What do you get when you mix
absolutely flawless performances with one of the best science
fiction screenplays ever written? What do you get
when you take an overused plotline like an alien invasion and
turn it into the best motion picture I have seen this year?
The answer to both of these questions is the same, and that
answer is "Signs", not only the best film of the year,
but one of the best films of the past ten years.
Mel Gibson stars as Graham Hess, a former priest, whose family
is forced into an unbelievable situation when crop circles
appear in their Pennsylvania cornfield, sparking the debate as
to whether or not they were alien crafted or mere hoaxes.
Joaquin Phoenix stars as Gibson's brother Merrill, and Rory
Culkin and Abigail Breslin are his two children.
The
central question of the film is whether or not the crop circles
were made by extraterrestrials. The dogs start acting
bizarre, as if predators are nearby, strange figures are seen
creeping around the farm, and unexplainable noises are heard
over a baby monitor, all forcing the family into the belief that
the circles were, indeed, alien made. I won't give
anything else away, because that would take away from the
suspense and shock of this miraculous picture.
In short--this was the most
frightening film I have ever seen. "The
Exorcist" pales in comparison to the genius of director M.
Night Shyamalan. The movie starts off quickly and keeps
you on the edge of your seat throughout, carefully and
masterfully weaving together 3 stories: (1) the crop
circles appearing out of nowhere, (2) Mel Gibson losing his
faith, and (3) the family trying to cope with a tragic loss.
Each story if completely enthralling and comes to a head by the
end of the film.
The performances in this film are incredible. This may be
Gibson's best picture to date, and the two child actors are
phenomenal. Director Shyamalan seems to have a way of
extracting wonderful performances from his adolescent stars, as
he did in his previous two films. Also, Joaquin Phoenix
holds his on in another stellar performance, possibly even
better than his performance in "Gladiator". And,
I liked how director Shyamalan once again popped up in a small
role, though his role in "Signs" is crucial to the
plot, unlike his roles in "The Sixth Sense" and
"Unbreakable".
I can safely say I will never go near another cornfield again,
for as long as I live, nor will I be able to rest easy when the
dogs are barking outside. This film was semi-disturbing in
the realistic way it carried itself out, and I have never been
this impressed with a film to deal with extra-terrestrials.
I had expected great things from this film, but those
expectations were tripled, thus causing me to declare this my
favorite science fiction film of all-time, and one of the best
films of the past decade. Everyone must see this film!
--
Billy
Ray ( 4 out of 4 pops )
Talk
about this film with other Popkorn Junkies |
|
Other Junkie's
opinions.....
James (
3 out of 4 pops )
Okay, in M Night Shymalan's third film, he does pretty good. He still
doesn't capture the same
feel of the supernatural like in "The Sixth Sense",
but he comes close. Now,
this movie isn't perfect. It's pretty good except for
the beginning which is painfully slow and clichéd, and laced with poor
deliveries. So, it's the
opposite of "Unbreakable"-- that movie had a piss poor
ending. Even Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix forgot how to deliver their
lines correctly in the
beginning. But alas, once the beings show up, the acting
does as well. There's a great shot with Joaquin, Rory, and Abigal on
the couch. It makes me
laugh just thinking of it. There's other great shots as
well, so I guess the horrible beginning is made up for. In conclusion, I
was entertained (except
in the beginning), and the acting is pretty decent (except
in the beginning). Rory Culkin seems destined for stardom, even more
so than his older brother
was, and I liken this movie to "the story that wasn't
told in 'Independence Day'". In that movie, we see the front lines,
the aliens,
their technology, but here, we see and get a story about characters
and the common man. And
because of that, this movie should appeal to everybody.
