Defend your favorite movie! (Spoilers for SIGNS & other movies)

[Skald the Rhymer]

Everybody has at least one: a movie that the rest of the world -- or at least the rest of the Dope -- thinks is reeking donkey vomit, but when you think is brilliant. Among Dopers the hatred of such movies generally stems from perceived plot/characterization/plausibility flaws (or George Lucas being involved); we Teeming Millions can't abide lack of logic in our films. But the defenders of the unpopular films generally contend that their is a hidden logic the majority is overlooking.

Here's your chance to make your case.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I'll go first. Just to be nice, I'll use a spoiler box for this discussion of Signs

It's not hard to find threads in CS mocking this movie. I contend that those who denigrate it are missing a few key elements to understanding it. To wit:


1. It's not really a science-fiction story. It has science-fiction trappings, to be sure, but it's main theme is the loss and regaining of the faith of Graham Hess (Mel Gibson's character). The alien attack only the vehicle that moves the plot along, just as -- for instance -- the upcoming nuptials in My Best Friend's Wedding are a means of exposing Jules' fear of being emotionally open.

2. The aliens weren't trying to conquer the Earth. That's why their plan seems so incompetent; if you think this was an invasion movie, you're misreading things. As the radio announcer contends late in the film, what happened during the alien assault was a raid. Moreover, as I contend in another thread I'm too lazy to find and link to, they were engaging in a ritual of some sort designed to test the bravery of the participants, who deliberately handicapped themselves--no weapons, no clothing, choosing a planet that is largely toxic to them--to make it a real challenge.

3. You're not meant to think God is omnipotent in this movie. Powerful, yes, but even so Hess' deity is constrained in ways we cannot imagine, just as he has abilities we cannot imagine. Graham's God is a father to humanity. The clearest indication of this is the scene in the basement, in which Graham's son Morgan (Rory Culkin's character) is having his asthma attack, and Graham can only comfort him, talk to him, help him breathe both physically (by holding him) and indirectly (by talking him through it and helping him focus). Listen to Graham's words during this scene. Also consider the earlier bit with the family arguing around the table during what they think is there last meal on Earth. Morgan's rage at his father for letting his mother die stems from his not understanding the situation--because he is only a child, just as, in the Signs world, humans are only children compared to God.

4. You're not meant to believe that Morgan's book has all the correct answers to the aliens' motivation. Graham points out that the information in that book is too precise and detailed to be believable; there was no way for humans to have gotten that information. Morgan's UFO book is a symbol of humanity's quest to understand the universe in general and God in particular, which is doomed to always be inadequate because we lack the intellectual and spiritual maturity to accommodate our desire. We can get bits and pieces of the truth, but never all of it.

5. Never knowing the full story behind the defeat of the alien raiders is deliberate. The story's told from an everyman's perspective on purpose, because, as averred in point 1, the real point of the tale isn't the alien attack; it's the Hesses' coming to terms with their grief and regaining their faith. Just as in a real war--say WWII, during the Battle of Britain--the civilians never know the fullness of what was done to protect them, only glimpses and hints.


Next?

[bubastis]

I liked Signs, for one reason; It scared me enough that I didnt have time to pick holes in it. When Joaquin leaves the screen at the top of the basement stairs, for what seems like an eternity, I swear to God I was ready to run out the fuckin cinema if ANYTHING but Joaquin re-appeared.

[MaxTheVool]

I'm not a huge fan of Signs, but I'm sick of people ragging on it over and over and over and over again. In particular, the "yuck yuck wow they were dumb to conquer earth if they're allergic to water yuck yuck" criticism. Which is, in a weird way, SUCH an obvious and relevant criticism that either (a) the filmmaker was retarded, or (b) that wasn't the point. And whatever you might think of M Night's films, he's obviously a very deliberate and conscious filmmaker, so I think it has to be (b).


Another movie that gets bashed way more than it deserves, imo, is the recent War of the Worlds. I remember one doper saying something like "... it could have been closer to the book. Oh, yeah, like Spielberg ever READ the book...". I will bet a million to one odds that he not only had read the book, but spent a LOT of time thinking about how his movie should or should not follow the book. Maybe his choices were wrong. Maybe the happy ending was pointless and tacked on. But CLEARLY Steven Spielberg is not someone who makes big-budget adaptations of famous and seminal novels without having ever READ them. Please.



