[quote name='epobirs'][quote name='trq'][quote name='rallen']'Signs' was a huge pile of streaming elephant turds. Everytime they'd finally get the film moving, they'd stop for a family hug.
And did we really need to see the flashback of the aliens hand getting cut off? Unless you're retarded, I would hope you would remember something that happened 20 minutes earlier.
Was ANYONE surprised that Mel Gibson would regain his 'faith'. If you were, I have a copy of Superman 64 for ya. cheap.[/quote]
Yeah, I knew there'd be one of these. When you ask this question, there's always one guy who pipes in with "Raging Bull" or some such, just because it managed to push a button with him.
If you really think this was the worst movie ever, you haven't seen many movies.[/quote]
Nope, 'Signs' really and truly sucked. The audience had been expecting so much after the writer-director's previous two films they were left in a state of denial. 'The Village' is equally bad, especially since it largely rips off movies and Twilight Zone episodes everybody has seen but magically forgets thanks to the hype-rays.[/quote]
Maybe I shouldn't have picked "Raging Bull" for my example, but my point is that even if you found it sub-par, it still comes in ahead of almost every movie in this thread so far, if for no other reason than say ... oh, the appropriate use of camera angles and scene transitions and so on -- the stuff they teach you in the first year of film school that somehow didn't make its way into House of the Dead or Charlie's Angels or Batman and Robin or...
Let me also mention that "Unbreakable" was even less well received (65% on Rotten Tomatos) than "Signs," (78%) and "The Sixth Sense" only did slightly better. (85%)