 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: First review of Signs, and others... posted by clarkjohnsen on August 01, 2002 at 16:05:17:
I saw it this weekend. Emotionally hollow and flawed in several dimensions. The director has become so enamored with his trademark surprise endings that seems to be all he can think about. As a result it makes his films feel entirely too contrived, all aiming for the big pay-off. In the 6th Sense it worked. In Unbreakable it fell flat as a board (who really cares about comics other than comic book fans?) and here it lands somewhere in between. The other striking thing about this film is how derivative it is. Its like his first two films channeled through Poltergeist and Close Encounters - down to the precocious kids who carry a large part of the story (such as it is) forward.This director seems to be a one trick pony and It's going to be interesting to see how much longer he can ride it before coming up with another remotely innovative idea...
joe
Follow Ups:
one out of 100 movies... that's for sure...Don't expect great movies every month or even a whole year...
My wife, myself and one of our friends saw this film earlier today and for the most part came away quite impressed. FTR, Signs is nothing at all like Sixth Sense or Unbreakable and it really doesn't rely on a shock ending to carry the story either. Which brings up the comment you made about Unbreakable (i.e., "who really cares about comics other than comic book fans?"). As a comic book fan for over four decades I find the superhero genre every bit as respectable as other genres, but that isn't the point. Unbreakable wasn't really "about" comic books per se, comics were simply the framework for a fascinating character study about heroics and villainy being facets of the human condition that feed off of each other.You have every right to your opinion, even if you wear tin foil on your head while trashing the movie. As I see it, Signs may not be a great film, but it's a very good one and IMHO it certainly isn't emotionally hollow. It never plays down to the audience by trying to explain everything up front as so many less inspired films seem to do (i.e., it's very literary in this regard). As the story unfolds, the background information gradually falls into place and the audience begins to understand the motivations and responses to the unearthly dilemma faced by the characters. As for your "one trick pony" remark, well, I don't know what horse you rode in on, but we've seen all three of M. Night Shymalan's groundbreaking films as well as the others you referenced and Signs didn't seem that derivative to any of us.
AuPh
"As a comic book fan for over four decades I find the superhero genre every bit as respectable as other genres, but that isn't the point."You and several hundred other people. But you're right, that's not the point. But watching a film within its chosen context (regardless of the plot) makes its context fundamental to accepting the films message, no? When the context is laugable to many, expecting them to make the leap of faith is a bit much.
I stand by my emotionally hollow comment. I was struck continuously throught this film with a peculiar sense of detachment and unreaility to the characters. Like watching people trying to look like certain kinds of characters without behaving in a believably human sort of way. Mel suffered in the extreme in this regard - playing a bitter man who has lost his faith as though that would mean the person would be an emotional blank. It was like watching a walking & talking piece of cardboard. Instead of organic characters the motivations provided by the script seemed too forced and literate to be believable to me.
And the kids were straight out of Lucas / Spielberg - in a way that was so obvious I would think you would have to try in order to miss it.
Groundbreaking? The guys made one good film and a couple of flawed ones. This one is certainly more interesting than the last. But groundbreaking? Hardly. And his +++++SPOILER ALERT++++++ contrived payoff ending of having Mel do what his dying wife nonsensically said months before to save his son is the sort of contrived plot twist this director is intent on wedging into everything he does. Finding out Willis was a ghost at the last moment, finding out Jackson is the villian who created the hero in the final scene and now Mel rediscovering his faith in following the nonsense words of his wife at the climax of this film to save the day.
Whats next from this groundbreaking director?
Somehow, I suspect more of the same.
joe
I can only hope we get more of the same. Layered well thought out film making that touches every emotion. In this day and age of sequels, movies based on TV shows, and sequels of movies based on TV shows I'll take all the "same" stuff I can get from this film maker.
1
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
