That's right, I said a "butt-load"...


I haven't seen this, but Pete recommends it

Saw Mostly Martha the other night, a cute yet
formulaic German romantic film. Had it been made in
the states, there is no doubt it would've starred Meg
Ryan. Yes, it was a date movie.

I'm jealous of Mike. Want to see "Frailty"


Hello there. I haven't been to the movies since Signs. That movie was good, a little off beat but not even close to Sixth Sense or Unbreakable. I missed Road to Perdition, so I will have to what until dvd.

I have a dvd recommendation for you.

Frailty. Damn good. I was very surprised with Bill Paxton's directorial debut. Probably one of his best movies since A Simple Plan or One False Move. It was nice to see Matt MacConaughy in something good (Wedding Planner anyone?) And a solid performance from an old pro like Powers Boothe. Check out if you haven't already.

UNSOLICITED comment...I swear


I love getting your reviews. KEEP THEM COMING!

Christopher

Erika responds


i usually don't respond to your movie reviews
mainly because they are so complex
that after reading them my brain is full
and i gotta go do something else
away from the computer
but i just wanted to toss a quick note
to tell you
i really enjoy the reviews
and you have gotten to be a very good writer
and i totally agree with you on the harry potter flick
having read the books
it's a joy to see them portrayed so well on screen
but i must tell you
when dumbledore first appeared on screen
with his wise and quiet demeanor
i got a little weepy
knowing i will never see richard harris embody this role again
'tis a cryin' shame
i'm gonna miss that guy

Erika

Dayve on The Grey Zone - which I haven't seen and should be shot like a Nazi


Paulie,

The movie was a gale-force-10 hurricane wind of gritty, unrelenting, unapologetic, unsentimental drama. Hats off to Tim for writing, directing, and editing a piece that truly looked like it took 5 years off of his life. An "important" film, in the truest sense of that word. Difficult to watch, I tell you. David Arquette showed an as-yet unrevealed side; Harvey Keitel was excellent. I thought Mira Sorvino and Natasha Lyonne were underutilized. And SOME of the dialog seemed a bit stilted - - i.e., characters making grand, circumspect soliloquies about "man's inhumanity to man". But, is that to be expected, and is it essential? I dunno. (I also enjoyed Daniel Benzali's performance, a guy who's way undersung IMHO.)

Bowling for Columbine just arrived here last nite. Hooray. Hoping to see it this Fri. or Sat. Can't wait. Was told it opens w/Mike opening a bank account in Michigan(?) to claim his promotional firearm??? That makes for Must See, right there. Seen Solaris yet? Plan to? I'm interested. Maybe I need to see the original flick upon which it's based, first?

Yet ANOTHER movie I haven't seen...


Going to see that next weekend. Ended up seeing Comedian. Very interesting and
very good film. Suggested viewing.

Brian

Hillary on "One Hour Photo"


So what did you think of "One Hour Photo"? We kinda hated it. We
saw it about 2 weeks ago with the understanding that it will most likely
be the last movie before the munchkin arrives and we were disappointed
overall. I kept thinking "Oscar caliber performance that will go
unnoticed because the rest of the movie sucked." Any thoughts?

Chris with a demand


I just wanted to drop a quick note and demand you see "Bowling for Columbine" if you haven't already. Of course, telling you to see a movie is ridiculous because you see everything anyway. Y

Adam on ANOTHER PAIR of movies I haven't seen...I gotta get out more...


One semi-recommendation: I love pretty much anything Wim Wenders does, the guy simply rocks. And I caught the last 10 minutes of Million Dollar Hotel, damn, what I saw was great. But...just 10 minutes...

And are you a Werner Herzog fan? Try Fitzcarraldo. Holy fuck.


Steve has an outer body experience


Rented the Salton Sea. LOVED it! And freakin A if
ONCE AGAIN Vincent D,Nofrio doesn't SLAY me.

AND he freaking slayed me because I didn't even know
it was him.

DO YOU HEAR ME?? I didn't even know it was him. I
had a faint sense I knew the actor, loved the
performance the whole time it was happening and then
BAM, itw as revealed to be him days LATER to me.

I worship the carbon diozide he re-releases to the
air.

Now I sit back, end my email, and await my largest
worship moment of all

Edward Norton, Ralp Fiennes, Anthony Hopkins and Emily
Watson (all in my top 10 livining actors)

RED DRAGON

Upon it's completion, I shall hold on long enough for
TWPO TOWERS and then simply pass away, fading from
this mortal coil.

Steve

Steve again, but this time he covers the whole YEAR



Paul

OK, let's do it.

I haven't seen many movies because I have been travelling my ass off. But I
have seen some and must comment after reading your reviews.

here we go now.

Going back a bit. Spider Man, I concur on your stars and review, as I
actually do most of your star ratings and commentary with most reviews.



Attack of the Clones.