And then there's the Most Unfairly Bashed Movie Of All Time.... Titanic

[Max Torque]

Venerable SDMB member tracer wrote this gushing fan page for Shallow Hal (http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/ShallowHal.html) once upon a whenever. If that's not dedication to a cause, I don't know what is.

As for me, I would like to defend Cutthroat Island. Here's what it's got going for it:


Pirates! Pirates everywhere! Damn, I love pirate movies!
Loads of action. No long talkie bits about curses and whatnot, just a quest for a treasure, with lots of swordplay and cannon firing.
The final ship to ship battle, with cannons blazing as the two ships blow each other to pieces, is one of the coolest things I have seen in my entire life. I wish I'd seen it on the big screen.
The villain is superb. Dawg Brown, played by Frank Langella, is supremely evil, and his savage love of blood and carnage comes through brilliantly. It's a shame that the character is so little known. "We can't leave yet, captain, we haven't enough food on board." "We need less mouths." BANG.
And...erm....there's a monkey!

So, yeah. I love it. It doesn't deserve to be so universally ridiculed.

[Miller]

I, too, have stood up for Signs on the Dope before. I maintain that the aliens who built the space ship and the aliens attacking the humans are two entirely different species, and the kidnapping aliens are, themselves, slaves, tasked with getting an exotic new species for their masters. The aliens we see were perfect for this job: they've got natural defences, so you don't have to give them laser guns or anything else they might be able to turn on their masters. Plus, they've got that weakness to water, which means that, on Earth, they've got no choice but to do their job and return to their slave pens. Trying to escape and stay on Earth would be a death sentence.

[appleciders]

I think I'd have had less of a problem with Signs if I'd walked into it expecting something along the lines of spiritual cinema. But the trailers I saw played up the horror/scifi aspect, while so much of the movie was about Graham's personal spirituality. And I'm sorry, but Signs doesn't hold up as science fiction- besides the whole water thing, the idea that the aliens wouldn't use any of their technology to assist in collecting people seems silly without any reasoning backing it up. Miller and Skald, you guys both have plausible backstories (that I'd enjoy arguing about)- trouble is, I was expecting some backstory from M. Night Shyamalan. So I suppose my beef is more with the trailers promoting it as a science fiction/horror movie. Rewatching it recently, I must admit it does a pretty good job as a spiritual cinema type movie.

What, you want an answer to your first question? I refuse! But I'll defend a book.

I may be the only person I've ever met that enjoyed Battlefield Earth. It's borderline unreasonable premise, executed with some likewise questionable mechanisms (though nothing quite so bad as the movie. I refuse to defend the Harrier thing.). But it's a good adventure story, and if you can stomach the switch halfway through into a political intrigue, it's entertaining. I have never read anything else by L. Ron Hubbard, and don't really intend to. But I enjoyed Battlefield Earth

[Push You Down]

This was my defense for "Signs" last time on the Dope. "They are fucking aliens! Humanity's actions and thought processes make little sense a lot of the time and you want FUCKING ALIENS to make sense."

[Skald the Rhymer]

I may be the only person I've ever met that enjoyed Battlefield Earth.[/i]

Nah, I thought it was decent--the book, that is. I don't acknowledge the movie any more than I acknowledge that silly LOTR adaptation you guys keep claiming Peter Jackson made in EnZed.

[Cat Whisperer]

I think mine would be "The Core." Yes, I am aware that the science of it was deeply flawed (if I recall correctly, they did stick to the sci-fi convention of only one leap allowed. Mind you, theirs was a doozy, but still...). I don't care. It was a well-acted, well-paced, fun movie that I thoroughly enjoyed.

(And I loved "Titanic," too. So there. :p)

[Lazlo]

I have two. The first is Scooby Doo (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267913/). Matthew Lillard's Shaggy and Linda Cardellini's Velma are enjoyment enough. However, the fact that the monsters ended up being real this time was the icing on the cake.

