Badmovies.org Forum

Ok everyone has seen these movies were they pose some phlisophical question.But often I find people miss the point of these movies and think that they mean something completely diffrent than what they were intended, or they just don't understand them at all.
Examples are Signs,South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut,Planet of the Apes,and Final Fantasy the Spirits Within.
Can you think of any others?

I'm usually more amused with movies where the writer thinks he's making a big point and it's either an inane idea,  simplistically obvious, or or otherwise not nearly as clever as the writer wanted us to believe

Good Burger.

This is actually a very complex movie.

Maybe "Pitch Black".

Really about the redemption of Riddick, as well as the pilot atoning for her own fears, and arguably about how the sacrifice of the pilot helped bring about the redemption of Riddick, but I don't see it mentioned much



Also "Dark Star" has to be about *something* but I'll be danged if I could figure it out so I guess maybe we all missed it

Jaws the Revenge, it was mostly just a dream. That's why it was so bluntly farfetched in plot.

I'm pretty sure "Dark Star" was about a bunch of hippies.  In space.

People miss the point of Planet of the Apes?  News to me.

(For that matter, people miss the point of Signs?  I don't think I did -- I just think the point was stupid.)

Nick, instead of just listing the movies, I'd be interested in your take on what they are about, and how you think they've been misinterpreted.

Great point AndyC.  I mean, if a person is so intellectually superior as to "get" the movie when the masses miss it, I would love to know what I missed.  I think the whole point of the start of the string was to feel superior...a typical ploy of those who truly aren't.

K, George.  I think you pretty much nailed down the point of your own post, there...

I actually think that discussing the possible "meanings" and "Philosophical questions" of each of the movies Nick listed is woth a thread in itself.  But, since that's not what this thread is about...

I always thought Contact asked some pretty big questions, and then proceeded to never answer them - not really.  Of course, for those paying attention, not answering the questions was the point - they (the questions) were there to make the viewer think, not to provide pat answers.  That's what makes Contact, IMHO, a very interesting (if a tad boring) film.

i really don't see what there is to miss in signs, planet of the apes or final fantasy, why do you think that?

is it because people find these films annoying despite their good points?

one such example is signs and how many people get annoyed at it because the aliens seem really stupid and too easily killed, though thats not the point, and we are supposed to ignore that fact and just enjoy the damn film.

or am i missing the point here? :-P

Wait - the Aliens in Signs were easy to kill and stupid?  I missed that.  Maybe that was the point Nick was talking about...

George wrote:

> I think the whole point of the
> start of the string was to feel superior...a typical ploy of
> those who truly aren't.

I don't know about that, but it does make for a better discussion if people provide more than a list of movies. It's just a peeve of mine.

It's much easier to respond to a post if you have some idea where the poster is coming from. In this case, we're seeing an opinion presented as a fact, and it's taken for granted that we all understand what Nick means. I can't say for sure that I do. I need to see some support for Nick's position, just to know if I agree with him or not. I mean, I thought the message of these movies was abundantly clear, even overstated. What I don't know is whether Nick got the same message that I did.



Post Edited (10-27-03 11:22)

People often miss the point of DAWN OF THE DEAD, which draws parallels between zombies and how people walk "zombie-like" through our over-commercialized, capitalistic society.

I think that many times people look for a deeper meaning when it just doesn't exist.  I always reference the Gilligan's Island / seven deadly sins comparison.  I personally believe it was just entertainment.   But............maybe I'm just naive.
:-)