Can anyone say I bent over AGAIN thinking maybe Lucas wouldn't rape me yet
again! But, I will say this Mr. Paulie, I saw it again on the Imax screen
at navy Pier with Kim Kohler and her brother who is the world's BIGGEST Star
Wars fan. let's end the argument right here and now if anyone feels they
know a bigger fan. He is in his 30's, lives at home and has since birth,
has almost NO bills to pay (none of this is "bad" he's a very nice guy)n and
he spends his ENTIRE salary on Star Wars stuff. In fact, he owns EVERY man
made Star Wars item in duplicate, one displayed and one in it's original
box. Yes EVERY (poster, figure, game, etc etc etc). He will be opening the
first museum of its kind in 2004.

OK, let's move on. He said to me that you HAD to have the droid clones just
sort of "peter" out at the end of Phantom and then fight the Fett-made
clones because it is all a huge PREMEDITATED, orchestrated CIVIL war
conducted by Darth Sidius, the emperor, in order for him to discover which
is the BEST fighting soldier/clone. So, Yoda doesn't even realize he is
playing right into Darth's hand by getting the Fett Clones and using them!

Ok, so interesting point. Anyway, movie pissed me off. had some moments,
mostly giant holes like:

How, with all the amazing technology, radar, tractor beams, etc. HOW can Obi
Wan approach the strange planet Lord tyrannous is on making clones without
ANY radar seeing his ship enter the atmsophere. I mean, they had that crap
on Tattoine, why not this secret planet. OK, sure, they thought they had
erased the planet from the archives so no one would find them. But come on,
you still wouldn't put up a basic radar IN CASE any ships approached the
planet. Bite me lucas. I agree 1 1/2*


SUM OF ALL FEARS

You gave it 3 stars. i would not have gone that high but it was ok. Maybe
if ANYONE would have done ANY research on Tom Clancy's avctual freaking BOOK
behind the film, they would have never cast what's his frickin name as John
Clark. As a self-proclaimed Clancy fanatic, whoever directed this film can
bite me as well. It was ok, but I agree with Paul, thousands, millions die
and people are picnicing like there's no DEVESTATING loss beyond
comprehension. Life goes on, but GEEZE, nobody got naked and had sex on the
rubble in NY did they. Bite me!


Steve Matuszak gets aggressive ladies and germs.


WE WERE SOLDIERS


You say 2* and again I concur. Mel Gibson dominates humankind. So does
whats his name, the tall guy who was his seargant, he ROCKED. He was as
tough as mortal sin!!! Why do I think this movie should thus get only 2
stars. Because, and again forgive me for I do not know names well, but
whoever directed this movie actually thought they had half a freaking brain
by casting the idiot kid from American Pie. If that kid could act his way
out of a tamale wrapper I'd be surprised. Hey good looking typical
no-talent LA kid, bite me!!


THE ROOKIE

I could not agree more with you 3 1/2. Could have bene a formula movie
EASY, but I FELT for these kids and this guy. I fely and I laughed. Dennis
Quaid's odd career aside, he WAS this guy and he just did a great job, nuff
said. I would have cast ANY of those high school kids instead of that
goober in Soldiers!


K-19

You say 2 1/2, I say RIGHT on perfect. Harrison Ford was good, I personally
thought Liam Neeson was great. Look, anyone who can take the Phantom script
and come out making me FEEL for his character with only having a few lines
(like Alex Guiness in Star Wars) has got my worship. Side Note: what fun
it is to see great like Liam Neeson in old movies that I had NO idea they
were in: case in point Liam yelling "The queen is innocent" in Excalibur,
and saying, "Jump up boy" in freaking KRULL!!!


THE SALTON SEA

I concur with 4 stars and am back on the bandwagon for Val Kilmer. Willow
was not so bad huh? Anthony Lapaglia just needs the right roles and he
shines. The chick is ok, fair. GREAT story, great cast, great execution.
hey kid from Soldiers, you make money at acting and do big movies, watch
Salton Sea and THEN bite me again!



MINORITY REPORT

I loved it as well. I would, NOT, however, give it as high stars as you did
but I am on board. I don't know, there's just something about Tom Cruise,
he is a very good actor, but almost too good. he seems to spend half his
energy on a decent character and the other half making sure he looks
charming, tough and sexy. And, unfortunately not every character calls for
that. Why the hell can't he go back to the humble days of psycho military
school kid. And side note: remember how much I worship Dinofrio and didn't
even know it was him in Salton Sea. Well let's give it up again folks for
FREAKING Samantha Morton who the whole movie I had no idea she was the
shaved head whatever you call them. Samantha sustains me.



INSOMNIA

I almost went 3 1/2 stars myself. No one can touch Pacino when he stops
yelling and starts acting. Except of course when he yellls and acts like in
Scarface, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico and Carlito's Way. OK, anyway, Robin
Williams, eh, so so,. He's a great actor and holds his own. But Al Pacino
is TIRED in this film and his characters physical dilemma drives the
obstacles and drama of this film. American Pie brat, take some serious
notes ass-boy.


