Lady in the Water

source: Lady in the Water

As usual, this is a thinker's movie. As usual, there are trademarks and references to faith. There are some questions that may arise: "How can something evil judge rightly over evil?" "Is the evil judge truly evil or has man created rumors, due to a lack of understanding that something might exist without the benefit of having been created?" Oh, the questions! My spouse and I happily contemplated ideas and concepts all the way home. Unlike other of Shyamalan's movies, the story within a story with it's ultimate message, was a little bit harder to decipher this time. Somehow, though, it was still wonderful and dreamy, perhaps even more so because there's so much to think about after leaving the theater. Absolutely, it's understood that there is purpose for every human, and that there is no room for power struggles if we plan to work together for the common good, or even for the good of a single being. There is just enough horror without being horrible, and just enough humor without losing the seriousness of the mission. We greatly enjoyed it, never became bored, and were very glad we chose it over the others available tonight.

What an uncomfortable adventure. Night Shaymalan against the blindness of his detractors. How old is he, really? This is the work of a petulant multimillionaire boy who won't take no for an answer. Hollywood creates monsters of all shapes and sizes but this one is kind of unique. Did you see the steam of arrogance covering him through his American Express commercial? The Lady In The Water is populated by a fauna of Fellinesque caricatures and Shaymalan's ego. Images that go nowhere and a story - if you pardon the expression - trying desperately to recreate the box office bonanza of The Sixth Sense with a series of unfulfilled promises leading to a final twist that is anything but. All that said and done. I wasn't bored.

I saw this at a screening among people who work in the film industry. Many audience members were laughing at the muddled self-indulgent mess on the screen. And no wonder. Myself, I was mostly moaning, wishing I had sat closer to an aisle or an exit. And I actually went into this film expecting to like it......The script is incomprehensible and illogical. I realize this is "meant" to be a fable, but it's mostly the director --- who mugs his way through a key role in his own film, getting his own good side most of the time --- who's really out to lecture us. In passing, we get a middle class housing project in "Philadelphia" which seems to be situated with suburbs on one side and a national wildlife preserve on the other. We meet a mythical beast which looks like a crocadoggy, which appears at a building wide party but no one notices. Paul Giammati, who wears glasses in the film, manages what seems to be a hyper-athletic underwater dive without glasses or goggles that would have taxed an experience scuba diver. A film critic gets torn apart by the monster in a building corridor but no one notices (is M-Night suggesting something here?) and there is a really nasty racial sterotype of an Asian girl, a "college student," who speaks we-all-sound-same funny-rice-girl English. Uh, why funny accent for Asian girl, Mr. Filmmaker, when Indian-American film director-actor talk so good? Funny accent no essential to plot, so why include, hey? And, Yo, Shammy, that Eagle at the end? A Philadelphia Eagle? I don't see Dead People here, but I'm starting to see a writer/director who has shot his creative wad.

This is a highly missunderstood masterpiece. One of a kind movie among Night.s creation. One that requires patience and full attention. Unique(still in 2019) script, unique development of the story, well penciled and motivated charaters. Allow it to get under your skin. One a of kind fantasy story.

M Night Shyamalaan is an excellent film-maker. OK, the twist in The Village was obvious after minutes, but it was a film that did not deserve some of the lashings it received. But 'Lady In The Water' is a different story. It is a film that fails in everything it's trying to be. Primarily it's trying to be a family, fantasy adventure movie and I cannot imagine what kind of child (the primary audience for this genre) is not going to be bored out of their mind from the off. The reason it fails is Night and Night alone. Again he has made a slow burning dialogue heavy movie set completely in "reality". Where this film should be bright, lively, fun, exciting, magical it is instead dull (this is the worst work Chris Doyle's done), lifeless, turgid, bland and, dare I say, boring. The world of the movie is inappropriate for the genre it's living in. The reason that this style doesn't work is that the whole point of the movie is that's it's a fantastical bedtime story, yet it's devoid of anything fantastical. This film should be set in a world like ours, but not ours. Night - not everything in your imagination can happen in Philadelphia! This movie also feels like it's only ever gone thru two drafts. First draft was a straight up bedtime story which Night has read back and realised "man, this doesn't work... at all. It's terrible" so he's written in a whole layer of character (allegedly... horrifically inaccurate caricature's more accurate) and dialogue who are there solely to justify how bad some things are. sadly he doesn't seem to have read draft 2 to realise that the layers justifying how rubbish everything is are even worsely executed meaning the script is two layers of $h1t on top of each other. And then you have the complete audacity of the man in casting himself as the man who will (essentially) write the second bible. This would be ego gone insane if he was actually any good, but his performance is the one in the movie that really isn't anywhere near what it needs to be. There's a moment when the character finds out what his fate will be, a scene which an actor of quality would have been able to wrench your heart with, but a moment where Night actually looks like he's realised the film he's made could destroy his career (although I hope not)! Man, I could go on and on from the backstory being explained to you chunk at a time for no reason other than to flesh out the idea beyond what it ever deserved in such a way that it feels like Night's rewriting the rules of his own film as he goes because he's never had any solid idea of what the rules are at the start to the film critic who's only film criticism is "it sucked" which instantly destroys the attempt to set him up as an arrogant highbrow critic (he also gets possibly the worst cinematic death ever) to how blatantly obvious the red herrings are. I genuinely cannot see what anyone can see positively about this movie (as a whole), unless they are so sure Night's a genius they cannot see beyond the name to the film that's actually there.