The other is Event Horizon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119081/). A quote from D.J. pretty much sums up why I like it so much: "Look, if what Doctor Weir tells us is true, this ship has been beyond the boundaries of our universe, of known scientific reality. Who knows where it's been, what it's seen. Or what it's brought back with it." As far as horror movies go, the scenes are pretty run-of-the-mill, but the premise really hooked me.

Okay. I really liked Titanic too.

[Lazlo]

Oh, I almost forgot. Skald the Rhymer's point #2 about Signs actually improved the movie for me a whole lot.

[devilsknew]

Am I the only one who came away from Signs understanding the implication was that the Aliens were on a Harvest? They were on a raid... but it was for food. I thought that was the announcer's allusion? They had come to make us chattle.

[devilsknew]

Cattle... you need provisions on an interstellar trip.

[ululate]

Cattle... you need provisions on an interstellar trip.

Yeah, cattle in need of a steady supply of water.

[Johnny Ecks]

I'm just gonna say this about signs- why does everyone think that those things were aliens? Did we see spaceships? no. Did we see alien technology? no. Did the monsters claim to be aliens? no. They might have been aliens- but they might have been demons, or gremlins or CHUDs for all we know. The characters call them aliens, but they don't know anything more than we do- and we don't know anything.

[Dunderman]

Miller and Skald, you guys both have plausible backstories (that I'd enjoy arguing about)- trouble is, I was expecting some backstory from M. Night Shyamalan.Exactly. You can fanwank till the cattle beasts come home, but in the end the movie just lacked what it obviously should have had.

Well, that, and I didn't find it scary at all. Ridiculous, more like.

[Cat Whisperer]

Exactly. You can fanwank till the cattle beasts come home<snip>
Cool. I know what I'm doing this afternoon. :cool:

[RealityChuck]

I think I'd have had less of a problem with Signs if I'd walked into it expecting something along the lines of spiritual cinema. But the trailers I saw played up the horror/scifi aspect, ]That was a foolish mistake. Never assume a trailer is a description of the film. It's only there to get you to go, and if they find a hook -- even if that hook's irrelevant to the film -- then that's what they'll use.

But it's wrong to blame the film for its inept marketing.

I liked Signs. And, yes, it's a science fiction film -- science fiction does not have to have good science and, I'll argue, it's not about science at all.

For my own choice, I'll go with Ishtar (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman/ishtar.htm). See link for reasons.

[MovieMogul]

As for me, I would like to defend Cutthroat Island. Here's what it's got going for it:


Pirates! Pirates everywhere! Damn, I love pirate movies!
Loads of action. No long talkie bits about curses and whatnot, just a quest for a treasure, with lots of swordplay and cannon firing.
The final ship to ship battle, with cannons blazing as the two ships blow each other to pieces, is one of the coolest things I have seen in my entire life. I wish I'd seen it on the big screen.
The villain is superb. Dawg Brown, played by Frank Langella, is supremely evil, and his savage love of blood and carnage comes through brilliantly. It's a shame that the character is so little known. "We can't leave yet, captain, we haven't enough food on board." "We need less mouths." BANG.
And...erm....there's a monkey!

So, yeah. I love it. It doesn't deserve to be so universally ridiculed.Although I'm not really buying any of your reasons, and genuinely feel that CI is an absolutely terrible movie, I am still compelled to come to its (limited) defense for one reason:

John Debney's score is absolutely brilliant--one of the best from the 90s and perhaps the best score ever written for a terrible movie. I listen to the soundtrack all the time, and whistfully imagine what a good movie might've looked like accompanied by this score. The movie itself is too cacophonous to fully appreciate everything Debney does, so even if you've never seen the movie, I wholeheartedly recommend buying the CD.

[Push You Down]

Exactly. You can fanwank till the cattle beasts come home, but in the end the movie just lacked what it obviously should have had.

Well, that, and I didn't find it scary at all. Ridiculous, more like.


In the situation and location that the movie focused on.. there was NO WAY that the characters would have learned anything about the aliens/creatures. It was about normal everyday people. This wasn't about the scientist sudying them, the general tasked with battling them or the president who has to negotiate with them.

