Mel Gibson and the Crop Circles, what a crap!

[Arnwyn]

This visual served no purpose except to mislead the viewer.

Oh, absolutely - I was agreeing with you. You said "it felt like dirty pool", and I agreed when I quoted you - it was dirty pool.

 

[Arnwyn]

Sure it is. That's why he used it. He knew people would jump to the unwarranted assumption, and counted on it.

The warranted assumption, of course. See my post about opening shots and filmmaking 101.

Playing on your assumptions is his stock in trade. When seeing a movie with his name listed as director, one should expect such things.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, though. Shyamalan has proven to be a one-trick pony.

Once again, he's playing on your expectations. You assume that what he shows you is what you think it is, based on genre conventions. And then he refuses to follow genre conventions, knowing that you will expect him to follow them.

To what end? Showing us a spaceship (and then hoping nobody will think that it is a spaceship, but is instead a demonmobile?) is simply opening oneself up to criticism and harming the movie, instead of helping it. I would consider that to be bad filmmaking.

 

[PaulKemp]

Agree wholeheartedly with the view that Night intended the aliens to be demons. I'm also puzzled a bit by the water issue folks are raising. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but the demons/aliens weren't burned by water per se, they were burned by the water in Mel Gibson's house, water that the daughter (for reasons unexplained but hinted at) left around the house in glasses. I always assumed that particular water to be damaging to the demons/aliens because it was *holy* water, blessed either by Mel's character reclaiming his faith, or by the daughter, who evidenced (iirc) certain "saintly" characteristics.

In the end, the demons/aliens weren't driven off by rain or fire hoses. They were, per the TV broadcast, driven back by (I'm paraphrasing) some "ancient technique that originated in the holy land." All of that lends credence to the aliens as demons idea. That some people feel cheated by that, I can understand. For me, I thought it was brilliant.

 

[iwatt]

I was going to give my opinion on this movie, but then decided that after falling asleep after the first half hour, I really didn't have any direct observations to make. Considering I've stayed awake while watching some stinkers, I guess my experience does count for something

BTW, every time I'm about to watch The Village, my brothers put me into a headlock, "for my own good". One of them still grumbles about seeing that "craptastic" movie in the theatre.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Maybe, but given that M. Knight has made a habit out of lying to his audience as part and parcel of his style of movie, I'm at a loss to understand why, in the case of this movie, this is such an unexpected thing. His movies are always about "what you think at first is not what it really is". Why is it that in this movie, this is so surprising to people?

In my case, its because this is the only movie of his that I've ever seen. And, like the poster above, I didn't pay much attention to who did it. Not that it would have mattered since I knew nothing about his rep. So either you're a fan of his or you hate his movies? That seems to be the way things are going.

 

[Crothian]

Ambiguity of evidence does not prove they are one thing or the other. They may look like aliens, and follow some alien like tropes, but they behave like demons, and are featured in a story about the testing of faith. Given that both alien visitors and demons are, as far as we know, fictitious creatures, concluding that they are one or the other is a huge and unwarranted assumption.

What behavior do they show that is demon like? They have no corrupting influence, they just sort of walk around and do little. The whatever beings they are never real test anyone's faith.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

To what end? Showing us a spaceship (and then hoping nobody will think that it is a spaceship, but is instead a demonmobile?) is simply opening oneself up to criticism and harming the movie, instead of helping it. I would consider that to be bad filmmaking.

But it could be a demonmobile or possibly the hosts of heaven waiting to intervene. Given the nature of the film about faith and other evidence I also favor the demon theory. The spaceships are brought up as evidence of aliens but reading the bible they could also be interpreted as being from heaven or h(e)ll as well. The bible makes many references to flying machines and objects of all kinds and interpretations of these objects have been included in historic biblical artwork. So when in Signs (by my interpretation) the demons arise to take the faithless of the world the appearance of flying objects is not without precedent. Now these could be spacecraft and aliens or it could be demons but "flying objects" does not rule out the demon theory. Overall I find the demon theory much more plausible and in keeping with the nature of the movie. I also agree that the impression is given to make the audience think aliens but given M. Night's style I see this as his red herring to make the audience think one way before revealing that faith is the answer to the movie.

 

[Mistwell]

Agree wholeheartedly with the view that Night intended the aliens to be demons. I'm also puzzled a bit by the water issue folks are raising. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but the demons/aliens weren't burned by water per se, they were burned by the water in Mel Gibson's house, water that the daughter (for reasons unexplained but hinted at) left around the house in glasses. I always assumed that particular water to be damaging to the demons/aliens because it was *holy* water, blessed either by Mel's character reclaiming his faith, or by the daughter, who evidenced (iirc) certain "saintly" characteristics.

In the end, the demons/aliens weren't driven off by rain or fire hoses. They were, per the TV broadcast, driven back by (I'm paraphrasing) some "ancient technique that originated in the holy land." All of that lends credence to the aliens as demons idea. That some people feel cheated by that, I can understand. For me, I thought it was brilliant.

Okay, now I have to re-watch this and see what they specifically say at the end.

And I have been looking for an excuse to re-watch this flick anyway. And I own it. So no reason not to

 

[Cthulhudrew]

So either you're a fan of his or you hate his movies? That seems to be the way things are going.

I don't know about that. I know that, for myself, I really like some of his movies- Unbreakable and Sixth Sense, and not others- Signs and the Village. I get that sense from a lot of the other posts here, too.

Maybe it is a trend starting- that his movies don't seem to appeal as much to fans of his earlier works- but I definitely don't feel as if many (if not most) posters in this thread are polarized one way or the other.

 

[Dragonbait]

The idea that the "aliens" are really demons in Signs makes a LOT more sense, and I really like it.