WINDTALKERS

Hey John Woo, 2 things

1) Bite me
2) Learn about warfare before you shoot it. men don't stand up without
cover firing their weapons in circles around themselves and kill the enemy
who run out into the open. Oh sure, maybe on occasion, when the japanese
were outnumbered and ran a bonzai charge, but very rarely. Refer again to
#1


ROAD TO PERDITION

Tom Hanks is great. But folks, Paul Newman INVENTED acting. What a moment
when he says "I'm glad it was you" to Hanks' character right before he
shoots him. That's filmmaking!!!


AUSTIN POWERS

Eh, as usual some funny jokes, but that's about it. So-so.


13 CONVERSATIONS

Liked it. Don't know why, just did. It was well acted and it disn't seem
to bother me all the disjointedness. I don't know, hard to say in words,
but In enjoyed the exploration and real quality of the scenes.


DIE ANOTHER DAY

OK, here we go. I DISAGREE with you Paul on this one. I do agree on the
torture scenes showing a different side to Bond. Liked that part a lot.
Where I disagree with you is the action. Some sissy sword fight, yuck.
This was, in my estimation, and I have seen EVERY bond film ever made, the
WORST Bond film. I was bored, my girlfriend was bored, everyone in the
theatre was bored, I even think Halle Berry was bored. So many characters
introduced and not flushed out. Only worthwhile things were Pierce and Judi
D. And I felt like the action SUCKED. I figured, well, I'm gonna at least
love the action. How is it their two sports cars could do ANYTHING on pure
ice, but THEN he needs traction to back halfway up a ice ramp. Bullshit.
WAY too far fetched. And I don't even mind far fetched, but the whole ice
world reminded me of Batman Returns with Arnold, ughhhh. hated this movie.


BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

Here is the oddest movie ever. And my review is even odder. I both loved
and hated it. Look, there is no doubt that Michael Moore cannot sit back
and act like a wimp if he is ever going to go after topics or reveal things
like he does. So, no matter WHAT I feel about this film, he still is the
bravest guy in the world for getting in the face of giant corporations and
big government lies. he would push on the wall of Jericho if he could.
Kudos to you Mike. BUT, I'll be damned if he doesn't DO the very things he
postulates against! he talks about the MEDIA and how they selectively show
and twist information and then he selectively chooses media pieces that fit
his arguments (IE - for example, he mentions the media focuses on black
crime and then shows clips of reporters saying "The alleged perp was a black
man in his twenties" etc.) Well, hello!!!!!!! How hard is it to din 17 of
thsoe clips and show em in a row?? Hell, I could get access to 17 clips
where a reporter says "The man was a caucasion in his early twenties" and
show them together." I love Moore but he manipulates through a medium as
much as the media does.

It's strange, I loved when he went to Wallmart and then actually made
progress with them!! But THEN he flips and goes to Charleton Heston's home
and badgers the guy. See, heres' my point. I TOTALLY agreed with Moore and
NOT with Heston. I was very much AGAINST what Heston said and stood for.
But Heston believed in what he said and them Moore goes "Well, you have the
chance now, why don't you apologize to the people of Flint." And, I think
with CLASS, Heston looked at him and said "Apologize?" and left the
interview. Hey Michael Moore, not everyone believes the way you do, why
don't you apologize to the NRA. I actually don't think you should, but me
asking you that is as much asking you to step outside of what you believe as
your request for Heston to apologize. He wasn't sorry, so why the HELL
should he? You put him in a no-win situation that, with a camera in his
face all he could do is look bad. That's manipulation and power of camera,
not intellect. Debate him, don't abuse him.

BUT, many good points and some great arguments and footage throughout. Just
a bit manipulative.


SIGNS

I completely agree. I loved it, but there were gaping holes. And
everything cleaned up so perfectly and sweet in the end. I needed some torn
remnants. But i just loved so much of what it said otherwise.



MOONLIGHT MILE

I agree totally 2 and 1/2 stars. Hoffman and Sarandon make the film.
Except, here's my major review point, whatever the girl's name is who was
the girl he falls for, the thin blonde. I say this is her BREAKOUT
performance. She was as real as Sandra Bullock can be and far more
emotional honest than Zellweger. She BLEW me away. I personally think she
should get a nod for best supporting, in fact, I think she should win!



PUNCH DRUNK LOVE

Have not seen, never will see. Well, wait, it does have Emily Watson, one
the 5 greatest living female actresses. I will watch her, but mute the
screen every time Adam Sandler enters. I have never liked one single MOMENT
in that man's career. Acting is about WANTING. To strive for something and
then win or lose it. He just talks and then yells. that's not acting,
it's bad comedy. And bad drama is almost worse.


