MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Signs (Mel Gibson)

Signs (Mel Gibson)


Just saw it again for the first time since it opened, and I'd forgotten how many outright belly laughs there were. Abigail Breslin's little girl had some of the best (not to mention the tin foil/Hershey's Kisses hats). I really enjoyed it; BUT in retrospect there were many nonsensical main plot points. First, even in the unlikely event they were ignorant of their Wicked Witch water allergy, it seems unlikely they'd invade a world without determining thru their scouts if the atmosphere, microbes and other things were dangerous. The upshot is a kid with a squirt gun coulda kicked ass. A good rain storm would wipe them out. So why invade a deathtrap? Also, these guys had no sense of survival planning. The boy didn't have his inhaler - the first thing a parent would think of. The cellar, their last resort, was not stocked with water, etc . And most of all, what rural guy in such a situation, regardless of his prior beliefs, wouldn't stock up on guns and ammo? I mean, you gotta defend your family. Even if they didn't melt when wet, these had to be the weakest, half-assed alien invaders ever. They literally couldn't fight there way out of a locked pantry, were unarmed and unarmored (and no rainsuits!), and who couldn't even take a man with a baseball bat. What would they've done against a battalion of marines (especially with super-soakers). Pretty weak stuff.

reply

I haven't visited this site in ages, and was amused to find that my only other post also was about a Mel Gibson movie (with a similarly fundamental plot flaw). It's funny, since I pretty much boycott all of his movies since his racist antics. I didn't check for other threads before the OP, but it pretty much mirrors this one. What I can't abide are those people who predictably counter that an admittedly invalid plot premise is OK, because otherwise the movie wouldn't have the surprise twist, etc. Well, it's only a surprise since there were no rational grounds to have expected it. Especially when the flaw is evident from the beginning, it ruins the whole thing for me. At least in Signs, the big water twist comes right at the end so I wasn't chafing thru the whole movie, and I only had to deal with the weak plot about unarmed aliens taking us out one at a time. In my later years, I have taken the simple expedient of walking out of the movie. Ahhhh.

reply


I enjoyed the movie, but you are dead on there! Lots of gaping plot holes.

😎

reply

I should watch this again.

reply

THEY ARE NOT ALIENS.THEY ARE DEMONS.


https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-aliens-in-Signs-ever-just-break-through-the-doors

reply

are you from fb??

reply

I AM ALSO THERE...YOU?

reply

DON'T WANT TO CATCH SOMETHING

reply

AMAZING

reply

ARE YOU BORED OVER THERE ??

reply

Yes, very awful symbolic demons.

reply

Given the story line of the loss of Christian faith, and the brief allusion on the TV newscast to the beginnings of the expulsion of the aliens starting in the Middle East, do you suppose this was meant to suggest the "miracle" began where so many others had taken place? What, did some kid who loved vampire movies try out some holy water on one of 'em? There were a lot of oracular themes in the movie, from Abigail with her visions and her water fetish to "Swing away", and Gibson's loss of faith in miracles was a main theme. Apparently, M. Night was raised near Philly and went to Catholic and Episcopal schools, so maybe the Abrahamic mysticism rubbed off?

reply