judging from other discussions here, you're a pretty heavy sci-fi fan, right?? doesn't surprise me in the least that you didn't like signs. if you were sucked into the sci-fi genre, i can certainly understand how you felt the rug was pulled out from under you.
Symbolism or not, the water being the agent of the alien's destruction was dumb. He should have spent at least 5 minutes thinking about it.
Ok. He did. It was a religious symbol....it wasn't about the alien. It's deeper than that...it's metaphor. Close your eyes and try to think real hard.
Yeah, i get it. It is symbolism, I understand. And it is still terrible. Symbolism doesn't need to be paper thin. Close your eyes and think about how much better it could have been!
yeah...it would have been better with super cool lazer blasters....or a lightsaber...or maybe if a kick-ass bearded wizard came in and laid the matrix-esque kung fu beatdown on the alien. i'm not into retelling other people's stories. i enjoyed this one. and i thought it nailed exactly what he wanted to tell.
Thats the thing about that MadMax, he'll be cordial to a fault in the D&D... but dare to diss the movie Signs or you're in for some bad brew.
Max, no offense here, but you obviously haven't read much sci-fi if you don't already know that most good sci-fi is allegorical (just like Signs). The difference is that good sci-fi doesn't have use (to quote BigBenito) paper-thin symbolism. I know the message of Signs means a lot to you, but it doesn't change the fact that the message is wrapped in a poorly conceived film. And that's why the rest of us don't like it. So seriously, please stop with the condescension - nobody feels Signs would have been better if the Aliens were defeated by a computer virus, a real virus, viral marketing or a young Jane Fonda and her incredible sex drive (well, the last one would have been kind of cool).
I'm going to have to go with Houston Rockets vs. Los Angeles Lakers, Game 2. The overall quality of the actors, especially the roles of Kobe Bryant as the light-hearted good guy with a heart of gold and Pau Gasol as his lovable oaf, was very poor and seem to have been scripted on a whim. And the twist at the end with the notorious "Gang of Referees" led by bad-ass Joey Crawford, a seasoned film villain, seemed like a forced cameo at best and was detrimental to plot development. This just felt like a heavy-handed sequel that paled in comparison to the original. Rumors of a trilogy abound and I can only hope that serious re-casting and technical direction is achieved to return this once mighty franchise to its proper place.
Recently, I would say Wolverine... movie could of been 10x better. Long time ago, I would go with Jumper... I like the concept, story and action could of been better.
i liked signs. actually quite a lot. was the last movie i liked by that director. the water was a little weak though.
Complaining about Jerry Bruckheimer films is kinda silly, IMO. I mean, you know they're going to be non-sensical, cliched, and over-acted. That's his shtick to make billions off appealing to the lowest common denominator: Lots of totally unrealistic explosions, unrealisitic human reactions, and the ever-necessary hot woman coupled with rugged kick-ass guy. Lame.
no offense taken and i didn't mean to be condescending. you're right that i do not read sci-fi. my point remains that shamayalanaasdfadingdong wasn't trying to make a sci-fi film. it was the macro wrapper for a micro story he was concerned with telling. the water was only signficant in that it was a common symbol in the lead character's faith. that's all. nothing more. i don't think shaymalmadingdong gives two farts about the sci-fi implications, because it's not the story he's telling. sci-fi fans may want him to tell a different story...or may be perturbed that he sorta used the genre to get to a completely different point. i just think it's funny that with movies we ask that the writers tell stories the way we want them to tell them. the story doesn't belong to me...it's someone else's creation. it's art.
LOL. Why do you care? I thought the movie was good also. If a sci-fi guy wants to go "Star Trek geek" on the details and inconsistencies, let them. As Shatner once told them, "get a life!"
I thought Signs was perfect. There is something about it that was just so real and creepy. If there were any more sci fi unbelievable crap added to it, it would have taken away from the creepiness.
I like a lot of these ideas for the star wars prequel, but the possibilities are infinite that could have made those movies better. This is for the star war and patton oswalt fans: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDCjIjsZp_Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDCjIjsZp_Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Independence Day kicks ass as is. I wouldn't change a thing, the corniness helps make that movie and it's still every bit a blockbuster.