8 MILE

I wish there was a way that I could describe how much I will never see this
film. I heard good and bad things. But, the art of film and television are
not more important to me than daily real life. I will NEVER pay money to
support a man who raps about homosexuals and beating women. And, my
friends, if you have never listened COMPLETELY to an Eminem album, read the
lyric jacket and truly seen WORD-FOR-WORD his music, your in for a nightmare
if you ever do and consider women, gays and Jewish people to be decent,
equal human beings. Hitler made nice speeches, doesn't mean I would ever go
to see him talk, sorta because of the whole him being a murdered thing.
Same thing here, I don't care if he acted well or the film was good, he lies
and raps and sings about hurting people and then lies again and acts like he
doesn't mean it and we are twisting his words. say some untwistable words
like I'm sorry asshole. Sorry Paul, had to be honest.



Harry Potter

Agree wholeheartedly. Harry Potter actor really stepped up but that
red-haired kid was fabulous. And that guy who was the evil kid's Dad,
again, love that guy. He was the perfect choice. He was amazing as the bad
captain/major? in Patriot, he was actually good in that space film with the
guy from crash and the woman from Tina Turner movie _ I am blanking on
names!!!, and he was also good as captain Steele in Blackhawk Down, always
solid, always the bad guy. Anwyay, great special effects and really sort of
fun.


I want to see far From Heaven from your review!

OK, nuff for now. I love reading your reviews. And sorry about the Eminem
8 Mile thing, but I figured this is a free and open forum. I have nothing
against anyone who sees or enjoys the film.

Steve

Naturally, I had a few comments


Lemme make it plain,

CLONES: I'm sure you enjoyed "Clones" on the IMAX screen, and are you aware why? IMAX format has a two hour maximum running time. Lucas had to CUT the film and it HAS to be better once you trim some of the dumbassed fat away. I heard Anakin surfing on the mutant pig in the "Sound of Music" sequence was cut. I can only hope. Heard a rumor, too, that some of the cuts made there way into the DVD. He won't budge on "Phantom Menace", says he wouldn't change ONE cut. Are you kidding?
I will own up to not being the BIGGEST "Star Wars" fan in the world. Never had the budget to do it up as it should be done.
I always thought that the droids were lame, so can we ditch them in movie 2 at least? I know about the whole civil war thing, the whole shot at the end of "Clones" with Sidious sending Clones to every corner of the galaxy is supposed to be more sinister than it seemed, 'cause they never attacked! THEY NEVER ATTACKED!
Hadn't thought of the whole radar thing with Obi-Wan's ship. Good point.
Go to http://thephantomeditor.com/ This guy re-edited "Phantom Menace", practically cut out Jar-Jar, slimmed down Anakin's stupid lines, and streamlined the whole plot. Good stuff.

SOLDIERS - Are you talking about Sam Elliott? He's always good. Did some extra work on "The Hulk" and saw him and Jennifer Connolly work.

K-19 - Neeson was in "Krull"??!?!?!! Awesome. You can catch him in "The Bounty", too.

PUNCH DRUNK LOVE - I hope you'll give it a chance. Sandler does play squirrelly as always, but he does seem to get frustrated with his life and want a change of pace. Again, if you like PT Anderson, you'll like this regardless of the cast. He's great.

8 MILE - I have no problem with your honesty towards this flick. I know precious little about Eminem's music. He seems to not care so much about "faggot" in this movie. I've heard the hubub, but not the CDs. Hanson crafted a polished story, lead actor be damned.

HARRY POTTER - Luscious Malfoy was played by Jason Isaacs. He DID kick ass, as did Branagh. I have a feeling Isaacs' role will grow, too. Haven't read the books, but I hope we see more of him. He should publicly apologize, though, for being in "Supernova", as should Spader and Bassett.

Since these reviews, I saw "Chicago" and it totally kicked ass! Great performances, great music, stylish filmmaking, a total good time. Was mixed, however, on "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind".

Details to come,

Paul

Kara and I chat



I've been usuing NetFlix for catching up on all the legendary films I've never seen (to avoid further embarrassment when people say "oh you know the film............oh my God you never saw it?!?!!"). Also to re-watch old faves (Jacob's Ladder STILL amazing........one of the best films ever thankyouverymuch Tim Robbins).
Have you seen 8 Mile? wow- My grandmother saw it opening weekend (she lives down the street from his recent home and was curious about her popular neighbor), so I was shamed into rushing to see it- LOVED it and have a crush on Eminem- won't ever kill my crush on my future husband John (Cusack) tho-Good thing he finally saw the light and dumped Neve- hee

Kara

Then I said...


What is this mysterious power John Cusack has on women? Karen loves him,
too. She got me "Say Anything" on DVD for my birthday - Top 20 all time easy.
John Mahoney is sorely underrated across the board.

Rented "Jacob's Ladder" when it first came out on video in the early
nineties. I watch it, then IMMEDIATELY rewinded it and watched it again. I
don't do drugs, I do Alan Parker.

I did see "8 Mile", and reviewed it (***). Dig deep in my all-too-lengthy
reviews and you'll find it.

