Lady in the Water

Noct said:
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.
Click to expand...

To be honest, the film has very purposeful, slow pacing. Unfortunately, it was marketed to an audience doomed to be disappointed that they were not seeing a "Blair Witch" horror imitation. but it remains a revealing story offering truths, love, morality, suspense and keen political nuances.

Still, I'm puzzled as to why "The Village" is so reviled. It is an incredible film with depth of construction. Its political connotations can be read with great certainty -- an isolated community exists where the truths of the world are suppressed by their leaders and hidden to the oblivious inhabitants. The citizens are manipulated by fear, constantly worried that their borders could be breached by an unpredictable evil.

Upon its theatrical release, not many films were as topical nor relateable to our everyday existence in The States. But then again, it didn't have to be. It remained to be appreciated for many other reasons. It is the subtleties that improve the viewing enjoyment. Aside from adequate performances, none that I could divulge without ruining the story.
 
Last edited:
cygnet74 said:
To be honest, the film has very purposeful, slow pacing. Unfortunately, it was marketed to an audience doomed to be disappointed that they were not seeing a "Blair Witch" horror imitation. but it remains a revealing story offering truths, love, morality, suspense and keen political nuances.

Still, I'm puzzled as to why "The Village" is so reviled. It is an incredible film with depth of construction. Its political connotations can be read with great certainty -- an isolated community exists where the truths of the world are suppressed by their leaders and hidden to the oblivious inhabitants. The citizens are manipulated by fear, constantly worried that their borders could be breached by an unpredictable evil.

Upon its theatrical release, not many films were as topical nor relateable to our everyday existence in The States. But then again, it didn't have to be. It remained to be appreciated for many other reasons. It is the subtleties that improve the viewing enjoyment. Aside from adequate performances, none that I could divulge without ruining the story.
Click to expand...

I think you just made me like the movie a little bit more
 
Bsmith said:
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.
Click to expand...

Boom mics are unfortunately more frequent than one might think. They show up in just about 25% of the films I have seen in the theatre in the last few years.

It can all be contributed to lazy, poorly trained, ignorant projectionists. It is sooooooo irritating, and is one of the many reasons I stay in.

That and the fact that these d!psh!ts can't seem to lower the screen enough, causing the film to run off the bottom edges onto the wall. Damn near ruined Sideways for me. THIS is the most common, almost in 95% of the movies I've seen. I went to the theatre for the first time in 8 moths yesterday, and I had to leave my seat, miss the previews, and complain again.

PLUS, the damn things are rarely illuminated properly, causing a dark, muddy mess.

I'm the type of guy in the theatre that actually asks to speak to the manager while the previews are showing, otherwise I'm going to be bothered for the rest of the film.

They really need to train their employees better. I mean, a while back, I'm trying to watch A History of Violence, and in the middle of the damn movie, the screen rolls up halfway and stays put for a good 6 minutes. Just seems that no one there cares enough about it to really do anything.

:furious3:


-Troop Out
 
Why Signs and The Village both catch such critical shrapnel is beyond me! I enjoyed both of them greatly (along with Unbreakable and of course The Sixth Sense.) For whatever reason, M. Night's films seem to be subject to extreme & unfair nitpicking that other successful filmmakers' pictures are not.

I have him at #9 on my list of current directors for what it's worth, but if he continues on the consistent filmmaking path that he is on...who knows?

I don't think his taking minor roles has been all that distracting...but I'll admit that perhaps shortening any future cameos down to bite-sized Hitchcock portions may be in everyone's best interest.
 
haha I think the village was the first time I've ever seen a boom mic show, and I remember I got all freaked out (as I didn't know that it was actually the projectionist fault) and thought they somehow released the movie knowing about it.
 
Super Trooper said:
Boom mics are unfortunately more frequent than one might think. They show up in just about 25% of the films I have seen in the theatre in the last few years.

It can all be contributed to lazy, poorly trained, ignorant projectionists. It is sooooooo irritating, and is one of the many reasons I stay in.
Click to expand...
How do you figure it's the projectionists' fault? Boom mics (or shadows of boom mics) are in the film or they're not. It's not something the projectionist has any control over.

