Lady in the Water

So what do you all think of Shyamalan's latest movie? I for one love it and have already seen it twice. It's a very creative story, every movie he has done so far I have loved. So to the people out there who have seen it what do you think?

I liked it better than "The Village" but it is still nowhere as good as his first three films. I'll give Shyamalan credit for being original and creative, (something rarely found in filmmakers today) but eventhough being original is a good thing, you still need to captivate and entertain an audience in order to really have a good film. I wouldn't knock it as bad as some of the reviews I've read on Rotten Tomatoes, and it is a worthy effort for being original, it just isn't as inspiring as some of his previous work. It's worthy of a decent effort, it's just not a great one.

6/10

Tim ;)

It's not as terrible as the universal critical drubbing would suggest. It's a colossally stupid story, downright embarrassing at times, but Night works well with actors and carves out some nice moments - he is quite good at pacing scenes and unusal blocking/staging that breathes life into otherwise mundane moments. I laughed a good amount during this film, and most of it was at intentional humor. But, wow, oh wow, is this one dumb story. It would be insultingly dumb if not for the winning performance by Giamatti. How odd that Night seems to think of himself as a writer first and director second. Writing is definitely not his strength. Wow, was this dumb. Did I mention that? But for being so epically dumb (man, was it dumb!) it was not unpleasant to watch. Better than the Hulk-strength kick-in-the-nuts that was "Signs" or the complete waste of time that was "The Village", but nowhere close to his first two movies (his first two real movies, I mean).




[Post edited by csjlong on Jul 26, 2006]

I agree with Tim on the whole self-indulgent issue. The term gets thrown about too much. It's not self-indulgent if it works; it's just good art (or craft, if you prefer). The problem is simply when it doesn't work, then we start using words like "pretentious" and "self-indulgent."

Night has a real touch for finding quiet, surprising, intimate moments in otherwise plot-busy stories. It's what makes his work stand apart in a lot of ways - I'm not sure if he's aware of that.

Regarding the critic, I certainly think directors are more than entitled to take cheap shots at critics if they want. But I was puzzled by the way Night handled this. First of all, the guy is a "film and book critic" for a local paper. Ugh! Is there such a frightening beast? Then because of this, Giamatti's character goes to him for advice since: "You're an expert on plots, right? You know how everything will turn out from the very start, right?" Uh... say wha'? I'm a film critic and I even got a bunch of film degrees 'n stuff, and I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? Does it mean Night thinks there's nothing more to a movie than a plot?

Some of the silliness the character spews actually sounds a lot more like the formulaic advice certain screenwriting gurus talk about (and particularly Christopher Vogler of "The Writer's Journey") Perhaps Night was painting with a very broad brush here, and collapsing many types into one character, thus the ridiculous title of "film and book critic." Still, if that's the case, we're left with another problem. Everything the critic says turns out to be right. It's Giamatti's character who misinterprets it.

So maybe the real problem is that readers/viewers don't understand the brilliance and wisdom of film critics. Yeah, I like that. Hey, Night, you're my kinda guy!

I don’t know about that whole self-important, or as some reviews have put it, self-indulgent thing. I like to think that all works of art, whether it’s literature, painting, music or film, are self-important because they are the direct interpretation of its creator. I see self-indulgence in everything I read, hear or see but that’s just my opinion. I just think it’s kind of silly to say one is self-important when everything you see that is creative is a product of self-importance.

The other gripe I hear about this movie is the part of the film critic. It’s a well known fact that Shyamalan has no love affair with film critics ever since the dull response he got clear back on his “Unbreakable” movie. So now, he throws in the part of a film critic in his new movie as though he’s trying to show some form of poetic justice. It was a stereotyped part as we see a nerdy guy that is negative about everything in life. Personally, I found the whole part humorous but I also thought it shows M. Night can be immature. If I were to typecast the part of a film critic, I would think it would be more like the kind of guy that hangs out in Las Vegas at the Star Trek Experience having a few beers. Or perhaps I would think of a film critic as a retired school teacher that has nothing to do all day except drool over his HD DVD player. I don’t know; I’m just taking a guess. ;) :D

actually, it'd be fun to see the reverse, too--someone else directing a script written by manoj. :D

I'm guessing Eddie is referring to Lean's last two big-scale pictures, "Ryan's Daughter" and "A Passage to India," and not to his two previous big-scale pictures, "Doctor Zhivago" and "Lawrence of Arabia." In any case, the point is well taken. M. Night does appear to have let this writing-and-directing business go to his head. As Chris suggests, maybe he should let somebody else do the writing for a while.

John

manoj is like david lean. the first half of his career was comprised of small-scale, intimate dramas. the second half of his career is comprised of bloated, self-important "message" movies.

Giamatti may be great, but the most stunning aspect of "Lady in the Water" is Christopher Doyle's cinematography. It's too bad it was for such a poor film.

Let's hope Doyle works more with his Asian collaborators and less with directors like Shyamalan.

-Kurtis

Yes, however, the last time we see the critic everything he says turns out to be wrong. I think that last scene with the critic was kind of a joke on clichés, so to speak.

Tim (Duh Tim! Here's your sign) :o:D