Paul

Paula and I dish on faith


Hey Paul! Hope you're having a festive December! Here
are some thoughts that fell from my brain after
reading your new movie reviews -

1. "Signs" - I thoroughly agreed with your assessment
of the movie, but a question - why did it bother you
that Mel got his faith back at the end of the movie?
Did you think it was too easy or cheesy? (Being
someone to whom faith is important, I liked that about
the movie). Overall, I immensely enjoyed this movie
despite its flaws. And the opening-night, packed
audience I saw it with laughed/cheered/screamed in all
the right places. LOVED Mel and Joaquin. And some of
the humor was terrific.

2. "Reign of Fire" - if you were a woman, you'd have
enjoyed this movie! 'Nuff said! ("Entertainment
Weekly" called it 'craptacular' - an accurate
assessment!)

3. "Life or Something Like It" - made me want to poke
my eyes out right in the theatre. Shallow and cliched!


I'm dying to see "Far from Heaven." I'll let you know
when I do.

- Paula

I wanted to answer


Paula -

I know you're a person of serious faith, so I can see why my comment prompted a response. The problem was I didn't go into detail in my review, lame on my end. But allow me to now.

The moment in "Signs" where Gibson dealt with his faith on the highest emotional level was when he renounced it in the basement when his kid was dying. His faith didn't really play a factor into the battle with the aliens or with his survival. The water and baseball bat were more important. Therefore, "easy" would be the route back to his faith. Too easy. Tacked on, I guess. So, in the end it might be a writing flaw. Making his faith a more important factor in his family's survival may make the ending more important to me as well.

If you want to have a GREAT, I mean GREAT time at the movies, I caught a sneak preview of "Chicago" the other day and it is awesome. Really well done film with sparkling performances throughout.

- Paul

Paula's response



Yeah, I can see how your comments on the ending of
"Signs" have merit. Thanks! And yeah, I'm really
looking forward to "Chicago"! The preview looks
amazing, and I loved the B'way show.

Saw "Far From Heaven" yesterday. Wouldn't it be great
if all movies were so audacious and lovingly crafted?!

Carolyn's comments on my site



Hey Paul,

I have only (unfortunately) seen three of the movies you listed in the
Fall 2002 category, but I pretty much whole-heartedly agree with all
your observations.

As far as My Big Fat Greek Wedding, AMEN to the Joey Fatone comment
(Rent? Please...) but I also thought that the love story was the
least developed aspect of the film. I mean, John Corbett is hot, but
where is his soul?... Wouldn't we all love to be Nia Vardalos right
now!

Harry Potter seemed a little long to me, though I did love it. The
effects are amazing, and Kenneth Branagh was HYSTERICAL! (I was the
only person in the Oswego theatre laughing my ass off!) I went with
my husband and Mom Thanksgiving night, and neither of them had read
the book. They didn't get it. =(

I liked Michelle Pfeiffer in White Oleander, but she did make the same
choices over and over and over. What about those blue veins on the
side of her face? Scary, right? That's what happens when you try to
be eternally 20... I thought Renee Zellweger was good as one of the
foster moms. It was interesting to see her as a tragic figure.

Okay - if you like movies, read Paul's reviews. They are very good
and very fun! Are you getting paid for this, Paul? You should be.

ckc

Melissa gives thanks!


THANK YOU for the movie reviews! Some of them I knew I wanted to see,
some I’d forgotten I wanted to see, and many I didn’t even know existed.
My boyfriend just gave me a DVD player (for my Bday today) and I am
looking forward to watching many a movie in front of my fireplace this
winter! I had actually heard an NPR interview with Bob Crane’s son a
few weeks ago, and it really sparked my twisted interest in Auto Focus.
And can I just say – Philip Seymour Hoffman!! Like, oh my god, he’s one
of the best character actors ever! Happiness, for all of its sickness,
will always remain one of my favorite movies. And I can’t wait to read
your review of Nemesis…

- Melissa

Damn. Another film I haven't seen...



Ended up seeing Comedian. Very interesting and
very good film. Suggested viewing.

Brian

Chris is right on target


I just wanted to drop a quick note and demand you see "Bowling for Columbine" if you haven't already. Of course, telling you to see a movie is ridiculous because you see everything anyway. You even saw that Madonna movie didn't you! Anyway, "Columbine" is an amazing movie! Funny, serious, informing, disturbing. It contains some great interviews with Matt Stone, Charlton Heston and an incredibly articulate and intelligent Marilyn Manson. A must see.


And Now...the GREAT SIGNS DEBATE, starring Paul, Tooch & Rob



Paul,

I know that this is long overdue, but I've been pretty busy lately and
haven't had a chance to catch up since returning from our vacation in
Mystic.

I know that you've spoken to Jenn and have seen 'Signs'. I understand that
you really liked it. I started out liking it. I left the theatre liking
it, but the more I've reflected on it, the more I realize that it just
wasn't a really good movie overall.

Rob and I have emailed each other about it. Here's some of the excerpts...

