Mel Gibson and the Crop Circles, what a crap!

[Storm Raven]

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.

If it was a movie made by M. Knight, I wouldn't be surprised by that turn of events. That's just his style of movies.

 

[Rackhir]

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?

Actually one of the things that I and I think a lot of people liked about his earlier movies was he DIDN'T lie to you. The clues were all there in the 6th Sense and I knew something was wrong, I just couldn't quite figure out what was going on until the big reveal at the end and then you get to go "AHAH! That's what that was all about". Similarly for Unbreakable though the "twist" wasn't as good or as interesting.

 

[Pielorinho]

Actually, without giving away a spoiler,

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.

You're right, but

Spoiler

the only narrative function served by that opening shot is to establish for the audience the movie's setting--and it establishes it incorrectly. It felt like dirty pool to me. How much more interesting the movie would have been if the date on the tombstone had been 1998, or 2018, and the characters had still been talking and living like that!

Daniel

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If it was a movie made by M. Knight, I wouldn't be surprised by that turn of events. That's just his style of movies.

If I knew it was a movie by M.Knight, it might have helped. Assuming I would remember his style. I am not such a big cineast that I know such details on a regular basis :/.

It still doesn't change that the premise was too stupid.
Demons, Aliens, "the real plot", it doesn't matter, the "things-appearing-to-be-aliens-but-might-have-been-something-else"weakness was still stupid. They could have had water replaced with something less common (maybe milk, a coke, fanta berry-blue or even soap), and it probably wouldn't have hurt my brain as much.

 

[Arnwyn]

Spoiler

It felt like dirty pool to me.

That's because it was. You don't show something

Spoiler

in the opening shot

without expecting to immediately create an impression on the audience. Filmmaking 101.

Are you certain that it was a big spacecraft with force fields? Or was it just something you assumed was a big spacecraft with forcefields?

So what was it? A "demonmobile"? Why bother showing it if not to create a specific impression? Certainly not because it advances the plot in any way, shape, or form? (does it?)

 

[Pielorinho]

That's because it was. You don't show something

Spoiler

in the opening shot

without expecting to immediately create an impression on the audience. Filmmaking 101.

Indeed--but if you're going to use such shots to trick the audience, you've got to be fair about it, and have them serve another more straightforward narrative purpose. At least, in my opinion you do. This visual served no purpose except to mislead the viewer.

Daniel

 

[Morrus]

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?

No, it's totally different. There wasn't a twist reveal of the "truth" that they were "demons". Sixth Sense - at the end, the twist says "hey, look, he's a ghost really!"; The Village says "hey, look, they're in the modern day world in an enclave!".

There is no point where Signs does this in regard to the aliens not being aliens.

 

[Crothian]

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.

But there is no substantial backing to any other assumption either. In fact there is less proof in the movie they are demons then aliens.

For the other movies, there is a reveal at the end on what things really are. In Signs, at the end of the movie the creatures are not shown to be demons.

 

[Storm Raven]

But there is no substantial backing to any other assumption either. In fact there is less proof in the movie they are demons then aliens.

Given that the movie is all about Mel Gibson's loss of faith, and his rediscovery of faith, the idea that the tormentors in the movie are actually demons seems to make sense. Since the movie is about faith being tested, having the ultimate testers of faith as the villains works, and actually provides support for the interpretation of them as such.

For the other movies, there is a reveal at the end on what things really are. In Signs, at the end of the movie the creatures are not shown to be demons.

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.

 

[Storm Raven]

That's because it was. You don't show something

Spoiler

in the opening shot

without expecting to immediately create an impression on the audience. Filmmaking 101.

Sure it is. That's why he used it. He knew people would jump to the unwarranted assumption, and counted on it. Playing on your assumptions is his stock in trade. When seeing a movie with his name listed as director, one should expect such things.

So what was it? A "demonmobile"? Why bother showing it if not to create a specific impression? Certainly not because it advances the plot in any way, shape, or form? (does it?)

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.