|
Directed by: M. Shyamalan Starring: Paul Giamatti I saw this movie last night at an advanced screening. There are many things to like, as parts, of this movie, but as a whole I was fairly disappointed. It is always hard to discuss a Shyamalan film without giving too much away, but I do not think it is unreasonable to say this movie does not have his trademark "What a twist!" ending. The film takes place in a generic apartment complex in an unknown location. Our hero, (aptly portrayed by Giamatti) the annoying building super discovers a women, who -for reasons that are unclear- lives in the bottom of the pool in a secret chamber. That she carved. Somehow. And she is a mermaid of sorts. This should set the basic tone for the movie. It goes on to link each of the "seemingly random" characters in the film in an utterly predictable fashion so they can help her make her way back home in a manner foretold in legends. This movie has grass-dog monsters, mermaids, evil space monkey-chupacabras, and yet despite all of the fantasy, the movie ends up being fairly boring [Granted, the creatures play a very small role]. There is some good tension from the night scenes, and some levity from time to time, but all in all one really never gets involved in the film. I did like the fact that this movie was kind of throwback to some of the 80’s fantasy movies like “Splash”. There is a trend in today’s scifi/fantasy to be bigger and more grandiose each year, and this film was a simple sweet story. This is a simple little tale, and does not try to be more than it is. If the script was not so contrived or the characters more fun, I would have enjoyed it a lot more. That said, it might not be a bad rental for a boring afternoon. 2/5 RATING: 2 PROS: Good Suspense at times, simple story CONS: Ponderous, lacking in cohesion, contrived and inexplicable scenes ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452637/
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2006 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
This movie was different. I read all of the reviews about how much it was going to suck, but I came out of the movie not thinking that I had wasted my 6 bucks. I felt like a little kid again as the bedtime story unfolded. Paul Giamotti was terrific as the overworked superintendent. Alot of the minor characters had a few witty lines, and the ones that don't make up for it with bizzare behavior. I feel that a lot of the bad press with the movie is that its, for lack of a stronger word, unrealistic. But imagine for a second, that some ancient fairytale suddenly planted you dead center in the middle of it. Would you want to beleive in it? Pro: The main idea of the plot drew me in and put me into a M.Night atmosphere of forbodding. Con: I hate that they just tell Giamotti what to do next. It would have been much better if he heard the story all at once and then had to unfold it as he discovered it. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2006 07:15
|
|
|
I'm not sure what movie they were watching. M Night had fun with this movie, it's obvious. As a writer/director/producer he had all of the final say he wanted, and he deserves it as an amazing film-maker. First off, he pokes fun at everyone who's tried to stereotype his movies and himself. One of the first characters you meet is a movie critic, who meets a very suitable end in the film. The girl stays very vague, and I liked that. You don't learn too much about her, just what's neccesary. I also thought the monster was very well done as far as being scary and suspenseful. There were a lot of 'jump' scenes, and I could count them by the strong reactions of the two girls I saw it with. It is also the funniest of his films by far. I don't want to go into detail about much, being an M Night movie, but I'll list my pros and cons. Pro: Giamotti is an amazing actor, and one of the best right now. He was a very endearing character and I really loved him in this. There's a great sense of dread and suspense with the monster, and I honestly found it pretty scary. It's a fun story, and it's good to see a good fantasy once in a while that takes you out of your normal thinking. The humor is great. I laughed more to this movie than anything else I've seen come out this year. The plot twist is thought out to a degree that let's the audiance think the whole way through, and, to not spoil anything, the twist isn't huge but it's fun and there's more than one. The problem with his movies is that the twist ruined the rest of the movie by changing it around, this one flows very nicely. Con: The plot devices were terrible. The movie would be running fine then for some unknown reason a character would blurt out someone's back story, or what should happen next in the film, and a lot of other stuff that I thought was poor story telling on M Night's part. The CG wasn't up to speed at times. I really wish movies would stop relying on it so heavily. This one gets a 4.5 I'm so happy he had fun with this movie. He killed the pretensious film critic and got to star in it, what director doesn't dream of doing that? M Night will forever be my hero for that one. Jackbedead fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Jul 22, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2006 09:03
|
|
|