I thought it was enjoyable, but I was really hoping for this generation's
'Close Encounters'. Instead, we got something that started out that way,
then became 'Panic Room' meets 'Alien'. I thought that the tension-building
scenes worked, and the acting was good, but there were a lot of questionable
plot elements and things just not addressed that I thought should have been.
Like, where the hell was the military in all of this? Why were there no
reports of them trying to shoot down these lights, or patrolling the streets
in the cities they were hovering over, or at least making an appearance of
some sort? Sure, we didn't need a whole subplot element addressing this, but
hell, even a quick mention of it on the newscasts would have been
appropriate! What ever happened to the policewoman friend of Mel's? Why
didn't she ever come back to check on them after things started happening?
Why didn't Mel contact her or ANYONE about the creature locked in the
pantry? And if these guys are so smart and could fly millions of miles to
Earth, and were "great problem solvers", and had no trouble breaking into
Mel's house and getting past the blocked doors, why would they have a
problem with a stupid blocked pantry door in the first place?

The other problem that I have with this and ANY movie that chooses to use
the UFO phenomenon as a subject matter is that they never seem to do any
homework about it. There have been countless books written, stories
relayed, and witness accounts, that there by now is almost a blue print of
established consistencies and theories surrounding this phenomenon. Yet none
of the movies that use this phenomenon ever seem to take this into account.
'Independence Day' was the worst abuser of this, but there are traits of it
in 'Signs' as well. I won't go into all the details here, but it would be
like someone using religion as a subject matter and then ignoring all the
traditional myths and having Jesus hung for his sins from a tree or Noah
building a submarine out of iron to escape the flood. It just bugs me, but
probably because I'm so familiar with it.

All in all, it wasn't a bad movie, but it didn't live up to the expectations
I had for it.

Rob's Reply...


I didn't like "Signs" as much as you did. There were some nifty scenes, but
the movie as a whole just didn't move me. I agree that they should have
paid attention to the established lore of UFOlogy. Even if they didn't want
to use it, they should have acknowledged it. I just didn't buy the guy in
the alien suit walking around and getting locked in a fucking pantry!
C'mon! Don't the green men from space have phasers? Ray guns? Sticks?

Why are these critters strolling around the corn and at kids birthday
parties? Hi dig me, I'm the Abominable Snowman from Space! Fuck that! If
they were on a raid and looking for food, why didn't they use their ships to
rassle us up? C'mon even the apes in "Planet of the Apes" rode horses and
knew how to herd the masses. Any damn rodeo clown could have done a better
job than these aliens. C'mon they can jump on a roof to hide, but can't
kick in a door? How about a wall? I knew frat boys who could get out of
pantries better than the nasty alien.

For me the suspense was shot to hell as soon as they started showing the
big, bad alien so damn early in the film. They gave away the monster in the
first third of the film. Bye bye imagination; hello guy in a monster suit.
I didn't feel like Earth was being invaded. It was like they spent millions
of dollars to make a low budget monster movie. Unnecessary. The no
budgeters work because they strip it all down and keep it raw. Sure, the
crop circles & signs were creepy and looked great, but I just didn't care.
This should have been the big creepy, suspense flick of the summer but just
made me want to see 1950's "Invaders From Mars" again. Oh well.

And my response to this...


You brought up some very good points about 'Signs', and ones that I agree
with. You hit upon a number of things that I was referring to about
neglecting the standard UFO myths. ANY attention to these details would
have made the film better than it was - and it's too bad, really, because it
had potential.

Also, I really didn't buy into the 'everything happens for a reason' theme
that they tried to touch on at the end. You mean to tell me that the only
reason M. Night fell asleep at the wheel was so he could kill Mel's wife so
she could tell him to have his brother hit the alien with a baseball bat?
And so the only reason for her death was so that she could help save her
son? Well what if she didn't die? Then you mean to tell me that she would
have lived but their son would have died? Hmm, somehow I think that if an
adult woman had been living in that house with them, she would have had the
common sense required to realize that staying there was NOT a good idea.
Then they all would have lived! I don't know - the whole faith theme was
pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

And some additional thoughts...



Since I wrote this I've read some other reviews and gotten some other
opinions. I agree with some of them. I agree that this movie seemed to
work on the small scale that it set for itself, and that keeping it on a
more personal everyday level was refreshing as compared to other "invasion"
films (like Independence Day). Taking an "everyman" approach was
innovative; however, I still say that the subject matter they used to
achieve it was all wrong. Here's why:

If M. Night had done ANY kind of homework about crop circles, UFOs or
aliens, he'd know that crop circles have been appearing in fields since the
late 1800s. Why would the aliens suddenly attack now after all these years?
Why would now be the time that we finally "realize" they were being used as
beacons? How does this explain the elaborate patterns? How does this
theory explain the vast number of them that have appeared before now? The
whole crop circle motif should have been thrown out. It didn't work at all,
and was pretty far fetched. The only thing it did was add some
mysteriousness to the film, but that could have been achieved through other
means - one's just as mysterious and scary, but without such a recognizable
background. How about mysterious patches of burned land and matted earth
that indicated a saucer landing? It would make more sense, if there was
really an invasion, that ships had actually been landing somewhere.

