PDA

View Full Version : Signs



QLD
08-04-2002, 01:58 AM
I just got back from watching Signs tonight. I thought it was an excellent movie. Not without flaws, but I loved the fact that the movie was scary, and exciting, based on what we DIDN'T see.

I liked it a lot. Anyone else?

Beast
08-04-2002, 03:35 PM
Just saw it today at a matinee showing. I agree with those critics that said it's like Night of the Living Dead meets Close Encounters of the Third Kind. It was an excellent film. But I figure that just like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, people will either love it or totally dispise it. And most that dispise it, will do so because they don't understand it, just like A.I. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Jek Porky 2002
08-04-2002, 05:07 PM
What's signs? I've not heard of it.

Beast
08-04-2002, 05:14 PM
It's M. Night Shyamalan's new movie. He made the movies, "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" previous to this. I won't talk about spoilers, because just like his 2 previous films, if you know what's happening, the thrill is lost. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Jek Porky 2002
08-04-2002, 06:28 PM
Now you've said that, I have heard of it, I just didn't know it was called Signs.

Dar' Argol
08-04-2002, 07:42 PM
My wife and I want to go see this. We are both big fans of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, so we will probably like this one as well. Good to read in a bit and see that it has a similar type of ending as his other 2 movies!!

DarthBrandon
08-04-2002, 08:12 PM
I'm glad nobody put any spoilers yet, because the wife and I are going to see it on Tuesday. I like movies that you don't know what's going to happen.:)

QLD
08-04-2002, 11:42 PM
Yeah, it's nice to not know what it going to happen. I hope you enjoy the movie. I did!

billfremore
08-04-2002, 11:56 PM
Saw the movie today at a matinee.
It's much different than his last 2 films.
I'll save more of my review until most people have seen it.

icatch9
08-05-2002, 07:55 AM
I saw it on Friday when it opened. It was great. I loved it! I hate scary movies, but this one was just scary enough without being over the top. I apsolutly loved M. Night's take on Aliens and an Alien invasion. I loved the fact that the aliens where never really the center of attention. It was more the family and thier reactions to this situation that they couldn't control.

I agree that some people including critics won't understand this movie. It's such a deep movie that has very little to do with aliens as it has to do with human nature. I loved it, top ranked movie. As good as any movie I've seen this summber (except Star Wars :)).

JediCole
08-05-2002, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Just saw it today at a matinee showing. I agree with those critics that said it's like Night of the Living Dead meets Close Encounters of the Third Kind. It was an excellent film. But I figure that just like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, people will either love it or totally dispise it. And most that dispise it, will do so because they don't understand it, just like A.I. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Jar Jar, I applaud your post. That you referenced Spielburg's A.I. illustrates that you are a thinking person, as I have often refered to A.I. as a "thinking person's movie".

And like A.I., Night's films are very cerebral. Eschewing the traditional Hollywood screenplay formula of spoon-feeding every minute element of the plot. Night has the guts to respect the intellegence of his audience. He crafts wonderfully rich stories that require you to pay attention to what is happening as things that seem odd at first will suddenly make sense later in the story. But it seems the bulk of American film-goers forget things as soon as they see them. And so such story craff confuses them and they can't figure out what happened when the payoff arrives (for those who can pay attention).

Like others here, I will withhold my thoughts, difficult thouth that may be, until Signs has been out for a few weeks, and then I will announce that the post has spoilers, just in case.

billfremore
08-05-2002, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
And most that dispise it, will do so because they don't understand it, just like A.I. :)

Oh I understood A.I. just fine JJ.
It's the last 20 minutes that absolutely ruined a perfectly good movie.

But that's Spielberg for ya, he's just gotta have his happy endings.

Signs by the way was I think the weakest film done by M. Night Shyamalan so far.
It had its moments but it was a little predictable and weak with some of it's elements.

Beast
08-06-2002, 03:46 AM
billfremore, A.I. doesn't have a happy ending though. Alot of people see the happy ending, and don't see the bigger picture that the fact that David got one last day with his mommy, and then she died. He can never see her again, ever.

But it doesn't mattter, because in the end in his mind, he achieved what he wanted, to become human and loved. Even though he was truely human his entire life. Not to mention he did die at the end. That's what the head Mecha's words are supposed to mean. :cry: :(

By the way, the ending wasn't tacked on by Spielburg. It was always in place from the early scripts by Kubrick. That's why he originally wanted Spielburg to direct it anyway. It just wasn't his kinda movie. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

scruffziller
08-06-2002, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Just saw it today at a matinee showing. I agree with those critics that said it's like Night of the Living Dead meets Close Encounters of the Third Kind. It was an excellent film. But I figure that just like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, people will either love it or totally dispise it. And most that dispise it, will do so because they don't understand it, just like A.I. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks
Yea I felt that way about it too. I even said that it reminded me of "Night of the Living Dead" to my friend after leaving it not have even heard the critics. But it was an excellent movie. One of the best movies I have seen in a long time. 3 months ago to be exact.:D

billfremore
08-06-2002, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
billfremore, A.I. doesn't have a happy ending though. Alot of people see the happy ending, and don't see the bigger picture that the fact that David got one last day with his mommy, and then she died. He can never see her again, ever.

But it doesn't mattter, because in the end in his mind, he achieved what he wanted, to become human and loved. Even though he was truely human his entire life. Not to mention he did die at the end. That's what the head Mecha's words are supposed to mean. :cry: :(

By the way, the ending wasn't tacked on by Spielburg. It was always in place from the early scripts by Kubrick. That's why he originally wanted Spielburg to direct it anyway. It just wasn't his kinda movie. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

I still think the ending was a little over the top with the Mechas and the "having mommy for a day" bit.
I think the movie should have ended where he was trapped looking at the blue angel.
Sure it would have been sad but I think it would have been a stronger ending.

hango fett
08-06-2002, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
And most that dispise it, will do so because they don't understand it, just like A.I. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

i understood A.I., but they just dragged it out WAY too long. it could have been done in an hour and a half.
h.

RooJay
08-07-2002, 11:50 PM
I could go on forever raving about how much I enjoyed this movie, and how M. Night has very quickly become my absolute favorite filmmaker! I love how his films seem to work on so many levels. Many people will see this movie and think it's a simple sci-fi movie about alien invasion, but if you look closer...if you pay attention to all the "signs", there is a very strong underlying message about faith; about having faith, finding faith recovering faith, and the belief that all things happen for reason. I also love Night's uncanny ability to draw you in to his stories and make you believe that these things could, and during the two hours plus that the movie plays, really do happen in the real world. I cannot recommend this film more.

