Signs

No shit. I don't take movies as seriously as some, so it was ok.

 

it wasn't that good of a movie, and i think that m. night has to quit his celluloid masturbation before anyone takes him seriously again. he goot too big, too fast.

gutter, hitchcock knew something about imagination, suspense and tension. those were original thoughts.

there was nothign original in this movie. it was boring. no suspense. i didn't really care how it ended. that last five minutes was hollywood crap.

 

c'mon D. comparing M. Night, who I don't think is even in his 30's to the late great Hitchcock is completely unfair. I think for his first three movies they were all incredible. He's an excellent storyteller.

It wasn't your typical "what's the gov't doing about the invasion, with all the special effects and all that jazz. It was from the POV of a family who has nothing to do with stopping the invasion. Not your typical "and only one man can stop the aliens..." type of bs.

Unbreakable has never been done beore. Once again, not the can the superhero stop the villian type movie, but a more personal relationship between the two.

I really liked all three very much. A lot of suspense, not built around millions and million spent on special effects and shit I could care less about. His time and energy went to the story itself and the characters. Try watching it again.

 

No, it really did suck. It was great for the first 1:30 mins. Then it went Independence Day. Unbreakable I had to watch a second time to actually understand and eventually like, but Signs was awful. M. Night needs to let someone in to help with the writing, it's obvious he's starting to run dry on the creative end.

 

it's not an unfair comparison at all. everybody and their montehr has said he's the next hitchock -- time even called him the next speilberg.

at least speilberg's movies are entertaining -- and positive. i'm not even sure what mesages m. night is trying to give. signs sounded like a sermon about having faith. i think. i dont know. it was a mess.

and his movies are so cliche-ridden -- i mean, a glass of water that melts the bad guy? where have we seen that one before? mel gibson's performance was cookie-cutter (the preacher that's lost his faith and questions god -- yawn). the brother that gave up pro baseball...yawn...the littel girl that saw her brother die in a dream...yawn...

he's no great storyteller or character builder -- yet -- and you know the endings before they start.

hitchock was an original. m. night borrows.

 

It worked well conceptually. You wanted agatha christe and it's not a plot movie at all, but a concept movie. I would have been a neat little low budget movie it mel wasn't in it, he was the weakest link. You spent too much time looking at the trees not the forest.