Simon Miraudo will argue FOR the film and DVDman will argue AGAINST it. Let us know in the comments who you agree with. Let the bloodshed begin!
Simon Miraudo - 5/5
Yikes, I’ve got the feeling I’m on the losing side this week. After all, Mr. Shyamalan hasn’t exactly been earning goodwill over the past few years. The release of The Happening pretty much ended the debate about whether he was going through a rough patch, or was just too self-absorbed for his own good. HOWEVER, I argue that Signs is a masterfully made, Hitchcock-esque invasion movie that is irresistibly nerve-wracking, and almost on-par with The Sixth Sense. This is how an alien invasion would actually pan out people! And sure, maybe the aliens look kind of silly. But Signs is about much, much more than extra-terrestrial invaders. I know that DVDman is godless, and is most likely going to hell, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t enjoy Shyamalan’s tribute to faith, love and tinfoil hats.
DVDman - 1/5
I may be godless and on my way to a fiery eternity in hell, but I’ll be seeing M. Night there. Since the credits rolled on Unbreakable, M. Night’s crimes against film have been notable and offensive, with Signs being the main offender. In his lame attempt to be Hitchcock-esque, and build up to a climactic finale, he fails…BADLY, with a slow crawl to nothing; just interminable pain. One could argue (if desperate for an argument) that this movie is how an alien invasion would actually happen; quietly and subversively. But movies (especially alien ones) are based on fantasy and excitement, something Night seemingly forgot when trying to stitch together the multiple buckets of horse manure he calls his “rushes”. There isn’t a cliché overlooked, a stereotype excluded, or a realistic alien to be seen in this attempt to bring intergalactic invasion to everyday reality. Reality, if we want to base assumptions in it, suggests M. Night was a one hit wonder (or I’ll generously grant him an extra ½ for Unbreakable) and should probably consider putting his medical degree to use, trying to cure harm instead of inflicting it.
Now it's over to you! Who do you agree with? Do you think like Simon, and believe that Signs is a modern-classic? Or do you side with DVDman, and think that the film is a Happening-style disaster? Let us know! Choose your side! There can only be one winner!
Previous Head to Head's
Shakespeare in Love - Winner: Simon
American Gangster - Winner: Simon
Crash - Winner: Simon
No Country for Old Men - Winner: DVDman
3 comments:
I'm sorry Simon....but I now hold your movie recommendations in the same level of regard as those from a Sam, the talking slug who spends his days watching Buffy. Signs is the white elephant in Mel Gibson's movie room. It's the one that you politley ignore while making conversation about his other respectable films such as Ransom, Braveheart, Mad Max, and Lethal Weapon. Hell - even the amateur footage of him being arrested in LA was better than Signs!
I'm with Simon. DVD Man is laying down the law way outside his jurisdiction on this one. Signs is one of the last truely Hitchcockian thrillers of the past decade. The cast is first class and the tension gave audiences cardiac complications. This is one of the few sci-fi/horror/thrillers in film history that would work as a play. Its drama is as fine as anything you'd see in a theatre and it doesn't need armies and huge explosions to portray an alien invasion as terrifying. Amatuer film heads require less cerebral, sophisticated films to help their brains generate endorphins, so i can understand why the same people who drool permanently from the side of their mouth don't class Signs as a truely classic film. perhaps these people can find a copy of Piranha 2: The Spawning to help them through what must be a throughourly intellect-less existence.
I'm with DVDman on this one.
Signs was one of the most disappointing movies I've seen. It promised so much, but delivered so little. The previews were much more exciting because almost all of the good bits were in them. You can't make a good movie with snippets, it needs to hold the audience from beginning to end. I found myself yawning through this one.
Shamalan has proven time & again that he is a Hitchcock wannabe. He may have made a few good movies but I think he's run out of steam. His film are full of boring cliche. I've guessed the so called twists in all of his latest movies, mostly within half an hour of the beginning! Even the good ones didn't carry the same genius that Hitchcock brought to film.
I give this movie 1 star, and I'm being generous.
Post a Comment