Mike ( 4 out of 4 pops )
Well, M. Night
Shyamalan proves once again that he is one of the best writers/
directors in the film business today. With "Signs", he
has crafted one of the best UFO movies ever made and easily one of the
best movies this year. I wasn't prepared for how frightening and suspenseful
this film was going to be. And thrown in for good measure was lots
of humor and emotional turmoil. The acting is top notch..Mel
Gibson has never been better and when is Joaquin Phoenix ever not
compelling. Just like "Unbreakable" was Shyamalan's homage
to comic books, "Signs" appear to be his homage to Alfred
Hitchcock's great thriller "The Birds". The film's tone,
suspense, creepiness, lack of music as well as taking place mostly
inside an isolated house was right out of Hitchcock's film, and note the
very opening credits where the music mimicked the music from "The
Birds" so clearly. I look for this film to do even better at
the box office than "The Sixth Sense".
Matt ( 1 1/2 of out 4
pops )
This is one of those thrillers that has the audience expecting something
extraordinary will
eventually happen, but it doesn’t. I’m not gonna say M. Night
Shamalyan is the coolest director in the biz, but “The Sixth Sense”
was decent and “Unbreakable”
was really intriguing. He shows real promise as
an up-and-coming director. I assumed the film would start off slowly,
and by the 30-minute mark
my eyes would be glued to the screen. Well, I wasn’t
falling asleep, because I didn’t want to miss anything. It turned
out there was nothing to
miss. I’m not a lover of special f/x or gratuitous visuals,
but I’m also not a lover of tons of boring, unnecessary dialogue
(some of it really
cheesy). If there’s anything I have to say, the characters
are well-developed. The problem is the characters aren’t interesting.
Mel Gibson’s performance is really good, with his facial expressions
right on-target. In fact, his acting is so good that he deserves
to be in another (much better) movie. The ending tries to be nifty
by linking clues from
earlier in the film, but it’s still a complete letdown,
resorting to tired movie conventions. That’s right, don’t expect
Shamalyan’s trademark
plot twist. Even if you’re deeply fascinated by the paranormal,
“Signs” won’t fascinate you. It’s talky and pretentious, not
really giving us much
insight into U.F.O. activity.
Patsy ( 3 out of 4
pops )
I think this
movie was only semi-scary and it could have truly been terrifying-- it
didn't fulfill it's true potential. It should have taken a little
more from "Jaws", in not seeing the predator, and a little
less from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". I mean,
just think of how freaky the movie would have been if we never actually
saw the alien. If we had only seen Joaquin's reaction to the news
clip (of the alien at the birthday party) and at the end only seen the
reflection of the alien on the TV (which was an awesome shot I think)
and not the actually crappy fake looking alien....whew, that could have
been intense. I had a nightmare about this movie-- from the
preview alone-- that was definitely more frightening than the actual
movie. Too bad.
Onto something personal-- being an out of work actress who lives less
than 30 minutes from the Bucks County area, my heart was broken when I
realized that there was no way in hell that I'd be cast in this movie
(if you don't know why check out my profile!). So, needless to say
I had mixed feelings before seeing this movie: I wanted to see it
because of Joaquin (my favorite actor, celebrity, animal lover, and all
around great guy) but I had really negative feelings for
Shamalyan.
Not only did "Unbreakable" pretty much suck-- but in the past
few years he's shot 3 films in the Philly area and I have yet to be cast
for the measly background work that I beg for. Fine-- it's
probably the casting directors fault, but the director has some part in
it, I mean, he did give HIMSELF a nice big fat role didn't he?
Anyway, the whole point is that I've got issues with this movie
for personal reasons--- so the fact that I still sort of liked it says
something.
Pappy ( 3 1/2 out of
4 pops )
I
went to see this film twice. I
rarely do that. Actually I can’t even remember the last time I
went to a theater to see a movie a second time.
Is this a great movie? No.
But it is very watch-able, and very thoughtful.
I would call this films a combination of "War of the
Worlds", "Jaws", "The Birds' and "Night of the
Living Dead". Like all of those films it resembles, it is a simple
film. The simplicity is
what I like about it as it gets down to our basic humanity and beliefs.
Exciting, suspenseful, thought provoking, funny, well produced,
and well acted. Go see it,
in fact, go see it a couple
of times.
|