[Darwin's Finch]

Another defender of Signs here. I don't get the whole "but water is dangerous to them!" attack on the movie. So what? How often, during the non-rainy season, does anyone come into contact with water they did not actually seek out? I know that I am not in danger of being doused, or even encountering so much of a drop of water, as I walk down the street this time of year. And who cares that the surface of the planet is 75% covered with the stuff? The people the aliens were nabbing didn't live in the frickin' ocean!

Indeed, were it not for the water-related quirks of the daughter, the alien who nabbed the kid would likely have gotten away. There doesn't tend to be a lot of random standing water around the average household, either, after all.

It is entirely feasible to carry out a raid (a successful one, even) on a planet covered with water and never even come into contact with the stuff. I don't buy the aliens' vulnerability to water as a valid criticism of the movie, personally.

[Miller]

Exactly. You can fanwank till the cattle beasts come home, but in the end the movie just lacked what it obviously should have had.


You mean an explanation about what the aliens were?

That's why it was so good. Too many sci-fi movies over explain their own premise. Signs wasn't about the generals and presidents who have access to all the information about what all is going on in the world. It's about the average people who are scared and confused and have no idea what's happening, and have no way of finding out. That alone makes it worthwhile.

Plus there's the obvious connection to the films religious themes. "Mysterious ways," and all that. I admit, the movie has its flaws, but a lack of a backstory isn't one of them: in fact, that's the film's biggest strength.

[Draelin]

Well, I'll admit that I don't like Signs. Didn't like it when I watched it in the theater, and haven't seen it since. But I don't dislike it because I thought the aliens were stupid or because the trailer tricked me into watching a movie about faith. I didn't like it because it made two hours feel like three days. If you like it, more power to you. Just don't ask me to come over for a screening. :)

As for Cutthroat Island--I always thought it was fun. Masterpiece? Hell, no. But fun. Max, I'm sure you noticed how the "trapped below in a sinking ship" bit got reused for Pirates of the Carribbean. ;)

I will step up with Hysterical (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085704/). I love this movie. Zombies, slapstick, satire, it's got it all, baby! Charlie Callas! Julie Newmar! Richard Kiel! Bud Cort! Kate Hudson's dad! Ferris Bueller's mom! If nothing else, John Larroquette's small part as Bob X. Cursion is sheer brilliance. "If you look over the right side of the boat, you'll see everything that's on the right side of the boat. If you look over the left side of the boat, you'll see everything that's on the ... right side of the boat, because we've been going in circles for the last few minutes."

Oh, and I like Titanic, too. It's what I do with snow days.

[Autumn Almanac]

I agree that Signs is a better movie than most people give it credit for. To my mind though, M. Night's masterpiece is the much-loathed The Village.

Other unpopular/misunderstood movies I'll defend to the death, off the top of my head: Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, A.I., Mean Girls, Terminator 3, and Tenchi Muyo! In Love 2.

[Steve MB]

How often, during the non-rainy season, does anyone come into contact with water they did not actually seek out?

[Looks at humidifier. Notes nonzero reading.]

Rather often, I'd say.

[Morbo]

Movies I own that some people consider silly: Dark City, The Arrival and...the Star Wars prequels. I liked them. There, I said it.

[Push You Down]

My turn to defend the undefensible...

Uwe Boll's HOUSE OF THE DEAD

It is a terrible movie. But it is so insane, so nonsensical, so unbelievably awesome.. I force people to watch it. Ed Wood movies at their best are mildly amusing.. alot of them are just dull. Boll movies are flaming trainwrecks speeding toward an orphanage of amputee albinos. You have to watch. You can't miss a thing.

Tom Green's Freddy Got Fingered. Except for two scenes (the horse jerkin' and the licking the protruding bone scenes) I laugh almost nonstop at this surreal comedy.

[Linty Fresh]

OK, I'm going to get flamed for this, and deservedly so, but I'm gonna step into the ring for McHale's Navy (http://imdb.com/title/tt0119640/). This was in IMDB's Bottom 100 for a couple of years, and everyone here seems to loathe it.

