'll wait a coupla weeks to post my list while I watch my faves again (to make sure). And, I have decided to listen to Mr. Dujsik and give "Signs" a chance, even though I didn't even like 6th Sense much. His choice of "Bowling" for #1 and inclusion of the underrated "Minority Report" are appreciated.
Re: Comments about Best lists
Quote:
Originally posted by oscar jubis
The last two lists posted (ArpHagenbach and Mark Dujsik) represent film buffs at opposing poles. Arp's list contains a single english language film (the lovely Far from Heaven) and Mark D ignores there are films being made outside of Hollywood, California. Chris Knipp has a list for U.S.-made films and one for foreign-made (not foreign language like the Academy). Pmw's list is nicely balanced. I hope I like "The Son" as much as he does ( I loved Promesse and Rosetta). At least two call "The Hours" overrated; I'll wait 'til it wins the Oscar to do so. As usual, I'll wait a coupla weeks to post my list while I watch my faves again (to make sure). And, I have decided to listen to Mr. Dujsik and give "Signs" a chance, even though I didn't even like 6th Sense much. His choice of "Bowling" for #1 and inclusion of the underrated "Minority Report" are appreciated.
Another reason is that I have not seen most of the films on ArpHagenbach's list (I did see The Fast Runner, and well... let's not bring that up...). It's hard for me to see foreign films from my location, and of the few I did see, only Y Tu Mamá También made my honorable mention list. Anyway, 10 Best Lists are fun, aren't they?
The Hours is just mediocre and, as much as I hate the word, "overrated."
Re: Sixth Sense over Signs
Quote:
Originally posted by tabuno
On another note, Mark Dujsik deserves a lot of credit for being good at discussing movies. He makes sense and really knows how to get points across and take in and explore and expand on new information at the same time.
Hey, at least people here are open to discussion, as compared to the majority of folks over at the RT forums...
Sharing in a free discussion
One reason there are never two identical ten best lists is we all have different tastes, but another equally important one is that we simply don’t see the same movies. Of Mark Dujsik’s ten best I missed “Frailty.” I started to list the others from ten best lists in this forum that I hadn’t seen and I stopped at twelve. Most of these are somewhat odd choices, not occurring on many lists, but we all have those. “Russian Ark” is on a number of professional print critics’ ten best lists, but it has yet to open here. So it goes. Of the four NYTimes movie critics' ten best lists, I have missed about half of the movies listed on each. Living in NYC and going to film festivals gives you an advantage I don't have.
I agree that lists are fun. I like seeing lists people make of the ten worst, the ten funniest, the ten stupidest, the ten with the best acting, and on and on, though I like best rating for overall artistic merit and am happy to focus on that.
My ideal is not to see every movie, which would be impossible, but to see as many as I can that are truly worth seeing. It’s also valuable to see some bad ones, just as it’s worthwhile to hear bad musicians or watch (or be) amateur athletes, to appreciate those with the most talent, the most skill, and the most originality a little better. I also want to understand what's popular, whether good or bad, what expresses the times and what influences how people think and respond. And I’m happiest when a popular mainstream movie is really, really good.
Since we can’t see all the movies out there, it’s good that some of you see the ones I miss. That robs us of the level playing field film festivals and the Academy Awards arbitrarily set up for their juries and panels, but it’s not all bad. We can point to gems like “Pumpkin” that others miss.
Pardon my ignorance, but what are these RT Forums you are referring to, Mark?
Re: Sharing in a free discussion
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Pardon my ignorance, but what are these RT Forums you are referring to, Mark?
Rotten Tomatoes.
Be sure to see Frailty.