Eternal Padawan
08-09-2002, 09:15 AM
I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was just different enough from his other films that I have trouble discerning which of the three is the best so far. The silhouette on the roof and the video at the children's party will be stuck in my mind for months. ooh scary! Everyone go check this one out. You will definitely be entertained for two hours.

ROLLO!

AT-AT Man
08-09-2002, 12:12 PM
probably the greatest movie i'v seen this summer, i totally agree with you roojay all my friends who i saw the movie with, thought it was just a good sci fi movie about aliens, but it was much deeper and made ya think about more than that

billfremore
08-09-2002, 12:30 PM
I must expect more from my movies, because I don't feel this movie was really that good.

Now I may need to see it a few more times to have it grow on me, but I usually need a movie to impress me right away.

Sixth sense and Unbreakable did that, this one didn't

RooJay
08-09-2002, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Eternal Padawan
The silhouette on the roof and the video at the children's party will be stuck in my mind for months. ooh scary!ROLLO!

EXACTLY! Two of the downright scariest moments I've ever seen in a movie. The birthday party video especially; it just seemed so real and visceral to me. It honestly felt like something that could be real, and it definitely caused me to feel all of the horror and desperation that kind of event would make me feel in real life; as though somehow I were actually in danger myself, and I found myself actually beginning to feel the kinds of physical effects associated with that. I really did not want to watch what I knew was coming in that scene, but I could not find it in me to look away! If the entire rest of the movie sucked, that one scene would've been enough to have me singing M. Night's praises. Pure magic!

QLD
08-10-2002, 01:59 AM
I rank this above Unbreakable, and just a little below Sixth Sense. I liked all three however.

Needles
08-10-2002, 11:18 AM
this movie will become a classic in future years,suspenseful,an excellant achievement in filmaking,it may not win an oscar,but this movie is absolutly on e of the best movies ever made,number 2 on my favorites list,saw it last night at a 9:20 PM showing at Raceway Park Mall.and there were at least 100 people in the theater.

2-1B
08-10-2002, 06:32 PM
Signs is
Awesome

Sideshow Mel and Wah-keen were teriffic as brothers, and that little girl was an absolute delight. :happy:
Macauley Kieran Rory Caulkin was very cool too, I thought the acting was solid throughout. I would have liked to have seen a bit more of the police officer, but I guess it served a purpose to only show her in flashback sequences during the second half. As stated by others here, the focus was on the family so indeed it was for the best that she was not in it too much. :)
Night was great as Roy Reddy, I was giddy when I spotted him at the pizzeria, imagine my delight when it turned out to be more than just a cameo like in his first two movies.
When can I get the DVD? :D

I understood A.I., I just thought it was lame. ;)

bigbarada
08-11-2002, 09:52 PM
I loved AI, it was a great movie and I don't see how it was all that happy in the end either. Oh well, if you just absolutely must have a movie that depresses you into a stupor, I guess you will hate it. 'Sad, yet uplifting' would be the best way to describe how I feel about AI.

Reading all this about Signs though, just makes me want to see it even more. Hopefully this week.

derek
08-12-2002, 08:31 AM
i didn't like this film, but i loved "unbreakable".

am i the only one who thought these were the lamest aliens ever? they have spacecraft that can most likely travel at speeds faster than the speed of light, but they don't have suits to protect them from tap water and pantry doors?

how about a "space-chainsaw" to get through those pesky boards that mel and family used to board up the house. and a farm house without a shotgun in it? is that PC or what?

i understand this film was supposed to be about a minister who re-discovered his faith, but come on. if i were mel's character, i'd be even more mad at God if he took my wife just so she could remind me to tell merril to "swing away". and if mel had a gun, like all rural people do, his son wouldn't of needed asthma to keep the alien gas out, a double tap to the head would of done the trick.

and this movie cost $70 million to make? now i know mel is probably getting $25 million, but where did the rest go, union workers? mob kickbacks? this was a low budget version of ID4 or a bad episode of the X-files, and could of been made for $5 million easily.(pulp fiction anyone?)

before anyone says i didn't understand this film, i did. i just thought it was lame for a guy who gave us the 6th sence and unbreakable.:) if M. Night wanted to make a film about faith, he could of used a better vehicle for it.

billfremore
08-12-2002, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by bigbarada
I loved AI, it was a great movie and I don't see how it was all that happy in the end either. Oh well, if you just absolutely must have a movie that depresses you into a stupor, I guess you will hate it. 'Sad, yet uplifting' would be the best way to describe how I feel about AI.


I really don't require a movie to "depress me into a stupor" I just want a movie with a strong ending. A.I.'s ending was weak and a bad way to end a movie that had been quite good up until the "you get your mom for a day" idea.

I don't necessarily enjoy sad endings I like a good ending if it fits the story. I just found A.I. confusing as a story. What the heck was the underlying meaning?

RooJay
08-12-2002, 12:14 PM
Hopefully we haven't given away all of the secrets for those who haven't seen it.

2-1B
08-13-2002, 04:02 AM
Hi derek ! :)

Hmmm, I'm not 100% on the gun issue, but IMO it's not just a matter of them being PC.
Yes, Mel is a farmer, but he has no livestock. I propose that he wouldn't necessarily "need" a shotgun if he only has crops to protect. Livestock would absolutely mandate it, to protect the herds from any predators.

I post this on my recollection that he had no animals (save for the dogs) but if anyone recalls their presence in the movie please correct me.
If he did own cattle or any other farm animals, then I completely agree with you that he should have had a firearm available to him. :)

derek
08-13-2002, 08:14 AM
hey caesar,

i'm not sterotyping(sp?) here, but i grew up in a rural farm and ranch setting, though my family was involved in neither, and everyone had guns, even the farmers, and even a few "ministers" i knew. it wasn't that they were gun nuts, it was just something that was part of the culture, and kept for home protection, because law enforcement in rual areas is spread thin, as seen in this film, and they hunt. Mel's character, i guarantee you, would of at least had a double barreled 12 guage shotgun, but either M. Night dosen't realize this, or better yet, it would of messed up his "everything happens for a reason" plot if mel came out of the basement blasting away.:)

besides, i'm sure you know a farmer has to have something to attach his pitchfork to, as seen on "the simpsons".:crazed:

master jedi
08-13-2002, 12:51 PM
I saw Signs last week with my sister, her husband, and my twin brother last tuesday. My brother and I really liked it. My sister didn't really like it that much and thought it was really scary. My brother-in-law gave it 6.5 stars out of 10 which doesn't suprise me since he gives everything a 6.

bigbarada
08-13-2002, 05:49 PM
Protecting livestock from predators is not the only reason a farmer would own a gun. Like derek said, law enforcement is stretched pretty thin in rural areas, so by the time you called the police and they actually made it out to your house, the robbers you were reporting would have killed everyone and be accross the state line. I live with my parents in a somewhat remote area in NM, and we keep a loaded shotgun in the house to protect from potential break-ins. It's just a good idea when the police are a minimum of half-an-hour away.