This was really refreshing compared to M. Night's previous pictures....it never took itself serious and I had a really good time watching it. There were some pretty good laughs(mostly the critic character's scenes). I thought the characters he created in this one were the most "colorful" and they were all interesting and served the story very well. Shyamalan is really trying to branch out with this one and I am really looking forward to what he will do next. 4/5 rating. TehMattrixver1 fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Jul 22, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2006 10:29
|
|
|
'Lady in the Water' was a thoroughly enjoyable film. I am not sure what the OP was talking about, there are certainly no Mermaids in this film, nor do they hint at any. (Mermaids are half fish-half woman creatures) There are interesting characters, great bits of humor, and very creepy moments all wrapped into a chilling bedtime story. Think of this as the story you wished your Dad had told you at night. Most people have already described the basic story, so I will just forego that and put down my thoughts. As long as you aren't waiting for some huge twist, I think you will really enjoy this film. It's a slight departure from his previous work, and deals a bit more with the fallibility of man and his loss of connection with nature. Usually, M. Night's movies deal with a small handful of characters, but this one branches out and includes well over a dozen. Everyone has their own special part to play in the telling of this story. Characters are introduced, and eventually show their importance. If M. Night is truly great at one thing, it's building up tension. Almost to King's level (although they both suffer from the curse of the let down ending at times). The only major flaw I found was the part of tenant Young-Soon Choi. She delved deeper into the stereotype role than I was comfortable with. As I hinted at before, the ending is pretty throw away. It's nothing special, but getting there is an absolute joy. I found the pace to be perfect, and was thrilled to see M. Night playing a central character in the film. He's a great actor. Bits of information are revealed only when necessary, and I would have been even happier if they had forgone the 'story' at the beginning. He isn't trying to present a realistic story. This one is pure fantasy, locked away in some corner of the earth where the walls of reality grow thin. This was his closest work to Steven King fiction I have seen yet, and, at least for me, that's a good thing. Pros: Great story, acting was mostly spot on, grass beast was terrifying. Giamatti is awesome. Cons: Stereotypical characters sometimes overwhelmed the dialogue, ending was abrupt, confusing if you weren't really paying attention every moment. Bryce Howard isn't necessary, Story could have been played by almost anyone. Also, it's pretty easy to see why this movie was panned by critics. Nice big 'f u' to critics in the film as one is horribly ravaged and eaten. 4.5/5 ZenMaster fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jul 22, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2006 16:07
|
|
|
Ignore the critical consensus. I don't know how it's possible that the great majority of the critics missed the point of this movie. It's not even that hard. IT's a story. A fairy tale. Go with it. Jesus. How often do we get to see a movie whose premise is pretty much "What if this was real?" There's such joy to be had with a premise like that, and I think M. Night nailed it. I had heard that the movie sucked, and I was prepared for that. Instead, I saw one of the most endearing and profoundly moving stories ever. Pros: Incredible Cinematography, Paul Giamatti was always a "solid" actor, but he really is amazing in this, great pacing, some incredible, incredible scenes ( "Do you want to know your future?", the scene where he becomes "the healer" ), fantastic setting for a story like this, awesome understanding of archetypes and the story is so epic and yet really compact and about one guy if you want it to be, music was actually very moving and appropriate. Also Bill Irwin! (If you don't know who Bill Irwin is, google him and if you get a chance to see any of his taped performances, watch them. He's amazing. And yeah, he's a clown.) The last shot... Cons: Maybe people who have seen this can answer this, but the hispanic sisters that were actually "The Guild"? What exactly did they bring to the table? Was it a strong bond that somehow helped her live again? Bob Balaban's character was clever and cool until the end of his character arc. ^^^That's pretty nitpicky, though. I want to be pretty objective, as I just got out of the movie a few hours ago, but I think this is one of the best movies I've seen in a while. The trailers don't really represent the movie very well at all, and I'm pretty sure most people won't be prepared to see what they actually end up getting. gently caress the critics, this movie is fantastic. Also the lack of backstory the OP was talking about is dealt with in good enough detail where you can fill in the blanks (i think that's the point) in the first few minutes... 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2006 00:37
|
|
|
Well, I'll give it .5 stars since that's the lowest possible score, but that's more than it deserves. Simply calling it a "bad movie" would be generous because the acknowledgement that it's even a movie is an insult to movies. M. Night Shyamalan has ejaculated all over a filmstrip and called it a movie. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2006 01:00
|
|
|
