Movies Reviews
Movie Review: Lady in the Water
By Anne Brodie Jul 21, 2006, 0:52 GMT
On the Web
Paul Giamatti - View Paul Giamatti Pictures - Paul Giamatti News
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Headlines in Movies
- 1. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau boards 'Oblivion'
- 2. 'Warm Bodies' release date pushed back
- 3. Dorothy and the Witches of Oz – Movie Review
- 4. 62nd Annual Berlinale International Film Festival Shadow Dancer Photocall Pictures
- 5. 62nd Annual Berlin International Film Festival Pictures
Older Talkback
page: 1
your analysis of this film is a shameless meandering plug. You repeat the 'like a cave drawing' thematics so often that it made me wonder if anyone wants to see a film that's 'like a cave drawing'. M. night is so blotted by ego that his films are self-indugent and ultimately one dimensional. Cliche's about survival; or trama; stories that are uni-directional. They are films that point to an ending; a specific ending; so specific in fact that the film's guts, its supposed plot; wouldn't exist without them. That he achieved success early is open to debate. Commercial success yes; but nothing he makes is art. And that is the fault in all his work. That he thinks it is.
P.S. cast yourself in something other than a 'writer',
you ego maniac with a middle name befitting a comic book character.
It makes 'tiger' seem almost normal.
You know what they say - those who can't write (direct, act, etc.) become critics. In this case, those who really suck at writing become critics of critics. There was no call for the viciousness of the previous comments, especially the personal attack on the author of the review. Join a 12 step program and make peace with whatever demons are haunting you.
I felt this review of Lady in the Water to be quite beautiful. I enjoyed the descriptions of some of the characters - this gives me a heads-up on what to look for in the film. Also, I'm glad to hear that M. Night seems to be veering a little to the left of what his normal course is while still keeping with some of the old elements that we love about his work. Kudos to the cast they were able to get for this film.
The review managed to get me geeked about seeing this picture, especially after the somewhat disappointing (but brilliantly acted) The Village.
only a loser of your magnitude would write that a review was 'beautiful'.
Thanks for the tip on the writing skills there Alexander Pope. Get 'geeked' and watch your lady in the water. Sadly, in your pathetic life its probably the only thing you have to look forward to.
I just returned from seeing the film at its first showing at my local theater. Prior to seeing the film, I read a number of critical appraisals of the film. Some were positive, some not, some shamelessly in the middle. One critic said it was a painfully bad script - but one that worked. In short, many critics are seeing the film with different eyes than their colleagues. Here are some examples.
First, a positive one from Desson Thomson of the Washington Post: 'Until now, Shyamalan's work has been one of masterful trickery, designed to keep audiences spellbound until the end credits. But for the first time, the filmmaker illuminates a world beyond scheme, beyond the shell games of his earlier films. In 'Lady in the Water,' we no longer think of his characters as mere slaves of the narrative but mazes unto themselves. The eventual outcome of their lives is something we contemplate long after the movie has ended. That's the mark of an artist who makes it his business to push the boundaries of storytelling in Hollywood. And that's exciting.'
Second, a negative one from Rick Warner of Bloomberg News: 'M. Night Shyamalan made a movie about ominous signs, so he probably should have detected one when Walt Disney Co. executives told him they couldn't understand his script for Lady in the Water. Instead, he pitched the story to Warner Bros., which agreed to make the film about a grief-stricken apartment manager who discovers a nymph-like woman in the community swimming pool. The result is one of the most preposterous and pretentious movies I've ever seen, a waterlogged disaster from its solemn start to its hokey finish.'
Me? I've seen hundreds and hundreds of films (I managed theaters for 12 years). And based on what I saw at my theater today, I would have to agree with Mr. Thomson of the Washington Post. At the same time, I can understand why Warner and other critics quickly pounced on Shyamalan. To many critics, his first film, The Sixth Sense, is used as a yardstick against which his subsequent films are measured. And, having seen his earlier films, I must say this is a departure for Shyamalan. But, as Thomson said, '...we no longer think of his characters as mere slaves of the narrative but mazes unto themselves.'