However, if Mel's character lived in an urban or city environment (keeping in mind that I haven't seen the movie yet) then he probably wouldn't know that when he moved to the country. So it is plausible that he wouldn't carry one. Of course, he could also believe the propaganda about houses with guns being more dangerous than houses without them.:stupid:

icatch9
08-14-2002, 11:46 AM
I think you hit is on the nose with your last statement BigB. First of all he's a man of the church so he probally doesn't believe in guns at all. Second of all, he has two small children and probally would't want to risk another fatle home shooting.

So, that's good reasons in the movie why he wouldn't have a gun. Further more I don't think guns would have worked on these aliens. At least that's what I think. I feel that bullets would have just flown through them sort of like they are just liquid being with a thick outer shell. This wasn't a real sci-fi movie so the traditional shoot them kill them way of beating aliens (Independenc Day) wasn't something M. Night wanted to do. So, in my mind guns would have been useless weather Mel G character believed in them or not.

bigbarada
08-14-2002, 12:34 PM
My dad is a Baptist preacher and he owns the shotgun we have in our house, he used to have a .45 pistol but had to sell it when money got tight. But I understand the point you are getting at, it's just that normally the church goers (especially Baptists) are the main proponents against gun control, because they tend to own all the guns.:)

Anyway, you make a good point about this not being a typical slam-bang Hollywood alien invasion blockbuster. Shyamalan tends to go more for the psychological terror. I'm sure all that money was used for something in the special effects department. Don't they always say that the best special effect is the one you don't even know is there?:cool:

RooJay
08-14-2002, 06:21 PM
I come from a family of church goers (there are at least 8 ministers in my family), and in general my family tends to dislike guns. In fact, no one in my immediate family has ever owned one.;)

RooJay
08-14-2002, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by derek
Mel's character, i guarantee you, would [have] at least had a double barreled 12 guage shotgun, but either M. Night dosen't realize this, or better yet, it would [have] messed up his "everything happens for a reason" plot if mel came out of the basement blasting away.

I honestly don't believe Mel's character owning a gun, and shooting aliens would have messed contradicted or negated the issue of "everything happens for a reason" at all. M. Night would've most certainly found a way to make guns fit if he felt the need to. Firearms just weren't part of the equation. Whether or not the aliens themselves should've had weapons (or tools to break down the doors) is really incidental. The film really was not about aliens breaking through wooden doors or shooting people at all. I'll even go so far as say that the aliens themselves were only incidentals to the story for those who chose to look past that aspect of the film; which is exactly what I believe. I honestly believe that this is not at all a movie about aliens (the aliens were only an obstacle to be overcome by Mel's character and his family.), but about one man in particular.

I love movie that challenge you to think about what's really going on, what they're really trying to say. Signs is definitely one of these films.

derek
08-14-2002, 07:22 PM
RooJay,

don't get me wrong, i too love a film that makes one think, and i don't mean to nit pick the lame aliens. but if M. Night was going to make a film about a man who rediscovers his faith, i would of preferred a different film. with that said, if one is going to have aliens in their movie, there are just certain basic common sence sci-fi rules that have to be followed. he just chose to violate these rules for the sake of his film, as did speilburg with minority report.

i personally think the 6th sence and unbreakable were masterpieces, where as with signs he seemed to struggle with the story, hence he threw some aliens in for a marketing and scare factor, while trying to top his previous works. i would of rather seen him do as chris nolan did (not try to top memento) and not force things.

what kind of "faith" film should M. Night of made, well i don't know, but that why i'm typing on an internet forum.:) maybe something invovling a mystical revelation or ressurection or something. :confused:

and as for what type of people who own guns, RooJay, are your churchgoing family members rural or urban folk? i standby my claim that the vast majority of rural people own at least one firearm.:) i speak from experience.:)

2-1B
08-15-2002, 03:44 AM
I like the "faith" aspect of this movie as well, I compare it to the Exorcist in many regards. :)

I'm not convinced by the gun argument. I grew up in a fairly rural town, and while my dad kept several guns they were always locked and unloaded. In the event of a break in, there would be no time to get to them. However, if aliens had started a slooooooow invasion then of course the presence of these guns might have been handy to my family. To say without question that Mel should have had a loaded shotgun is ridiculous.

I brought up the livestock issue, and I stand by my belief that he would be a fool to not keep a firearm only in the event that he had vulnerable cattle. Cows/pigs/chickens face a very real threat, so any good farmer is going to protect his or her investment.
Beyond that, it's a personal choice. Some people choose to keep weapons, others don't. No big deal.
Indeed, the "majority" of rural folk might own guns, but I know others who do not. I refuse to dismiss a quality film because of the "convenience" of the omission of a loaded gun.

While Mel and family were busy playing hide and seek with the aliens, I'll bet many other people were locked and loaded with their guns, only getting off a few shots . . . what with the poison gas and all. :D

Signs is one of my 3 fave movies this year, along with AOTC and Road to Perdition. :happy:

icatch9
08-15-2002, 08:01 AM
I think you guys are concentrating to much on the gun issue. Guns don't kill these aliens. Don't you think the military would have tried shooting at them? Clearly they are not vulerable to speeding hot lead. So, weather or not he had a gun is unimportant, it wouldn't have done any good. The bulletes would have just went right through them.

The aliens are just a minor protagonist in the movie. If they wheren't there it wouldn't have been a movie, but they are not the story. Still people are haveing trouble getting past the lack of logic in this movie. So, I'll explain my viewpoint and why it works for me.

If you haven't seen the moive yet and plan to I wouldn't read this if I where you.


















