Then why is Breaking the Waves one of Kong's favorite films? Kong may be an athiest, but he can enjoy movies with religious themes.
I insinuated that it had something to do with it; not everything to do with it. Could be wrong, but it seems plausible. If it made a point you agreed with lacking tact, I imagine you'd have some more tolerance for it.
To be honest, Kong gives Signs a rating of **1/2 of ****. While that means Kong didn't enjoy the film, he does recognize many positive aspects of it. What makes Kong hate the film is that it started off so well.
2 and a half out of 4 means you didn't like it? That's "awful"? You're monkeying around with the rating system.
Aliens are burned by water, but they come to earth with no protection.
Aliens bring no weapons.
Why didn't the Predator just blow up Ah-nuld with his spaceship? Because he came to hunt. Why didn't we just carpet-bomb Iraq? Because we have specific objectives there which call for precision. It's no stretch whatsoever to suggest that maybe these aliens had similar circumstances to contend with.
Throw in the fact that the Klingons would probably invade the same way, and you've got yourself not only a potential explanation, but cinematic alien precedent.
Aliens are burned by water but magically can survive the dew on a Pennsylvania farm, and breath the humidity (read: water) in the air without ill effects. Likewise they seem comfortable in the RAIN FOREST!!!
There's an awful lot of difference between humidity and a glass of water. There are a number of chemicals which you and I could afford to come into contact with without any real harm, but which would cause us great pain were we exposed to them in more plentiful amounts.
Aliens can jump way up in the air (12 feet or something), but cannot kick down a pantry door.
1 - One does not necessarily imply the other.
2 - It wasn't just a door. There were a number of pieces of furniture blocking it.
3 - This isn't Ikea balsa wood. This is a farmhouse door.
4 - It DID get out eventually. It just didn't get out right that moment.
Aliens seem to have a psychic power, and yet when they know Mel Gibson has a knife they still stick their fingers under the pantry door to be chopped off.
I didn't pick up much of a pyschic vibe from the aliens. Morgan thought they could read minds, but I don't think that theory was ever validated.
Aliens can figure the complex mathematics of interstellar navigation, and yet they need "signs" on earth in order to get around.
Who says they "need" it? Last I checked the metric system was more efficient, technically, than the system we Americans use, but we still use it. Just because we're talking about space-travelling aliens, it doesn't mean we should assume they've Vulcanized themselves by embracing raw logic and dismantling any and all tradition. I find this a common misconception in discussions about movie aliens.
Aliens can make their ships invisible, but choose to do so only after everyone has seen them.
I recall the ships in the sky, but not what you're saying.
My basic feeling is this: the movie is about the family. Not the aliens. As I said to a friend once, if
Signs is about aliens, then
The Lord of the Rings is about jewelry. The movie aims to make us the fifth member of the Hess family. So imagine you're a Hess; would you know just why the aliens did this instead of that? Probably not. We are put in the position of knowing no more or less than that family does.
As for the message of faith: maybe not subtle, but still valid. I found it a welcome change of pace...most well-made movies refrain from taking any stance. They think themselves superior for "letting the audience decide."
Signs is an island of clarity in a sea of ambiguous endings.