The lest said about the plot of the film the better. Not because it's bad because it's an imaginative one, and you should really go in having no idea what you're in store for. That's part of the point of the movie. The introduction of this movie is done in cave drawings. It's a fitting opening and a good clue that this movie is about stories. No, not modern film, which many critics and audiences today think is about pushing boundaries and constantly doing something 'new'. This movie is about the good old fashioned story. The reason why our ancient ancestors sat around fires and told them, and their ability to inspire and save souls. There isn't anything truly new about it (it has roots in the classic fairy tales and epic poems of antiquity), other than the fact that it dares to be a great film made in the mondern era in spite of being littered with elements of the now despised classical story (which apparently isn't good enough for modern film makers anymore). The thing about these classic stories and the one that Shaymalan is attempting to tell is that they have a purpose, and strive to inspire society and humanity as a whole. They lead people to do great things, and make us all feel better in the end, where most modern 'stories' feel more like egotistical attempts of "artists" to make themselves feel great and leave us in awe of their great greatness. Christopher Doyle lends some excellent shots to this film, which some how manage to make a scene of an every day loser frigthenedly warding off a were-wolf type monster with a pool skimmer seem exceptionally epic. At the same time it helps the story (for me at least) pull those same strings that great stories like Gilgamesh, and the Aeneid pull. I saw this film the day it opened and I was delighted. I came home, as is my habit, and read all the reviews. A good section of this movie is directed at attacking assanine, jaded, film critics who think their opinions are authoratitive (it depicts them as being the ruiners of the classic story), and so, all of the assanine, jaded, and authoratative film critics seem to have panned it. No one seemed really sure what the movie was about, but were all quick to pan M. Night as being arrogant for casting himself in the role of a writer destined to change the world. They, ironically, claim that he was being arrogant, completing unable to fathom that their own presumptions about why he cast himself in that role could in fact be a good deal more arrogant... I'll have to admit that I've been the jaded film critic before, but one I came out of this one I remembered why I've always loved stories, and why they don't' always have to be new and fit into some silly sense of "reality".

he should be put in director jail and the key thrown away for many reasons, not the least of which is how much screen time he gave himself. directors giving themselves bit parts is a fun game, great for trivia and whatnot, but please, don't go The Way of Quentin. i'm of Korean heritage, and the supposed myth upon which this plot is based comes entirely from the memories of a Korean-American woman, and translated by her Americanized daughter with a bad, bad accent. i suppose m. knight thought giving her wild hairstyles would be enough to counter the "good Asian girl" stereotype. i wondered where the decision to use the Korean culture came from. maybe he just figured he needed some mysticism, and dipped into whatever culture was handy at the moment. hey, m. knight -- words like "scrunt" and "narf" don't translate phonetically into English; they'd each have three syllables. being a minority yourself, i thought you'd be more sensitive to details like this. bad stereotypes aside, the premise of a ghostly, Oppie-like Waterworld reject living in the community pool trying to save mankind is retarded. and hey, if she can see the future, what the hell is she crying about? what's weirder than that though, is how readily the building tenants accept all this nonsense, and how much they try to help instead of calling the Loony Police on Giamatti and Howard's characters. having characters that don't question reality alienates the audience, those of us that pay egregious sums of money for good entertainment. that's why Toni Collette's character was awesome in The Sixth Sense: she was freaked out that her son might be insane. so when Paul Giamatti wakes up in his bed and finds what appears to be a pre-pubescent, half-naked teen staring at him, he should freak out and say, "What the f*** are you doing here and who the f*** are you??!", not "Okay, you can stay a while and why aren't I stuttering?" unbelievable characters, boring and unlikely dialogue, highly questionable mythologies of supposedly Asian origin, and the Standard M. Knight Whirlwind of Act Three Revelations To Wrap Up This Cockamamie Plot, are all reasons why you should not see this movie. so M., please, go directly to Director Jail and turn yourself in. say hello to Antoine Fuqua and Justin Lin for me. maybe if you don't shiv anyone they'll let you do another Amex spot.

I think the thing about this movie is that people may go in expecting it to be a weird horror/supernatural thriller. While it does have supernatural elements, its much more of, well, I guess a fairy tale. It's got some great scares but overall it will be enjoyed more if you know ahead of time your not going to be sitting on the edge of your seat. The theme of "finding your purpose" definitely is poignant in this day and age, I love all the self reflexive humor as far as story structure goes too. SFX were decent, not awe inspiring but good for what was required. The film is really about the characters though and their arcs. I'd say the film is much more for the introspective crowd than the hardcore comic kids who want plenty of screams.

After the sixth sense people have been expecting M. Night to shock and amaze them time after time. This is of course impossible. He made signs and the village which had their twists but left the audience with more of an "oh yeah" feeling. More importantly though his movies have become deeper in their actual message, his newest film is no different. if all you want is the amazement of a twist your in for a disappointment. Instead look at this movie for the message of hope it leaves you with, or the humor that abounds, the great acting involved, or even the amazing visual style and suspense. but don't just sit in the theater waiting to be surprised, your just wasting your time and missing the point of a really good movie.