As movie fans and certainly Sci Fi fans we have been beat over the head with aliens. From Star Trek to the X Files aliens are everywhere. The average Joe views aliens as supperior beings who could wipe us out in a single blow. This is a typical view of aliens wich is a very unlogical view. This movie goes in a much more logical way of looking at aliens. First of all these aliens may have been sent to take over Earth, but that doesn't mean they are all powerful. Just becaue they have the power of space travel doesn't mean they have ray guns and super advaced weapons. They may, but they couldn't use them. In the movie the kid says that if the Aliens would have used a mass brute force military attack we would have just nucked the ships and that would in turn ruin Earth for inhabitation by these aliens. So, they couldn't and wouldn't come down hear with there million man army discentigrating everyone in site. They had to be more suttle, they had to send in the "Navy Seals" not he "Army".

These aliens are from another world, so maybe on thier world they don't use doors. They don't seem to know how to work them, so maybe they didn't know how they worked. Plus, they may not be that strong. They were tall, but that doesn't mean they are powerful enough to break down a locked and barakaded door. Not many humans cold do that either. Again, the feelings that aliens are supierior is wrong. They are vulerable and mortal. If you or I had never sceen a door befor we wouldn't know how to work it either.

Finally these aliens being vulerable to drinking water is an amazing part of this movie. It was fun to see how much of a pont they made to call it drinking water. That makes me think that the chemicals and what not we put in the water made it toxic to the aliens. We put many things in water to make it more safe, but to these aliens it was like acid. So, if they'd of been sprayed with Lake water they'd be fine.

This is the first movie to show aliens in a mortal light. Sure we beat them in Independence Day and in the X Files, but they were still superior aliens and we just "got lucky" in those story lines. Those movies showed how the human spirit is the most powerful thing in the universe and how that is why would couldn't be concured. Sighns showed how we were just as powerful as the aliens and how aliens are not super beings that are impossible to beat. They aren't super they just have the ability to travel in space, that doesn't make them any stronger than we are.

2-1B
08-15-2002, 01:34 PM
I disagree on the water issue. There are no drinking additives in the lake water, and they stay away from lakes and bodies of water.
Bo's opinion that the water is contaminated is a "sign" of how dangerous it will be to the aliens. Since she leaves glasses of water laying around, it allowed Joaquin to slap that alien into harm's way.
Had the pantry alien followed Night into the lake, death would have occurred regardless of what we put in the drinking water.

Just because the aliens couldn't be harmed by guns does not make it an irrelevant issue. It's a very valid question to ask, "why didn't he have a gun?" The answer lies with the character, not with the guns' eventual inefficiency in the story. If Night were to come out on the DVD and say, "he didn't have a gun because it wouldn't work", then I'd tell him he's full of it because the character doesn't KNOW it won't work. If the character just chooses to remain gun-free, that is a plausible explanation. Unlikely maybe, but still realistic.

icatch9
08-15-2002, 01:51 PM
We don't know for sure it lake water hurts them or not. It was just something that was a rumor in the movie. Several times "drinking water" is used in the movie. That is what lead me to belive that lake water wouldn't hurt them. We know that tap/drinking/well water hurts them, but we don't know if lake water hurts them. It was never proven in the movie, only speculated.

It's true that Mel Gibson didn't know if guns would hurt the aliens. Guns are never mentioned at all in the movie. Still, if you looking for answers that are logical in the relm of the movie the only one is that guns wouldn't hurt them. Aparently fire wouldn't hurt them either becaue a flam thrower would be the next possible choice for the military to use. In the movie the news report near the end of the movie that some other country found a primative way to combate the aliens but the reports where not clear on what it was. Then we see that all the glasses of water are like acid to the alien. It's true that it never said guns don't hurt them, but logicaly we have to assume that guns and bullets where the first thing that people tried. Clearly that's what all of you would have done :). I agree that from what we see in the movie Mel doesn't know that guns can't hurt these aliens. Still, we don't know what was reported about the aleins that we didn't see in the movie. That's something we'll never know I'm sure. It's one of those illogical moments in a movie that may never be answered.

Besides it shows humans don't need guns to defend themselves. All we need is a trusty glass of water :).

Beast
08-15-2002, 02:44 PM
The water motiff is a thread running thru the movie. Remember icatch9, they said that the crop formations and the aliens were appearing away from water sources. Lakes, Rivers, and Oceans.

It's another case of everything happens for a reason. If the lil girl wouldn't have had that phobia, and leave water glasses all over the house, they wouldn't have been able to kill the alien that had Mel's son.

Remeber this isn't a movie about aliens, it's a movie about a minister regaining his faith. The alien invasion story was secondary. :) Pretty much the movie can be summed up in the proverb. "God works in mysterious ways." :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

derek
08-15-2002, 02:50 PM
icatch9,

i have to respectifully disagree with your view that the aliens are not a superior species. if a civilization advances to the point of being able to travel to other solar systems or galaxies, it is very logical to conclude that they have highly developed weapons and body armor systems. for the aliens not to have some sort of weapons would be the equal of the U.S. military invading Iraq with sowards and spears, in the nude after traveling there in aircraft carriers and airplanes. and not knowing how do work a door knob? only if they're autistic like rain man.:)

i too agree that a full scale alien invasion wouldn't be practical at first, but as you said, these aliens would be "commando/recon" types, who would of been observing man for a long period of time to figure him out. this is where the previous crop circles and human abductions would of served their purpose of determining if man was worth "harvesting" and discovering their weakness.

and as for the X-files, man didn't beat the aliens in that story.....yet. the invasion isn't untill 2012.:)

bigbarada
08-15-2002, 03:15 PM
Yeah, the gun issue (regardless of your opinion on guns themselves) seems kind of moot for this film. Keeping in mind that many directors create movies as a statement on life and not as a slice of reality.

Anyways, I haven't yet seen the movie, but don't let that stop you all from posting spoilers.;) I'm not going to watch this one until it hits DVD anyways. In fact, I can count all the movies I will watch in the theater through 2005 on one hand (Two Towers, Return of the King and Ep3), I hate the movie theater experience that much.:)

So let me get this straight: the aliens have a weakness towards water? Is that a major plot point or the surprise ending?

