CLICHÉS would have been a more descriptive title

Rating: 3/10 (2 December 2002)

Sometimes the really bad movies inspire me to write in.

I saw SIGNS before reading NYT or WASHINGTON POST reviews, so I think I was unbiased. As a science fiction fan I have learned to suffer through a lot of eye-rolling silliness; generally I'm fairly forgiving. Also, when I saw SIGNS, I didn't know the movie was made by the director of SIXTH SENSE, so I wasn't looking to compare this film to that top notch ghost thriller. I just wanted to be entertained by a good movie, one I had heard did fantastic at the box office.
Sadly I was bored and disappointed by this movie, and I was relieved to see critics from some of the USA's biggest papers had the same feelings. The aliens were laughable (in fact they should never have been shown), and little of what I saw seemed fresh after so many episodes of X-FILES covered the exact same ground with better production, acting, and a necessary dose of eye-twinkling satire.
I couldn't help comparing this dull movie to Kevin Costner's little sparkler, DRAGONFLY, which got so many withering, spiteful reviews. Similar themes, that were explored fairly well in Costner's film, are laughably diced and served cold in SIGNS. Somehow, maybe because of his huge budget films that bombed, Costner has become something of a Hollywood embarrassment, so his films, reviewed by critics who like to feel hip and in with the elite, now seem doomed in the press well before a cast is chosen, whatever the film's true merit. Many of the reviews of DRAGONFLY are filled with barely concealed attacks on Costner's character. No, DRAGONFLY wasn't a film that we'd rate as one of the 100 best of all times, but unless hatred for Costner colors one's judgment, by any standards it was entertaining and moving.
But because SIGNS did so well at the box office, its bland hash of mawkishness, contrived, clichéd weirdness with dogs and water, and goblin-like body snatchers from another world will earn the director, who really should hang his head in shame, a pat on the back.
DRAGONFLY was a solid film that explored the edges of sanity that grieving widowers risk plunging over. Costner's character was believably neurotic in efforts to retain some of what he lost when his wife died. But in SIGNS, Gibson's performance seems contrived, a goofy attempt at somber homage to a lost American stoicism. In his performance he seems too self-conscious to be credible; I had the sense throughout he was overacting by under-acting. The result is Gibson never becomes his character, he just goes through motions that make him seem to be an amateur actor. Based on Gibson's countless fine performances, I'm sure this is the fault of the director who was trying for the foggy stiffness that succeeded well in SIXTH SENSE.

This is just about as bad as WATERWORLD or even THE POSTMAN, but in a smaller, more stifling way, and with more clichés packed into less time. The science in this science fiction film is hideously tortured, as if the makers of the film are sneering at America's abysmal math and science education, as if they thought, "Oh, the movie audience is so dumb, let's use the most banal substance we can think of to be the aliens' Achilles' heel.
Truly, upon reflection, the movie is so blandly bad that it isn't worth making fun of its many blunders.
If you have any respect for the genre of science fiction, any hope that movies can be better; if you wish producers would assume that intelligent life exists in the audience, give this one a pass.