Now, not having the film showing correctly on the screen, that's another thing.
 
Blaine said:
How do you figure it's the projectionists' fault? Boom mics (or shadows of boom mics) are in the film or they're not. It's not something the projectionist has any control over.

Now, not having the film showing correctly on the screen, that's another thing.
Click to expand...
as you know a raw film frame has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. release prints for most films composed with a 1.85:1 ratio have what's called a soft matte -- meaning there is information above and below that is not intended to be seen, matted out in the projector. on the other hand, a hard matte would indicate that the print has that extra image area blacked out on the print.

the last film i saw mis-projected was The Crow (long time ago). you could see booms in many dialogue scenes and any shots with visual effects suddenly had a hard matte -- i assume because the vfx guys wouldn't bother rendering effects in the areas that weren't meant to be seen.
 
my bad :embarasse

I guess it never occurred to me because I've never seen one mis-projected. :)
 
I just saw it last night.


I have to admit, I expected better, but I loved it, just like every other work hes done.

I put this one on the bottom of his list though, not because of the story but because of the genre, it never really stuck out to be, I'm more into the suspense/thriller type of thing.

But its M. Night, and everyone knows I'll watch anything by him.
 
I saw the film and loved it. It was a fairytale, that worked. I have loved all of his films. For those of you that thought signs was too preachy, you obviously have issueas with religion but that is not the movie's fault. It was the story of a man finding the person he used to be. It would not have mattered what religion was focused on. The point was that the man regained his faith in something. I thought that message was very profound and meaningful, and I understand that is my simple opinion.

I thought M. Night told a very different and interesting story with "Lady..." I appreciated the cinematography and editing and felt very content after seeing it. He once again delivered an artful masterpiece rarely seen in today's consumer based film industry.
 
Last edited:
Concerning the Village, I sincerely think it is up there with the Sixth Sense and maybe Unbreakable. The one I liked least was Signs, since I think he can approach the subject (Faith, not Aliens!) a lot better. Anyway, Signs was in my view a much more intelligent "War of The Worlds" than Spielberg's adaptation of the real "War of the Worlds"...

Now its a shame that Lady In The Water is only coming to Asia in August... :(
 
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...
Completely agree with you John, my friend, Christopher Vogler is there.
 
SPZ said:
Concerning the Village, I sincerely think it is up there with the Sixth Sense and maybe Unbreakable. The one I liked least was Signs, since I think he can approach the subject (Faith, not Aliens!) a lot better. Anyway, Signs was in my view a much more intelligent "War of The Worlds" than Spielberg's adaptation of the real "War of the Worlds"...
Click to expand...
Once more, I agree with you.
 
i like it. I like every film Night's done though. I was a little dissapointed but still enjoyed it. Probably put it second to last right above signs
 
I saw Lady on sat - and I loved it - Night has an uncoventional way of telling a story both visually and in pacing. And it is beautiful and refreshing to watch. I love the unconventional composition - sometimes you never see the speaking persons face - a frame consists of mostly someones back etc etc - His visual sense is inspiring.

The reviews are so bad, I think, because everyone seems to be forgetting that he made a FAIRY TALE - period. So it will feel contrived and silly at points - thats how all fairy tales are. The climatic scenes was simply beautiful storytelling.

Did you all know that the nighttime scenes were shot day for night - its pretty obvious if you look for it.
 
SIGNS was perfect. Brilliant filmmaking that told a simple story of one family dealing with an outrageous event. There was a perfect balance of humor, drama, suspense, and sci-fi. Not to mention, horror. The long slow zoom into the wall as you hear the dog being killed on the other side was haunting.

Can't say much about Lady in the Water, but so far the trailers haven't sold me on it.
 
PK Gillock said:
SIGNS was perfect. Brilliant filmmaking that told a simple story of one family dealing with an outrageous event. There was a perfect balance of humor, drama, suspense, and sci-fi. Not to mention, horror. The long slow zoom into the wall as you hear the dog being killed on the other side was haunting.

Can't say much about Lady in the Water, but so far the trailers haven't sold me on it.
Click to expand...

When you start talking about the drama in Signs... I immediately go to the scene where Father is talking to both children in the hall and telling them the things their mother said when they were born.

