Signs (2002) (1 Viewer)

[Scott H]

Having seen it a second time, I was mistaken about a few things.

The police woman tells us that a lady in town was upset about skateboarders and spit on new skateboards at a store, and another lady threw a fit because a store didn't have her brand of cigarettes. I had incorrectly said a woman came into town, threw a fit, and spit on people and objects.

It is clear that Bo had the water quirk for a long time, it was not new as I said.

So the human saliva thing doesn't hold as much water. :wink:

But the person I saw it with today, who knew little about the film (and has in fact been out of the country for the past few weeks), said immediately upon the credit roll that Bo was an angel. There is an article floating around which makes the same argument citing ideas I have mentioned previously in this thead, considering the "aliens" as demons and the water as holy.

In any event, for those making various conclusions, the following is certain. We never see an "alien" killed by water. And we never see "alien" spacecraft, only lights, though the spacecraft are certainly suggested.


Incidentally, the presentation that I saw today was DLP (Technicolor DLP at Grauman's Chinese). The film presentation was far superior to the digital presentation.

 

[Seth Paxton]

The film presentation was far superior to the digital presentation.

I agree Scott. I just did the same thing SAT myself (in Cincy).

 

[Eric Bass]

Just saw this last night, so I must be behind the times. Can't say I enjoyed it much. Hard to be scared by aliens who are dumb enough to invade a planet where 80% of its surface is lethal to them and who also can't seem to deal with boards nailed over windows or one guy with a baseball bat. Nor could I feel anything for the family who 'voted' to stay in their house despite the fact that there's a crop circle 100 yards away and aliens running around on their rooftop and in their cornfields on a nightly basis.

The 'climax' of the movie just reminded me of a Simpson's episode..."look out! he's got a board with a nail in it!"

Sure there are scenes that go way way out of their way to try to get you to jump, but there wasn't anything really creepy about it. Add in the fact that nothing whatsoever really happens in the movie, the invasion lasts a whopping 12 hours, and it all adds up to a huge waste of time. Contact was ten times the sci-fi/religion crossover.

 

[Rich Malloy]

The film presentation was far superior to the digital presentation.

I had just the opposite experience, but have no way of knowing whether the film was projected properly... I suspect not. Rarely is. And this was at some big-ass Googleplex in Corpus Christi TX of all places, probably without a real projectionist or proper upkeep of the equipment. Notably, there was some crap extending from the top-right edge of the frame all the way down the right side that was consistent (consistently bad) throughout the film. Probably just needed to clean the projector lens or possibly the window through which it was projected. Suffice to say, the projection was absolutely terrible, so my comparison is crippled by that.

(Then again, if DLP can help solve the huge problem of poor projection in nearly all theaters - allowing that it might just mean a whole new set of different problems - then it might be worthwhile.)

Then, I saw DLP projection at the brand-new Boston Common theater, which I've been generally very impressed with, and it was easily superior to the poor projection at the Tx googleplex. Most notably, the shot of the alien on the roof was far clearer in DLP (maybe too clear, as you could very easily tell it hadn't the posture of a man). Strangely, the shot of the hovering spacecraft over Mexico City (on the television screen) was also much, much clearer.

It seemed, however, that black levels weren't as deep via DLP, and this was particularly troublesome considering how much the dark palette is Tak's thing.

Dunno if this is helpful at all, but that was my experience.

 

[Scott H]

aliens who are dumb enough to invade a planet where 80% of its surface is lethal to them

That's an assumption. For clarification, at no time in the film was an "alien" definitively killed by water, nor was it stated by anyone in the film that water might kill them.

 

[JamieD]

I watched this film last night, and enjoyed it very much. I'm not really looking for any kind of debate, just wanted to add a positive opinion. Enjoyed the multiple themes, and could overlook the view acting/logic quirks. Probably a DVD purchase for me if the extras are decent.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Rich, speaking of theater problems, I had to go find an usher to get the sound turned on for the DLP. Luckily I jumped up with 20 seconds of the first trailer playing like this (after the theater's own trailer also didn't have sound), so it was on in time.
But then they left the house lights on for the first 10 minutes. Sheesh. I let that go because the projection was still visible enough to satisfy me and I hate leaving during a film for any reason. If I have to get up for the presentation, I'm getting my money back and leaving.
Now this has nothing technical to do with DLP, but it does show that DLP doesn't fix everything.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Eric, one question.

How much of space is lethal to humans?


That's correct, all of it. Yet we have a space program, what dipshits we are. I'll let you pass the info onto John Glenn yourself, I don't want to break the news to him that he is a moron for going into space.


Then Armstrong/Aldrin and that whole moon thing.

Just think, just falling down and tearing his suit might have killed Armstrong and we weren't even looking for food or resources.