Beast
08-15-2002, 03:20 PM
Major plot point and suprise ending, all rolled up into one big package. Almost every scene of the film mentions or shows water in some fashion. I don't think that anyone has mentioned this, but I notice similarities to two other sci-fi movies with aliens. Their weakness to water - Alien Nation. And them coming to earth to harvest human beings - V. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

bigbarada
08-15-2002, 03:27 PM
Well, that's cool, I knew everything there was to know about Unbreakable before I saw it (probably why I wasn't impressed with it too much). Of course, I had people telling me about it for over a year (all gushing about how awesome it was), so it is probably little wonder why I found it kind of slow (although watching it with two screaming toddlers didn't help either - hmmm, maybe I should give the movie another chance).

2-1B
08-16-2002, 01:24 AM
icatch9, if the family lives in such a rural area, isn't it probable that they have well water untreated by the community?
That's no different than lake water, save for the fact that the rock it exists below makes the water much cleaner.
When they refer to a primitive method of destroying the aliens, and then we see an alien die by water, I think it's a logical conclusion - not speculation - that the primitive method was in fact water. :)

I have a question for all of you (well, except for B since he's not seen it yet :D ) - at what point did you firmly believe that there were in fact aliens in the movie? Was it the perfectly bent stalks? The video footage seen by Joaquin? The freaky figure on the roof?
I ask because I kept having doubts as to the authenticity of the invasion. It kept me wondering, "is this really happening or is there some other explanation?"
I guess for me I started believing when Mel faced the pantry alien. Everything before it seemed like it could be a hoax or explained differently. I was HOPING there was really an invasion but I kept looking for different answers.
:)

icatch9
08-16-2002, 08:32 AM
Perhaps I was reading to much into the "drinking water" things. It makes perfect sense that they would be harmed by any kind of water.

If these aliens are so advanced and supier why then did they invade a planet that is 70% water. That's pretty dumb. I don't think we'd go near a planet that was 70% acid. I stand by my point that they are not superior. Just becasue they can travel in space doesnt' mean they have supiorior weapons. It never shows them haveing any kinds of weapons in the move, exept thier poision gas. I agree that logically these aliens should have ray guns and armor (like Independence day), but in the relm of the movie we cannot make that claim. The idea of these aliens being close to our equal is amazing. Aliens have never been viewed as easily defeatable in any movie befor.

I realize very clearly that the aliens are not the point of this movie. They are a small protagonist. Still to fully understand the movie and enjoy it to it's full, you have to understand the movie. If you dont' understand the aleins then you are just going to beat the movie up and down saying "why didn't he just use a gun". Like someone said this is not a slice of life, it's more of a statement. Guns were not in this statement, thus guns are not in the movie.

Don't forget that this is a scary movie on top of all. Scary movies have to follow certain rules and this one follows most of the rules of a scary movie and none of the rules of a sci fi movie.

Sci Fi movies = cool alien sceens and ray guns

Scary movie = man going into a creepy corn field in the middle of the night all by himself.

Sci Fi movie = people fight back with as much force and fire power the movie budget can afford.

scary movie = man uses the dumbest logic and unlikly instraments to try and combat/hide from the killer/badguy.


And so on. I would be the first one to say that this is not an alien movie (still the aliens where a hell of a lot cooler than they were in Contact. Three hourse to find out the dam aliens where her dad :(. Very disapointing!). This is a God works in strange ways movie. I loved it. Things you don't even realize at first come back to hit you square on the nose.

I knew as soon as I saw this movie that the aliens would be highly debated. That has clearly come true. I also know that Mels actions in the movie would be up for debate, that too has come true. No on has debated that everything in the movie happened for a reason. That was the point of the movie to make us realize that our lives do have point no matter what awful things may happen. This is truely one of the best thinking movies I've ever sceene :).

MikeAndTheBots
08-18-2002, 11:54 PM
I just saw the movie tonight, I loved it. The dialogue was just great and some of the scenes were funnier than recent comedies I've seen. For example, when Mel comes in and sees the kids on the couch with Joaquin and al of them are wearing the foil hats was just great. The acting was great too, both kids were great, Mel was good (he usually is), and Joaquin was good too (his reaction after seeing the party video was great).

Icatch- They might not have known they had a weakness to water so that's why they invaded. Maybe on their planet there is no water so they never experienced it and never really tested it since they were invading and killing humans, not h2o.

The gun thing: Gun's might have hurt them, Mel cut the one guy's fingers off the tip of a bullet may have pentrated their flesh. When I was watching it I thought he should have had one lying around but then as it went on I figured he didn't really need one and it would have hurt the plot a little to just blast the alien away immidiately.

I agree with whoever said it that the alien at the party and on the rooftop were two of the scariest sets of frames in film in a while. I also jumped when the hand slams down right before Mel de-fingers him. Not quite as scary but when the hand is on the boy's neck it just came out of no where.

They also weren't "too dumb" to open door kobs. In the pantry there was a table propped up against the door and he tries to open the door but Mel stops him and the wedge the pick-axe against it.

All in all, 2nd best movie of the year (so far). Go see it if you haven't. I shouldn't have waited so long but it was hard to get over to the theater and tickets are so freakin expensive...

Hellboy
08-19-2002, 02:08 AM
I wasn't to impressed with the flick. I enjoyed The Sixth Sence and Unbreakable more. I just thought the whole idea of marking the crops with these "Signs" seemed kinda unrealistic for a tecnologically superior race. I think they would have a better more discrete way of maping geographical areas. I also found it kinda funny how the young boy covieniantly had this book that had so much information on the possible behavior and tactics of the alien invaders. The best part of this movie was the Star Trek NEMESIS trailer at the beginning. :(

icatch9
08-19-2002, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Hellboy
I wasn't to impressed with the flick. I enjoyed The Sixth Sence and Unbreakable more. I just thought the whole idea of marking the crops with these "Signs" seemed kinda unrealistic for a tecnologically superior race. I think they would have a better more discrete way of maping geographical areas. I also found it kinda funny how the young boy covieniantly had this book that had so much information on the possible behavior and tactics of the alien invaders. The best part of this movie was the Star Trek NEMESIS trailer at the beginning. :(



Movies often have easy conviences that make the story go along. I can understand why you didn't like the movie, but don't insult it just because the boy had a book about aliens. This whole story was about "everything happens for a reason". God planned to have that book in the book store and he planned to have the kid buy the book to help the family combat the aliens. The whole movie worked this way. Everything happened for a reason. If you see this, then you'll enjoy the movie more. Especially if you see it again and notice all the things that happen for no reason that had to happen to complete the story.

Do you know why Mels wife had to die? Sure, she told him a few dieing words that helped him, but if she hadn't of died then Juaquin wouldn't have moved in. He needed to be there to kill the alinen.

