Lady in the Water

Kholi said:
Never read the interview where he specifically said he needed Sixth Sense to make him a hollywood bigshot...

But yes, he did make two movies before then and they were "failures" because of what they were. Not because he didn't spend enough time on them...

But, now I see what you're saying. Thanks for clearin' it up.

Added: As a discussion topic? What would you see as holes in the scripts of his other movies outside of Sixth Sense?
Click to expand...

Unbreakable - the whole water side story was laughable and just seems rushed. The movie was well done and did a decent job of portraying a realistic but comic book based story. THe hole water thing is just goofy and didn't fit - plus it just made no sense how he suddenly bought into the water theory after elijah tells him when he dismisses the man as a nut the whole time beforehand.

Signs - again the water thing was just overly contrived and seemed WAY too forced, from how Night just outright says it's their weakness in the movie without any development (plus the idea is just stupid) and the ending just reaked of corniness.

Village - I've read a short story with the exact same twist sometime in gradeschool - just a rehash plus I kind of figured it out after a while. The monsters look ridiculous, are shown way to soon and the line "Oh no he found the monster costumes we hid under the floor" was just ludicrous - plus did not like the 9-11 analogy
 
John_Hudson said:
Night is one of the few filmmakers working that seems to truly understand this mythical language of cinema. I fail to understand the smack that is ran against him
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this one. I really just can not understand why he's being bashed so much.

Unbreakable - the whole water side story was laughable and just seems rushed. The movie was well done and did a decent job of portraying a realistic but comic book based story. THe hole water thing is just goofy and didn't fit - plus it just made no sense how he suddenly bought into the water theory after elijah tells him when he dismisses the man as a nut the whole time beforehand.

Signs - again the water thing was just overly contrived and seemed WAY too forced, from how Night just outright says it's their weakness in the movie without any development (plus the idea is just stupid) and the ending just reaked of corniness.

Village - I've read a short story with the exact same twist sometime in gradeschool - just a rehash plus I kind of figured it out after a while. The monsters look ridiculous, are shown way to soon and the line "Oh no he found the monster costumes we hid under the floor" was just ludicrous - plus did not like the 9-11 analogy
Click to expand...
Okay on Unbreakable. I don't mind the water weakness here... it's simply another weakness.

Okay on The Village. I didn't see it coming, and I also thought the monster was creepy. But, I can see how some people may have thought otherwise.

I'm disagreeing with you on Signs all the way. Water as a weakness to an alien being? How could that not make sense? It's just like fire is a weakness to humans... you touch it you get burned. How could it not make sense to create an alien race that's vulnerable to water? There're like ten reasons that could make that theory possible.

If water can dissolve steel... why isn't it possible that an alien life-form, whom's chemical make-up differs from what we know as homosapien, couldn't be affected by the double dose of hyrdrogen in water?

As for building it up... the story really did not follow the alien attack, but more-so faith and how those tested. The water sub-plot was the daughter's: She left water around all the time, ritualistically almost and in tradition of "everything happens for a reason", it comes full circle. The water glasses standing everywhere are given meaning in an instance.

But, we won't beat the still living horse. It's a known fact that not every person sees the same picture.
 
Last edited:
I watched Lady in the Water last night, and it was a good movie. Cinematography was great, some shots were overused, but overall it was very good. Some shots reminded me of techniques Spielberg uses.

Personally, I like the story, which I won't get into for those who haven't seen it, but a little bit of fantasy that leaves that "yearning for" feeling in your gut when you leave the theater is a good thing, IMO. I appreciate him for trying new things, and if I was his kids I would be especially proud that my father made a movie out of a bedtime story he tells me, those are great bragging rights on the playground!

Either way, saw some great trailers for The Fountain, Children of Men (which looks great), and a few others.
 
i still love m night. whatever his stories are his directing is always superb.

the only one i didn't like as much as the others was signs cause the story was kinda lame. but it still looked amazing and had a good atmosphere.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
Either way, saw some great trailers for The Fountain, Children of Men (which looks great), and a few others.
Click to expand...

do you know if there's a trailer online for children of men. bene waiting to see it. could you describe some of it :D
 
I think modern-day audiences are very different from audience of, say, 30-40 years ago. Today, audiences focus on "people" , i.e, stars. Before, audiences looked forwards to good films. Today, before watching a film, people will ask a hundred questions like, "who's the star? Whos the villain? Who direccted it?" Heck, some people even watch a movie because Hans Zimmer composed the music.

THATS why people bash Shyamalan. They expect him to cotinuously work magic, which is just unrealistic. Shyamaln is a great director, but people ought to watch his movies NOT constantly thinking about the Sixth sense. If that is kept as a standard, any other Shyamalan movie is gonna seem like crap. If you forget that he made the Sixth sense, and place each movie on its own while watching, his movies seem much more decent all of a sudden. No matter how unrealistic, or crappy, You have to admit, Shyamalan's movies are always unique, which is saying something in this "cookie-cutter" world of Hollywood.

People ought to be fans of "work" rather than fans of "people".
 