That was really great. There's a slow dolly forward that's really ominous during the entire thing and Phoenix is moving in and out of the frame trying to board everything up. Every time I see it... I'm like "geez... will I ever get to that level?".

Horror? The basement scene all together. There's supernatural horror, the internal struggle not only with Mel Gibson's character but within his son, which is a physical terror. And it's all covered by the flashlight. Not to mention, when the flashlight gets dropped and all you get to see is the darned thing hanging around in the middle of the floor while the family scuffles.

That was just great.
 
Man, at this this time I think youre all on the same boat as me, makes me happy knowing other people like Night as much as I do =)
 
[SIZE=+0]I was very skeptical about seeing Lady in the Water. I loved Sixth Sense and Unbreakable but after Signs and The Village, I was worried about him. After seeing Lady in The Water, I must say, I loved this film. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]SPOLIERS.>>>>>>>SPOILERS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SPOLIERS>>>>[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]This is what the film is about.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0] 1) This is his best shot film. Christopher Doyle is a genius.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0] 2) M. Night has a massive ego and he proves it with this film.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0] 3) The story is about fear of being alone and fear of the unknown. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0] 4) The movie is about the writing process. You get stuck, your muse can't help you out and then it click. You get that tingling feeling back in your fingers. You need to write and re-write for things to make sense. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]5) This film is a huge FU to all of his critics. Not just because he kills the critic in the film, but if you listen to his dialogue, he nails everything on the head. Critics don't understand him "Characters don't know who they are".. nobody ever comes out with anything original. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Plus, everyone wanted to see him make a film without a twist ending, and now that they saw this, they want him to go back to making twist endings.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Think of the final scene... everyone is looking up, the actors and including us, the audience. We are waiting for the twist but all we see is the Eagle. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]The Eagle...the bird.. he's flipping us the bird... a big FU to all who don't believe in his talents. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]You have to respect the man for making this film and flipping us all off.[/SIZE]
 
Good...but not as great as usual.

Good...but not as great as usual.

I'm a big fan of M Night...but i honestly think this film was a little below his other work. He's said himself that he approached it in a more improvisational way...and it shows. My favorite film of his is the village....in my opinion the direction of that film is nigh perfect. I know alot of people hate the story (which i also like) but technical-wise...i ddnt see how you couldnt agree. Having said that....the village is a good film to compare to this one...in how they are different. Its obvious that a movie like the village is meticulously planned...hitchcock style. Every transition seamless....every composition perfect. Here its more of a mixed bag. Things don't really flow scene to scene....and theres a real lack of atmosphere, such as what he has been able to employ in all his previous endevors.

One thing i was dissappointed in was that he had to resort to jacking up the volume in the frightening parts to make you jump. In the both the village and signs he mignt use some sort of sountrack note...strings and whatnot....but never loud blasts of sound effects...making the sound more responsible for the scare than the visual. In that area his skills have weakened for this film.

He still does some cool stuff with the camera....and you can tell hes experimenting with different ways to do things. Using fast motion, quick art film style cuts (when cleveland walks up the stairs to get the trash), and messing around with focus.

Overall ...i think the reason it feels different is that...he wanted that true bedtime story approach. More of a freewheeling style where even he wasnt sure what came next. I think thats why he didnt want tied down to particular shots he would usually have planned on using all along. Another reason this one is different is that he's trying to make this one for his daughters. It was originally a story to them so i think they were the primary intended audience.

Even so....its still remarkably good. A so-so Shyamalan film is still far better than anything else that comes out. Hes still a master of his craft and i have alot of confidence whatever he does next will be amazing.

cygnet74 said:
as you know a raw film frame has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. release prints for most films composed with a 1.85:1 ratio have what's called a soft matte -- meaning there is information above and below that is not intended to be seen, matted out in the projector. on the other hand, a hard matte would indicate that the print has that extra image area blacked out on the print.
Click to expand...

This was the case in the theater that i went to as well. Sometimes the projection people are idiots.

When the terminal came out i saw it that way too. Though annoying....it is interesting to see the mic placement...and in this movie some of the water machines for the rain scene.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top