For the record I do not think Im above everyone I just think that people are not always that observant as I am,and Ive goten complaints before that I talk to much so I thought I would keep it short.
Ok first I'll talk about Signs.Often when I talk to people they think that Signs was just an alien invasion movie.They think that the title Signs was actually about crop circles, nothing could be further from the truth.The movie is about lost faith and a return to faith and the alien invasion is just a catalyst.The title is really in reference to signs given to us by god.You can see these signs through out the movie: the little girl always leaving water around is what finnally kills the alien,the boys asthma is what saves him in the end,the last words from the reverands wife is what gives them the idea to use the bat on the alien, and so on.There are a lot of little things in this movie which are in reality signs from god.The reverands faith is restored after he realises that all these things could not be an accident.
Ok thats the first one see why I didn't give any reasons the first time.
Next is South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut.Now I find the South Park shows to be one of the most inteligent and thought provoking shows on television.There is no other show on tv that talks about the subjects they do.The South Park movie was not just an excuse to make the most vulgar movie ever made, it was largely about the stupidity and hipocrisy of censorship, and how we demonise people just because we are offended by them.
I find many people miss the point of Planet of the Apes.They think that its just a typical Sci-fi movie with a twist.They don't see the social and political satire that goes on in the movie.The movie when you boil it all down is how are religous and social beliefs often blind us to the shear truth of the matter.In the movie the apes are forbbiden to enter the Forbbiden Zone not because it is dangerous but because it could destroy there entire belief structure.Dr.Zaus(i don't know how his name is spelled) is the keeper of the faith, but in reality gards the secret that could tare his society down.
Many people hated the Final Fantasy movie because they didn't understand it.I didn't find it that hard to figure out if you just opened your mind a little.Now keep in mind that this is not are earth and it may work by some rules that are's does not.The movie is about a asteroid that crashes into are planet, but this asteroid comes from anouther planet which was destroyed during a war between the peoples of that world.The tormented spirits of those that died were trapped in the peices of the planet, one of which eventually fell to earth.
When the asteroid crashed into are planet the enraged spirits began attacking the people of earth.The people of earth learned that the spirits operated on a certin energy wave length, and that they could use this energy against them.Thus they were able to build the protective structres and weapons.Now there is a theory that there is a spiritual force within are own planet called Gia.This spiritual force is what keeps are world alive.The asteroid that crashed also has its own Gia, and that the energy from the asteroid is making are planet sick.It is believed that are planet can be saved by collecting certin energys from the remaining life on are world.These energys could then be used to heal are planet and save earth.
There are you people satisfied.

Hate to say it but for both Signs and Planet of the Apes, I've heard those points many times before; people haven't missed them at all.  Planet Of The Apes in particular was as subtle as a hammer

I don't know if it's been mentioned because i'm in a hurry to eat and will re-read this thread later but one that comes to mind is "Natural born Killers" - man nobody who came out of that theater seemed to get the irony of it.

>>The movie when you boil it all down is how are religous and social beliefs often >>blind us to the shear truth of the matter.In the movie the apes are forbbiden to >>enter the Forbbiden Zone not because it is dangerous but because it could >>destroy there entire belief structure.Dr.Zaus(i don't know how his name is >>spelled) is the keeper of the faith, but in reality gards the secret that could tare >>his society down.


>Planet Of The Apes in particular was as subtle as
> a hammer


Not to  start a planet of the apes arguement (one of my favorite series of films. THANKS AMC FOR THE 24 HOUR FEST).

BUT.

I may not agree with either of you.  While the first point is part of the message.  The rest of the point is that "the Doctor is right.  Man is bad/evil" The apes should be blind and stay out of the forbidden zone.  Blind social belief may be wrong but are not all bad.

It takes two men and one trip to the forbiden zone to destory the world (Again).

through out the movies they stop listening to the law giver and slowly become us.

All that seems preachy, so I really think the movie is about cool monkeys

>I always thought Contact asked some pretty big questions, and then proceeded
>to never answer them - not really. Of course, for those paying attention, not
>answering the questions was the point - they (the questions) were there to make
>the viewer think, not to provide pat answers.

Sure, it made me think about how stupid the aliens were. They send these plans to Earth and it takes years and billions of dollars to build it. What's the point of doing all this? So the aliens can say "Hi!" and then send her home with absolutely no proof that the whole thing wasn't a hallucination. Considering how much unrest the entire project caused, the cost involved and the fact that there was no proof that anything happened (yes, I remember the part about the camera recording several hours of nothing), why would they bother repeating the experiment rather than just tearing the whole thing down and recycling the parts? Even if they do, with no proof to support the claims of the people who go through it, what's the point? I mean, what good does it do to go visit aliens who appear as people you know, don't tell you anything useful and then send you home with nothing to show for it? The very least they could have done would have been to give her some piece of scientific info that could be verified by the scientific community. You'd think an advanced race would realize that others would think she was crazy when she went home with a story about meeting her dead father, especially as from their point of view, nothing happened.

