Is it that you find out the Aliens have travelled millions of miles to trade either The Big Gun or The Good Thing for a simple glass of water?
Oh wait. That was a different movie*
Absimia
*not actually a spoiler, 'cause you learn this very early on. Real Men. Jim Belushi, John Ritter, a movie that is probably no where near as funny as I remember it being.
I’m really glad I opened this thread. Despite the oddness and hype of the commercials for it, I had considered seeing “Signs”.
I did not, however, notice that it was directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Knowing that, now, you couldn’t drag me to this thing with a Sherman tank.
The man’s two previous major works, while nicely filmed, were so incredibly insulting to the viewer, so pretentious, so spoonfed and so laden with overly done hamfisted symbolism I think I’ll save my cash and rent The Godfather Part III.
Here is a cover-page story on Shyamalan in Newsweek hailing him as the next Spielberg.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/786013.asp?
The same issue has a pretty positive review of Signs.
Opinion on IMDB appearst to be mixed but probably more positive than negative with a rating of around 7.3.
When I first saw trailers for this movie I was sure that the movie would have some non-alien explanation for the crop circles - knowing it was from the same guy who did ‘The Sixth Sense’ and ‘Unbreakable’ I was certain that there would be an unexpected twist. Now I’m not sure I want to see it now that I know that they are caused by your typical big-eyed retarded aliens.
I was hoping for something more interesting, like maybe swarms of intelligent social insects that were making the corn bend by sucking fluids out of the stalks, or something even more far out.
I just saw it this afternoon. I rather liked it.
The thing that was so hokey (in a good way) about it, IMO, was that it placed a serious moral drama into the setting of a B-movie. Like everyone’s said, this was basic, straightforward alien invasion. I guess the story would work in another realm–terrorist attack, war story, natural disaster–but the alien setting added a particular fun, not-quite sci-fi dimension to the story. Hence, I didn’t mind the–ah–cheesy way the invasion part of the story is resolved, because it’s not really the central focus of the story.
I’m also starting to appreciate Shamalyn’s ability to play on audience fear. Movies don’t scare me much anymore; this one had me genuinely creeped out, much like Sixth Sense did. I think what worked so well was that he directed it from the family’s viewpoint in as many respects as he could–hence, we barely see the aliens; when the lights go out, the screen goes blank on us; we’re watching the television along with the family as the invasion progresses. (This last part in particular was pretty reminiscent of September 11, when we were all glued to our TVs as well.)
Oh, and this little point:
Shamalyan casts himself as a character in the story, albeit a minor one. His acting wasn’t bad–not great, but no complaints. Since I don’t remember him appearing in Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, I’m wondering if he’s decided to go Hitchcock on us. 'Course, Hitchcock never had more than a walk-on or bit role, as I recall.
I’m confused by this movie. I saw it today at a matinee showing (by the way, AMC Eisenhower raised its prices,ouch). I understand the use of water in the climax, I sort of understand the concept of having faith ( I think) when things are going bad, but I’m still confused by the ending. Would someone like to spoil this movie? Please use small words so that I understand. Thanks.
from the IMDb:
The Sixth Sense : Dr. Hill
Unbreakable :Stadium Drug Dealer
Signs : ‘Ray’ (I think) the man who kills Mel’s wife in an accident
I guess I should have pointed out that this was in response to a question that ResIpsaLoquitor raised - in his spoiler section above (I’ve been up too long).
Eh, I wasn’t too impressed. It just seemed too . . . straightforward . . . for a Shyamalan film. I kept expecting twists that never came.
Medstar, which show were you at? I saw the 1:35 one! I agree, $7 for a matinee is getting pretty high.
And the plot had holes big enough for the QE II to sail through.
Didn’t it rain anyplace the aliens landed? What about dew on the grass? Humidity in the air? They never thought about wearing protective suits or something?
Okay, Badtz Maru, thanks for spoiling the goddamned movie for me. I haven’t read any of the sections marked “Spoiler”, but apparently some folks don’t care to use them. Great. Well, I’ll still go see it today.
And Shyamalan did in fact appear in both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, in the former as a doctor, and in the latter as a drug courier.
I’m glad if this movie doesn’t have a big twist ending. Even though it was great in The Sixth Sense, it wasn’t what made the movie good; Shyamalan simply knows how to tell an engrossing story.
Horseflesh: I thought Shyamalan was convincing enough in the role that he gave himself. Unlike his previous two roles, it wasn’t a part that could have been easily excised from the movie if his acting was abominable. (On the DVD for The Sixth Sense, he confesses that he was so awful in his cameo as a doctor that he had almost all his lines edited out.)
Zoggie: No.
absimia: Wasn’t that the Good Package, instead of the Good Thing?
Badtz Maru: Naughty, naughty, for not using the spoiler box. Good thing I avoided opening this thread until after I saw the movie yesterday. 
Neidhart: I’m glad Shyamalan avoided having a twist at the end. The twists were good in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, but if he had done a third consecutive film involving a twist, I don’t think that would have been a good move on his part.
I liked Signs quite a bit. I would rank it higher than Unbreakable, and I haven’t made up my mind yet where it ranks relative to The Sixth Sense. What I’m really liking about Shyamalan’s approach is that he takes a story formula and takes a completely different approach to the material. And he demonstrates that you don’t need quick edits and an ear-bending soundtrack to create suspense (are you listening, Michael Bay?). Shyamalan’s approach also seems to minimize the use of splashy special effects, which may be surprising in light of the subject matter that he has tackled in his last two films and in this one.
