Signs (spoilers)
Jan. 14th, 2008 10:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI finally saw Signs, which I didn't expect to really like, but was very curious to see as I somehow felt obliged to form my own opinion between those people who thought it was the cleverest film they've ever seen, and those people who thought it was the stupidest film they've ever seen.
Reactions
* It was quite funny. I didn't expect that. But without being over the top, it was quite funny quite often.
* The other background of the little family was pleasant enough although I wasn't really interested.
* The imdb trivia section asserts Johnny Depp was proposed to star. I thought that was actually really interesting, it actually is a bit like Sleepy Hollow in some respects and thinking of it like that helps a lot. It's a bit like a ghost movie but not unrelentingly so, it has a lot of different things and then is creepy too.
* I didn't find it very creepy. A bit tense in places, but not really. Of course, I wasn't really paying attention, it might be scarier if you were concentrating.
* The cinematography seems adequately done, and quite pretty and interesting in some places. There is obligatory symbolism. I suppose people who like M. Night S. will like it.
* All the actors were quite good.
* The aliens were not spectacular but were fairly well done.
Aliens
* Yes, they are not especially sensible from a scientific point of view.
* However the film wisely doesn't go into too much detail, showing only guesses about how things work. For instance, we know the crop circles have *something* to do with where the aliens land, but since it's not spelled out it could be anything -- I've read more implausible things explained as convincing results of alien minds in real science fiction before.
* And they are reasonably consistent. The ideas are set up and used, rather than being (metaphorical) deus ex machinas
* The details aren't really relevant, however a list of a few of the questions you might ask:
-- Why crop circles? Do they really direct the spaceships?
-- OK. I'm looking for resources. I can attack planet A which is free. Or planet B which is filled with (a) 70% poison (b) 20% touchy suspicious nuclear armed nations (c) 100% unknown biotics. Yes Johnny, that's an interesting answer too, but lets wait for Susan to tell us why A is better. [However, I don't entirely agree with this view. See below.]
-- Did that kids book about aliens know anything special or was it just guessing?
-- What can they gain from earth?
-- Why do they have such trouble with doors?
-- Why are the aliens conquering the earth house-to-house?
-- How helpful is chameleonness? Is it natural or artificial? It's a great help against aging film-stars and failed baseball players, but not really much help against people with, eg. baseball bats, guns, water pistols, other weapons, etc :)
-- So everything happens for a reason, but did his wife dying have a reason?
-- Why is the film billed as a scifi/horror when that simultaneously sets people up to hate it and sells it short? [OK, I know WHY but it's still worth pointing out that people think of it like that.]
Religion
* The story is about a man who loses his faith in God when his wife his killed, but gets in back when God saves him and his family.
* I don't agree with it, but I thought it was pretty well done and enjoyed it. Not in the same league as Narnia and The Sparrow, but then what is? I wasn't made uncomfortable watching. And after all, people in real life *do* experience the revelations he experienced both ways round.
* Or, you know, maybe it's trying to say that only people who've suffered extremely unlikely alien invasions and been saved by retrospective deus-ex-deus should believe in God.
* I only say that to annoy everyone who applauded or objected to the religious content that you can read it as quite a different message if you want. The fact it has Mel Gibson in makes me think the first interpretation is more likely.
A bunch of rebuttals to things people on the internet said, that I might tell you, or might react vicariously to, forcing you to deduce the original criticism from context
Q. The water thing is the stupidest thing I ever saw. Why invade a planet you can't survive on?
A. We don't know for sure, everything is speculation. We know what happened to the one, wounded, alien at the end, but it wasn't melted instantly, rather increasingly inconvenienced, simultaneously being beaten to death. It's strongly hinted that the aliens avoid water on a larger scale, and that they left because someone discovered they were vulnerable to it, but we don't know the details.
A. After all, most *insects* are killed by almost any contact with water, and last I heard, they *had* conquered the earth.
A. My personal theory (irrelevant to the film) is they're some sort of biological robots produced by nano-machine replication, impossible to make too sophisticated, but easy to produce en-mass. Hence that they're great at a few things, and a bit bumbling at everything else. And why the aliens don't really care.
Q. It's stupid. God made sure there were glasses of water around the house and the boy had asthma? But didn't save everyone sooner? What about tsunamis in blah blah blah.
A. Well, yes. I don't believe in God, for amongst others, similar reasons. But there's still room for another "God looks after me" story. Whether everyone else living and dying in the invasion (and in everything else) is also being individually led to their destiny by God is a potentially unanswerable question, but its absence isn't necessarily a criticism of the *film*
A. Also, this is the main character's interpretation of it. I think the film is supposed to support it, but to me he sounds a bit crazed, I think that it's his opinion, not necessarily gospel truth, is a good interpretation of the film.