Not all of M. Night Shyamalan's movies have a "what a twist" ending to them, but that does NOT mean that they are bad. If you really think about it, about ever other movie of his (starting with Unbreakable) has an unpredictable ending to it. This was by far the best movie I have seen in a long time. It has everything anyone could hope for in a film. There is a mystery too it that is typical of Shyamalan to start your thinking off in one direction and then completely prove you wrong in the end. The suspense during the parts of trying to uncover all of the mysteries of the so called "bedtime story" kept me on the edge of my seat throughout the film. Not only is the movie mysterious and suspenseful, it also makes you jump out of your seat a few times! I guess I could just be a jumpy person, though. Like Shyamalan's other "thinking" movies (Unbreakable and Signs), this one has a very deep meaning that hits close to home for some people. This movie really makes you think about how you look at things in the world. There is also no mention of mermaids or "space monkey-chupacabras". I would also say that it was definitely NOT boring. If you go in expecting an M. Night Shyamalan movie, you get one of his best ever. This movie will probably be my favorite for a long time to come. I give it a 5/5. Edit: spelling HideousNewGirl fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Jul 25, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2006 04:34
|
|
|
This is the worst kind of movie for me, something with a great concept and an intricately failed execution that constantly teases at greatness, but only really achieves mediocrity. There are two basic problems, that being the lack of any attempt to establish suspension of disbelief, and a plethora of cardboard characters. On the latter, for some reason Shyamalan seems to think that if he floods the screen with people we'll forget we're supposed to care about them. The only characters with any amount of depth are Giamatti's (which, to give the guy credit, he added a lot to) and to a lesser extent, Shyamalan's (Who loving directs it, which frustrates me. "Hey guys I wrote this story where everyone keeps saying it's a story and in it my character writes the most important piece of writing of all time and then people hate me because it's so controversial and I wrote it and this is all in the story I wrote and by the way story story story. ") Every other character simply shows up, does their small role, and disappears into the background. I don't care about any of them, and I certainly don't give a gently caress about some mermaid trying to get back to her homeland or whatever. As far as suspension of disbelief - there is none. I think the only time it's questioned as to how real everything was occured with ten minutes left in the actual movie. I'm sorry, but if you're gonna start talking about giant eagles and wolves made of grass and the monkeys from Congo outta nowhere, each with their own particular "magical" name, it needs to be questioned so that it can be validated. It's like he purposely avoided ever creating a character that would ask why any of what was happening was happening so that he didn't have to try and write an explanation. That's just lazy, and it insults me as a viewer. More than that, it ruins the movie, because not once was anyone ever able to mention the Narf or the giant loving eagle without making me roll my eyes. Every time I started to get in to the film, it was utterly ruined when one of the key plot points was brought up. That's not good filmmaking. A step above The Village, but that's all. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2006 07:50
|
|
|
I just recently saw "The Village" on some random "Hay let's rent these cause we haven't seen either of them yet and we're dull socially awkward shutins who are also bored" weekend with the SO. I have to say that "Lady in the Water" more than makes up for that putrid abortion of a film. This brings the total of M's films that I thought were superb to 3 ("The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable," and "Lady in the Water"), even though I've had to "sit on it," as it were, to really come to this conclusion. This film was just atypical in almost every respect. Previous posters have elaborated the plot well enough for a review, so I won't rehash that. Suffice to say that the execution, pace, and directing just all seemed to "click" very well. It helps that, while this story has the same kind of basic, fairy-tale elements that any children's story might, it is for this very reason that the film stands apart from so much of the other drivel Hollywood releases lately. It's not forced, contrived, or some blatant and yet extremely poorly done attempt at putting some wierd "twist" on it that many an idiot who fancies himself an artist has done in the last few years to add "pretentious cred" to his name. In short, it's a film that is by all appearances a film done with the sole purpose of telling a fun story in a fun, but thrilling and suspenseful way, without any effort to overwhelm the viewer with gaudy special effects, pretentious "artistry" or any of the other crap that seems to come standard with other releases these days. I've grown bored with the formulaic pap that comes out of that festering shithole, but every now and then movies like this come along that renew my faith in the ability of modern story tellers to tell good stories in an engaging way. The only real negative component to this film I had was the generally substandard acting. Giamatti (Cleveland) and Howard (The Lady) were the only actors I thought gave superior performances. Everybody else seemed drab and didn't really fill their roles that well. M. Night Shyamalan should never act except in his usual cameo roles. He's just not that good at it. Overall, I'd say this is an excellent film to see with your SO, or in any other case, and well worth the price of a ticket. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2006 22:03