>Now keep in mind that this is not are earth

You mean "our" Earth?

wyckednick wrote:

> Ok first I'll talk about Signs.Often when I talk to people they
> think that Signs was just an alien invasion movie.They think
> that the title Signs was actually about crop circles, nothing
> could be further from the truth.The movie is about lost faith
> and a return to faith and the alien invasion is just a
> catalyst.The title is really in reference to signs given to us
> by god.You can see these signs through out the movie: the
> little girl always leaving water around is what finnally kills
> the alien,the boys asthma is what saves him in the end,the last
> words from the reverands wife is what gives them the idea to
> use the bat on the alien, and so on.There are a lot of little
> things in this movie which are in reality signs from god.The
> reverands faith is restored after he realises that all these
> things could not be an accident.

See, and I think you'd have to be as stupid as a bag of hammers not to have gotten that.  That was one of the parts that stuck in my craw most -- the shallow "faithless preacher who regains his faith thanks to the space aliens" drivel.


As for POTA -- again, how could ANYONE over the age of twelve not get the allegorical nature of it all?  As someone else said, about as subtle as a sledgehammer.  One of my favorite movies, yes, but subtle, no.

Really?  People MISS that?  On the Argento cut, maybe.  But you'll be hard pressed to find a review of that movie (aside from something written by a "heh heh"-level gorehound fanboy) that doesn't put the critique of consumer culture front and center.

 I was not talking about everyone missing the point of POTA.Most got it but there are those out there who don't.The point of this topic was about movies that some people did not get the point of. When I mentioned Signs and POTA I did not mean that the majority of the people didn't get it, all I was saying is that there are those who didn't get it.I figured that what I was getting at was pretty obvious I didn't think people would have such a hard time figureing out what the topic was about.

JohnL wrote:

> Sure, it made me think about how stupid the aliens were. They
> send these plans to Earth and it takes years and billions of
> dollars to build it. What's the point of doing all this? So the
> aliens can say "Hi!" and then send her home with absolutely no
> proof that the whole thing wasn't a hallucination. (Etc. Etc.)

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.  You missed it, and the alien that looked like her father all but came out and said it - it's a test.  If mankind isn't willing to take it on faith that this happened, they're not ready to be part of the enlightened community that (apparently) exists.  The little bit of proof given (seven hours of blank space when she seemed to fall right through the contraption) was the cornerstone of the test the Aliens set before mankind.

Of course, this also implies that the aliens are arrogant beyond redemption, but, hey...

You know, Nick, every post you've made on this thread, from your opener to your responses to the legitimate gripes of your fellow posters, has just plain dripped with condescention.  You claim not to think you are better than we, but you talk to us like we're thrid graders.

That's a pretty high and mighty stance for someone who can't tell the word "are" from the word "our."

Let's look at what you originally wrote:

"Ok everyone has seen these movies were they pose some phlisophical question.But often I find people miss the point of these movies and think that they mean something completely diffrent than what they were intended, or they just don't understand them at all."

Seems to me that you were bemoaning the fact that "often" (which would mean a significant portion of the time) people just don't get it.  And then you give a list of movies that are pretty darned easy to get.  We're not exactly talking about Fellini here.  We're not even talking about the Freudian subtext of the original Star Wars trilogy.  It was pretty danged obvious that this is what these movies were ABOUT.  (Heck, the allegorical nature of the POTA movies was a part of the studio ad campaign!)

No, he didn't miss it. The movie's all over about faith and signs and stuff.  It's ALSO about some damnably stupid aliens.

Here's a hint:  In the plot is stupid, no one will benefit from the subplot.  If the text is faulty, no one will appreciate the subtext.  They can "get" it -- but they won't admire it.

