Exactly! I was noticing the same thing last night when I hopped on Rotten Tomatoes and caught a bunch of the reviews they had linked to.

It makes me wonder if it's possible for any filmmaker to put a priest or whatnot in one of their movies as the central character and not get a similar mixed reaction these days.

Gotcha. It's just interesting that people I've talked to have been REALLY polarized on this movie, in a Sharks v. Jets kind of way. I'll probably break down and see it, at some point.

Late,
JJ

I think that review was from a bit of an anti-religion viewpoint, which is certainly fair enough. (Coming correct personally, I should state that I believe in God, although I can't say that I particularly practice my religion with any degree of regularity or go out of my way even slightly to express my religious beliefs to others; in fact, it really, really bugs me when people are so caught up in their faith that they feel righteous in telling any non-family member about it).

I didn't think that Signs was going to be about religion (or really, God / pre-destination) at all before I went to see it. Even when I learned that the main character was an Episcopalian Father, my take was, "OK, here's a story about crop circles and the main character happens to really be a Father, as opposed to a farmer as I had thought going in." I took it as just another attribute of the character, in other words.

I can say that the movie doesn't get particularly preachy. There is one scene between Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix that probably makes up the meat of the objectional content the review you posted speaks to, but they are speaking at a time where they have no idea if civilization will even exist when morning comes. Hell, my roommate and I would get all existential while in the dorms at college, and the only thing in question when we woke up would be whether or not the ridiculously salty pizza we consumed would give us boils or not.

Signs really is a very, very narrow story -- it's about *one* guy and his family, and this guy happens to have been a man of God at one point. I personally believe that religion is a very good thing for a person and a very bad thing for a group of people. That kind of rings true in Signs as well, it is a very good story (in my opinion) about a single guy (Graham, Gibson's character) regaining his faith... I don't know think that extending that same guy's take on things to humanity at large necessarily works or was intended. I could be wrong on that and that could be what Shyamalan was attempting, in which case the points in the above review are well taken.

Havent seen the movie, but this review made me leery of seeing it. But on the other hand, people I Know and Trust have liked the movie. Do you agree with what follows?




[spoilers]








The worldview Shyamalan expounds in Signs is a kind of wishy-washy New Agey theism meant to mindlessly comfort and reassure. If you do evil things, don't worry: God meant you to, it's not really your fault (in the film, this is the story arc of the character who ran down Graham's wife). If you suffer unspeakable tragedy: rejoice! God means well, even if you can't see it yet. You are not responsible for your actions and neither is anyone else for theirs. Don't question what happens, just accept it. Great deeds are not an accomplishment, and atrocities are not really evil deeds. It's all planned by a greater power.

According to Shyamalan's film, the only really bad thing you can do and be held accountable for is losing faith in God's love.

Preaching this kind of malarkey is not only misguided, it's downright evil. People do make a difference. They accomplish great things through determination and compassion. And they should be proud. God didn't do it: they did. They, not God, are responsible for disgusting atrocities because of fear and hatred. And they should be ashamed. People need to question events, so they can act. Because their actions matter. There's no secret feel-good meaning behind the chaos of the world. But every time we do something — anything — we create meaning. We are responsible for the meaning we create. And, contrary to what Shyamalan preaches in his film, that's not scary. It's empowering.

The idea that some sadistic God is pulling puppet strings and that I am not responsible for anything that I do: now that's fucking scary.

Saw it over the weekend -- really solid. I normally trust the reviews of "B. Fatt" from www.bfatt-lazy.com but he was dead wrong on this one. Most likely due to his expectations going into it, but still.

Also, should you be under the age of 40 and both write and direct your own movies, I've noticed that there is a certain percentage of scribes who will automatically DESPISE whatever you put on the screen, for the simple fact that you both wrote and directed it. Signs was one of those flicks that I couldn't instantly predict how the inevitable negative reviews were going to read as. A lot of it seems to be based around the "Hey, M. Night, you've got nothing to say!!!" (as if there's been a single interesting idea in anything Spielberg's trotted out since Schindler's List). Oh, and if you're not writing for a site with an editor, it is absolutely mandatory that you spell "Shyamalan" incorrectly. Usually doing so like:

"Shaynanalalananannaa"
"Shamalanadingdong"
"Shmamanalalnahahhayaahah"

.. or something. I see this all the time in other cases, as everyone who has something negative to say about the New Orleans Saints calls them either the "Aints," "Aint's," "Aints'," or some other inane variation, and it's just as ridiculous for this poor bastard. "Shyamalan." Wow, that's fucking challenging. It drives home the stereotype that your average American is a tobacco spitting retard to see that.

Er, sort of got off track there.

Anyway, not only a definite one to get a DVD of, but one I may just catch again while still playing in theatres.