If M. Night had read anything at all about the traditional alien mythos, he
would certainly have realized that in about 90% of most abduction scenarios,
witnesses report the alien's ability to pass through walls and solid matter.
This would really call in to question the stupid scene with the alien
trapped in the pantry, and render the entire locked in the basement scene
moot. Okay. So MAYBE they weren't the traditional type of aliens. Maybe
they were some other species of alien. Who knows? Can't I forgive that for
the benefit of this film? But the problem still remains: if they are smart
enough build ships to travel across millions of miles of space, why such the
crude methods of attack? Why such asinine, almost comical efforts at
rounding up "food"? I would give any superior species more credit than
that.

Oh, and the water thing? Nice try, but other than "Alien Nation" where
saltwater was like acid to the aliens, nowhere in traditional UFO literature
is there reports of water having this kind of effect on them. In fact, UFOs
have been reportedly seen underwater, flying into water, and even expelling
salt water from somewhere inside them. "Well maybe they were a different
kind of alien!!" Yeah, yeah, yeah - that works for Star Trek, Star Wars and
other far out sci-fi films, but when you try to ground something on earth
and surround it by all these traditional elements, you really need to get
the story straight. You need to ground it based on taking what the public
already knows and already accepts and expand on it.

If M. Night had intended to do for aliens what he did for superheros in
'Unbreakable', then he really missed the mark.

No, the whole alien invasion plot points didn't work for me. They could
have achieved the same results through other means in a much more creepy and
believable way. Take any number of other great films that M. Night could
have stolen ideas from rather than Close Encounters and Alien. Simply
supplant the aliens in 'Signs' with almost anything else and it would have
been a much better film.

This film would have worked using the Dawn of the Dead zombies better than
aliens. It would have worked using Invasion of the Body Snatchers better
than aliens. It would have worked using the Mimic bugs better than aliens.
It would even have worked better using the Predator alien rather than the
ones in this film! The reason it would have worked better with all of these
is because of the WAY these aliens in THIS film are portrayed. None of
their actions made sense or demonstrated the technological advancements that
this species would have had in order to achieve the results they did. Hell,
even the Predator had some cool other-worldly gadgets to illustrate this!
No, instead we get intricate, elaborate crop circles created with
mathematical precision, followed by crude furniture fumbling, animal-like
attacks and an ineptitude of basic motor skills and strength (I'm strong
enough to leap 20 feet in the air, but I can't kick in a door or defend
myself against some nut with a bat). Nice try, but try again please.

As a film on a technical level it worked. It was creepy, it was
suspenseful, the acting was good, and the tension real. Often though the
tension and suspense turned out to be better than the payoff, and that was
because the plot and the subject matter just didn't fit this film.

That's what I think about it anyway.

-Tooch

It just doesn't end...


Tooch -

Apparently you heard from Rob that I really liked "Signs", but let me clarify that. During the course of the movie, I was riveted. I cannot deny that. I was RIVETED. I thought Mel Gibson's performance was awesome, and M. Night Shyamalan's writing is so gripping, and his direction is so thoughtful, that I was mesmerized throughout. However, as with all sci-fi, there were problems. And they appeared to me as soon as I was watching the credits.

It's getting to be a sure thing that all sci-fi will have flaws in the script. Even "Minority Report", which we GUSHED over, had errors (have we discussed the fact that Cruise could NOT have gotten back into Pre-Crime HQ with his own eyeball in a bag, 'cause his own eye scan would've either been denied or set off an alarm?).

As for your comments, Karen agrees that the military (or even moreso, a militia) would've shot at the lights that hung over the major cities for a long time. I have to admit, I liked the idea of a worldwide "contact" with these aliens as seen through the eyes of a small farm in Philadelphia. So, alot of the "BIG PICTURE" that's missing, I was cool with. I thought Joaquin Phoenix locked in a closet watching the news was alot of fun.

As for the water thing, we all agreed that, even more than the ability to escape from a pantry, a species traveling this far should realize that the people that populate the planet are 80% WATER!! I wanted to argue that maybe they just wanted to kill us, but that theory dies when they're face to face with the alien, and he's trying to inject Gibson's son with "something". Could've killed him, but didn't. So, the aliens didn't do their research.

As far as calling the movie "Panic Room" meets "Alien", I certainly liked the "Panic Room" side of the movie. The claustrophobia, impending doom, tension and stylistic direction in the scenes where the family is boarding up the house and eventually end up in the basement was great shit.

Alot of Shyamalan's writing was fierce. The entire subplot with Gibson's wife pinned against the car had me BAWLING LIKE A FOOL. I thought Gibson was extremely good. He's passing Ford as THE MAN on my list. Ford's still 8 years removed from his last great film. Not so with Gibson. The slow reveal about who Shymalan's character was was good as well. He also had more humor than in any film he's made yet. There's alot of well-balance comedy in this film - the foil hats were especially good. However...
Alot of Shyamalan's needed tightening. I thought "swing away" was simply a response to Phoenix's story about his failed hitting career. Gibson might've even made it up to make his brother feel good. When it tied into the whole ending, I thought that was goofy. Also, I wish Gibson didn't rediscover his faith. That was a bummer.