|
|
|
Somebody should tell Shyamalan that fairy tales are not this convoluted and random. That, above all else, is the big problem with this movie: there's so much mythology and so many rules that there's not much time for a story to emerge from all of it. It's as though he understands the superficial elements of a fairy tale, but hasn't got a clue about what makes them tick. Characters are thinly drawn (as they often are in fairy tales), but most of them don't represent anything. We've got magical creatures, but they too don't represent anything (aside from the narf). We've got an explicitly stated moral that doesn't really mesh with how things actually play out. We've got a lot of rules, but they don't lead anywhere. Shyamalan nails the surface of a fairy tale, but he misses the point. The film is all artifice and no heart, and that harms it far more than his casting himself in a central role, or the airing of his dirty laundry (and stopping the film dead in its tracks to do so several times). A fairy tale with no heart or message is a waste of time, money and effort on everyone's part. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2006 23:25
|
|
|
It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone could give this movie anything higher than a 1.5, much less a 5.5 (!!). This is quite simply the most poorly written piece of garbage I've seen in theaters since Reign of Fire. Also, let me say that I'm not some kind of anti-Shyamalan crusader. I liked every movie of his that I'd ever seen up to this one (never saw The Village though). Lady in the Water, however, is absolutely worthless. The first half hour of the movie, while certainly less than impressive and still pretty poorly written (a strange girl the landlord's never seen before rescues him from drowning and sleeps next to him wearing his shirt, then seems inexplicably afraid of everything around her, yet he reacts as though this sort of thing happens to him on a weekly basis), is not absolutely abominable, and I would probably give it around a 2-2.5. Past a certain point, however, the movie completely loses its mind. Perhaps it's when Giamatti must inexplicably "act like a child" to convince Cheung's mother to tell him the rest of the story. Perhaps it's when Story must also inexplicably make signs to Shyamalan's character's sister rather than just speaking to Giamatti himself. Regardless, the last hour of the movie had the entire audience in titters the whole time, in a "so-bad-it's-funny" sort of way. The ridiculous names for everything didn't help either (Madam narf?). The "bedtime story" angle comes of just as badly, perhaps worse. Firstly, Shyamalan chooses the most annoying character imaginable to act as the teller of the story, completely destroying any sense of childish wonder he may have hoped to evoke. Secondly, the story is incredibly poorly told. Take the monkey-things, whatever the hell they were called. They're mentioned once, halfway through the movie, with a simple statement that they "keep the laws" of the equally vague Blue World, along with vague allusions to some backstory about how they were so cruel they killed their parents or some such thing. After that point, they are mentioned ONCE by Giamatti until the end, when they make an equally unnecessary appearance. The movie would have lost nothing for their absence. Thirdly, it seems like Shyamalan was just making up mythology as he went along. It felt like he'd be writing the script, then think "oh man, monkey people would sure be awesome!", and then rather than actually going back and working the new mythology point into the script, he'd just stop whatever scene he happened to be in the middle of writing, enter Cheung's character -- "Hey mister! I learned some more of the stoooory!" This movie falls flat on its face and all these glowing reviews are just trying to find something in this movie that simply isn't there. Edit: I, and everyone else who didn't like the movie, understand perfectly Shyamalan's reasoning behind his film (yes, this is in direct reference to the review below mine). That doesn't make it any less terrible. Just because it's magical realism doesn't mean it can't also be a horrible horrible movie. .5/5 Ecco the Dolphin fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jul 25, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2006 12:27
|
|
|
I went into this movie expecting a relatively normal thriller with lots of twists and pretty good acting and instead came out with a really good example of magical realism in film. I think this is also why there is such a polarization in reviews. Either you understand that everyone is acting so "weird" in the movie because it is about a world in which magical things (grass dogs, nyphms, chosen people) exist alongside the normal as if they are no different from one another or you don't get it and find that the acting is terrible, the script is wooded and unrealistic, and the actions corresponding to both of these are unbelievable. That said, if you can reconcile with the ideals of magical realism then the movie is a wonderful mix of tense, funny, and bizarre scenes with very precise and thought out acting. Giamatti leading a cast of characters that any actor would love to get a chance to play brings the message Shyamalan is putting forth through with subtle clarity for those who look for such things in movies. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2006 18:05
