I like your idea, Cracker.
I'm in the love it camp. I mean, I think in terms of Signs, we can put Shyamalan in the genius category, right up there with Tarantino's best work (Kill Bill) and others. It's on my favorites list.
Some users have pointed out a religious aspect to it. I agree. It does give me some pause whenever I watch it or think about it. I'm a more-or-less a militant atheist, whatever that means. I pretty much despise spiritualism and superstition, but I'm generally fond of it in film. It's just another kind of fantasy, and I like fantasy. But you know what, it don't stop me lovin' it. What's lovely about that part of Signs is it does not really hit you over the head with it...in any kind of evangelical or holy roller fashion.
And I don't think I agree that it necessarily asks us to believe that the wife/mother is actively watching over them. I think that that's a possible part of the story. But I think all we need entertain is the idea that she had a premonition-ish of what was to come. Actually, I don't think she had to be conscious of any of it. The story is about "signs." Or maybe it's something like synchronicity. I also suppose that it's more about (a) God being conscious of it, orchestrating it all. So, this God did not inflict the son with asthma because He is cruel or indifferent, which would be the logical conclusion. No, this God gave it to him in order to ultimately protect him from the alien's poison. Anyway. Strangely, even though on principle I'm hostile to the assertion, I find it heartwarming because everything sort of turns out well, thanks to the magic of the movies.
I watched it recently, and I still think the home video reveal of the alien/man in a suit is fully convincing and brilliant! I still love it. I don't get people who knock it. The later CGI alien? Yeah, it hardly bothers me. What do you do? That was the state of CGI. I find that it is just fine as it was, or is. Should he DO A LUCAS and insert some 2011 CGI for it? Eh, dunno. Like the Pixar People say: it's story, story, story! The story required a face-to-face smack-down with an alien. It's right for the story. That's what they could do. Would Weta do a better alien for Shyamalan today? Maybe. But let's face it. Did any of us have any trouble seeing and understanding that Gollum was a CGI construct? My point is, could that alien in Signs -ever- seem real enough? I think it's fine as it is. It's called suspension of disbelief. Use it.
I love, love, love the slow, bucolic atmosphere and build up mixed with the suspense of the film. That is one of the film's major characters. I very much doubt that Shyamalan wrote from his experience growing up on or running such a Midwestern farm, and yet he wrote it so brilliantly. Wow. It keeps me coming back. You know, am I the only one who romantically imagines living on and working that farm in small town America? In Romantic Fantasy Land, it seems pretty idyllic.
Referring back to the religious cast of the story, I have to praise Mel's performance for that dark night of the soul bit when they're sitting on the couch and he's explaining the two kinds of people. That man can be a damn good actor. He really hits it. Despite his well known personal faith, one gets the clear sense that he's been there, or at least that he can put himself there hypothetically.
The water thing. It does bothers me. It always bothers me. It's hardly original to this story. For example, remember Alien Nation? I was a very poor chemistry student. Is there a chemist here or anyone who was a good chemistry student? I would love for you to explain how it is entirely plausible for there to be a life form for whom water would be like acid. You know, it hardly matters, though, because I'm still only going to be very stubborn about it. The -only- example of life that we know of requires water. It's a basic. I'm sure I'll always call baloney whenever a storyteller tells a story in which water is acid. Still, if water wasn't acid in Signs, then there wouldn't be the payoff at the end when it's revealed why the daughter was leaving glasses of water all around the house. Hey, on some dramatic level it pays off and it's satisfying. For that, I can forgive its implausibility.
Another shout-out. I love, love, love the silhouette of the cross that once hung on Mel's wall. It's less tarnished than the rest of the wall. It's a wonderful visual cue. That little touch right there is enough reason to grab the man (Shyamalan) and give him a big kiss on the...cheek for being so brilliant and dramatically subtle...and potent. What a great visual...and not just a visual, but it's a visceral visual and very right for the story.
*********************
[EDIT]:
Oh, I wanted also to mention the family story in my review. It's like City Slickers. Even if you're having trouble finding meaning in the world, there's family. What's more important than family? Well, family can be pretty important and meaningful, anyway. So, Signs has that very nice family story.
I really like your post, richy.
(Spidey Venom, regular Venom, Sandman and Son of Green Goblin, plus the jealous girl!) On the other hand, I really liked SPIDERMAN 2, as Spidey was already established before Doc Ock came along.