Yeah so it was goofy. Yeah so the ending and half the jokes were telegraphed a mile away. Yeah so it starred Tom Arnold.

But you know what? It worked for me. I liked the whole goofy charm of the movie, even with all the cliches. (Oh yeah, the incompetent O-1. That's a first!!)

Then again this movie had Bruce Campbell, and we all know the rule about how no Bruce Campbell movie can totally suck (Looks at Alien Apocalypse and Man with the Screaming Brain) . . . OK, we're all aware of the general guideline about how Bruce Campbell movies usually don't totally suck.

And I liked Tim Curry in this, how he keeps getting miffed and killing henchmen while rationalizing it to his East German shrink. And the scenes in Cuba with Tommy Chong and David Allen Grier pretending to be Castro were hilarious.

And hell, even Tom Arnold wasn't that bad. He had some good lines and good timing, and I liked his little potbellied pig.

Not Masterpiece Theater, but I'd definitely watch it on a rainy day.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I agree that Signs is a better movie than most people give it credit for. To my mind though, M. Night's masterpiece is the much-loathed The Village.

Other unpopular/misunderstood movies I'll defend to the death, off the top of my head: Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, A.I., Mean Girls, Terminator 3, and Tenchi Muyo! In Love 2.

Um...you didn't actually defend anything, wm--. You just named films you WOULD defend. :rolleyes:

[Autumn Almanac]

You just named films you WOULD defend. :rolleyes:
Sorry, is that not allowed in your thread?

[JohnBckWLD]

Over a day and still no Warren Beatty or Dustin Hoffman fans to defend the buddy film genre?

[Manny]

Let me have a go at Star Trek V


As a 4 line concept it is by far the best of the Star Trek Films. Enterprise gets commandered, Enteprise gets taken to centre of galaxy where hijacker knows how to remove barrier, Kirk meets God, finds out that he's not omnipotent and really just a whiney bitch, Spock kills God.

Now this summary iteslf, in a Star Trek Film, would be enough for me to at least give it a passing grade. I personally found the action, from the point Sybock hijacks the ship, (Find some other sucker to defend Row, Row, Row your Boat or Uhura's dances), pretty entertaing and certainly no worse than most other Star Trek films.

[Darwin's Finch]

[Looks at humidifier. Notes nonzero reading.]

Rather often, I'd say.

If it were that simple, they'd have been screaming in agony the second they touched down. Clearly, they weren't, so I would surmise that water vapor is not terribly hazardous to them, and is thus irrelevant.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Sorry, is that not allowed in your thread?

Hey, I'm no thread fascist; I just like to encourage discussion.

[Skald the Rhymer]

If it were that simple, they'd have been screaming in agony the second they touched down. Clearly, they weren't, so I would surmise that water vapor is not terribly hazardous to them, and is thus irrelevant.

Acually I thought the possibility of rain was being referred to.

[RealityChuck]

Over a day and still no Warren Beatty or Dustin Hoffman fans to defend the buddy film genre?I already mentioned Ishtar, their one buddy film together.

[Kythereia]

Okay.

Yes, the concept of midichlorians sucked to the nth power of sucking times suck.

Yes, Jar-Jar Binks and the Gungans should be taken out and shot at dawn.

Yes, the kid definitely had his irritating moments.

But you know what?

Episode I was not half-bad entertainment. I didn't mind sitting through it. I might even sit through it again.

[Joools]

The final ship to ship battle, with cannons blazing as the two ships blow each other to pieces, is one of the coolest things I have seen in my entire life. I wish I'd seen it on the big screen.

Let me assure you, it was AWESOME in the theater.

The plot and acting were nothing to write home about, but I thought the set pieces were outlandish and oversized, enjoyable for being so absurd. IMO the movie's ambition and excess -- the things that were its undoing -- were also its greatest strengths.

[appleciders]

That was a foolish mistake. Never assume a trailer is a description of the film. It's only there to get you to go, and if they find a hook -- even if that hook's irrelevant to the film -- then that's what they'll use.

But it's wrong to blame the film for its inept marketing.


You're entirely correct here, and I'm not blaming M. Night for it (unless he had something to do with the trailers), but it still colored my expectations.

