Viewing Thread:
"Signs - God, no!"

Oh dear. I had the misfortune of seeing Signs last night and I advise you to avoid it at your peril! Never have I seen a film so uttterly swept up in it's own hype that the conclusion felt like being dropped from a great height into a skip full of mousetraps. Sure, M. Night Shyamalan (who wrote, directed and produced this, lest we forget) had a bit of luck with The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable (which wasn't as good really, was it!?), but now he's got a reputation as this cinematic genius. The truth is, he relies on deception to fool the audience and part of the fun is trying to figure out what's real and what isn't. Except this wasn't fun. If you've seen a trailer for Signs, the deception has begun. I won't spoil it for you by telling you the one, miniscule, event that the whole film feels like it was concocted to surround, but if you think it looks boring, you're not wrong. Am I right?

I thought it was brilliant. Except for the tackiness of the ending.

Swing away, Commudus lalala.

Apart from that - great suspense and superbly directed.

I saw this on Friday night and enjoyed it. Made me jump in a couple of places, made me laugh in other places. Not the best film I've ever seen, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Just one question though:

The aliens are pretty lucky it didn't rain, aren't they, eh?

movie....

mel gibson! the biggest cameo in history! braveheart! ok its not a cameo but at least he got an couple of oscars for it.

Signs is a good movie. and is well worth seeing. There are a couple of little things which you might think were strange but its enterrtaining.

Oh and whoever criticised unbreakable is a fool. it is extremely good, well put together and original.

RM18 wrote:

"And anyway, what director with any credibility makes cameos in his own film?"

Hitchcock, can't think of any more.

Signs is one of those psychological thrillers. I think it's got quite a good plot, and don't come at it thinking it's a horror film. In fact, it's only at the very end of the film that you understand half the plot, which makes up for the lameness of the action. The plot isn't mainly about 'alien invasion' or crop signs, but it is largely about Mel Gibson(can't remember the character name) losing his faith and then realising that nothing happens by coincidence. It's actually quite clever, and the way Gibson acts is very new for him. Anyway, it's not a bad film, it kept me on the edge of my seat the whole way through. Sure, it ain't a horror film, but if you don't walk in expecting anything amazing you'll be pleasantly surprised. Added to that, there is a killer soundtrack which adds to the suspense, of which there is much.

I'd give it 3 or 4 stars - it ain't crap, that's for sure.

I enjoyed the Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, and I was under the impression that Signs, from what I saw in the trailer, was pretty decent (if it isn't that just exemplifies the importance of editing).

I don't get this 'Cult of Personality' thing developing with Mr Night. Firstly he's only made three films of any prominence, he copies camera techniques from the likes of Hitchcock, and yet he is supposedly Spielberg's heir apparent? Do me a favour, he has a long way to go to get anywhere near Spielberg.

And anyway, what director with any credibility makes cameos in his own film?

(except Tarantino, he rules)

what are you on? signs kicked "butt" , how could you not have liked it? anyways, the two other movies you compaired it with were awesome too, no taste... but thats just an oppinion =-p

WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> monkey_man wrote:
> I advise you to avoid it at your peril!
>
> Erm... surely that means we should go and see it?
>
> :-)

Oh yeah, erm, kids stay away from Signs. There, thats better.

It might just be your taste in films.

I actually would'nt mind seeing the film.