Needs Subtitles

I can agree with this.
I wouldn't say the way the movie was done was a bad thing, but I can still understand what you mean..

This has mainly 2 reasons.

1) I have studied some sign language in Finland. Of course the language is not ASL so I cannot say much about that language, but from what I've learned from studying Finnish Sign Language (FSL?) is that while signing out the words you actually make mouth movements to resemble your signs. In most cases you would use Finnish words so speaking them out loud would be an option. But because of the language structure what comes out wouldn't be very understandable Finnish language. It would sound like someone picking out words from a large text in random. And secondly in some words the mouthings are completely different in FSL than what the signs mean in spoken Finnish language.
So indeed I think it seems unrealistic that James Leeds could speak fluent English while signing in ASL (assuming that ASL works in similar ways as FSL).

2) In Finland all foreign language films have subtitles. In movie theatres there are subtitles in 2 languages at the same time (in Finnish and in Swedish). So perhaps to me it wasn't very odd that James was speaking aloud everything he says and the movie was not using sign language with subtitles, because when he spoke out loud (in English), I already was reading subtitles (in Finnish). What I can say from my perspective is that certainly having subtitles in this film (or any film) would have not "ruined it" (as some seem to think).

I agree. The unspoken ASL should have been subtitled. It seemed very unnatural for William Hurt to repeat her lines just for himself. That would only make sense if there were other hearing people in the conversation who didn't know ASL and he was acting as the interpreter. Even more irritating was how he kept changing perspective. If she signed "I want you to sit," sometimes he'd say it back verbatim, like an interpreter, other times he'd change it to, "You want me to sit." That was done inconsistently and sometimes it got confusing to me.

"Switched at Birth" handles it in a way that seems realistic. When only deaf characters are signing, it's all subtitled. Some of the actors mouth the words or whisper as they sign, others do not. This seems to be a personal choice based on how the actor talks in real life. In scenes with deaf and hearing characters, the deaf characters' lines are signed and subtitled, while hearing characters who know ASL usually speak while signing, whether or not there is a hearing person in the scene who doesn't know ASL and would need interpretation, and this seems to be the custom, unless the signing characters, deaf or hearing, are trying to communicate secretively in front of someone who doesn't know ASL. And the there's Daphne who is only hard of hearing and can speak. She signs around anyone who knows ASL, deaf or hearing, but speaks without signing with people who don't know ASL, but only needs to be subtitled when she's with another deaf character and only signs without speaking.

Lots of permutations, but they're consistent and they put more thought into it than the makers of this film.

I understand your points on this but I found it easy to look past it.

I also think that having all subtitles for her signed lines may have been equally annoying to many.

One last point, but it really is not a rock solid reason...wasn't this based on a stage play? (Where subtitles can't work). I could see perhap the author/playright insist that Hurt's charactet performed exactly as in the play.