(Please scroll to bottom to see what viewers said about my scathing review of Signs!)

I saw Signs at the coronet; 10pm; sat 8.3.2. The film has no structure. It just goes until it stops. It wants either to be a really good episode of The Twilight Zone or something bigger, like some grand statement on religion or Christianity. Either way it doesn't work. As the first, it's too long and ultimately empty. As the second it's childish and simple-minded.

Certainly, great films have been made that support, or confirm, a Christian viewpoint. This film wants to be that, but then portrays God as some sort of practical joker. Okay, here's what happens. Beware of spoilers. I mean ***spoilers***.

Gibson is an ex-clergyman with two kids and younger brother. They live on a farm in the midwest. About a year before Gibson's wife is killed in a car accident, at which point Gibson decides there is no God, or that he hates God because he took his wife (unoriginal? yes. stupid? yes.).

The little girl always drinks water and then says it tastes funny, so there's always tons of glasses of water around. Before Gibson's wife died she said something about Gibson's brother, an ex-ball player. Something like "hit it out of the ballpark" or whatever.

Blah, blah, blah. Aliens come to town. So, Gibson still hates God and won't pray, but then someone's like, "you gotta have faith man" and Gibson's like "NO!" He's like, it's all coincidence, not affected by God!

So then at the end of the movie, they hear all the creatures have been wiped out by water. But all of a sudden a creature is in the living room and is about to kill Gibson's kid, who is unconscious because he has asthma (yeah, it's a movie, remember) and hasn't been able to get to his inhaler. Then Gibson sees all the glasses of water around the house and throws them at the creature. And then he sees the baseball bat on the wall next to where Joaquin Phoenix is standing and says to Joaquin the thing his wife said, "hit away, slugger" or whatever.

So he does that. And the creature dies. And they take the kid outside, he had been sprayed by alien creature gas and he might have died from it! Only thing, he wasn't breathing when he was gassed because of the asthma. So Gibson's like, wait, wait a minute, now we can save him!

And now Gibson rejoins the priesthood (or whatever), because he believes in God again, because God had to be giving Gibson "signs" about the water, and the wife's last statement (and other things).

Okay, SO, God knew that the aliens were coming. He knew it when Gibson's wife died at the latest. He knew the kid would ALMOST die of asthma or alien gas. So God knew all this. (Also, doesn't the existence of space aliens go against the general teachings of Christianity? I'm not sure.) So, God took away Gibson's wife for a reason, to end up making Gibson's faith stronger, I guess.

But, WHY? It would mean that God's upstairs going, Gibson's a good man. He's spreading my word and all that shit. But, he could be MORE into me... So God kills Gibson's wife in a random car accident. He makes sure Gibson is able to talk to his wife before she dies. He has the wife, as she dies, say the thing about telling his brother to hit a homer. God has the daughter develop a compulsion about drinking water, etc. All this elaborate charade to make someone who is already in the top 1% of devout believers believe a little more? Will Gibson be able to spread God's word better or to more people now?

So, anyway, it's like Shyamalan is trying to say something about spirituality, but it's very stunted, meaningless, trite and empty. Thus the pat ending is laughable. By this point, the few good scares, and moody atmospheric tension stuff is forgotten, because the story is so stupid.

If there is a God, why would he design such boring silly parlor games to amuse himself with? I mean, really according to any organized religion I know of, God is a recluse. He has no friends. He's never married, he's a virgin. He's an ego maniac. Then he decides to make a world (or is it a universe? or is it bigger? and who made God? right, we all ask that question. And what IS the deal with God making Jesus and then all of a sudden Jesus is God, and what happened to the old God? Jesus' father, I mean.)

But, maybe if Shyamalan's superficial take on Christianity which millions are seeing, can make people THINK about religion... But will it? I was already thinking about these things. But will most people go to the movie to have their vague notions of hopeful immortality confirmed, and go home?

Disagree with this review? Then email me at tedstrong@tedstrong.com!

And someone did...

Dateline November 10:

From: "Roger Hamilton" (a1950s_guy@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:11:20 -0500
To: tedstrong@tedstrong.com
Subject: Your Review of Mel Gibson's movie "Signs"

Interestingly, I used Google to check out various reviews of the Mel Gibson movie titles "Signs".

And of all the reviews that I read, your review: Signs: Jesus, are you home? It's me Mel Gibson. Was the MOST worthless of all--by a long shot. You cannot even get your facts straight (what facts you provided): Mel's wife had died 6 months earlier, not a year earlier, for example.

I cannot imagine ANY magazine or newspaper paying you for your totally worthless comments. Were the above not enough, you completely ruin the movie review by completely giving away the ending.

You need to remember that there are a lot of people who have not seen the movie yet, waiting for it to come out on Video and DVD January 3, 2003.

Oh, and BTW, it was Newsweek, not Time, that called Director Shyamalan "the next Spielberg". I hope you have another job, as it is obvious you are a complete failure at movie review.--Roger.

Okay, so I wrote back to him that my review said that Gibson's wife had died about a year before. Within the context of the film, though, I don't think it matters at all that she died 6 months or 9 months or 12 months before.

Then he said that I ruin the "movie review" by giving away the ending. So, I pointed out to him that I wrote (in the second paragraph): "Beware of spoilers. I mean ***spoilers***." This is what you are supposed to do if you're going to give away key plot points or the ending or anything.

Next, he complained that I said that Time had called Shyamalan "the next Spielberg". He points out that it was in fact Newsweek. I then told him that I checked over this review, and my whole site, for such a reference -- and there wasn't any. Nowhere did I say that Time, or Newsweek, or my friend Amy called Shyamalan "the next Spielberg".

Then I said that I suspected his real problem was that I complained about the film's being too simplistic and having a childish view of God, etc. Obviously this fellow loves the film -- who else would know such trivial details about it -- including the video and DVD release date!