Do you know why Juaqine could hit a baseball so far, but stuck out so much. God gave him the ability to hit a ball hard and far, so he'd have enough strength in his swing to kill the alien. If he hadn't of stuck out so much in the minors he'd of been in the Major Leagues and wouldn't have been around to kill the alien.

See, it's little things like that, that make this such an amazing movie. If you try and find a logical explaniation to the movie your better off not watching. God is not logical, and niether is this movie.

billfremore
08-19-2002, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by bigbarada
Well, that's cool, I knew everything there was to know about Unbreakable before I saw it (probably why I wasn't impressed with it too much). Of course, I had people telling me about it for over a year (all gushing about how awesome it was), so it is probably little wonder why I found it kind of slow (although watching it with two screaming toddlers didn't help either - hmmm, maybe I should give the movie another chance).

I think there were two reasons I liked it so much, I had no idea what it was about, I thought it was going to be some weird cross of Highlander and the matrix because of the trailer and "It's time you were told the truth about you".
Whe i saw what it was actually about I was pleasently surprised because one, it wasn't what I expected, and two the subject matter is a topic close to my heart.

Personally BB, I think having 2 screaming toddlers would take away from any movie.:D

RooJay
08-19-2002, 04:46 PM
Wow! What a great discussion! I feel a bit left out since I have not been able to come online for several days, and so much has been brought up since my last post! I would really like to respond to a lot of what's been said, but I don't know where to start!

I would definitely like to respond to the notion of a supposed coincidence in the fact that there was so much useful information regarding aliens in the book read by Rory Culkin in the movie (may I just point out that, even though Macauly seems to be a lost cause and will probably never get a decent part again, the Culkin's are quite the talented little clan! I've always enjoyed the minor performances of Kieran, and now Rory seems to be capable of having a great career ahead of him as well! Great performances by the whole cast in this film!). I have always had an overwhelming fascination with unexplained phenomena since I was very young be it Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Atlantis, UFO's, and close encounters. I have read many books on the subject of extraterrestrials and close encounters, and most, if not all of the information contained in the book from the film can be found in pretty much any and all real life books on the subject. I can almost guarantee you that if you read any book on the subject, you will find much the same inference and information as is presented in the film. Not much of a coincidence at all.

Also, I'd like to point out that even though the aliens in the film are obviously capable of violence, perhaps their society has not had as much experience in warfare as ours. Is it not possible that, unlike us, they have never fought amongst themselves, and while they may indeed be hunters, perhaps they are no larger predators than themelves on their own world (surely their obvious physically inherent biological weapons would be sufficient enough for this purpose). Maybe they had only recently run out of food sources, and having discovered that there is life on Earth, decided to make a last ditch raid on our world in an effort to harvest us (possibly their nearest, perhaps only, celestial neighbor gifted with the existence of life, as food. There are numerous societies here on Earth that only have the simplest of technologies because they adopted them from someone else, and might never have developed them otherwise had it not been for the interventon of people from more advanced societies; wouldn't it then be possible to imagine that the aliens from the film adopted (or even stole) their spaceflight technology from someone else? Maybe the "greys" seen in Rory's book (there were obvious and distinct differences between common descriptions of e.t.'s and what we see in this film; there could be a reason behind that, but even that doesn't figure into this movie and has no bearing on the story anyway)? The real fact of the matter is that sometimes things just don't seem to make sense in real life. There is plenty that occurs in the real world that simply defies all understanding, and even more that just does not seem to make sense (ever wonder why a lot of palestinians throw rocks at Israeli and American troops armed with assault weapons? No, it's not because they can't get guns; which is most certainly not the case!). Mysteries abound in real life, why not on film as well? I argue that it doesn't matter that these aliens don't seem to have any kind of weapons, or simply, for reasons unkown to us, choose not to use them. They are supposed to be aliens, afterall! Perhaps it is testimony to this fact on the part of the filmmaker that their motives and actions don't make complete sense to us. Like I said before, it just does not matter in the context of this story. If anyone chooses to believe that any film that has aliens in it should also have rayguns and robotic armor, then this certainly is not a film for you. It bucks convention. It is not a sci-fi movie. Signs is a straight drama about faith, about the idea that there is someone watching out for us from beyond, that there is a purpose to everything, and about the reactions of people in extreme, world altering circumstances, told in a setting typical to the sci-fi genre. It's filmmaking outside of the box. It may not be for everyone, not everyone may get the point or even view the film in the same light as I do (all art truly is subjective, and it's very true that what is art to one may be trash to another), but all the same, this type of film is certainly what Hollywood needs more of, in my opinion!

icatch9
08-20-2002, 09:07 AM
I agree with you once again RooJay. Your take on the aliens not being advanced in the art of war in interesting as well is the fact they could have stole their ability to space travel. Very interesting ideas. That could be a movie right there :D.

It is a movie about faith and reasons why things happen. It is acted very well, and is to me turning out to be the most intriging movie I've sceen this year.

SQueek
08-20-2002, 10:21 AM
it said humans were being gassed and taken away or "harvested" so im guessing our bodys, except our lungs, were needed for food, energy or something else and if the aliens used violence against us we would be hurt/destroyed. so hand to hand was the best method.

master jedi
08-20-2002, 10:53 AM
I went to see signs again on saturday and they gave it 4 out of 10 stars. My mom was frightened by the movie during some scenes, but hey, she was scared at the truman show. (She was frightened when the light fell at the beggining of the truman show. So don't make fun.)

Also there were some 13 or 14 year old kids just behind me making all kinds of noises and laughing at natural bodily functions and having gas contests through half of the movie. Just before I was about to take 'em out side for an old fashioned whooping an usher came and told them to shut-up of they'd have to leave. Stupid usher.

icatch9
08-20-2002, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by SQueek
it said humans were being gassed and taken away or "harvested" so im guessing our bodys, except our lungs, were needed for food, energy or something else and if the aliens used violence against us we would be hurt/destroyed. so hand to hand was the best method.


That makes good sense, but if I shoot a deer with a shot gun I can still eat 99% of it and use the skin and furr to make a coat. I'm not a hunter, but I'm just trying to make a point. A dead human killed with gas or killed with a ray gun is still a dead human.


I hate stupid kids/teenagers that don't respect other people at the movie theater. I had the same thing happen at ET in March :mad:. They really ruined the movie for people and even young children who really wanted to see it. I'm not bashing teenagers by any means, but some of them are really annoying. Even other teenagers can admit to that :).

