In Defense of Signs

Rating: 9/10 (14 January 2003)

According to the theatrical success of this movie and high user rating "Signs" would have to be considered a popular and well-regarded movie. But if one were to just read the user comments on this site, it would appear that this movie was a total flop and a total waste of time for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. I have to respectfully disagree- I found this movie (watched late at night by myself) to be totally engrossing and entertaining....MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD... First of all, many people had a problem with the aliens invading a planet that was mostly water, a substance which they had to know was extremely hazardous to them. I thought the movie made it clear that this was a desperate action by a desperate race on the brink of extinction. I'm sure that they would rather inhabit a world more hospitable to them- but the odds of them blundering into a planet that suits their needs perfectly are astronomical considering the vast distances between stars and the sheer infinite number of directions to travel. Just finding a planet that offered an atmosphere they could breathe and temperatures they could tolerate would be a godsend! Maybe they would just inhabit earth as a forward base while they continued to search for a more suitable planet to colonize. Perhaps they had the technology to alter earth's climate once they were established here, if they had the ability to travel to other worlds, would this be so far fetched? This "plot hole" isn't really that big of an issue to the central story, in fact I don't even think it is a plot hole at all! I found the minimalist approach in regard to slowly unveiling the aliens very intense and scary. The build-up to first seeing the alien scout on the TV and the scene with the alien in the pantry both had me on the edge of my seat! The hairs stood on the back of my neck when first glimpsing the image of the alien in the alley on the news clip... and I can't tell you the last time a scene freaked me out like that. Also, I found the whole issue of a man losing his faith after the death of his wife totally believable. No one I talked to after watching this movie thought this plotline was ill-conceived or not feasible.
Unless there are glaring, ill- thought out major faults in a movie, harping on small, under-explained, or misunderstood themes does not ruin a movie for me. Some of these "plot holes" expressed by others are more suited in my opinion for "slip-ups.com" instead of a thoughtful review on this site. In the movie "Hoosiers," it was never explained how the point-guard named Buddy rejoined the team after getting kicked off the team along with his friend Merle. He just magically reappeared one game. It turns out that the scene with him rejoining was lost on the editing room floor. But that minor point never ruined the movie in my mind. Maybe through the editing process some of these themes so many of you had trouble with would have been better explained, but at the cost of a 3+ hour movie. Sometimes it's better not to dwell on the minutiae, but rather step back and see the work as a whole. This criticism is not directed at anyone that didn't like the movie overall, but rather for those who chose to just let a few points that they couldn't reason out or use imagination to overcome let ruin a movie that so many of us (7.5 overall rating on this site) have found to be well worth our time.