I think Night makes movies for a certain type person. I get so much from his films. I won't clown on others who dislike it, but only because I understand this is appealing to certain types. I get M. Night, and I like where he goes with his films. The only film that didn't do much for me was The Village. But other than that, I've been on M. Night train the whole way.

Could it be that people dislike his films because he's a little unorthodoxed? That whole scene where the film critic goes through his little move cliche rant was awesome to me. It was like M. Night was saying "This is why I make films the way I do! So I don't have to listen to this GUY!"

Can't wait to see what he does next!
 
Let me tell you something about "Signs"

At the time of writing, and release it made perfect sense, why?

At the time they still had not discovered water on mars, the alien planet, it was sometime after the movies release that nasa said they've found water. So it made perfect sense to me.
 
UncleBenji1977 said:
I think Night makes movies for a certain type person. I get so much from his films. I won't clown on others who dislike it, but only because I understand this is appealing to certain types. I get M. Night, and I like where he goes with his films. The only film that didn't do much for me was The Village. But other than that, I've been on M. Night train the whole way.

Could it be that people dislike his films because he's a little unorthodoxed? That whole scene where the film critic goes through his little move cliche rant was awesome to me. It was like M. Night was saying "This is why I make films the way I do! So I don't have to listen to this GUY!"

Can't wait to see what he does next!
Click to expand...



Actually, from what I've read he says hes got something really scary he wants to write, his scariest and best work yet, and I can't wait for that.
 
cygnet74 said:
haven't you heard? Lady in the Water is a dismal failure from a pretentious ego-maniac. you're not suppose to like it, you're suppose to climb aboard the bandwagon and bash the hell out of it.
Click to expand...

I guess this is where I'm supposed to say something, seeing as you're referring to me. OK, we can do this again. Let me start with a few items first.

1. Is The Lady in the Water a Dismal Failure?

It depends on how you define "dismal failure". From a critical standpoint, it is his worst reviewed film. Most critics dislike it, and many outright hate it. The consensus is that the vast majority would not reccommend the film.

From a commercial standpoint, that remains to be seen. But keep in mind, just because a film makes money doesn't neccessarily mean it was a great film.

From a personal standpoint, EVERY single friend I have that has seen this film so far has called it utter sh!t. I'm not going to waste my time and money on it. Well, actually I'm on here talking about it, so I guess I just won't waste my mony on it.

2. Is there an actor that you just can't stand? Someone who you just rubs you the wrong way?

I can no longer watch a Tom Cruise movie without being bothered by all that crap that went down in the last year. I used to love him. But somwhere, his personal life, be it on the part of himself, the press, or a combination of both, found it's way into my consciousness (and many others I might add) and now I find it difficult to seperate the man and the character.

This is the EXACT same way I feel about Night. Fine, you say he's not an ego-maniac. I think he is. Many would say that this very film supports my claims.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
"It's a jaw-dropping catastrophe -- a picture so wrong-headedly intoxicated with itself you view it through an embarrassed haze."


Chicago Sun-Times:
"...who am I to knock the work of the man who, in his own film, casts himself as a writer whose ideas will inspire a future leader who will save the world..."


Entertainment Weekly:
"...Shyamalan's most alienating and self-absorbed project to date."

New York Post:
"The M. Night Shyamalan who made "Lady in the Water" isn't seeing dead people anymore - he's turned into a crackpot with messianic delusions who's one more flop away from directing TV commercials. Or perhaps a three-picture deal with Tom Cruise."


Boston Globe:
"It can be a pretentious and exasperating marriage, since Shyamalan ends his movies the moment reality threatens to invade them...It's built on too much ponderous self-regard."

Hollywood Reporter:
"His reluctant mentor is the newest tenant, Mr. Farber (Bob Balaban), a prissy and cynical book and film critic, who because he knows every possible plot devise and character thinks he can determine the obvious candidates. (This character must certainly be Shyamalan's revenge against his less friendly critics, but the character nevertheless is a hoot in his icy arrogance.)"

New York Times:
"...the voice of God — until we realize that of course we’re meant to cup our ear to an even higher power: Mr. Shyamalan. That doesn’t make him any different from any other bubble boy with a fat paycheck and the slavish attention of a media that mocks his narcissism by publishing articles about his narcissism."

Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
"It comes off as tedious, pretentious, self-indulgent, talky and so garbled it might have been improvised by the actors."

The list goes on and on and on and on.............

Hell, even the few that did like it agreed his ego got in the way.

Sorry dude, but you're in the minority here.


Whatever, right? The point is, a man I detest on a personal level is going to be co-starring in a film that UNDERLINES the reason I detest him. For me, ME, that just doesn't fly. No way. I can't do it. I literally cannot seperate the man from the movie when he's IN THE *^$#%&&$ movie!

I'm not saying he is a hack. There are things that I don't like about his style, and there are things that I enjoy. I've seen all 6 of his other films, and I LIKED a few of them, parts of some, outright hated others. Maybe it's just me. He is talanted though.

