The obscurity of the alien origin is deliberate in Signs. It is craft, M. Nights craft. There is an open end to his movies that are eventually defined by his telekinetic shift- the twist. That is Signs beauty, it isn’t defined by the obvious. Most people want something that they understand unequivocally, conformed. Shymalan gives to individuals. The onusis dependant on each viewers fears. Truly his art.
What Signs should have had is either (a) an explanation or (b) an interesting mystery. Take The Usual Suspects, a film I love. At the end of it, we know nothing. There are more questions than answers. But it’s done as an interesting mystery. Now, in Signs, there are no questions, just dumb answers. The movie is a bunch of plot holes sewn together with a bunch of clichés.
devilsknew, I loved Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and The Village, so I don’t think this is a matter of me not understanding Shyamalan’s art. It’s a matter of Signs being a shitty movie.
Look, I can buy Signs as odd science fiction, and I can buy it as a metaphor for faith (with the aliens being a plot-based agency that could equally be criminals, demons or killer bunny rabbits), but why does water kill them? Is there some sybollism I’m just not getting here?
Who knows. The thing that really sold Signs to me was its realism.
Yes, I mean it.
If Aliens (and I mean that in the generic sense of “others”, not strictly extraterrestrials) appeared, we wouldn’t know the first thing about them. Where they came from, what they wanted, how their physiology worked, nothing whatsoever. And if they vansished as quickly as they appeared (as they did in the film), we may never know. Scientists and the governments they report to may be able to shed some light, but the average farmer and his family wouldn’t know anything at all. All they could do is cower in the basement until it passes. This, I think, is how it would be. There’s a certain arrogance in the normal sci-fi convention that alien motivations and reasoning would seem at all rational to humans. Why should they be? They’re aliens.
So, why did water hurt the aliens? Why did they come in the first place? Why didn’t they protect against such an obvious weakness? Will they return, and if so, will they be wearing ponchos next time?
Why did the mother die?
God only knows. And He ain’t telling. But, at least in the Signs universe, He will give us the tools and clues we need to get through the day.
Anyway, my pet theory is that the aliens are a slave/drone race and the water weakness is engineered so the masters can control them. If the humans manage to take a few gross out with it, meh, they’ll just make more. But that’s not really strongly supported, nor should it be. The aliens aren’t the point. The point is how the family deals with the intrusion of something they can’t understand into their lives.
Now, M Night’s performance. That’s something I won’t defend.
If there only were a way to make that point without making a stupid movie. Wait! There is a way! That way I just said!
I’m gonna have to pitch in on Signs.
I hated it. Not because it was a bad movie. The plot didn’t bother me. And it wasn’t necessarily scary. I’m just a very jumpy person, and there were a lot of …just…jumpy, startling parts in that movie. I slept with my light on for a week after that movie came out. And the field across the street from my house freaked me out if I had to go outside to my car at night.
One movie I actually liked, despite the fact that it had very little good science in it, was The Day After Tomorrow. I hate Jake Gyllenhal, but he did pretty good in this movie. Yes, the wolves acted weird, and yes, Dennis Quaid overacted (although I know a lot of scientist types who act just like that), and yes, the science was flawed - it just made for a good movie. Movies aren’t necessarily good or based in reality.
Another couple that I really liked were Pitch Black and the Chronicles of Riddick. Once again, not very good as far as being reality-based, but good movies nonetheless, despite the presence of Vin Diesel.
~Tasha