Like I said, for me, the whole "preacherman gets his faith back thanks to the aliens" thing was just as much an insult to my intelligence as the "aliens made of sugar coming to The Watery Planet" revelation.  The movie wanted people to think it was smart, without the effort of actually BEING smart.

nshumate wrote:
> No, he didn't miss it. The movie's all over about faith and
> signs and stuff.  It's ALSO about some damnably stupid aliens.

Umm...  We were actually talking about Contact, not Signs...

> Here's a hint:  In the plot is stupid, no one will benefit from
> the subplot.  If the text is faulty, no one will appreciate the
> subtext.  They can "get" it -- but they won't admire it.

> Like I said, for me, the whole "preacherman gets his faith back
> thanks to the aliens" thing was just as much an insult to my
> intelligence as the "aliens made of sugar coming to The Watery
> Planet" revelation.  The movie wanted people to think it was
> smart, without the effort of actually BEING smart.
>


But those Aliens in Signs, now that you mention it, were pretty dumb.  Water hits them like battery acid and the thing doesn't notice that there are glasses of it everywhere?

The movie wasn't really about the aliens at all, though.  They were a Maguffin.  The Aliens were the subplot, or, rather, the arbitrary impetus for the plot.  The plot was about Father's loss of faith, and his dealing (rather poorly) with the loss of his wife.  They (the aliens) were, therefore, given secondary consideration only.  Not that this excuses the rather bizare behavior they exhibited, but I think it's significant, anyway.

I like Signs, but I didn't catch the idea of "signs of faith" after these signs of god existing the preacher gets his faith back, nice I like it.

-the first rule of fat club-

I actually liked the message in Signs (which was explained outright at least a couple of times), but I have to agree that the movie couldn't overcome its flaws. I simply don't buy aliens who have interstellar spacecraft but no protective clothing to wear on a planet where corrosive liquid falls from the sky. I also thought it was bordering on silly that the preacher's brother was a failed baseball player, his wife was dead, his son was asthmatic and his daughter was obsessive-compulsive, all to save the family from an alien invasion so he could get his faith back.

Oh, and now that Nick has explained his position, I can see that I at least somewhat disagree with him on two movies. The South Park movie was about parents who refuse to take responsibility for their own children. The parents neglect their kids throughout the movie, and set a very poor example. The whole time they are crusading and scapegoating, the kids are pretty much left to their own devices. The point is that if they put as much effort into raising their children as they had into their crusade, there would have been no problem. I think Stan even made a speech to that effect.

As for Final Fantasy, Nick gave more of a plot summary than an interpretation. I took the message to be simply that we should work with nature for solutions to our problems, instead of using our technology to bend things to our will. The whole thing with the Zeus cannon wiping out a needed spirit might as well have been about the destruction of the rainforest destroying the cure for cancer.

You know, Nick, every post you've made on this thread, from your opener to your responses to the legitimate gripes of your fellow posters, has just plain dripped with condescention. You claim not to think you are better than we, but you talk to us like we're thrid graders.

That's a pretty high and mighty stance for someone who can't tell the word "are" from the word "our."

Ok listen a***ole,ive never claimed to be better than everyone else, I know for a fact I have no gramarical skills and can't spell worth a s**t, infact I have said this many times in my posts.I can be cynical and sarcastic towards people, but at least I refer to the subject at hand, not what kind of individual they are.You know some of the people that read this post actually got what I was getting at so why don't you let them talk and stop b***hing about my charector.

Iam the soon to be ruler of the world.you might as well bow before me now.

Not with that attitude, you won't be :)

Seriously though, the basic problem is that the premise is a decent one.  Sure there are movies that try to make a point and for various reasons that point is often missed.  As an aside, usually nine times out of ten the point is missed is because the writer or director either did a very bad job of conveying it, or it was really that cleve a point to begin with.

Anyway, from this premise, you gave example, but they are really bad examples. In the examples you give, the points of the movies are pretty obvious.