ETA: Also, God did save everyone else from the invasion too, even if some died. How big a gift than making them vulnerable to water can you ask for?? :)
Q. Why are they attacking house-by-house?
A. The ships are scattered, mostly over bigger populations, but one just happened to be near Gibson's house, and a bunch of aliens attacked him. Most people meet aliens in larger groups.
A. If you want an infrastructure intact, what *do* you do? Look at the US attacking Iraq (or maybe god forbid Vietnam), not quite the same (Don't need the infrastructure per se, but need some of it, and did want to leave a working country behind. And not 500 years ahead, but significantly technologically advanced such that if they did want to "win" outright they basically could.)
You have good equipment. If you want to, you can bomb everything level. But the only way to capture is to roll troops across, flattening resistance and getting surrender from the populous.
Q. That doesn't explain why they spent so long attacking Mel Gibson's farmhouse. They'd move as an army, even if they're stealthy, and look for resistance targets to take out. And they'd have technology, maybe not use nukes, but enough handheld weaponry to open a door or level a farmhouse.
A. OK, I agree. That part is stupid. It doesn't make any sense.
S. Actually, I thought of something. Imagine these aliens as Triffids, or raptors. The film makes a whole lot more sense. All that's needed is a hint that they're here by accident, or seeded here for an obscure purpose, and it's not THEM that control the spaceships, and the story would work almost completely.
Reactions
* It was quite funny. I didn't expect that. But without being over the top, it was quite funny quite often.
* The other background of the little family was pleasant enough although I wasn't really interested.
* The imdb trivia section asserts Johnny Depp was proposed to star. I thought that was actually really interesting, it actually is a bit like Sleepy Hollow in some respects and thinking of it like that helps a lot. It's a bit like a ghost movie but not unrelentingly so, it has a lot of different things and then is creepy too.
* I didn't find it very creepy. A bit tense in places, but not really. Of course, I wasn't really paying attention, it might be scarier if you were concentrating.
* The cinematography seems adequately done, and quite pretty and interesting in some places. There is obligatory symbolism. I suppose people who like M. Night S. will like it.
* All the actors were quite good.
* The aliens were not spectacular but were fairly well done.
Aliens
* Yes, they are not especially sensible from a scientific point of view.
* However the film wisely doesn't go into too much detail, showing only guesses about how things work. For instance, we know the crop circles have *something* to do with where the aliens land, but since it's not spelled out it could be anything -- I've read more implausible things explained as convincing results of alien minds in real science fiction before.
* And they are reasonably consistent. The ideas are set up and used, rather than being (metaphorical) deus ex machinas
* The details aren't really relevant, however a list of a few of the questions you might ask:
-- Why crop circles? Do they really direct the spaceships?
-- OK. I'm looking for resources. I can attack planet A which is free. Or planet B which is filled with (a) 70% poison (b) 20% touchy suspicious nuclear armed nations (c) 100% unknown biotics. Yes Johnny, that's an interesting answer too, but lets wait for Susan to tell us why A is better. [However, I don't entirely agree with this view. See below.]
-- Did that kids book about aliens know anything special or was it just guessing?
-- What can they gain from earth?
-- Why do they have such trouble with doors?
-- Why are the aliens conquering the earth house-to-house?
-- How helpful is chameleonness? Is it natural or artificial? It's a great help against aging film-stars and failed baseball players, but not really much help against people with, eg. baseball bats, guns, water pistols, other weapons, etc :)
-- So everything happens for a reason, but did his wife dying have a reason?
-- Why is the film billed as a scifi/horror when that simultaneously sets people up to hate it and sells it short? [OK, I know WHY but it's still worth pointing out that people think of it like that.]
Religion
* The story is about a man who loses his faith in God when his wife his killed, but gets in back when God saves him and his family.
* I don't agree with it, but I thought it was pretty well done and enjoyed it. Not in the same league as Narnia and The Sparrow, but then what is? I wasn't made uncomfortable watching. And after all, people in real life *do* experience the revelations he experienced both ways round.
* Or, you know, maybe it's trying to say that only people who've suffered extremely unlikely alien invasions and been saved by retrospective deus-ex-deus should believe in God.
* I only say that to annoy everyone who applauded or objected to the religious content that you can read it as quite a different message if you want. The fact it has Mel Gibson in makes me think the first interpretation is more likely.
A bunch of rebuttals to things people on the internet said, that I might tell you, or might react vicariously to, forcing you to deduce the original criticism from context
Q. The water thing is the stupidest thing I ever saw. Why invade a planet you can't survive on?
A. We don't know for sure, everything is speculation. We know what happened to the one, wounded, alien at the end, but it wasn't melted instantly, rather increasingly inconvenienced, simultaneously being beaten to death. It's strongly hinted that the aliens avoid water on a larger scale, and that they left because someone discovered they were vulnerable to it, but we don't know the details.
A. After all, most *insects* are killed by almost any contact with water, and last I heard, they *had* conquered the earth.