I liked Signs. And, yes, it's a science fiction film -- science fiction does not have to have good science and, I'll argue, it's not about science at all.

And you and I are just going to disagree there- nothing pops me out of the moment like bad science. I agree, though, that that movie is not about science, which was much more apparent to me on seeing it years later, free of trailer bias.

[devilsknew]

The obscurity of the alien origin is deliberate in Signs. It is craft, M. Nights craft. There is an open end to his movies that are eventually defined by his telekinetic shift- the twist. That is Signs beauty, it isn't defined by the obvious. Most people want something that they understand unequivocally, conformed. Shymalan gives to individuals. The onusis dependant on each viewers fears. Truly his art.

[Dunderman]

What Signs should have had is either (a) an explanation or (b) an interesting mystery. Take The Usual Suspects, a film I love. At the end of it, we know nothing. There are more questions than answers. But it's done as an interesting mystery. Now, in Signs, there are no questions, just dumb answers. The movie is a bunch of plot holes sewn together with a bunch of clichés.

devilsknew, I loved Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and The Village, so I don't think this is a matter of me not understanding Shyamalan's art. It's a matter of Signs being a shitty movie.

[Happy Clam]

Look, I can buy Signs as odd science fiction, and I can buy it as a metaphor for faith (with the aliens being a plot-based agency that could equally be criminals, demons or killer bunny rabbits), but why does water kill them? Is there some sybollism I'm just not getting here?

[Menocchio]

Look, I can buy Signs as odd science fiction, and I can buy it as a metaphor for faith (with the aliens being a plot-based agency that could equally be criminals, demons or killer bunny rabbits), but why does water kill them? Is there some sybollism I'm just not getting here?
Who knows. The thing that really sold Signs to me was its realism.

Yes, I mean it.

If Aliens (and I mean that in the generic sense of "others", not strictly extraterrestrials) appeared, we wouldn't know the first thing about them. Where they came from, what they wanted, how their physiology worked, nothing whatsoever. And if they vansished as quickly as they appeared (as they did in the film), we may never know. Scientists and the governments they report to may be able to shed some light, but the average farmer and his family wouldn't know anything at all. All they could do is cower in the basement until it passes. This, I think, is how it would be. There's a certain arrogance in the normal sci-fi convention that alien motivations and reasoning would seem at all rational to humans. Why should they be? They're aliens.

So, why did water hurt the aliens? Why did they come in the first place? Why didn't they protect against such an obvious weakness? Will they return, and if so, will they be wearing ponchos next time?

Why did the mother die?

God only knows. And He ain't telling. But, at least in the Signs universe, He will give us the tools and clues we need to get through the day.

Anyway, my pet theory is that the aliens are a slave/drone race and the water weakness is engineered so the masters can control them. If the humans manage to take a few gross out with it, meh, they'll just make more. But that's not really strongly supported, nor should it be. The aliens aren't the point. The point is how the family deals with the intrusion of something they can't understand into their lives.

Now, M Night's performance. That's something I won't defend.

[Dunderman]

The point is how the family deals with the intrusion of something they can't understand into their lives.If there only were a way to make that point without making a stupid movie. Wait! There is a way! That way I just said!

[tashabot]

I'm gonna have to pitch in on Signs.

I hated it. Not because it was a bad movie. The plot didn't bother me. And it wasn't necessarily scary. I'm just a very jumpy person, and there were a lot of ....just...jumpy, startling parts in that movie. I slept with my light on for a week after that movie came out. And the field across the street from my house freaked me out if I had to go outside to my car at night.

One movie I actually liked, despite the fact that it had very little good science in it, was The Day After Tomorrow. I hate Jake Gyllenhal, but he did pretty good in this movie. Yes, the wolves acted weird, and yes, Dennis Quaid overacted (although I know a lot of scientist types who act just like that), and yes, the science was flawed - it just made for a good movie. Movies aren't necessarily good or based in reality.

Another couple that I really liked were Pitch Black and the Chronicles of Riddick. Once again, not very good as far as being reality-based, but good movies nonetheless, despite the presence of Vin Diesel.

~Tasha