Yes, I can see how INTELLIGENT life would not go to dangerous places.

And save it with the "where was their protective suit", they had chameleon skin which was their priority defense system. Putting a suit on over that defeats their primary method of invasion/safety (that is, going undetected is more important to them).

It's been debated to death in this thread already.

 

[Tino]

And then some!

 

[Eric Bass]

I don't doubt that it's been debated to death, and I am 100% guilty on not reading the whole thread up to this point. That's the problem with a broken PC at home, gotta squeeze this stuff in at work and reading 8 pages gets hard to cover up.

 

[Rich Malloy]

But then they left the house lights on for the first 10 minutes. Sheesh.

That's happened to me in the googleplex on several occasions (the worst being during the opening sequence of EYES WIDE SHUT).

Unless you go to a reportory theater or museum or a chain like Landmark Theaters, it seems that you've just got to put up with this crap way too much of the time. I assume they don't have human projectionists in the booth (much less projectionists with a clue or a care as to how to perform their job), and it really shows. All those giant screens and stadium seating, and not a whit of concern regarding what really matters.

I'm fairly certain that a properly projected, more-or-less new reel of film would look better than DLP projection. But since I rarely see a new print properly projected, perhaps DLP is the better option... that is, assuming it's more fool-proof.

 

[Keir H]

Somehow this discussion reminds of the strange stories of the Chuppacabra(?) a friend of mine mentioned that was the talk of town when he went back home to visit Mexico City. Ya wanna talk about strange...make a movie outta that lore.

 

[Todd H]

I just read that Signs retook the number 1 slot this week from XXX. This movie is showing some legs.

 

[Artur Meinild]

Unbreakable when the weakness of the aliens was revealed: water.

I can see I'm late to the party (because I was to another party this weekend), and I'll just say that I haven't seen the movie.
However, I'll have to agree with the people who say that an alien weakness with water is very silly indeed (if that's in fact the case). Not because it has anything to do with unbreakable, and not because it is too convenient (and I wouldn't know about that either).
No, the true reason is this: Because of water's physical and chemical properties, I wouldn't believe in a life form that is not based on water, it's as simple as that. Water is a cornerstone of all life on earth, and I can't think if any other suitable liquid to replace water in that respect!

 

[cafink]

Water is a cornerstone of all life on earth

The aliens in "SIGNS" weren't from Earth.

 

[Stephen_L]

Though not a perfect film, I found "Signs" to be very enjoyable. I much prefer story telling on a human scale rather than huge, cold uninvolving CGI epics. I was more afraid for this one man and his family than I would be for nameless millions in huge battle set-pieces.

The complaints about the alien's weaknesses have already been dealt with; humans go into hostile environments (outer space, the deep oceans) armed with technology but still desperately vulnerable. It's interesting that according to the news reports, most of the alien sightings were in dry areas (central India, the Middle East, Mexico City) The alien threat was deliberately left vague and cryptic to enhance the feeling of confusion and uncertainty in the film.

 

[Zen Butler]

Seth said:

The other scene I thought played out a bit awkward was when Phoenix is being taunted for his baseball failure. That dialog felt awkward to me, unrealistic in how it unfolded. The story is fine for me, just not how he got it out to the audience. I think it could have been written smoother than that. It sounded VERY exposition-y instead of natural.

I'm glad someone mentioned this scene, I also didn't like the recruiter character , he was almost to humorous, was this intentional? An aspect of the film I thought would have worked very well was Phoenix's past failures mainlined to the final scene. As Seth mentioned also the final flashback , I felt wasn't needed and better implied, which would have also made Phoenix's redemption a little less cheesy, with the "swing away" bit.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Water is a cornerstone of all life on earth

Then make sure to skip the film A.I., you won't like how it ends.

 

[Guy_Uhler]

I personally did not care for the film. I thought they tried to mesh two plots that didn't really go together well. The dialogue wasn't very good and things were a little too convenient for the characters and the plot. EX: The son conveniently had athsma..."thank god his lungs were closed.." and the daughter conveniently left glasses of water around the whole house which conveniently killed the aliens. I mean...gotta have some struggle with the alien.

And what was with Mel Gibson's character asking his kids "you wanna know about when you were born"...when the aliens were trying to break through their door. it wasn't MNS's best. I think it was one of the worst movies i've seen all year.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Just wanted to add that I enjoyed the film very much (8.5/10) and MNS is a filmmaker I will continue to watch.

MNS reminds me a lot of Stephen King. Both are great storytellers. Both will never be highly regarded in critic circles. Does their respective audiences care? No - because they can entertain.

MNS doing a film based on a Stephen King story. Sigh. That would be a great combination.

Sidenote - Signs regained the number 1 position at the box office again this weekend.