Mazinger

I know this movie has been talked to death.

I just saw "Signs" for the first time this weekend and thought it was a great film. I've read previous posts, since the movie was release, from people who though the movie wasn't frightening. I don't think "Signs" was supposed to be frightening. It falls more into the suspense genre, which the movie actually delivered.

This is the same thing I noticed with "The Sixth Sense". People who watch "Signs" and expect horror will be disappointed.

This is the reason Shyamalan gets compared to Hitchcock. Shyamalan knows how to create suspense.

I just think there's a big difference been "frightening" and "suspenseful"

Anyone feel the same way?

DVDho78DTS

I agree.

Don't agree with starting a new thread.

WiccanPagan

just saw it as well, and nope, not scary. i thought the ending was dumb. not shyamalan's best work.

Pants

I agree that he is more about suspense than horror (if you define horror as having gore and murder). But he is not "like" Hitchcock, he rips off Hitchcock (and not in the post-modern reinvention/DePalma way). Signs was nothing but a retake of The Birds...with a splash of Close Encounters and Night of the Living Dead, and a bit of Bergman's crisis of faith. Nothing new.

Mazinger

Yes it is. He pretty much says that on the interviews included on the disc. The alien invasion story line is somewhat secondary to what the movie was really about though.

sundog

And really, Shyamalan's brand of suspense comes from limiting the audience's information. That's quite different from the Hitchcockian standard of cluing the audience in while keeping the characters in the dark (his whole "bomb under the table" example).

Personally, I think Shyamalan's last three films are shortchanged by that insistence on a "great revelation" at the end. He attaches such a monumental importance to these revelations, everything that comes before just deflates.

Pants

And birds were secondary to what The Birds was really about. What's your point?

Mazinger

No point. I think my post is very clear. I was agreeing with you about the retake issue.

You sound a little too defensive there.

Scot1458

Loved it.

Thought it was very creepy, best horror/suspense movie I've seen for some time!

Jackskeleton

to bad he didn't work harder at finding a better resolution to that secondary story plot as it's lame conclusion turned me away from the movie and took me out of the moment.

Mazinger

I did notice that in "Signs". Most of the suspense happens when I didn't know what was going on and what the characters were seeing.
Just shots of the characters face and reaction to something off screen.

sundog

Now doesn't that sound like a convention of the horror film? Isn't the whole concept of facing the unknown Other a horror staple? The more I look into Signs, and The Sixth Sense (in a sense), I see more typical scare tactics than classical suspense.

Actually, in his big 3 films, I see a thread of appropiation nested in his languid pacing. This isn't bad necessarily. Unbreakable swims in comic book mythology so well I can forgive the way he handles the conclusion.

But we're discussing Signs here. As to you're statement above, I think Shyamalan just keeps the shots of the "monsters" limited until the end, thusly adding an element of suspense into the horror.

Mazinger

For me it wasn't. It just made me anxious to find out what they were looking at.

I guess it just depends on the person watching.

I don't get scared when I know it's an alien.

I do have a different reaction to "ghost" movies. Those creep me out.

Pants

Sorry it sounded like you were disagreeing with me. No offense intended. Of course if you ever DO disagree with me

Rogue588

Hmmm...

kian69

It had that creepy mysterious vibe to it, I liked (Y) Indeed not the scariest at all, but fun nonetheless

RyoHazuki

Not a fan of Usual Suspects eh?

Jackskeleton

The Usual Suspect worked off of it and didn't rely on the twist to save the whole movie. The past three works by ol' M.Knight are nothing more then filler till the twist. Their is a difference between suspense/mystery and then just having a twist ending.

RyoHazuki

You didn't find Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, or Signs supsensful or mysterious?

Jackskeleton

Unbreakable wasn't my cup of tea and I'm an avid comic reader. Sixth sense, I saw it coming a mile away. I guess I saw to many Twilight Zone episodes when I was younger.

Signs... Ha, I disliked the whole cheap way out of finding a resolution to the aliens.

His flicks rely to much on that twist and after a few of his movies, it becomes the same ol' thing.

sundog

I am a fan, to an extent. The twist in the Usual Suspects doesn't really answer any questions about what came before. In fact, it brings into doubt what is "true" and what isn't. Shyamalan's conclusions wrap everything up in a tidy package, forcing everything to conform to the big picture. I find that really confining.

Hobgoblin

That said, I did enjoy the film.

LBPound

Actually, Signs didn't have a Shamalamadingdong twist at the end.

And I strongly disagree that the body of The Sixth Sense is just filler for the surprise ending. I think that movie has a lot going for it throughout.

milo bloom

If the Sixth Sense didn't have anything else but the twist going for it, then it'd only be good for two viewings. The first, then the second to catch the clues.

But for me, it's not just the journey, but the destination...

And Signs didn't have a twist, so much as a reveal.
And I was damn_terrified.

Darkfriend

Like Jackskeleton said, I'm getting tired of the "TADA!! Punchline!!"moments in his movies.

I really enjoyed his two previous movies but this one just felt ermmm a bit cheesy at the end.

His next movie should be a musical with midgets, to throw us off a bit