Night is a fucking genius. Very well done. It is not a monster movie per se, more of an examination of a man, his family, and his faith. Truly an adult movie, in the best sense of the term. Gibson gives a great performance. Go see it if you are in the mood for a quality film.

you can’t be serious… this movie was terrible. Nothing like watching a wuss who’s too afraid to defend his family. this is a good movie to suck the testosterone right out of you.maybe mel gibson was growing soy crops out there instead of corn.

When my parents were growing up they would see alien invasion movies where the people actually fought back. They got out the guns and pipes and went to town. Now apparently they just hide in the closet and watch tv.

And why in the name of god would aliens who can’t take water land on a planet 75% covered in the stuff.

Excellent movie. Very fine film making. M. Night rules. But I too was a little pissed that no adult in the house thought of arming himself, not counting that scene in the end. Maybe it has something to do with the Gibson character being a reverend? Not sure, but I was about to yell at the screen “You live on a farm, surely you have a gun or a shovel or a pointy stick or something!!!”

Still, it was suspense at its finest. Sci-fi for smart people, as opposed to Men in Black which was sci-fi for 10 year olds. Wonder what Patricia thinks? You out there, you buff movie buff you?

We should note to others that haven’t seen the movie that this discussion may contain spoiler info.


Signs is terrific. M.Night has total control over his audience, making you tense, laugh, gasp, and scream exactly when he wants you to. The most interesting thing about this movie to me is what a great sense of humor M.Night has. Not a joke fell flat and I laughed more here than I did in Austin Powers. My only complaint would be how let down I was by the last 20 minutes or so. The movie builds to a point where a world wide invasion is about to take place, then suddenly reverts back to a small scale finale.

I think you missed the point. It is not really an alien invasion movie. The aliens provide the background and suspense, but the movie is about the reverend’s struggle with his faith. Also, if you go into a movie ready to judge the characters against your own standards of behavior, I think you will always be disappointed. The job of the screenwriter is to create a world and characters real enough to get us to suspend our disbelief and give ourselves over to the movie. Night is great at this. I loved this movie, even though I am an atheist, and cannot rally relate to the whole faith thing. Gibson was flawless, and Night may be the best ever at working with child actors.

huck: we’re back from the Comic Con - I gotta a ton of movie news! But that’ll be later. Today we’ll see this or Austin Powers. I’ll be sure to let you know what I think!

TEK: I agree with your one line synopsis of M. Night (I won’t even attempt his last name…): “sci fi for smart people.” While Ko thought Unbreakable rather dull, I found it a refreshing view of the comic book super hero mythology. Does anyone know that M. Night bases alot (if not all) of his themes on Eastern Religious Philosophy? VERY fascinating. He has taken what Alan Moore did in “Watchmen” several steps beyond. Great stuff.

Ko and I wanted to go see a "light and fluffy" movie tonight after a intense week of Comic Con - so we saw "AP: Goldmember". LOVE the beginning - that alone was worth the price of (matinee) admission. As well as the "subtitle" sequence and the "peeing" statue. NOW, I'm ready to go see SIGNS, which we'll see this weekend. And after that, gotta see Stuart Little2. OH, btw: I'm not a huge Disney fan, but we went to the tale end of a Disney panel at the Con. The panel consisted of the lead animators for the upcoming "Treasure Planet" flick. BEAUTIFUL animation. From what we saw, this could be Disney's best work. Five years in the making, folks.

I really like the fact that much was left to the imagnination. It was not only realistic, but the things you imagine are much more vivid than a special effect could ever achieve. By the time they did show an alien at the end, everyone in the theatre jumped and a few screamed. Excellent movie making!

Oh yeah, everyone watching Goldmember applauded when Britney was blown up. I thought that was funny.

Hey, TEK, have you read Ebert’s review of “Signs” yet? VERY good. Check it out: ebert1/wkp-news-signs02f.html (eliminate the space at “/” and “ebert…”).

