Really nice DVD, but only an average movie.

Rating: Null/10 (2 February 2003)

My wife and I enjoyed "Signs" but when it was over we both said, "That's a pretty average movie." We couldn't understand all the fuss and high user ratings. I liked "Unbreakable" much more, and even "The Sixth Sense." For me, the extras on the "Signs" DVD are much more interesting than the film itself, a fairly simple alien story that moves along very deliberately. But the extras give a superb glimpse into Night's film-making process, how he writes, how he directs, the building of the farm set in an experimental corn field, and how the CGI alien was done. However, there's a bit much "mutual admiration" comments at times by the actors and crew. And Night's comment, regarding design of various trailers to advertise "Signs", "We're going to show you one of the best movies ever seen", gives us an insight into the perhaps inflated view Night has of his own work.
some SPOILERS follow - don't read further if you haven't seen "Signs" yet, unless you don't mind spoiling some of the surprise.
A key theme running through "Signs" and uttered more than once is, "Is it possible that there are no coincidences?" It is said at the end, by Gibson's character, when the young boy is spared the alien's poisonous gas because his lungs are temporarily incapacitated from his asthma. We are shown a drawing in a book of aliens where the house looks exactly like the one in this movie. The film gets its title from crop signs, made by alien beings as directions for other aliens to follow them, but also has the meaning of Gibson's character, an Episcopal priest, to get a sign from God regarding his faith, lost when his wife was killed by a car. It turns out that the aliens here are not kind aliens, they want something which is never directly revealed.
What did I not like about this movie? I find the dialog unbelievable much of the time. Also, Night wanted to inject humor into the script, which he did, but for me it did ring true in relation to what was happening on-screen. For example, near the end when the alien was in the attic, his brother got on a chair and was holding the attic door shut by extending his arms to the door, as the alien tried to push it open. He says, "This is only a temporary solution." Gibson asks, "How temporary" and the answer is "About 22 more seconds." I don't really believe this is the dialog two adult brothers would have during a life-threatening situation, unles you are simply making a broad comedy. "Signs" is not a broad comedy, it examines what could happen if crop signs really were made by dangerous aliens, and also how a fallen away priest might regain his love for God.
I believe Night tried too hard in filming "Signs" to come up with some "grand moments." There is no doubt he is strongly influenced by great directors like Hitchcock, and artists like Norman Rockwell, because he mentions these in the DVD extras. However it seems that he tries too hard to "make" emotional things happen instead of letting them simply be a result of really good directing and acting of a really good script. I believe he failed for the most part in "Signs" when he tried to create these grand moments. And for me, the film failed to create the mood of terror at any time.
Night takes much care to set up the premise of crop signs made by aliens, and the idea that they are dangerous, maybe even threatening the very existence of life as we know it on Earth. But he gets rid of that threat with one simple statement over the news, "In the middle east using an ancient method the aliens have been chased away. No other details are available." As I watched the film I thought, "What the heck is that? Sure seems like a giant cop-out in the story line." It was as if he didn't know how to handle this grand premise he had created, so he just invented some quick resolution.
In summary, I like Night and his method of making films. I especially like "Unbreakable" with its good vs evil theme residing in the two main characters. I own the DVD and watch it periodically, I admire how well it was done. While I enjoyed "Signs" I don't think it rises above "average", and certainly not in the category of the better films I have seen over the past few years. Night is still a very young film maker and I look forward to what he may offer in the future. However, for him to continue his success I believe he needs to move away from his boyish fascination with himself, which I think dilutes his ideas, and re-focus on what he does best, create fascinating new themes for films. He is no Hitchcock, and I doubt he ever will be.