A. My personal theory (irrelevant to the film) is they're some sort of biological robots produced by nano-machine replication, impossible to make too sophisticated, but easy to produce en-mass. Hence that they're great at a few things, and a bit bumbling at everything else. And why the aliens don't really care.
Q. It's stupid. God made sure there were glasses of water around the house and the boy had asthma? But didn't save everyone sooner? What about tsunamis in blah blah blah.
A. Well, yes. I don't believe in God, for amongst others, similar reasons. But there's still room for another "God looks after me" story. Whether everyone else living and dying in the invasion (and in everything else) is also being individually led to their destiny by God is a potentially unanswerable question, but its absence isn't necessarily a criticism of the *film*
A. Also, this is the main character's interpretation of it. I think the film is supposed to support it, but to me he sounds a bit crazed, I think that it's his opinion, not necessarily gospel truth, is a good interpretation of the film.
ETA: Also, God did save everyone else from the invasion too, even if some died. How big a gift than making them vulnerable to water can you ask for?? :)
Q. Why are they attacking house-by-house?
A. The ships are scattered, mostly over bigger populations, but one just happened to be near Gibson's house, and a bunch of aliens attacked him. Most people meet aliens in larger groups.
A. If you want an infrastructure intact, what *do* you do? Look at the US attacking Iraq (or maybe god forbid Vietnam), not quite the same (Don't need the infrastructure per se, but need some of it, and did want to leave a working country behind. And not 500 years ahead, but significantly technologically advanced such that if they did want to "win" outright they basically could.)
You have good equipment. If you want to, you can bomb everything level. But the only way to capture is to roll troops across, flattening resistance and getting surrender from the populous.
Q. That doesn't explain why they spent so long attacking Mel Gibson's farmhouse. They'd move as an army, even if they're stealthy, and look for resistance targets to take out. And they'd have technology, maybe not use nukes, but enough handheld weaponry to open a door or level a farmhouse.
A. OK, I agree. That part is stupid. It doesn't make any sense.
S. Actually, I thought of something. Imagine these aliens as Triffids, or raptors. The film makes a whole lot more sense. All that's needed is a hint that they're here by accident, or seeded here for an obscure purpose, and it's not THEM that control the spaceships, and the story would work almost completely.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 12:28 am (UTC)The main character gets his faith back because of a series of implausible coincidences in which things his wife said when delirious and dying n years ago turn out to be exactly the things he needs to know to save the day. He concludes from this that his universe must indeed be under the control of an omnipotent entity that planned it all.
Yes, of course it bloody is. He's called the Scriptwriter!
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 12:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 08:45 am (UTC)Vna bapr qrfpevorq gur Ynml Thaf nf "n pehry wbxr crecrgengrq ba gur havirefr ol n orvat jvgu gbb zhpu cbjre, gung orvat orvat gur nhgube."
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 12:38 am (UTC)Mmmmyeeah
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 12:57 am (UTC)If they wanted to kill us they could easily do it from orbit, even from the orbit of another planet! Any aliens advanced enough to travel across the stars could destroy us without any effort at all.
I suppose that wouldn't make a very exciting film though :P
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 01:11 am (UTC)I can't think of any particularly decent, recent alien invasion films. Although as I pointed out, this one could be because what it did do fairly well, and was trying to do, didn't rely on a technological invasion at all.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 10:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 10:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 12:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 09:15 am (UTC)Aliens
There are aliens visiting the Earth. In any other work of SF made after the 1950s, there would be at the very least lip service paid to the idea that they might not have hostile intent. Typically there'd be arguments about whether to respond defensively or diplomatically; someone would try talking first; if everyone on Earth assumed without question that the aliens were hostile then they'd turn out to have been potentially friendly; conceivably Earth would try to be friendly and the aliens would unexpectedly turn out to be hostile; but someone, at some point, would at least consider the possibility that the universe was big enough for the two of them.
But no. Everyone automatically makes the leap of logic from "aliens" to "hostile invasion force", and everyone is correct to do so. I can't decide whether I'm more disappointed in the humans or in the aliens for that, but since both are creations of the same scriptwriter I fortunately don't have to.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 11:46 am (UTC)Why invade a planet you can't survive on?
Date: 2008-01-15 10:04 am (UTC)Re: Why invade a planet you can't survive on?
Date: 2008-01-15 11:43 am (UTC)Re: Why invade a planet you can't survive on?
Date: 2008-01-15 11:56 am (UTC)Re: Why invade a planet you can't survive on?
Date: 2008-01-15 11:59 am (UTC)Therefore respectivelyWell, both.Re: Why invade a planet you can't survive on?
Date: 2008-01-15 12:00 pm (UTC)Re: Why invade a planet you can't survive on?
Date: 2008-01-15 03:31 pm (UTC)Re: Why invade a planet you can't survive on?
Date: 2008-01-15 03:47 pm (UTC)