More Nitpicking?

Rating: 6/10 (8 August 2002)

POSSIBLE SPOILERS HEREIN: I was disappointed with Signs. I don't mind slow, quiet films but this was too slow for me. I thought Mel Gibson was sort of one-dimensional and a bit rigid. The other actors were good, however, and the film did have a couple of really intense moments, without stooping to chaotic, overblown special effects.
Most of all, the religious aspect of it bothered me, especially coming from the seemingly multicultural Shyamalan. I would think that actually being confronted with beings from another world would make one seriously question organized religion and the traditional creation and morality stories we've been told all our lives. I wonder....does Christianity (or any mainstream religion) mention alien life forms (and what to do about them)? It seemed to me that Mel Gibson's character retreated to religion in a knee-jerk, frightened way; it became his sanctuary away from science and reality and thought. That probably happens all the time in real life but wouldn't the film have been less prosaic with a broader view of humankind's place in the universe? Maybe not.
I wanted to know more about why the creatures were there and what else was happening in the rest of the world. I wanted to know why the aliens didn't have weapons. How could they be so advanced in space travel but need mapping signs (crop circles) and not have a clue about the water situation--couldn't they have worn protective gear? I just don't buy the whole scenario and think that M. Night, while directing some really scary moments, ultimately had a weak, frustrating story. I could be wrong, though.