|
|
|
I was incredibly disappointed. I think that's all I need to say. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2006 06:31
|
|
|
I saw this movie with my parents, fiance and a fellow goon last Friday. Who was I to turn away a free movie since my parents were paying for it? Jesus, I should've turned it away. This movie had me bored to tears. The story was so ridiculous and stupid that I was honostly falling asleep. It also really pained me to see Paul Giamatti reduced to such a terrible role because I know hw can do much, much better. I never really liked Shyamalan's brand of story telling but I could certainly tolerate it. This film on the other hand just slipped right by and I didn't give a poo poo. The characters were poo poo and I wanted to strangle that young asian girl with every breath of my being. I feel that I wasted money and I didn't even pay for the tickets! I suppose I could warrant that it was a waste of gas money for the fourty-five minute drive. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2006 21:36
|
|
|
I don't know why people continue to see Shyamalan's movies and expect them to be realistic. They're not ever gonna be. The trailer for this movie said "A Bedtime Story by M Night Shyamalan" and that's exactly what I got. Pure magic. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2006 10:04
|
|
|
This is a unique M Night film because in the other ones, he gives you clues to see if you can figure out the twist before the film shows you. In this one, he just invents more and more story as it goes on and only lets you have one bit at a time. In fact, it seems like this story is very disconnected. It's told in multiple parts (through an Asian woman whom can't speak English ARRRG ANNOYING), and it certainly feels awkward. There are a lot of moments when Giamatti discovers that he has to find someone new that relates to the story, but it feels more like it's random than it fits in. "This person is the guild hero and he will be the one to guide your light. Find him, and about 12 other people that have no bearing to the story." The credits were very unexpected. I sat in my chair and wondered "Hang on, that was it?" It ends very very quickly. I didn't like the critic guy either. I think his gimmick was childish and it didn't fit in well with the atmosphere. UGH. This movie seems like M Night put a bunch of subjects in a hat and drew them as he was writing. It seems like he himself didn't know the ending as he was writing. Unless he was playing a LOT of D+D when he was. In that case, it makes a lot of sense. 1.5/5 By the way: It takes place in Philadelphia, but the setting doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2006 14:51
|
|
|
I think that this is actually a movie that I probably would've really enjoyed as a kid, It just didn't do it for me though now. The atmosphere was great and there were some lighthearted and enjoyable moments, and it fit in with the rainy weather outside. All the same I don't think I would've chosen to see this movie had there been anything else I hadn't seen starting around the same time. 2.0
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2006 13:36
|
|
|
I'm giving this movie a 4/5. Again, most critics, and from this thread, moviegoers, completely missed the point to this movie. As it's been said before this is a fairy tale, let yourself relax, suspend your disbelief and go for the ride; ff you don't then you can't enjoy this movie. A couple came in 10 minutes in (they missed the cave drawing intro) so they left the movie confused and thinking it was dumb. From the moment you see the cave paintings, just let the movie take you in. Also it should be noted that he made this movie for his daughter. I believe this is why he put himself in the movie so much. As much as this is a movie about conenction to nature, it's a movie about writing. What happens to M. Night's character is basically every writers' wet dream. Also, anyone who has taken a fiction writing class can appreciate introduction to the wonderfully varied characters in the beginning. If you liked Unbreakable, you'll like this one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2006 04:42
|
|
|
The Director didn't only write the script, he wrote himself in as a political martyr. And it doesn't even help the story, it's like he just did it because he thinks he's that important. That little nugget sandwiched in between dozens of equally unimportant characters and a lot of his trademark Let's All Speak Slowly and Dramatically Also There's a Kid Who Talks Like an Adult acting just completely turned me off to what seemed like it could have been a decent idea for a story. 1.0/5 (including extra 0.5 for macguyver pen-breathing.) PS "Hiro Protagonist" worked because it was an edgy/funny/cool book with an appropriate atmosphere. "Story" just sounds loving stupid, and coupled with the critic magically becoming aware of his own position in an intricate storyline and describing it in the style of a critic just made me want to die. I'm taking the extra 0.5 back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2006 07:29
|
|
|
