Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Subject: Signs
Did anyone see this movie? I thought it needed alot more action, and I hardly understood the point of the story. Not the best Mel Gibson movie.
Subject: Re: Signs
Signs was not meant to be an action movie.
One of the problems with M. Night Shyamalan's movies is that they require you to think, to actually get inside the movie and then say, "Ooooh! I remember that! That makes so much sense now!" In that, it is more than a thriller or an action movie, it's a thinking movie.
I thought it was a good movie, but if you need explosions, I suggest the Die Hard trilogy. Those were some of the best action movies of all time.
Subject: Re: Signs
I think "Signs" was less about aliens and more about testing the faith of the character Mel Gibson played. I really enjoyed this movie...more than that, I enjoyed looking at Mel. ;)
Subject: Re: Signs
I really like the movie but the ending was kind of predictable with the water being the aliens one weakness cause they gave several clues throughout the movie about the water. Heck even Shyamalan's character said that they didnt like water when he left for the cabin near the lake. But other than that it was a good movie, i enjoyed it.
Subject: Re: Signs
LOL. Well...it's not that I expected the movie to include explosions, because I personally don't like too much action. I meant that it needed to have more action, as in the story of the movie.
Subject: Re: Signs
I also like M. Night Shyamalan's "surprise" effects. The only thing I didn't like was Mel Gibson's logic. Like he talks about the last thing his wife said and then goes "There is nobody looking out for us." I mean, I just don't see where that connects! Oh well...
BTW, I thought the little girl was pretty funny. :)
Subject: Re: Signs
Quoting:
I also like M. Night Shyamalan's "surprise" effects. The only thing I didn't like was Mel Gibson's logic. Like he talks about the last thing his wife said and then goes "There is nobody looking out for us." I mean, I just don't see where that connects! Oh well...
BTW, I thought the little girl was pretty funny. :)
End Quote
Dude, don't give away the movie to people who haven't seen it! :o
As to your query...they were stuck, and Mel knew they had to take care of the problem themselves. So yeah, it fits.
You should put a spoiler alert on this thread, this is a good movie and shouldn't be ruined by someone telling you the ending.
Subject: Re: Signs
It was alright. I liked it better than "Unbreakable".
Subject: Re: Signs
Quoting:
It was alright. I liked it better than "Unbreakable".
End Quote
Unbreakable was actually a good movie too, but the thing is it made you think a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle TOO much. Signs toned it down a tad :)
Subject: Re: Signs
I like movies that make you think a whole lot that is why i like "Vanilla Sky" when a lot of other people i knew didnt and that also why "Usual Suspects" is one of my favorite movies. Well got off topic alittle bit there. sorry! Out of Shyamalyn's three big movies so far "Signs" is the middle one in my opinion.
Quoting:
Unbreakable was actually a good movie too, but the thing is it made you think a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle TOO much. Signs toned it down a tad :)
End Quote
Subject: Re: Signs
Without a doubt, "The Sixth Sense" is his best to date. :)
Subject: Re: Signs
Yes i totally agree there.
Quoting:
Without a doubt, "The Sixth Sense" is his best to date. :)
End Quote
Subject: Re: Signs
Quoting:
Dude, don't give away the movie to people who haven't seen it! :o
As to your query...they were stuck, and Mel knew they had to take care of the problem themselves. So yeah, it fits.
You should put a spoiler alert on this thread, this is a good movie and shouldn't be ruined by someone telling you the ending.
End Quote
HEY! I DIDN'T GIVE ANYTHING AWAY! I think Kenlos's post was more of a spoiler than MINE was!
Subject: Re: Signs
I like all three. Signs is excellent, I love the subtlety and yes, this is a thinking persons film. Shyamalan tries to give clues for you to catch on throughout his films, like the water. I loved Joaquin and the two children sitting on the couch with the foil hats. I was not disappointed at all and am going to watch it again very soon. I thought of it less as a horror/scare/action film (those are pretty common and not always this well done) and more as a lose/find faith film.
Subject: Re: Signs
Ooh, I saw this movie just last weekend!
All in all it was a good movie, didn't need any action scenes. It was more of a suspense, sort of. It kept me in suspense to know what the creature looked like.
Subject: Re: Signs
Quoting:
Ooh, I saw this movie just last weekend!
All in all it was a good movie, didn't need any action scenes. It was more of a suspense, sort of. It kept me in suspense to know what the creature looked like.
End Quote
OOOOOH! Cyclops the Anteater cries "FOUL!" But I guess everyone knows the movie is about aliens anyway ;)
Glad you enjoyed it :D
Subject: Re: Signs
Here's a great review of the movie, and why the whole idea of aliens being afraid of water is stupid:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/signs.html
;D
Subject: Re: Signs
I don't know that I would call it a "great" review....this guy holds the film "Independence Day" as one of the standards for science fiction films.... :-X.This critic got a little obsessive on the "accuracy" of why the aliens were invading the world in this story. Someone please tell them it's a work of fiction. And an excellent one, at that, IMO. Well worth watching if you are intelligent, and like subtle humor with spine chilling suspense, which is something Shyamalan's films always have.
Subject: Re: Signs
Quoting:
This critic got a little obsessive on the "accuracy" of why the aliens were invading the world in this story. End Quote
Well, it's an astronomy site, after all. The whole purpose of his reviews is to point out the mistakes, and he's right: why would you invade a planet that's 80% water when it's instantly fatal to you? It would be like moving into a house filled with carbon monoxide!
Subject: Re: Signs
Quoting:
Well, it's an astronomy site, after all. The whole purpose of his reviews is to point out the mistakes, and he's right: why would you invade a planet that's 80% water when it's instantly fatal to you? It would be like moving into a house filled with carbon monoxide!End Quote
LOL! That's right. That was almost exactly my thought by the end of the movie.
Subject: Re: Signs
Quoting:
Well, it's an astronomy site, after all. The whole purpose of his reviews is to point out the mistakes, and he's right: why would you invade a planet that's 80% water when it's instantly fatal to you? It would be like moving into a house filled with carbon monoxide!
End Quote
I thought of that maybe a week after watching the movie, but that does not take away from the fact that it was an enjoyable and spinetingling experience. The camera work in that movie was incredible in terms of keeping the viewer on edge.
Subject: Re: Signs
Quoting:
I think "Signs" was less about aliens and more about testing the faith of the character Mel Gibson played. I really enjoyed this movie...more than that, I enjoyed looking at Mel. ;)
End Quote
I agree with ya here!! ;D
Subject: Re: Signs
Proves that one mans trash is another mans treasure. I guess it depends upon what a person is looking for in a film. I loved it. ;)