Thomson was merely open-minded enough to watch the movie with different eyes than he watched Shyamalan's previous films ... a talent many film critics lack. When released on DVD, I will buy it to watch again and again.
how can anyone enjoy a movie with such bias and negativity like that of beacon ... I haven't seen the movie yet but reading beacon's comments .. hummm ... so much anger.
Beacon .. do you have any friends at all?
Your sharp tongue is your enemy - Fortune cookie
perhaps beacon is angry because so many great films go unseen and movies such as these get budgets for both production and promotion that are obscene.
The thing is that Shyamalan uses non-blockbuster budgets and typically makes films that make money. So you can't fault him if he makes something a little offbeat.
I've seen the movie, and let me tell you this: Don't spoil your day by watching this movie. You'll be almost embarassed that you watched a 'movie' which is as big a farce as this one.
I loved this review and like so many out there, I am really put off by the maliciousness of some of the critics. My family and several of our friends saw the movie Friday and loved it in all its quirkiness. We were entertained, which is what we wanted and got. I really liked the comment about a 12 step program. I have never seen so many angry trolls as this movie has brought out. Lets sic the scrunts on them!
hey Ralph Waldo...grow up. malicious this and angry that, I've never read such stupidity from adults. and all you thin skinned fairy tailers seem to like the review more than the movie.
As I walked out of the theater after watching Lady in the Water my head hung low. I felt like a big sucker and that I had scammed into watching that horrible excuse of a movie. In the first 15 minutes I knew I had been had. Don't waste your money, but most of all don't waste your precious time.
Hey, I have not seen the film yet, but from your review I'm gonna go soon. In my opinion It was a really good review. You took the time out to listen to the story he is telling instead of letting your own ego get in the way. As for the Beacon remark just like most of american society very jaded very jaded. No one takes the time out any more to really look at the story that is being told.
Keep up the good non-jaded work.
Peace
i'm not american you imbecile.
Since we live near Washington, D.C., the review we read of 'Lady in the Water' was a laragely favorable one by Desson Thomson of the Washington Post who found much to like about the story and espcially about Paul Giamatti's performance. I'm glad we didn't read some of the reviews elsewhere or we might have missed a memorable evening. Giamatti is great, the story is a good fairy tale and the roles and acting of the many principle characters impressive. The movie passed our test and apparently that of most if not all of the attendees-it generated a lot of discussion and many lasting memories of tidbits of the movie. One of the best we've seen in quite a while!
My 19 year old son and I saw this movie together and LOVED IT.
It is bold, original, gentle, tender, full of love; it has a very comforting pace.
No person/personage is empty - just a 'type' in this movie.
Thank you very much, Mr. Shaymalyan.
Maybe the so-called 'film critics' don't generally like it because Shyamalan KILLED a film critic in the movie. It's clear these days there are way too many snide 'film criticizers' out there now, instead of true film/art CRITICS, who follow the worthwhile parameters of actual art criticism. The Washington Post is a refreshing example of actual art criticism pertaining to film, but it stand alone. I say follow the money. There's a reason for the questionable and blatantly absurd amount of 'film critic' vitriol over this one movie. I mean, none of the critics are merely saying 'it's a flop.' Rather, they're HIGHLY invested, almost as if Shyamalan had insulted them personally, or something. Guess he did. But I thought it was funny, and the whole audience cracked up when the sour, dour, boring, in-love-with-himself movie critic got munched. Maybe these guys shouldn't take themselves so seriously--the new 'priests' of their particular religion of public opinion supervision and money control. I feel sorry for Shyamalan. He made a fun, different movie that WAS like a bedtime story, but most everybody just wants their Valium, Jack Daniels, and their existential, post-modern, jaded attitudes. I make it a rule to see movies before reading or listening to a single review. The reviewers are just people afterall, AND they're people who have a motivation to appear 'cool' and 'knowledgable' since it's how they pay their bills. Cynicism sells, so they sell it. Anyway, once I've made MY OWN DECISION AND OPINION about a film, I'll peruse the reviews, but I never let some schmuck ever tell me what to think about my entertainment choices and preferences. I don't need no education or thought control. Cheers.
