7th period ended 15 minutes ago, but I can still feel the effects of a wasted period. Today Mr. Bennett was absent, and we started watching the movie Signs with a substitute. I understand perfectly why we are watching this film even though he is absent, and I was all up for the idea. However after watching 35-40 minutes or so of Signs, I've found that our little film class is nowhere near as engaging with the void of our teacher. It also didn't help that the lack of an authoritative figure (a substitute is about as frightening as a poodle with a mohawk) gave people the idea that they could talk and bother all those around them that actually cared about the film. The volume, although turned up all the way on both the computer and media player, was still rather low and made it difficult to hear what was going on, even as I sat in the very front of the room. Perhaps we should have asked the sub to put subtitles on? Why did I only just think of that as I was writing this? Dammit. Oh well.
So far, I am not very impressed with Signs. I had seen most of it in the past and never really formed a conclusion about it. We have not discussed the anti-existentialist themes of the film yet, but in general, Signs is pretty boring. Joaquin Phoenix has been pretty good in his role, but has not been utilized enough so far. I am very disappointed with Mel Gibson so far because I have not heard a single convincing line come from his mouth. "Isabelle, you're going to feel very silly when this all turns out to be make believe". Gibson delivers that line to a german shepard as he stands outside his home staring at the cornfield, and it made me cringe when he said it. A simple line that is probably meaningless, yet Gibson made it ugly to hear.
Rory Culkin is a creepy little boy.
I know that we have only seen the first 35-40 minutes of Signs so I shouldn't form my opinions yet, but to quote Mr. Bennett himself, "There have only been a handful of movies ever that have started off bad and gotten better". Let's see if this is in that handful.
Blogger No More...
13 years ago
Nick, don't be so critical of a movie that we have only seen part of, although I will agree that I am not yet completely convinced about this movie either, and I did see it once before, probably when I was 12.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the class was very well-behaved and attentive today so I don't think that there was much of a problem there, but I do know that the volume was too low and the film experience was not the same without Mr. Bennett.
The experience of today was definitely lacking something although I can only assume that Mr. Bennett decided to show Signs -- the anti-existentialist movie of the term-- when he is absent because he is so repulsed by the very idea so he can't bear to watch the film.
I believe this is his plot to avoid seeing any film that disagrees with his ideology, but he is certainly missed and the moviegoing experience lacks a vital and integral part of it.
I tried not to be too critical of it so soon, but then I figured how is this any different than posting a positive comment about a film before it is over? We have both done that numerous times, so it could also be said that we were being too accepting of a film despite having only seen a little bit of it. I geuss since it is a negative comment it is as if I am not giving this film a chance at all, which I could understand.
ReplyDeleteAlso, since you were sitting in the front of the room the entire time, you were spared from the mutterings and gigglings of the people in the back. You may have noticed me get up and sit in the front during the period. That is why.
Very funny comment about Mr. Bennett trying to avoid this film on purpose, haha. Although I sincerely hope he is not doing such a thing. I would love to hear all of his comments about the events in this film as they happen.
Thanks for the comment Jimmy!
You are quite right that posting a positive comment is similar, so I take that back but I do still hope you give it a chance.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome for the comment of course! And yes I noticed you get up!
Nick, I think that if you didn't enjoy Signs thus far there will be very little you will enjoy during the rest. I've seen it before and remember it for the sheer distain I felt for it afterwards. The problems you have with it now not only continue, but intensify.
ReplyDeleteNow, the last time I saw the film was a few years ago and I was really just watching it for fun and because the previews looked good. I wasn't really looking at it from a very analytical standpoint. There's a chance that the film will be drastically better watching it now, but I doubt it.
Thanks for the kind words, brother. It's nice to know one is missed. The film is worth a viewing, I think. GIbson plays it in a wooden way, but he's not Keanu Reeves. He can act. By the way, did you see Reeves in "War of the Worlds?" He finally found his niche. Plahing a soul-less alien from outer space. He was brilliant. He just acted like himself. Anyway, I'm back tomorrow so we'll try to pick up the pieces and move on.
ReplyDeleteOh, as far as missing a film that contradicts my personal philosophy, you are mistaken. In fact, wait until the syrupy ending arrives so that I can talk some serious trash on everything everyone holds sacred.
ReplyDeleteReeves was actually in the Day The eart Stood Still remake. I didn't get a chance to see it. I was deterred by the trailer of the new film.
ReplyDeleteNumber of explosions in original film: 0
Number of explosions in remakes trailer alone: like 5