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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
[Looks at humidifier. Notes nonzero reading.]
Rather often, I’d say.
Movies I own that some people consider silly: Dark City, The Arrival and…the Star Wars prequels. I liked them. There, I said it.
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.
OK, I’m going to get flamed for this, and deservedly so, but I’m gonna step into the ring for McHale’s Navy. 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.
Um…you didn’t actually defend anything, wm–. You just named films you WOULD defend. :rolleyes:
Sorry, is that not allowed in your thread?
Over a day and still no Warren Beatty or Dustin Hoffman fans to defend the buddy film genre?
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.
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.
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.
Hey, I’m no thread fascist; I just like to encourage discussion.
Acually I thought the possibility of rain was being referred to.
I already mentioned Ishtar, their one buddy film together.
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.
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.
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.
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.