There is no bandwagon. I'm not a hater. Just a guy with a certain pov that others on this sight share. Maybe I can just end all of this with the 'ole IMHO.

Does that help at all?

Probably not.

I don't want to step on any toes here, or hurt any feelings. I just wanted to say what I wanted to say. That's that. I'm done.

That took way too long to type. Sheesh.

PS:
Others can read about the Disney/Night split here: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23682



Troop out.
 
Last edited:
Night is bashed because he is worth bashing.

I have not seen Lady in the Water as of yet but I will surely post my opinions when I do.
 
UncleBenji1977 said:
I think Night makes movies for a certain type person. I get so much from his films. I won't clown on others who dislike it, but only because I understand this is appealing to certain types. I get M. Night, and I like where he goes with his films. The only film that didn't do much for me was The Village. But other than that, I've been on M. Night train the whole way.

Could it be that people dislike his films because he's a little unorthodoxed? That whole scene where the film critic goes through his little move cliche rant was awesome to me. It was like M. Night was saying "This is why I make films the way I do! So I don't have to listen to this GUY!"

Can't wait to see what he does next!
Click to expand...


I agree with this post. Night makes a certain kind of film. His films are fairy tales, fantasy and adventure all played out in our world. Knights films tend not too follow the formulaic approach many HoWood productons do and this is a good thing

II do agree with Tropper that Night needs to stop acting in his films. Not only is he not a good actor, but it is very distracting when he shows up' oh its the guy who made the film !

Still, I think he is a first rate director; loved The Sixth Sense, Unreakable was pretty cool (Although very deliberate in it's pacing) , SIGNS ruled and The Village was fun (If not predictable)

Personally detesting the guy seems borderline bizarre Troop. LOL

This LADY film seems doomed from the get-go; the critics.

-

On Tom Cruise ?

Great talent. Who cares what he does in his off time ? Dude is one of the better actors of any generation; Ill continue to watch him.
 
John_Hudson said:
Personally detesting the guy seems borderline bizarre Troop. LOL
Click to expand...

OK, maybe I was a bit too hard on him. But my biggest pet peeve in this world is ego. I have worked on a many a short films with people who seem to suffer from this, shall we say, affliction.

God, I hope I never develop one. :eek:



John_Hudson said:
On Tom Cruise ?

Great talent. Who cares what he does in his off time ? Dude is one of the better actors of any generation; Ill continue to watch him.
Click to expand...

He was remarkable in Vanilla Sky. Great performance.

It's not that I care so much. I really don't care what his beliefs are or anything like that. He was just run through the mud and somehow that stuff just stuck to him like stink on sh!t. Hopefully it will wear off in the next few pictures. :)
 
Last edited:
I like all his films, but Signs was my least favorite because it got kinda cheesy in dialogue and the kid actors weren't so good so they got on my nerves. I liked the Village much better, but really only appreciated it the first time. On a second viewing I liked it a lot less. I loved the twist in the film.

He's a great talent. Hope to see more of his work in the future, but will pass on Lady in the Water.
 
I heard M. Night's flagship project was Unbreakable... I movie I actually really enjoyed the whole idea of... But from a commercial stand point it was considered a failure... Somewhere between point A and B I think the man got lost and began a journey of trying too hard and people pleasing; which he obviously failed in the latter of the two.
 
The fun for me in seeing an M. Night film is figuring out his message... Take Signs for example, he hooks you with a trailer that leads to believe that it's about alien invasion, but then shows it's much more. It's about a former minister regaining his faith in God. Which personallly I appreciated. Lady in the Water seemed to echo the same message of Unbreakable in the way that it was about purpose, and that we all have a place here, and a thing to do. Now, before people start in by saying, "but why rehash a theme?" Well, why not? I think that's a message we all need to get, and if it takes more than one attempt to make it hit home, then so be it.
 
The Sixth Sense - Awesome
Unbreakable - Ok, pretty decent flick - I can take it or leave it
Signs - Too preachy, I don't give a crap about some "faith" a guy has. I had flashbacks of sitting in church as a kid smelling all the old ladies perfumes mixing together. That's just not for me.

The Village - Atrocious film, one of the more cruel films I've seen in my life. Shyamalama ding dong is very talented in keeping a story going, and going and going making you think it's going to lead somewhere. I'll make an analogy of what I thought of the Village. Ok say I went into a fine craftsmen's villa. He's known throughout the world for creating fine products. He goes behind a curtain and and with the lighting I can see his shadow working. I'm very excited about what I think I'm getting and rooting for him. Then I realize about after 2 hours that I was watching him pleasure himself behind that curtain. The jokes on me.

Stupid me will probably go watch him again with Lady in the Water in hopes that the fine craftsmen actually makes something this time. I like the guy, but at the same time he has a problem.
 
hatsoff2halford said:
Did anyone else catch the boom mic in two or three different shots?
Click to expand...


are you serious? Assuming you are not being sarastic, I haven't seen it yet, but I remember seeing it in The Village. Why is it only in M Night movies that people see the boom mic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top