signs is the latest movie to pop off the top of my netflix queue. i'm in the camp of people who like m. night shyamalan's films, so it shouldn't be too shocking that i enjoyed this one. night's films just have a measure of confidence and craftmanship to them that i really appreciate. (i would compare his films to those of the coen brothers, in that regard.)

one thing in particular that struck me as unauthentic about the film was the television news coverage within the film. while it served the story, it was simply too staid to compare to the sort of coverage that happens for major events. in particular, you'd have anchors babbling endlessly over everything.

and the culkin kid (rory) in the film was a little too distracting in his resemblance to his older brother (macauley). he did a great job, really, it was just disconcerting seeing what looked to be the kid from home alone.

(you might get the impression from all these mini-reviews that i like every movie i watch. that's probably true, in large part, because i go into most films with a certain expectation, and only really dislike a film when it falls short of that. that's why i can call a movie like bubble boy great. i just don't derive a great deal of satisfaction from dumping on a movie. and i probably avoid some real clunkers just by having the sense not to watch them in the first place.)

« the view from cubawhat does a good mailing list web archive look like? »