For the moment at least, this internet connection is working, so let’s get started...
Before I saw “Lady in the Water”, I didn’t realize that it had a big enough budget that they could build their own apartment complex from scratch. So it was more Hollywood than I expected.
Like I said when I picked it, all I really knew about it was that it was filmed by Doyle. He has done some great work with asian filmmakers, but I had not seen him work in a Hollywood type production.
Did anybody look at the extras that were on the DVD? Shyamalan has published this story as a children’s book and they showed some of illustrations in it. I might see if the library has a copy of the book because I think it looks more successful than the movie. Anyway, my overall reaction to the movie is that it had some very promising elements that never quite gelled. Before trying to pick that apart, do people have some first reactions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Erin told me that it had been widely panned and that she thought it was ho-hum, so I had low expectations. But I loved it! I give it a nine.
I haven't watched the extras. I'll be sure to do that before taking the DVD back.
Ho-hum is not exactly how I described it. I have mixed emotions about it. I rather liked the story and Shyamalan's invented mythology. I liked the characters and setting. (I loved that the movie never left the apartment complex.) But I found some of it really sappy and hokey and contrived. The acting did not always impress me, either.
I have to say I'm not a fan. It started with some promise, but a lot of things just didn't gel for me, to borrow Rick's phrase. I think Paul Giamatti is a very good actor (even though I was not a huge fan of "Sideways"). I don't really understand what the story was about or why it's important or what I'm supposed to take away from it. It wasn't a mindless action movie where you just go along for the ride; there wasn't much of a ride, so it needed to have more substance. And, from Shyamalan (self-important as himself), more suspense, more depth.
I liked the setting, although I kept thinking it was California, not Philadelphia. I thought the diversity of characters seemed very contrived.
I'd like to hear why Ben liked it so much, though. Maybe I'm missing something.
Good question, kc. I don’t know if I can put my finger on it.
The film really drew me in. I cared a lot for Story and her plight, and I loved Cleveland. I was pulling for them all the way.
I have a lot of trouble remembering characters, and the diversity there helped me to follow the movie better than I usually can. I was never left wondering “which guy was that?” which I usually am.
Almost nothing stuck out to me as a negative about the film. There were a couple of moments where I was bothered by melodrama, but other than that, I loved the way it looked, sounded, and felt.
And my FAVORITE SCENE was where the critic was facing the monster. I laughed my ass off! (Erin tells me that she didn’t care for that scene.) Gosh I liked that scene. It had a postmodernist (metafictional) element that I always love.
The sea nymph was well cast. That's about what I'd expect a sea nymph to look like: pale redhead with flowing hair and watery eyes and oozing vulnerabilty. She was a good choice.
I sort of appreciated the scene with the writer, but I knew as soon as he started babbling about movie cliches that he was going to get his throat ripped out.
Shyamalan's presence in the film was self-referential, too, I thought (a heavy wink to "insiders"), and I found it a bit irritating, especially because he cast himself as some great genius who's going to die young (possibly martyred?). At first I thought the handyman was just going to pass him in the hall, and even that limited cameo struck me as cliche. When he turned out to be a major player, oh boy.
I think Shyamalan is extremely cute, but I also cringed at his casting of himself in that role. I've read interviews with him where I got the impression that he likes to think of himself as a misunderstood genius, that film critics all pan his films in some kind of conspiracy to silence him.
I hated the scene with the writer at the end. I was thinking, "Shut up! I wish that grass dog would hurry up and eat you."
He IS cute. Indeed. Too bad he knows it.
I HATED THAT MERMAID.
I'm whispering my lines! I'm not speaking in contractions! Hence I am otherworldly!
Miranda was Meryl Streep next to this wet fish.
Plausability is what kills the cohesion of this movie. It came to me when the lady in the water was not rescued by a sea creature, a water wizard, the Lady of the Lake or a big lilypad, but by an eagle. Not waterfowl, but an eagle.
How did Cleveland and Story develop a bond so quickly?
Why did he figure out her "story" so quickly?
Why would he consult a college gal who only takes multiple-choice test courses on obscure myths? Why would he get lucky on the first try?
How do all of his neighbors buy into this implausible tale?
I know the story was based on Shyamalan's idea of a children's tale, but unfortunately, this was filmed like a children's movie, where a young audience takes these connections for granted but adults can't.
Agreed, cl, this movie would be MUCH more realistic if Story were rescued by a giant pelican.
(hehe)
C'mon! The eagle didn't make any sense! Why was she a water lass emerging from a water state who flew off into the sky at the end?
That's my point, sugar. WHERE would you begin making sense in this story?
Post a Comment