In my opinion, this movie was not a clear-cut fairy tale. As a viewer, I had no clue whether or not the movie was being serious or was purely a fantasy. Sea nymphs, giant grass-dogs, and all this talk about the blue world suggested this film was a fantasy, yet there were several elements of it that didn't fit. If it was nothing more than a fairy tale, -Why was the movie in such an ordinary setting? -Why was it necessary to paint in a political martyr character (a serious, real-world event that you could picture hearing about on the news)? -Why was Giamatti's incredibly sad family backstory important? -Why did all these riddles seem to fall into place for a symbolic reason, but in the end have no significance? Take a good, well-done fairy tale like the movie "Hook". The characters are moslty kids, in a magical, fairy-tale setting. The hero must complete a magical quest, like flying and defeating a pirate. The adult, once put into neverland, takes time to accept the fairytale and believe the magic. The ending is happy and completely satisfying. This movie falls somewhere horribly between a serious movie and a fairy tale. You, as the viewer, never have a clue whether this movie is trying to tell you something, or whether you're just supposed to sit back and relax. Also: -The critic character was just plain stupid. -The characters that end up being the guardian, guild, etc. are completely boring and have no significant backstory to them. They're really only a step up from extras, in my opinion. -Bryce Dallas Howard is hot, keeping the movie from being a total waste. Also, Giamatti is a very good actor. I'm done with Shyamaylan movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2006 06:16
|
|
|
I really liked this movie. I am not sure exactly why I liked it though. I think the movie almost brought out a sense of wonderment. The movie is different and very well done. It is a slow paced movie but it doesn't feel like it when you are watching it. You definitely have to suspend disbelief to watch it. The casting and acting is great and I really like Bryce Dallas Howard. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2006 07:12
|
|
|
Mediochre posted:-Why was the movie in such an ordinary setting? Mediochre posted:-Why was it necessary to paint in a political martyr character (a serious, real-world event that you could picture hearing about on the news)? Mediochre posted:-Why was Giamatti's incredibly sad family backstory important? Mediochre posted:-Why did all these riddles seem to fall into place for a symbolic reason, but in the end have no significance? Mediochre posted:I'm done with Shyamaylan movies. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2006 22:29
|
|
|
I honestly have a hard time defining this movie as clearly "good" or "bad." In the end it sort of felt like a romantic comedy for the Dungeons & Dragons crowd. If what I just described sounds horrifying to you, you will probably hate this movie. As far as structure goes, the movie just changed gears so many times, going on wild tangents and having umpteen minor twists, and none of it seemed sensible. Simply zany plot. Certainly not a typical Hollywood film, in both good and bad ways. The movie relies on making Giamatti's character likeable through his somewhat affably vulnerable character, and if you don't buy into that, it'll kill the entire film for you very quickly. See it if you like to see what happens when a director does whatever he feels like with artistic license. Don't see it if you need your movies to at least border on the normal rules of script writing. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2006 09:13
|
|
|
This was by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen -- if not the worst. The story felt like it was written by a 6th grader that got into the liquor cabinet and then hungoverly and convolutedly strung together the ideas the next day. I was disappointedly shocked when the whole movie is revealed in the first 2 mins. I tried hard to search for anything more going on than just the face value, but I left having watched a shallow and boring story. The previous negative posts summed up enough of what I felt and right now I'm just going to try to forget this awful experience. 0/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2006 12:14
|
|
|
Awkwardly put together but not terrible - the sort of incoherent that I would've loved when i was seven years old and still dressing up like  to go to the movies.2.5/5, more if I had seen it when I was younger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2006 22:18
|
|
|
Thormachine posted:Either you understand that everyone is acting so "weird" in the movie because it is about a world in which magical things (grass dogs, nyphms, chosen people) exist alongside the normal as if they are no different from one another or you don't get it and find that the acting is terrible, the script is wooded and unrealistic, and the actions corresponding to both of these are unbelievable. I see so it wasn't a terrible movie, I just didn't get it. Thanks for clearing that up. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2006 00:14
|
|
|
I really, really enjoyed it. Don't see it if you expect an M Night movie, it's very different from what he normally makes. The movie is basically about a bumbly apartment superintendant who becomes wrapped up in a fairytale that is 'true', and about all the characters rallying to help fulfil the required tenants of the fairy tale. The one main thing I remember about it is that I felt really good after leaving the movie, just left a warm feeling inside of me. It was a nice break from the ordinary, and one of my favorite movies to date. 5.5/5 ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2006 03:53