JON9000
08-21-2002, 10:29 AM
I just saw this flick and I thought it was pretty good- especially in building suspense. I thought its greatest limitation was the way it borrowed from so many other movies, especially War of the Worlds, Night of the Living Dead, and even Aliens to a degree. Everybody else I know loved it. On the "if you don't like it, you obviously don't get it" or "it's too cerebral for you" front with regards to A.I. and this film, puh-lease. Save the elitism for your fan club. I enjoyed both movies, and I "got" them, but I can see why stylistically they are not everyone's cup of tea- not for those reasons, but because of the pacing. You have to enjoy a slow burn.

preacher
08-21-2002, 02:28 PM
I didn't enjoy this film very much. I understood the point of the movie but the connection between the two sub-plots "everything has a reason for happening" and "aliens come to take over the world" was weak. I thought the personalities of each of the characters was good, however not great. I thought the actor that plays the brother, did far better an acting job than Gibson did with his character. I don't mind having to be observant during a movie and having a payoff in the end. As always with these films, the payoff was clever, however because of the distraction with the aliens the connection really lost some its punch. I think the director tried to incorporate too many genres into one movie. Unbreakable and Sixth Sense were far better movies IMHO and maybe thats because with this writing style now pretty well establish I set out to catch all the small things. Maybe if Signs were the predecessors of Unbreakable and Sixth Sense I would have been more impressed. Unbreakable's payoff totally took me by surprise, Sixth Sense I figured out when Bruce's character was at his wife's shop and he broke the glass, but signs for me simply didn't deliver.

However there were two things in the movie that I thought were very clever: 1) the little girl's hyper sensitivity to flouride in the water resulting in a huge collection of full glasses all over the place that Gibson's character decides to leave in the living room because there are so many, which later turns out to be lethal to alien physiology, (never mind the fact that our air has a large percentage of water vapor in it and the aliens can breathe it :rolleyes:) 2) the boy losing his primatine mist (or whatever it was) which caused him to have an asthma attack that closed his lungs so that the poison gas wouldn't kill him.

RooJay
08-21-2002, 06:10 PM
I still maintain that not everything involving the aliens that we discover in the film need necessarily coincide perfectly with our science's admittedly limited understanding of physics. This is all still beside the point anyway. The movie is definitely not about aliens. I do, however, understand how some people might not share my appreciation for the movie. To each his own.

One more thing I'd like to respond to is the implication that this, and any number of other films that I have had the opportunity to discuss with others (including the Star Wars prequels), is too derivative of earlier films. This is, indeed, more or less a true statement. However, as most "experts" (and no, by no means do I consider myself one!) on film, literature, what have you, will admit: this late in the game there are very few competely original ideas around. EVERYTHING nowadays is derivative of something else. Everything. You can name what you consider to be the most original story in the last fifty years (at the very least!), and there will be someone out there who will recognize it to be derived from some other example in the history of documented storytelling. Even the examples of War of the Worlds, Night of the Living Dead, and Aliens mentioned by Jon9000 are, themselves, derivative of numerous other stories from film, literature, and even real world history back to the very beginnings of written language. The trick nowadays, and the real test, is presenting these themes in new, unexpected, and innovative ways. The film Signs is, in my opinion, a very successful example of this concept.

Beast
08-21-2002, 06:17 PM
Agreed RooJay. I was discussing the exact same thing with the head of the Video Department over at Media Play. Everything has been done. Giant Futuristic City, was originally done in the German Sci-Fi masterpiece, Metropolis. Yet people claim that Lucas ripped off Fifth Element for Coruscant. Sorry, but someone did it long before Fifth Element.

It's just like music, there are only so many ways things can be brand new and fresh. Everything has been done in the movies. It's just rearranging different pieces and parts together and you get another movie. It would be nice if there were somthing original, but it probably wouldn't be well liked. Because people like things they can identify with. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

master jedi
08-21-2002, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by icatch9

I hate stupid kids/teenagers that don't respect other people at the movie theater. I had the same thing happen at ET in March :mad:. They really ruined the movie for people and even young children who really wanted to see it. I'm not bashing teenagers by any means, but some of them are really annoying. Even other teenagers can admit to that :).

Heck, I'm still a teenager and I can't believe what a lot of teens are doing these days. It's just embarrassing and child-like.

jeddah
09-16-2002, 03:24 PM
All,

Signs opened nationwide here in the UK on Friday 13th Sep and I got to see it with great company on Saturday night.

Other than AOTC this is the one film I have been waiting for, for nearly 2 years. I was very pleased :)

I used to collect data for a crop circle researcher (Lucy Pringle) and as I live not too far from the crop circle global epicentre, between the end of April and middle of August every year, I used to spend most of my Sundays in Wiltshire (both circles that were shown on the News in the film were from Wiltshire - the first one (Bangalore) in 1990 in Alton Barnes, and the second (Wakefield) one was only a couple of years ago) taking seed samples etc etc et al ad astra

I gave up in 2000 as the waters had become so muddy with all the hoaxing activity going on, and I didn't have the faith that there was a genuine phenomena going on anymore. ;)

From a facts point of view, the only 'error' I noted in the film is that crop circles are clustered around areas of water. The chalklands of Wiltshire are heavily saturated with percolate and aquifers. In some instances, the crop pictogram references a water feature in the design (See point 6) (http://www.church-of-the-holy-grail.org/dharmic.htm) (nb - regardless of the 'meaning' or POV of the researcher, the fact was that the formation had included a water trough).

This, I was happy to ignore as every film requires you suspend disbelief and give into the film's charm. But, as I said, it is factually wrong.

Does anybody know who was commissioned to create the homestead formation? I assume it was The Circlemakers (http://www.circlemakers.org)/Team Satan but am not sure. Our agriglyphs appear commonly in oil seed rape (US = Canola), wheat, barley, oats, flax as we don't have many maize/corn farmers so I was not sure that our circlemakers would've had the expertise to manipulate maize.

I was marginally irritated by the constant referall to "Crop Signs" by which I have never heard them termed. Of course this was included to remind us about the premise of the film, but I am not sure it was necessary. What do you think? Did it treat the audience as dummies? The simple rings and circles are called (duh!) Crop circles, and the main term is "formation". The key designs of the early 90s and other code-like formations saw the term "pictograms" coined and the more extravagant generic name is agriglyph or (crop glyph).