I don't know about the Tim Burton re-make, but you can't watch the original "Planet of The Apes" for more than about 10 minutes without being hit in the head with the social commentary they're making. Not only that but the movie came from a time where a *lot* of movies were doing the same thing, using sci-fi as a way of looking back into our own society (Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Star Trek,etc..) and that was following in a long standing tradition of doing the same in writing.  People would've been more suprised if that *wasn't* in PotA

As for "Signs", I've never even seen the movie and I know what the point was, simply because after the first few days the movie was out, that's all anyone talked about concerning it.  "The ads make it look like a sci-fi horrow piece but it's really about a guy who gets his faith back blah blah blah"  It was all over the place.

I don't know anything about South Park or Final Fantasy so I can't comment there.

So, your premise had potential, but with the examples you gave...If you think you're clever or observant for noticing the 'real meaning', I'm sorry but  they're pretty blatantly obvious.

Not "were"; you mean "where".   "Where", "WHERE" "WWWHHHEEERRREEE"!!!!!!!

Movies WHERE  people miss  the point!

That's movies where - oh, hang on, I've missed the point, haven't I?

Alright fine so I gave some bad examples.Sue me.The least you guys could have done is give some good ones of your own instead of criticising mine.I just named movies where I have actually found some people who missed the point of the movie.Yes im sure that everyone who is on this forum understands POTA or Signs, but the the world is not filled with elite minded movie viewers like us.Trust me when I say there are people who did not catch the point of POTA.If you guys have some better movies to mention, mention them but don't criticise my choices and not give any examples of your own.
And I already told guys I can't spell worth a damn.So lay off of it.
Oh f**k it.I'm sick of apologizing for my views on things.

At the risk of belaboring the point...

You haven't really apologized for anything, Nick.  There are no apologies in your posts.

Of course, no one is asking you to apologize, either.  We just asked for clarification initially, and then responded to your clarification.  And I actually did mention a movie where I thought many people missed the point - Contact.

I missed any past mention of your difficulties with spelling.  It was a cheap shot, and I'm sorry.  There.  That was an apology.

i'm with you wyckednick, many people i know also missed the point, or some points at least, of the films you mentioned.  believe it or not everybody, but there are some uncultured swine [ ;-) ]out there who are dumb as posts and don't get the point that some of these films are trying to convey.  

contact was another good example of a film people don't alwasys get, and if you are after some another example, i think that dreamcatcher is another as well.  the whole friendship/alien story i think confused a few people i know.

but it has been my experience that whilst many people have gotten the point of these films, they just didn't like it because they thought the point being made was 'stupid' [i think the points made in these films are great, but hey, i'm not in charge of the worlds opinions!]  these people tend not to move past the bad parts of a film [such as the weakness of the aliens in signs] and end up saying that they thought the film was stupid and they didn't like it, yet many i'm sure did get the point of the films at the same time, therefore coming across as ignorant and foolish.

that is what i thought the meaning of this post was, to explore the depth of why people didn't like these films because of the point made being overshadowed [in some people's views] by some odd plot points that didn't make sense.  

but hey, if i missed the point, then ignore my point-ridden post!

I think that several people missed the deep symbolism of "Dude, Where's My Car".  I mean, the car symbolizes the loss of freedom we all experience as we get older.  We spend lots of time wandering, piecing our lives back together to reaquire that freedom.  In the end, the journey to reach that freedom IS the freedom.  Once we realize that, we can get the gift from the back seat and all get laid.  :-).

Seriously, you can find deep symbolism in ANY movie if you look hard enough.  This type of thinking is the stuff from which conspiracy springs.  Just enjoy the films, kids.

(Sigh)
Okay, yes, I am a Spelling Nazi.  It was shouted into me from age 5 that you HAD to spell CORRECTLY or people would shun you, hairs would grow on your palms, Evil would triumph over Good and the whole shebang, really.  I'm talking about my family there, not teachers.  And don't get me started on Pronunciation ...

You should read some of my post Conrad. :) They have unknown grammer, spelling, and yes even pronunciation if you could hear me speak.

You should read some of my post Conrad.

That should be posts :)

I would apreciate it if you would refrain from directing foul language at me.  I have never cursed at you, and I expect the same courtesy.