|
|
|
This is definitely a "love it or hate it" type of film, and I definitely enjoyed it. Acting was teriffic all across the board; story was goofy but it kept my interest. Something different for a change. 5.0/5.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2006 06:08
|
|
|
Well, I have to say that I found this movie pretty hilarious. Whether or not you like the director, I think that the viewer would have a hard time NOT chuckling at some of the quirkyness of the characters. Oh yeah, and some of the camera work was... interesting? I mean, maybe I'm insane, but I found all the dramatic speeches pretty endearing and funny, due to the fact that they came from very mundane and silly characters. All in all, I found it a bizarre film. I STILL have difficulty deciding whether I truly liked it or not, even after speaking about it with a good deal of people (haters and likers). Does anyone think that the film poked fun at some scary movie conventions? Its hard for me to explain, but I thought that the anti-climactic nature of some scenes was pretty funny. I don't know if it was intentional or not. All I DO know, was that some people in the audience were pretty confused... Worth a rental, anyway. I give it a 3/5, only because I'm still not sure, but it WAS pretty to look at!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2006 13:42
|
|
|
Absolutely dreadful movie. I hate the way the director tries so drat hard to not be cliche, but completely overdoes it and starts to throw out random twists out of his arse. In doing so, the story itself manages to be trite and overly convoluted. "Oh no, I bet you expected nothing would go wrong this time, movie-goer!" It's quite easy to forget the intentions of the movie when the director pulls this sort of poo poo on you and expects you to care. Oh, and that movie-critic: what the gently caress? That was absolutely out of place in the movie. Way to lash out at anyone who doesn't like your movies, dipshit, now I hate you personally as well  1.0/5.5, because some of the earlier scenes were (relatively) well done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2006 20:12
|
|
|
hamiltonrmcato posted:If you liked Unbreakable, you'll like this one. Completely untrue. Unbreakable was fantastic, and this movie was crap. Like was mentioned before this is like a fairy tale but MNS misses the point. The characters have no motivation at all. Some scenes were completely pointless Movie critic guy gets asked for help and 45min of the movie is spent following his advice which then turns out to be wrong. The great thing about a fairy tale is that it usually take 5 min to tell. When you try to turn it into a 2 hour movie, you're going to have to add some things like CHARACTER DEPTH and PLOT. Biggest complaint: The little kid is "deciphering" ancient riddles and clues by looking at a group of cereal boxes. CEREAL BOXES. Then comes back to say he made a mistake. It said HE not SHE. What said that? The Cap'n Crunch box or the Cookie Crisp box? AARGH Pros: The ending was actually somewhat exciting/entertaining. Good acting (Giamotti of course) Cons: 10min story stretched into 2 hours, very boring at parts, characters had NO depth at all, no motivation for them either 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2006 20:15
|
|
|
I've loved all of M. Nights films. This one however I was rather disappointed. I'll cut to the chase: Cons: It was too long. The story was awkwardly told, and I did not understand the majority of what happened. Far too many characters. Nights 'cameo' should have been shorter - he can't quite pull it off just yet. The humour was awkwardly placed - just as things start getting intense near the end, he made a humourous scene with the film critic (btw the film critic's role in this movie was really unnessecary and was purely there for Night to let off some steam). Too much humour. Pros: The filming crews deserve an award or a high five, the lighting was spot on, as were the scenes. The soundtrack was relaxing and fitting. I truly cared for the superintendant (a major flaw in many movies, where no one cares about the main character). Summary:So as a movie I would say it was above average. As a Night film, it was under par. It still has Night's excellent script and writing, but a little too confusing. Would have been better if he had spent longer hammering out a few things. Rating: 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2006 11:32
|
|
|
hamiltonrmcato posted:If you liked Unbreakable, you'll like this one. Speak for yourself. Unbreakable was a hundred times the movie this was  The dialoge was crappy and the story was insultingly bad. It seemed to be that he was saying HAH, YOU THOUGHT ALL I COULD DO WAS TRICK ENDINGS! NOW WATCH AS I SLLLOOOWLY REVEAL A COMPLETELY OBVIOUS PLOTLINE IN A MANNER THAT MAKES YOU ANGRY THAT THERE WASN'T A TRICK ENDING!1.5 / 5 for having a few cool ideas, but failing to deliver. Oh man, immediately after watching this I remembered the Futurama line from Tales of Interest... "YOU WATCHED IT, YOU CAN'T UNWATCH IT!" If only I had seen this in the theater, I would have loved to yell that out when the credits started to roll. Gambl0r fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Dec 12, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2006 04:48
|
|
|
