So Stof, i take it you dislike War of the worlds even more due to the fact that they were killed off by germs?

I loved the book and enjoyed the original movie. Still have yet to hear the original broadcast and I don't really plan on seeing the recent movie. But the ending of War of the Worlds actually made sense. Biological life forms came to a new planet and were killed by the diseases and bacteria there. But Water? Earth is attacked by the wicked witch of the west!? Especially considering how the film leads us to believe they're abducting us to eat. Wouldn't eating us kill them?

It was just a really stupid contrivance for the sake of an easy ending. God led there to be water around in glasses and the guy a homerun hitter? Why couldn't god have just led him to stand near a sink? It was just a really bad device. The worst one he's employed so far.

War of the Worlds was written in 1898. It's still a deus ex machina ending that has nothing to do with the protagonists, which is a big plot flaw, but at least those aliens hadn't been out of their craft yet. In Signs they're walking all over the place, but afraid of water, which is in air. While they're both bad endings, one defies logic and physics and makes me feel stupid.

You're taking the film too literally. It doesn't matter what device was used to expel the aliens. They're not the point of the movie, anyway.

Regardless, I'll stop defending it now. I'm not trying to change the opinions of those who have already seen the film. I just want those who haven't to give it a proper chance. :)

EDIT: I haven't read the book, but Spielberg's War Of The Worlds was quite disappointing.  Not worth seeing, I'd say.

What bothers me more, is that they always note that the UFO left after they saw it.

Now, as we have pretty certain proof that there isn't any life in our solar system, this means that it would have taken them at least 3 years or more to get here. Then they stay here for what? 30 minutes? That makes no sense.

I'd say the big difference between the two is that the main protagonists don't drive the story in War of the Worlds. They're just random people caught up in an Alien invasion attempt. If the ending of the invasion did have to do with the protagonists, it would have really hurt the story.

But in Signs, It's a movie about god pulling the strings to spare a single kid from the Alien invasion... which by that reasoning would have been his doing as well. Which is a different complaint from the "water!?" complaint, but a valid one none the less.

So yes, Germs in War of the Worlds = logical and fulfilling as an ending

Water and God's will in Signs = I want my money back.

Ok, so what are some good movies set in current times that revolve around aliens?

There's Contact, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and X-Files - Fight the Future (which I thought was really good).

What else we got?

@stof:

I don't understand your disgust with a story about one boy's life being saved and a man's faith restored. The story is purposefully told on a very small scale; you see very little of the outside world throughout the film. What happens elsewhere is never really shown, because it isn't relevant to the story being told.

It's not a serious film, but Invasion (or Top Of The Food Chain) is quite excellent and hilarious.

I also liked the first X-Files movie a lot.

EDIT:  I've been meaning to watch Abel Ferrara's Body Snatchers for ages, but still haven't managed to get around to it.

I found the mini series called Taken to be enjoyable, not the best but good