I also apologized for the comment, in case you missed it.  Look a little further down on the thread.  If you still don't like me, fine, I can live with that.

But don't curse at me.

Dean I applaud you.Im glad someone finnally got what I was getting at.

We're not talking critics, we're talking normal movie goers..  The type of people who miss the "Inner beauty" point when watching The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

dean wrote:

> but it has been my experience that whilst many people have
> gotten the point of these films, they just didn't like it
> because they thought the point being made was 'stupid' [i think
> the points made in these films are great, but hey, i'm not in
> charge of the worlds opinions!]  these people tend not to move
> past the bad parts of a film [such as the weakness of the
> aliens in signs] and end up saying that they thought the film
> was stupid and they didn't like it, yet many i'm sure did get
> the point of the films at the same time, therefore coming
> across as ignorant and foolish.

Whoa, now I'm confused.

So the people who "got" the point, but disagreed with it and thought the point was shallow and weak, THOSE are the people who are ignorant and foolish?

Well, then color me ignorant and foolish.  Signs was a shallow and convenient treatment of faith.  It's a movie that stupid people think is smart.

"The life of David Gail"
Saw the anti-death penalty conclusion a mile away, did not need to be subjected to the propaganda treatis.
Then found out about the plot points, dureing a Jabootu thread, and was glad i'd not been Insulted by the stupid flick.
Point made. (Disagreed with point)
Point execution. (Seperate issue. From what i read, it was a blowhard quest, adiquatly acheved)
Lost me, therefor, on both counts.



Post Edited (10-30-03 11:01)

nshumate wrote:

>Whoa, now I'm confused.

>So the people who "got" the point, but disagreed with it and thought the point >was shallow and weak, THOSE are the people who are ignorant and foolish?

>Well, then color me ignorant and foolish. Signs was a shallow and convenient >treatment of faith. It's a movie that stupid people think is smart.

this seems to have confused a few people.

in my own haphazard way i was trying to explain a few things:  many people replying to the original post were complaining that the films posed by nick were stupid, because you'd have to be a moron to miss the various points made in these films.

yet i was arguing that it's not whether they got the point, nor whether they agreed with it or not, but that they are of the opinion that the film was complete crap because of other reasons that may not have anything to do with the point being made, and therefore coming across as ignorant and foolish to others.  

they seem that way, not because they agreed with the point or not, but because they declare a film to be utter crap without much explanation, which leads fans of these movies to believe that they missed the point.

whether you liked the films or not is your own opinion, you are well within your rights to think that signs was shallow, i personally am not very religious, and couldn't care less either way, i just liked the film, and thought fairly highly of the direction shymalan took on the film, despite it's obvious shortcomings.

george is right, you can find meaning in any film, just love it or hate it

Damn!
Where the hell have I been?

I finally read all the posts here and the s**t is getting hot!

Settle down kids!

I, to a point, also agree with wyckednick.
In my opinion & experienceJohn Q. Public in general is very dimwitted.  
 
After all....look at all of us here on this phorum.
I would venture to say that while a little geeky at times, we are all definitely a f**king smart bunch of people!  

I know alot of people that simply could not or would not maintain such a conversation about the underlying points that certain films try to make.  Especially other males.  They just cannot seem to tear their hyper-testosterone filled bodies away from the goddamn football game to even be interested in discussing such topics.  (no offense to any of you who like football....I myself hate it)

I've tried to get into such discussions with friends and the only thing they can come up with is, "Dude, you're a dork!"  
I simply shrug them off knowing that I probably have a higher I.Q. than they do.  Oh well...

As for "Signs", I love that film and agree with Roger Ebert that it is definitely the work of a born filmmaker.  
Go here to read his review:  http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/08/080205.html
In my opinion it is pure genius...though alot of you might disagree.  
Again I say "Oh well..."

As for "Planet of the Apes"....I never liked the entire concept to begin with and found it rather dull.  (both versions)
I can think of about a hundred films that are more worth my time than POTA.

To each his own I guess.....