Needless to say the crop circle fraternity is up in arms with the notion that the formaitons are not benign, but I must say I was thrilled to bits with the film! :)

jeddah

Pendo
09-16-2002, 03:39 PM
I went to see it too Jeddah :D. What can I say, I LOVED it :D. I didn't know what to expect as I had only saw the trailer once and din't really pay too much attention to it. I was surprised it managed to get a 12A rating, it seemed a little creepy for that rating.

One thing I didn't like was the fact that water kills the aliens. It seemed a little odd as many sightings have included people witnesing the UFOs taking up our water. Plus most of our planet is water so why come here? Also, I might be wrong because my science isn't too good, but doesn't every living organism need water to live?

Apart from the water thing i thought the film was excelent, all the acting was brilliant, even the children and I'm not a big fan of child actors.
I also liked the music at the beginning of the film, it gave it more of an old b-movie feel which was good :).
I also liked the way the UFOs looked on the TV, they looked just like the ones in one of the most famous UFO pictures.
But the best part of the film was when we first see the aliens at the party :D.

For someone like me who is really into UFOs and Aliens it was a brilliant film :). Can't wait for the DVD.

PENDO!

jeddah
09-16-2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Pendo
I went to see it too Jeddah :D. What can I say, I LOVED it :D.
One thing I didn't like was the fact that water kills the aliens. It seemed a little odd as many sightings have included people witnesing the UFOs taking up our water. Plus most of our planet is water so why come here? Also, I might be wrong because my science isn't too good, but doesn't every living organism need water to live?

Apart from the water thing i thought the film was excelent, all the acting was brilliant, even the children and I'm not a big fan of child actors.

I also liked the way the UFOs looked on the TV, they looked just like the ones in one of the most famous UFO pictures.

For someone like me who is really into UFOs and Aliens it was a brilliant film :). Can't wait for the DVD.

PENDO!

Well, I agree with completely you on the film's merits :).

Re the water, I agree, it is at odds with common sense, but like I said above, the thing I like to do when I watch a film is suspend disbelief.

The children, especially Bo, were sublime. The girl from Close Encounters, the young Drew in ET and Newt from Aliens are great in their roles, just like this little Bo Peep. She had me in hysterics.

I agree with the footage looking convincing and I think the party scene was based on the Varghina incident of a few years ago. What do you think?

Nice to know there is someone else with whom I share interests on UFOs and ET. If you are seriously interested in getting involved, you could do a lot worse than find out if your area has a localCSETI Working Group (http://www.cseti.org) .

:)

jeddah

MikeAndTheBots
09-16-2002, 05:11 PM
Pendo: about the water issue, it was brought up many a time in this thread so you should read back to get the other poster's opinions :D

RooJay
09-16-2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by jeddah
...based on the Varghina incident of a few years ago. What do you think?

?!!
Tell me more. What'd I miss out on? I too, am very interested in this subject, by the way.

Pendo
09-17-2002, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by jeddah
I agree with the footage looking convincing and I think the party scene was based on the Varghina incident of a few years ago. What do you think?

I think you're refering the the incident in 1995? Yeah it's a possibility :D. That has always been one of my favourite stories, and with so many witnesses, including firemen who claim to have captured one of them, it is hard to deny that it happened.
It certainly did remind me of it. It must be creepy to know Aliens have been walking around your village.


Originally posted by RooJay
?!!
Tell me more. What'd I miss out on? I too, am very interested in this subject, by the way.

The Varghina incident was back in 1995 in Brazil. A creature was found in a forest area and the firedepartment were called out to investigate. They captured the creature. The creature started to make buzzing bee noises.
Later that day three girls came across one crouched down against a wall.
Seven more of these creatures were captured in that area that day, and there were also several UFO sightings.
Some people say the creatures are really El Chupacabra (sp?) but I prefer the alien story.

PENDO!

jeddah
09-17-2002, 01:22 PM
..I don't think I can add to that summary, Roojay, Pendo's right on the money. Of course if you want to read about it in full, just type in a search engine Varghina Incident and there will be loads of hits, I'm sure. :)

I can recommend a book by Scott Corales called "Flashpoint - High Strangeness in Puerto Rica". It contains many reports and essays on the incredible events that have been occuring on one of the most mysterious places on the planet.

High strangeness is a term, along with Oz Factor that relates to the weird otherworldly feeling or events that surround ET sightings, contact, and other inexplicable phenomena. For example, when you have been driving and you end up at a different destination and can't remember the wrong turning or decision you took. Not to be confused with auto-driving when you can't recall certain parts of your journey, I find incidences of high strangeness particularly exciting. In July 1998 I lost two hours in this formation (http://home.clara.net/lucypringle/photos/1998/uk98ch.html) in July 1998 but I believe the actual formation itself was not part of the genuine phenomena.

Wiltshire has many sacred sites and so called ley or energy lines. It is also a Mecca for UFO sightings and nightwatches are conducted all throughout the year. The East Field is particularly 'potent' with Bols (balls of light) skitting over the crops being regularly filmed and analysed and unexplained. In 1992, the CSETI (http://www.cseti.org) working group in concert with other researchers experienced a strange event (http://www.etcontact.net/CE5.htm) in the region of the East Field/Woodborough Hill (see the paragraph entitled "B. England July 27, 1992") .

As you can see there is a lot going on in this are of the UK with its many hamlet towns. The further North in the UK you go, towards more industrialised areas, the more specific the reports become, especially with regards to the FTs or Flying Triangles.

The FTs seem to be a mixture of secret black budget technology at work and ET craft. nobody knows and until we have transparency in the Military we won't.

The thing with UFOs and ETs is that you have to be very discerning of what you read and there is nothing like experience. People can see ordinary mundane things in extraordinary circumstances and immediately see ET! I like to subscribe to the more considered and scientific journals and mags (esp Flying Saucer Review) and avoid rags like the UKs UFO Magazine. I have picked up the US's version of UFO Magazine and must admit to being appalled at the trash in there!

I find it advisable to split everything 50/50 that way you can keep an open mind. Sceptics are quick to quote Occams Razor at you, but in some cases, the most logical explanation is not some convoluted possibility, but a genuine UFO event. Remember what UFO means. A UFO is not necessarily a craft.

I hope this was of some interest. I also hope it may spur some of you on to get involved in some way. Until the stigma of ridicule is dealt with, we'll continue to limit ourselves universally....

:)

jeddah