posted
Anyone seen this yet? I saw it tonight with my sister. It takes me a while to process a movie, but I was left feeling really good after this one. Good triumphs over evil, the rather large (and very good) ensemble cast of characters all work together to save one person and each of them has something special to contribute to the effort. It's all rather specifically mapped out for them, but I really enjoyed the journey.
One thing Shyamalan does well (IMO) is outline the lives of ordinary people. These people become extraordinary in his stories, but they're some of the most convincingly ordinary people I've ever seen in film. I adored the five latina sisters, the movie critic, the animal lover, the hippies, the crossword puzzle guy and his son, the snarky Asian student and her mother, and of course the landlord. Paul Giamatti is my hero. I've always admired his work and he does a beautiful job in this film with a really good character.
I am one of the posters on this forum who (as it has recently been pointed out) would rather believe a happy lie than the unhappy truth. That's ok with me. Those of you who are more comfortable with the latter will find plenty of things wrong with this movie. I'm sure there are plenty of flaws. But, to me, this movie was a happy lie, though rather unorthodox as far as fairy tales go. I liked it.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm an unhappy truth guy, and I liked this movie. I'm not a big fan of originality for the sake of originality. But in Shyamalan's case, this story, like Unbreakable, is original for the sake of something else. He is trying to say something. He put his wisdom out there, and it's profound, kinda, this guy isn't great philosopher, but at least he tried to say something big, and I like that. I think that his execution was clumsy, especially regarding the Korean family-- I think they were supposed to be Korean. I also thought that the first scene with the bug was lame, but everything and everybody else were adorable, especially Howard and the Choudhury, the woman who played the writer's sister, and the kid was impossibly cute.
This movie has a bit in common with Unbreakable, with a little bit of Goonies for grown people. I do appreciate the simple use of the score to emphasize when a member is coming into his place in the story. I also like it that the people screw up figuring out which roles go where, as the same can be said for life. I enjoyed this more than I enjoyed Superman.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I enjoyed the movie...I kept waiting for the twist though. I figured out who some of the major players were before he even made the wrong choices (the boy and the landlord for example) and the rest of them I figured out as soon as he made the obviously wrong choices. I kept waiting for the twist that would show me that I was wrong about them, but it didn't happen.
I loved the movie critic character....sounds like M. Night is fed up with them. One of my favorite lines in the movie went something like this: Critic: "They kissed in the rain. How predictable is that. Who does that in real life?" Landlord: "Maybe the rain is a symbol for washing away the old and renewal" Critic: Looks dumbfounded, "NO! No it's NOT!"
It told a good story well, even if the story itself wasn't much more than a construct to talk about the people. . . . . . . . . ***********END SPOILERS**************
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a huge M. Night fan. My friend and I, who never see each other, always get together when the new movie comes out, no matter what airline we (okay, he) has to fly on to make it happen. I've never been completely dissapointed yet.
I hated this one.
I had hope for it. No matter what ridiculous things were happening. I kept saying, It's okay, Jack. There's going to be a reason for this. You'll see.
And then the guy with the one buff side stared at the dog.
And I lost all hope.
Posts: 28 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of good stuff about the movie. Loved the acting and Shyamalan's film-making. He knows how to make things interesting with the camera and the framing, and how to use music effectively. He's a master at building tension. Giamatti was a gem in this one, too.
What made this movie fall short was the dialogue, which was really bad most of the time--and the confused plot.
Spoilers...
I didn't really understand WHY the nymph bothered coming out of the water. What was she doing? Telling Shyamalan's character's future? Was that it? What was with the 10 minute "new-age" animated intro? "Man became separated from the water people because they wanted to own land. And then evil man went to war over the land." Man, that's some deep social commentary, Mr. Shyamalan.
It was awfully convenient that the old asian lady knew everything about the myth ahead of time, and revealed it slowly over the course of the film. Convenient and stupid. And how egotistical is it to write yourself into the character who writes a "cookbook" that changes the world? I didn't really care about the "everyone's-part-of-the-puzzle" plot because the story came from the rants of an old lady and a kid who finds meaning in cereal boxes. Lastly, why was the eagle coming? Why was it imperative that she be taken away by the eagle? How does the eagle get her back to the blue world if the blue world is under water? . . . . End spoilers.
Ok, so what frustrates me the most is that it WAS a very heartfelt movie. It COULD have been great. The characters were all well done (minus some bad dialogue) and it had a good balance of funny/scary/dramatic. The story was just too muddled. Even for a fairy tale, you expect there to be a feasible goal in sight and some drive to get to that goal. You can't just have the characters make up plot devices and have everyone follow them blindly--and expect me to care what happens.
But--it was still a good watch. I just get frustrated because I know it could be better. Paul Giamatti was amazing, and the rest of the cast was good. The werewolfdogs were terrifying and the scares were great.
The movie critic was hilarious, too, minus the last speech. He sabotaged the movie by telling us we were watching a movie--when we were trying to suspend belief about a fairy tale.
quote:Even for a fairy tale, you expect there to be a feasible goal in sight and some drive to get to that goal. You can't just have the characters make up plot devices and have everyone follow them blindly--and expect me to care what happens.