One major surprise for me in this film (relax, no spoilers): there is considerably more humor in Signs than there was in Shyamalan’s previous two films. One scene in particular, a shot of Joaquin Phoenix on the couch with his nephew and niece, had me cracking up pretty hard (those of you who’ve seen it will know what I’m referring to).
Shyamalan is also getting fond of throwing red herrings at the audience. For instance:
There’s a moment where the Joaquin Phoenix character throws a rock into the cornfield. I kept expecting the movie to follow the cliche of something throwing the rock back at him, but it never happened.
The TV commercials for this movie are, I think, deliberately deceptive. It isn’t about what some people think it may be about.
Neidhart, I was at the 2:45pm showing. I can’t believe the prices: $7.00 for a matinee showing? At this rate, I guess I’ll just be seeing the twilight shows. At least they’re only $4.50 between 4:00-6:00pm on weekdays. Also Neidhart, your profile states that you live in Vienna, VA. Don’t they have new theaters out your way? Did you want to see Signs badly enough that you decided to drive all the way from Vienna to Alexandria?
I don’t drive; I took the Metro. Half a block from the Eisenhower Avenue station. Can’t beat that!
The only theater in Vienna proper closed in 1987 and is now a bike shop. The one at Tysons was built in 1990, doesn’t have stadium seating or self-serve butter, and is beginning to show its age.
(Aside: It seems like all the employees of the Cineplex Odeon theaters in the DC area nowadays are of the same ethnic group; I’d guess somewhere in South Asia.)
Just saw the movie; liked it a lot. Definitely a more straightforward narrative than his previous two movies. With Shyamalan, I tend not to pick logical holes in the plot, because it’s made up for with emotional depth. There were a lot of things that didn’t seem to make logical sense about the events in Signs, but I didn’t mind there being a lot of unanswered questions left; that’s really better than trying to explain everything.
I guess Bruce Willis can’t do all of Shyamalan’s movies. Actually, Mel Gibson was perfect for the part; he’s very believable as a family man. Maybe having those 36 kids doesn’t hurt. It’s funny; normally I wouldn’t be happy that a movie character regains religious faith; normally I’m completely against faith. But possibly it’s the best way for some people to live, and at least the subject was addressed in a mature way.
Gee, thanks, Neidhart!. You expressed my biggest problem with the movie. That flaw ruined it for me for sure.
But not completely. I was still entertained.
My wife and I went out last night and saw the new M. Night Shyamalan film, Signs. While it wasn’t quite as good as The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, it was still excellent, and well worth seeing in the theatre… perhaps more than once.
Mel Gibson fans will not be disappointed… this is one of his best performances ever. If you liked him in Man Without a Face, then you should like this. He’s not disfigured in Signs, but he has the same subtlety, reserve, and honesty in Signs that he had in that film.
Much of the film is distinctly creepy. Through excellent use of sound and minimal visuals, there are many scary moments. The best part is that most of the really scary stuff is left to your imagination, as you hear noises around Graham’s (Mel Gibson’s) house, or see shadows moving against an indistinct background. The only disappointing part in this regard was the ending, where you finally see what has been hidden for so long. It probably couldn’t have been done any other way, but as always, the imagination can create far more frightening creatures than Hollywood can. Most of the film depends upon the audience’s imagination, but the end gives away a little too much, especially since the rest of the film was so well-done.
There are also many funny moments in the film, as Atreyu pointed out, which was a pleasant surprise and gave the film a little more humanity than Shyamalan’s previous work. I didn’t expect a movie like this to have such an acute sense of humour, but it definitely made it more enjoyable. One of Mel’s lines early on – “I am insane with anger!” – got the whole audience laughing. It’s all in his delivery, and the context of course. See it and see what I mean. Even in one of the most emotionally wrenching moments, closer to the end, there is a touch of wit than made me laugh and cry all at the same time. It definitely lends a human warmth to what could have been a cold film.
Anyway… obviously, I quite liked it. I’d recommend this film to anyone, as long as you don’t mind being scared.
As to FallenAngel’s comments about Shyamalan being “hamfisted,” I can only disagree. I find that M. Night is a remarkably subtle director, and tends to trust his audience a great deal more than most directors do. Peter Weir does it a bit better, but M. Night has a remarkable faith that his audience is capableof drawing their own conclusions about his themes. Compared to Spielberg’s “Sledge-O-Matic” moralizing, M. Night is far preferable. Signs is a pretty good example of this, too.
Why am I getting all the blame for spoiling the movie? Mine was far from the first post to mention that the story was about an alien invasion.
I saw it last night (second date with that girl I’ve posted about) and I enjoyed it more than I expected. Though it did have tense and scary moments, the parts where the audience was laughing out loud outnumbered them. Very funny movie in some ways.
As to the complaints over the aliens’ weakness–I think Shamalayn made it cheesy on purpose. As I’ve said before, he’s writing a serious drama into a B-movie plot. Of course the aliens can be killed by something so simple–it’s so damn cliche, I’d be surprised not to see it.
And if this doesn’t bring it together, nothing will:
I mean, the whole movie is about “signs.” Remember Joaquin’s story about how he would have been puked on, but for the gum in his mouth? The conclusion was a slightly more elaborate version of that. Everything came together appropriately: Bo’s bad habit of leaving glasses of water everywhere around the house was incredibly serindipous (or, as Shamalayn would have it, divine providence) as it just happened to be the alien’s weakness. That tied together perfectly to the wife’s last words, Joaquin’s failing as a baseball player so he’d be with the family instead of in the major leagues, the son’s asthma, etc.
Of course, most of you Dopers know this. It’s just that Shamalayn was trying to make a theological point through a cheesy B-movie convention, and a lot of people seem to be missing that. Argh.
Maybe it’s the new “They’re heeeeeere!” 
Quasi