Shyamalan is a man who either will deliver, or crash a film so irredeemably that you feel a little bit like he climbed into your head and defecated on some of your poor brain cells. Lady In The Water falls into the stink category, unfortunately. There's so many plot holes, and such a consistancy to the characters not acting like people but like cardboard props spitting out backstory to M. Night's doofy kids story, that you never feel a connection or a sense of truth to it. There's a notable lack of ANY plot crafting. How does the main character learn something new? He asks someone. Every time. I'm not kidding, the first hour of the film it's like watching someone use dialogue trees in a videogame, WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT NARFS, NPC's 1,2, and 3? Also, if you liked how Signs took a turn towards the worst plot holes ever, you'll enjoy the same friggin lack of common sense in Lady In The Water. I think the bottom line is Shyamalan can't write scripts. I don't mean that to be mean, I mean that in that script writing is a massive undertaking, and the guy is totally wrong to think he can handle it and direct. Get a ghost writer, man, please. I liked the Sixth Sense, but I've lost most trust in his work this point. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2006 08:08
|
|
|
I went into this movie expecting something even remotely close to his work in The Village, but was completely let down. It wasn't even remotely plausible, where his previous movies had some bit of reality that could have made them true. Trailers and Previews made it seem more of a genuine horror, rather than a crazy, nothing makes sense, put anything here to make the plot work story. .5
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2007 19:46
|
|
|
This movie was hands down the second worst I have ever seen, with the worst being Battlefield Earth. This is one of the only movies I have ever seen that was relatively filled with people and EVERY SINGLE person was openly laughing not with the movie but AT it. I was walking out of this thinking to myself what I would change about the movie, when I realized that I would change every loving second of it. Complete and utter garbage, and I wish I could give it 0 out of 5. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2007 05:43
|
|
|
Pros: Neat monsters. The mermaid had a nice fairy tail presence. Cons: Boring as hell. I felt like I was watching people read an instruction book then decide to do what next. There's no plot twist, because there is no plot. Ridiculous characters. Maybe one scene with any tension? This is Shyamalan's worst movie, hands down. I have liked everything else he's done, even the village. He needs to stop, take a breath, and put more thought into his next film. EDIT (DUR) : 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2007 06:14
|
|
|
This movie tried to do way, way too much, and failed at it. If you read classic science fiction books, and then watch science fiction movies, you realize something important about creating fantastic worlds on the screen: the audience can only accept so many preconditions before the suspension of disbelief goes down the toilet. I bought the fairy tale lady and the plant-dog thing without blinking, that was easy. If he it stopped there, and just made the rest of the movie about a collection of odd characters trying to help this magical woman get home against all odds, this would have been a decent movie. Nothing spectacular, but it would have been a fun watch with probably a few people rolling their eyes at it like Signs. But it didn't stop there. Oh, she has to XYZ because ZYX! And Z isn't Z at all, it's 12! Oh no, Y didn't work, it must be something else! The conditional garbage just kept piling up. In an ordinary drama, this sort of thing can work out pretty well because you don't need psychic powers to just know that person 1 is not the father, and actually killed the real father (or whatever the crazy twist is). In Lady in the Water, it feels like this movie was made as a shout-out to all the cult-believers in M. Night Shyamalan's crazy rear end made up religion. So if you happen to be a member and scholar of the fictional belief system present in this movie, it should be a great watch. Otherwise, you are just going to be rolling your eyes as premise after premise is trotted out until eventually you aren't in suspense at all because it is just as likely that all of the problems in the film will be solved by a giant, jet-powered elephant with five eyes as it is that any other ending should be tacked on. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2007 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
not only did i think this film totally wasted it's potential, but it was simply boring. and why did most of the characters seem to believe cleveland so easily? the way that asian student neighbor kept conveniently popping up to give more clues from her irritable mother kept bugging me. why on earth would she even humor cleveland to translate her mother's knowledge on her cell phone while she's at a club getting her crunk on? it was all too convenient. it was just annoyingly half-assed for me. i was expecting more from this director. by the end of the movie, i was hoping that the spinach beasts would devour the entire cast, except for freddie rodriguez with his sexy, muscular foam rubber arm. at least m. night has great taste in music. david bowie and cibo matto, yeah. 2.0
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2007 18:57
|
|