And yeah, people in our audience laughed quite heartily at the Brintney scene, too.

Go see this before more reviews spoil it for you. Ebert is correct (of course, he agrees with me). Night is just as good as the old A.H. when it comes to suspense. Mel gives possibly an Oscar performance.

The plan is to see this flick this weekend or Monday night. I want to see it ASAP! I have a tendency to know all about a movie LONG before it’s even released. The joy of movies for me is more of the “making of” or “behind the scenes”. So getting to know the plot before seeing the flick has never been an issue. Until M. Night. SO, my goal is to see this thing ASAP! Patricia :slight_smile:

I thought overall this was a great movie. The suspense the jokes and how it all tied in together at the end. I agree it was more about a man’s faith than aliens. Now my problems with the movie. Could not space fareing aliens make a fucking rain coar…ie: a completely sealed plastic suit to protect them from the water? How about taking a gun with them? I know they can’t use superior weapons or we’ll use the nukes. This doesn’t make sense because if they started winning at any point regardless of their methods would we not just nuke the entire earth to spite the bastards. Lastly these people navigated inter stellar space yet they need to make land marks in corn fields to navigate on earth? Hello gps anyone or something better??? In defense of the movie I can see maybe the aliens never invented guns etc. because they had natural weapons ie: claws and posin gas. And possibly there minds and thinking paturns were alien too so they had to use the geometric symbols to navigate. But they could still have thought to make a damn plastic suit to protect themselves from water. :slight_smile:

Ok, when wierd stuff starts happening and you get scared I would go buy a gun, or steal a gun. Maybe even multiple guns. It almost reminds me of Austin Powers when they put him in the shark tank. I can go get a gun right now and we can shoot him and it will be over. I know that isn’t the right quote but hey. Maybe even go on a vacation for awhile to get away from this crazy stuff happening at your house.

BTW, the guy in Signs that hits Mel’s wife with the car is none other than M. Night Shyamalan himself. He was also the drug dealer in Unbreakable and “Dr. Hill” in The Sixth Sense. He’s also on the cover of Time this week (or maybe last week). He’s, in short, da man!

I thought the movie was pretty good. Not great, but very interesting. The suspense was top notch and both my wife and I jumped out of our seat a few times.

I loved how the image of the aliens were left up to the imagination until the end. The last seen where the alien is shown in full view proved to be very dissapointing.

After seeing the alien up close and personal, it took most of the suspense and fear from me. It became too fake as compared to the earlier seens where the alien's image was left up to the imagination and only glimpses were seen.

…(and to continue with TEK’s post about M. Night…) - his “cameos” bug the major shit out of me. Sorry, had no other way to say it. While Hitchcock did it himself, but was more “reserved” in his ways: walking out of a elevator, in a crowd in the back of a scene, etc.: M. Night’s are WAY too involved and too distracting. For that moment he’s in the film, you are TAKIN OUT of the story (that is fascinating) and are noticing the fact that well, he ain’t that great of an actor.

So, we finally saw this last night. I liked it very much. M. Night's movies require "quiet involvement" from it's audiences. You silently notice the little quirks of a character's persona. I liken his movies to a"canvas" where he builds his movies: starting with the characters' twitches, gestures, idiosyncracies and he adds to the layers. LIke in a painting, you build and build and THEN you sit back and see the whole piece. I can see M. Night sitting in a diner, cafe or even pub. Quietly surveying the patrons - and only noticing, watching the people who are eating, drinking alone and are quite involved in their own thoughts.

The little details in this movie are what struck me: Merrill's reading of the army pamplet, the use of a baby monitor, the old radio in the cellar - there were more: but I would spoil it for others if I listed them here. But M. Night populates his movies with these rather "loving" details rather than peppers his movies with alot more insignificant characters. Cuz, if you noticed there are only four main characters and then maybe 3 other supporting characters. That's it. And the interest never waivers. Pretty cool, if you ask me.