Mel Gibson and the Crop Circles, what a crap!

Blue Sky said:
So, how does anyone know the aliens understood about the water?

Isn't it just as possible the aliens didn't forsee the effect water would have on them?

It's not like brutal theives and murderers are going to stop to check every element against their skin.
Because water is SUCH a rare liquid, cosmically speaking. I mean, just imagine how difficult it would be to get hydrogen and oxygen gas to react with one another.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

People who really think M. Night Shyamalan is stupid enough put "real aliens" in his film who are killed by water make baby . . . Gygax . . . cry.

It's like Total Recall. I bet there are people who genuinely see it as nothing more than an action film about tyranny and freedom on Mars, but the fact remains that it's really a lot more than that, and the surface reading is the least perceptive one you can make.

Just like "Signs was the worst alien-invasion movie ever" . . . which would actually be true if Signs were an alien-invasion movie.

Are there people who think Scream is just a dumb revival of Eighties slasher films, too? :D
 

ssampier said:
That makes perfect sense. I guess I was disappointed and bored because I was expecting an alien movie; Man vs. the supernatural, not Man vs. Self.

If you got exactly what you expected, then that would make the movie predictable and boring wouldn't it? And it would make the movie the antithesis of an M. Knight movie to boot.

Given his track record, I am left to wonder why anyone who had seen his previous movies would go into Signs assuming that the movie was going to be about a run-of-the-mill alien invasion plot.
 


Yes, they could be demons, or zombies, or mutant squirrels, or a collective allucination, or deranged grannies with pepper sprays. If you go solipsist, they could not exist at all. But the nº 1 interpretation is that they are aliens, since they have all the characteristics of aliens, UFOs can be seen in the film, and nothing contadicts the alien idea. You can rationalize them not being aliens, but again, you can rationalize battlefield earth being a good movie (you´d need however some practice before, perhaps starting with less taxing films).

And again, it´s not important if they are aliens or not, since we agree the point of the film is how Mel finds God again, but if you hit the audience in the face with a nonsense of that caliber, you´re distracting them from what´s important to the accesory, in this case from how God did such a great thing screwing Mel´s family to how idiotic are the aliens invading unprotected a planet covered in a 75% with acid, in wich acid falls from the sky in variable, unpredictable intervals, with an atmosphere that contains acid vapors, and with the purpose of eating creatures composed in their majority of acid.
 

Pielorinho said:
The Village? It was clear that he was trying to do a big switcheroo (the opening scene is
of a gravestone with incorrect dates on it
, which serves no purpose internal to the movie but only serves to trick the viewer), but the switcheroo was obvious to me from the trailer.

Actually, without giving away a spoiler,
nothing mandates that the information given be inaccurate. Nothing says that the gravestone is recent, the date could be an accurate one, with the grave being a hundred or so years old
without affecting the plot at all.
 

Someone said:
Yes, they could be demons, or zombies, or mutant squirrels, or a collective allucination, or deranged grannies with pepper sprays. If you go solipsist, they could not exist at all. But the nº 1 interpretation is that they are aliens, since they have all the characteristics of aliens, UFOs can be seen in the film, and nothing contadicts the alien idea.

They look like aliens, but act like demons. The UFOs are assumed to be ships, but never demonstrated as such. The problem with the "they must be aliens" interpretation is that it is based entirely on your assumptions about what an unexplained element must be, with no substantive backing at all.

And given that M. Knight likes to fool around with people's assumptions, this seems to me to be foolhardy at best.
 

Storm Raven said:
They look like aliens, but act like demons. The UFOs are assumed to be ships, but never demonstrated as such. The problem with the "they must be aliens" interpretation is that it is based entirely on your assumptions about what an unexplained element must be, with no substantive backing at all.

And given that M. Knight likes to fool around with people's assumptions, this seems to me to be foolhardy at best.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, you bet I'm gonna assume its a duck! And if it isn't, you've lied to me.
 

Storm Raven said:
If you got exactly what you expected, then that would make the movie predictable and boring wouldn't it? And it would make the movie the antithesis of an M. Knight movie to boot.

Given his track record, I am left to wonder why anyone who had seen his previous movies would go into Signs assuming that the movie was going to be about a run-of-the-mill alien invasion plot.

I did not know who wrote/co-produced the movie. By that line of thinking, if I saw an ad for a tear-jerker movie expecting to see someone special die, I shouldn't be surprised at the theater when aliens appear out-of-nowhere and take over.

Each are valid genres, but please don't mix them. As they say different strokes for different folks.
 

Ed_Laprade said:
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, you bet I'm gonna assume its a duck! And if it isn't, you've lied to me.

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?
 

Remove ads

Top