Sounds a bit like life, though, doesn't it?
____
For me, the movie wasn't about figuring out the twist or puzzles; I enjoyed watching everyone realize and accept their roles, even when they accepted the wrong ones.
It's kind of like after 9/11 when I was expecting a great call to duty by my country, and instead, I was told to keep spending. It's disappointing when people aren't trusted to rise above themselves.
I think that, in general, we underestimate a people's willingness to attempt to rise to the occasion, even if they are utterly incompetent in the execution. The people at The Cove tried, even the stoners, and it's good to see stoners try.
posted
I do agree on those points. I liked how the characters developed and accepted their roles. It felt meaningful. Kudos on good film-making and acting.
BUT...it would have been nice if it actually WERE meaningful--a story that had some "purpose" to it other than discovering characters. There were just too many snort moments in the story and dialogue that took me out of the movie.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely liked Lady in the Water. I'm not surprised it was not well received by many, though. (I certainly understand why many critics dislike it, given that they are one of the bad guys!)
It is Shyamalan making a movie that is essentially about himself. Or, more accurately, about how he imagines stories and what they mean to him. It is like a children's fairy tale and an essay on children's fairy tales rolled into one. A very strange movie. Actually, it reminded me of that commercial he did, in which he is imagining strange things in a restaurant. This felt like a more coordinated, more entertaining, two-hour long version of that commercial.
I suspect it will be well-remembered eventually, but will probably not do that great in the box office.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was badly-done as a story where the characters sit around and tell each other the story, the characters are often racist, the CGI was horrendously handled, the pacing was off, and half the movie was metacommentary on the Self-Made Myth of Shaymalan. This movie was the equivelent of Pompey naming himself Magnus.
There is a great movie in there - I wish MNS had someone who he would listen to when they tell him to give the script a second draft.
I liked it, but I liked it in spite of it. Still, it was beautiful, the story was original and not bad (except for the lame opener), and I laughed several times. It's a good start to a movie - now it just needs to be developed a little. It was made before the script was ready.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really enjoyed the movie. I was pretty scared going in though, because of all the reviews I read, only one was positive. Even that positive one was written in such a way that I wasn't sure I'd like it.
But I thoroughly enjoyed it. And like Katharina, it was in spite of all it's flaws. M. Night should NOT have cast himself in the role he did. I don't think he's as bad an actor as some people make him out to be, but at the same time, it was unnecessary. And the only reason he cast himself was because his ego has skyrocketed out of this world. I don't mind the idea of a story within a story. Or even a commentary on story telling within a story being told by someone who has put themselves in the story. It's the whole way M. Night comes at it with his whole "I'm the Michael Jordan of movies" thing. I feel like I'm being condescended to. I think he went over the top with the critic(even though the character added some good moments of comedy to the picture). I read in one review that M. Night "confuses stereotype for archetype", and I agree.
I also wish M. Night would give the audience a bit more credit. I know he's so used to being so smart and tricking the audience and then having to explain everything at the end. Maybe he just assumes we're all morons. Or maybe he's trying to cater to the lowest common denominator, but I'll give some examples from the movie that annoyed me:
Early on in the movie, Story has been out of the water a bit, and her hair at the bottom is starting to turn blond. So M. Night has this really drawn out moment where she takes her hair in her hands and stairs at it, and the camera zooms in to make sure we get it.
Another one is when Cleavland has to say outloud how he's not stuttering. And then later someone brings it up and he says again how it only happens around her.
Alright! we get it. we don't need to be hit over the head with this stuff. Sure, maybe i wouldn't have picked up on all these intricit things right away, but eventually i would've realized, "hey, he doesn't stutter when he's around Story", or "the longer Story is away from water the lighter her hair becomes". give us some credit and let us figure some things out for ourselves. For instance, i was pretty positive that the film critics suggestions to Cleavland were wrong. But again, that was also probably only because I knew that the critic's place in the movie was to be trashed on by M. Night. And the last thing that bothered me was the monkeys. All the other stuff that bothered me never really took me out of the story, until the monkeys showed up and started pounding away on the wolf thing. I think the Eagle was handled much better and more artistically. By showing it from a distance, through the water, it kept some of it's mysticism.
But even with all that baggage I still really liked the movie. Paul Giamatti was excellent. The characters were neat. The story was good. And M. Night is a fantastic filmmaker. The movie was a sweet fairy tale and it was nice to see that. And because the characters within the story were willing to believe in the fairy tale, so was I.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But even with all that baggage I still really liked the movie. Paul Giamatti was excellent. The characters were neat. The story was good. And M. Night is a fantastic filmmaker. The movie was a sweet fairy tale and it was nice to see that. And because the characters within the story were willing to believe in the fairy tale, so was I.
You summed up my feelings exactly. I too remember feeling rather jerked around by the monkeys at the end. I almost couldn't believe that he gave us such a good look at yet another unbelievable creature. I loved the way the eagle was done. It was rather beautiful, actually.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