I have to admit that I don't know much about the actual UFO accounts in this world, but I can see where that'd upset those who would expect research. Your comments on all that were very insightful. Naturally, this movie has spawned specials on Discovery, The History Channel, etc. all about the crop circle phenomenon, and those specials have been fascinating. But I disagree with anyone who thinks he should've made the movie with all crop circle theories in mind, including the hoaxes. If "Signs" didn't deliver aliens, I would've been pissed. It's just that the delivery was uneven. (On that note, have you seen "Reign of Fire"? HOLY SHIT they needed a SHITLOAD more dragon in that movie. What a gyp!!!)

So, anyway, I agree that it was not the movie it could've been, but I'm glad that a movie that's trying is making more money than "Pluto Nash".

- Paul


Seriously, it doesn't...


Paul,

I was wondering when you'd get around to replying to me about this. Your
thoughts on this are interesting, especially in light of the fact that I
was under the assumption you thought more of this movie than you actually
did.

Most of what you liked about the picture I would agree was effective,
although I wasn't as impressed with the overall writing as you were. I
thought that a lot of the tightening you mentioned should have applied to
the script as well. The funny moments were refreshing to see in M.Night's
film, but I thought that the timing of them was erratic and not very well
placed. For me, the whole tempo and pacing of the film, right up until
after the pantry scene, seemed off somehow.

I saw M.Night's character coming 10,000 light years away. From the moment
he drove by the pizza parlor I had him pegged. I felt his scene leading up
to the pantry was good, but then in hindsight realized that it was probably
totally off considering what events had just transpired before Gibson's
arrival.

I didn't like the fact that all the "true" information we learn about the
aliens comes from the one book his son just happens to read. This whole
idea was just a piss-poor plot driving device and should have been
re-written. To think that of the thousands of books written on the subject,
Gibson's son would find the one that just happens to hit upon the correct
theory of what's going on seems very, very unbelievable. And I won't accept
that it is part of the fate/faith bullshit either, because that whole plot
element didn't work for me either.

I thought Gibson's performance was very well acted, but again I state that I
feel his character, as written, behaved in manners that seemed to contradict
itself in unbelievable ways. I think the fact that he calls or tells no-one
of his encounter in the pantry was very out of character with the concerned
father he was at the beginning of the film, to say nothing of his decision
to stay at the house rather than flee the area in the headlights of the
impending invasion. And the very fact that he returns to his faith after
his exposure to such an other-worldly experience seemed forced. I agree
that this was just goofy pragmatist shit tacked on in a post 9-11 religious
right-wing rah, rah kind of way.

I don't know, Paul, there were just so, so many problems that I had with
this film and ALL of them stem from the script/story. As with most bad or
good movies out there, the foundation of them all lies with the script, and
when the script (or story) is off, the entire movie suffers because of it.
To me a good movie is the sum of all its parts adding up to being equal.
Having too much of one element and not another leads to a lop-sided movie,
and that's what I think 'Signs' is. Just because certain parts of it were
good and delivered, doesn't mean that it is an overall good movie. 'Pearl
Harbor' is a shining example of this. For me, the most basic fundamental
element of 'Signs' was bad (the story), and as a result, no amount of
tension, good acting, emotion, or suspense is going to save it for me.

It was good that the movie delivered aliens. As I said before, it would
have been better if it had delivered something else instead. I agree that
they shouldn't (and didn't) make the movie with all crop circle theories in
mind. I would go one step further and say that they just shouldn't have
included crop circles in the movie at all. If you're going to make a movie
about crop circles, make a movie about crop circles. Don't just touch on it
early and then abandon it for B-movie thrills. No, as I said before, they
should never have bothered with them. There were plenty of other things
they could have done. They weren't necessary.

All in all, this film really made me realize just how great Close Encounters
was, and in watching it again recently I'm still amazed at how well it holds
up today. If 'Signs' could even dream that it would be in the same league
as CE, it better wake up and apologize!

BTW, I too remembered thinking the same things you mentioned about the
eyeball scene in Minority Report, and yes, Reign of Fire needed more dragons
and then some. Where the hell was the scene on the one-sheet of all the
dragons burning down London?!? I made the mistake of seeing this after
reading a glowing review of it by Harry Knowles on his website. I'm
quickly realizing that he's the Mikey of Life cereal for the movie going
public. He likes everything. If I'm not mistaken, he thought 'Signs' was
awesome too. Fuck that fat sell-out bastard.

-Tooch

And finally, a thought for us all.


Tooch -

In brief:

Fuck that fat, sell-out bastard is RIGHT. Knowles is a suck-up ass-face!

Also,

"Reign of Fire"'s poster had all the truth in it of the title, "Attack of the Clones".

- Paul

Back to Movie List