Movies were people miss the point

[dean]

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

[Ash]

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.....

[Evil Matt]

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.

[Lee]

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.

[jmc]

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.

[yaddo42]

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.

[nshumate]

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.

[wickednick]

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.

[jmc]

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.

[Neon Noodle]

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.