It looks like I'm in the minority here, but when I watched "Signs", I totally dismissed the "preacherman gets his lost faith back" angle beforehand (in that I agree that it wanted people to think it was smart without actually being smart.  Lost faith and redemption isn't exactly a new concept).  If you watch the movie with your guard up and manage not to get beaten over the head with references to Mel Gibson's lost faith, it becomes an film about how one man deals with a huge scale alien invasion, and I thought that was kind of cool.  Usually the only people we see in a big alien invasion movie are the military, the scientists, and a glut of panicky citizens running  and screaming.  Oh...and Will Smith.

George wrote:

 
> Seriously, you can find deep symbolism in ANY movie if you look
> hard enough.  This type of thinking is the stuff from which
> conspiracy springs.  Just enjoy the films, kids.


George, I couldn't agree more.

I just thought SIGNS was terribly made--and it's sad because it really could have been a good film, but he had to dilute any suspense with "cute kid" scenes and humor.  It was the worst movie I saw in a theater that year.  

I don't see how anyone could miss the "social commentary" in DAWN OF THE DEAD.  He hits you over the head with it repeatedly--personally, I think that's Romero's biggest weakness as a filmmaker, and it's definitely that movie's biggest weakness--he spends at least a half-hour on something he could have covered in a few minutes.  

As far as movies where the point is missed, I remember a ton of people in the little podunk town where I was raised complaining about the movie PULP FICTION "not making any sense" because characters died then came back.
The guy at the video store said "If you want to waste your money, rent PULP FICTION."   They also panned UNFORGIVEN because Eastwood didn't kill enough people.    Also have to agree about NATURAL BORN KILLERS, although I think that's partially Oliver Stone's fault.

I got that "Natural Born Killers" was supposed to be a satire of violent films. I just think Stone overdid it and made exactly the kind of film he was trying to poke fun of. Yes the cop was a creep, yes the media were greedy scoop chasers exploiting the suffering of Mickey and Mallory's victims for their own needs (especially the robert Downey Jr. character), but that didn't make Mickey and Mallory any better or excuse them just because they were products of a culture full these kinds of people. It didn't matter why they killed innocent people, they were still amoral serial killers no matte how cool or great they thought they were. Then again, I have a friend who claims everyone missed the point of the film and maintains it's a Great American Love Story.

"Signs". I'm mostly in agreement with Nathan Schumate's take about regaining faith mumbo-jumbo hiding inside a weak alien invasion flick. My problem with the "it all happened for a reason - so he could regain his faith" argument is that IIRC he didn't actually lose his faith until his wife died. So he had to lose his faith, so that after saving his family from the aliens, he could get it back? And what kind of parent gives a little girl large glasses to drink out of instead of plastic? Much less keep letting them build up on top of the TV and things without taking them away and washing out, wouldn't you run out of glasses to use or have to keep buying more? I know the guy was in a funk from his wife dying, but there's sacred "coincidences" and practical considerations like washing the dishes.

Lee wrote:

> George wrote:
>
>  
> > Seriously, you can find deep symbolism in ANY movie if you
> look
> > hard enough.  This type of thinking is the stuff from which
> > conspiracy springs.  Just enjoy the films, kids.
>
>
> George, I couldn't agree more.
>


They're not mutually exclusive, you know.  I enjoy Dawn of the Dead far more because of the critique of consumer culture.  I enjoy NOTLD far more because of the clashes between of the breakdown of authority structures and the posturing for alpha male status as a means of coping.  I enjoy the original Star Wars trilogy far more because of the Freudian motifs.

Understanding theme and subtext makes a good movie experience richer.

I don't see how anyone could miss the "social commentary" in DAWN OF THE DEAD
Trust me most people who saw this movie missed it.Most of the people on this forum probably got it but I bet the average joe missed it.

Better that they did miss it....I can't wait to see the new disc that has the European cut that is thankfully free of that pretentious crap.    Personally, I thought it was about on the same level as the social commentary in NIGHT OF THE ZOMBIES.

some folks have said "Natural Born Killers" had a deep philosophical meaning; yet I have never seen what it is.

Maybe I am just naive.