All I wanted to know is if Lady In The Water was a movie worth while to go see. And with Beacon's bickering, I still haven't gotten an answer. Thanks a lot.
- Rachel
Can somebody please give me a small review of what Lady In The Water is all about? I don't really understand it much. I'd really appreciate it! Thanks :)
- Sophia
Just go see it.
That’s what I tell people. That’s what I did. I'd like to think that's what you should do. For those who need more, read on.
<-Minor Spoiler Warning->
Shyamalan provides us with again with what he always does - something new and original. Unlike his other movies this one does not depend on his trade-mark surprise ending which has, at least in my opinion, disappointed at least once. There is a surprise ending but it is more charming than shocking and caps the story off brilliantly. More like Unbreakable than the Village, this ice-cream cone simply has a different flavor at the core, not sour bubblegum.
Throughout Lady in the Water I felt a certain pleasant nostalgia. It only struck me later that the movie bears a number of similarities to the very successful Never Ending Story (the original movie, not the string of progressively more confusing sequels).
Lady in the Water took the deadly risk of self analysis and capped that off with a bit of morbid comedy when the reviewer came face to face with the reviewed. I think it worked.
I really enjoyed the elemental theme of water which was so strong throughout the movie. I really enjoy water, swimming, life guarding and teaching swimming lessons but I guess it's not for everyone. Water seems to play an important part in Shyamalan's movies. I wonder if he had a near drowning experience. This is a fascinating way of dealing with such an issue.
So much wasn't said in the movie and that I really appreciate. He gives the audience a little credit and doesn't spoon feed us. It was never said that the monster was afraid of water, yet all the time it was clear that it was. The water seemed like a protective barrier. It was a symbol and a shield, and a surprise to make you jump out of your seat.
Many elements were just disturbing but there was a clear sense of right and wrong and morality. The guardian and his weightlifting were just bizarre and that is what I remember most strongly about the movie because I've never seen that before. The morality of the healer and that the movie did not need gratuitous adult scenes to work was a welcome relief.
I thought it was a fantastic movie. I'll have to agree that it is not for everyone. It is only for people who dream.
Mark Charke
www.Charke.ca
you have a point donkey.
film critics are people.
Perhaps the whole audience 'cracked up' because the movie was decending into a comic farse. This 'religion of public opinion supervision' and 'money control' and spiraling again downwards past the point of comprehension or intelligence with; ' valuim, Jack Daniels and thier existential post-modern jaded attitudes'? what?
the movie sucked. period. I spared you the caps.
p.s. The yiddish was cute.
why are people having such a hard time stating the obvious.
the movie is ridiculous. When does M. Night's scholarship run out?
It was amoung the worst films I've ever seen.
People dont like the movie because they expected something scary or some 'twist' in the end..the story is beautiful but the movie doesnt convey the story to the viewers so convincingly..the viewer is left to interprete some things on his own..what i hate about these 'critics' is that they dont appreciate the originality of the story..they perceive it as something childish..'oh its just another fairytale'...some people are going as far as saying that shyamalan should 'take a break' and that success has gone to his head...i think these comments are way too harsh....people who appreciate the movie have a different perception altogether..people like me who like the movie like to dream...its all about fantasy....
No, beacon. The audience was laughing as intended--because the self-agrandizing, self-important, narrow-minded movie critic got munched--plain and simple.
That Shyamalan is bringing up a well-known fact that too many movie criticizers (as opposed to bona fide movie critics) enjoy their 'power' and that, like the scrunts, they are out to kill a good story isn't lost on movie goers who are sick of the naysayer movie criticizers. Movie criticism, after all, is not the same thing as bitching and moaning about movies in a slick, 'sophisticated' way. Rather, movie criticism is ideally designed to foster discussion on literary and art levels, which is very rare now.
I still think the critics were outraged to see someone they probably identity with strongly get devoured by a scrunt, especially after the conceited, know-it-all speech he delivers. They didn't appreciate the payback aspect. It's unfortunate that many film critics are bound within a specific social subculture of 'cool,' and can be a jaded, bored lot--unhappy and dissatisfied that movies aren't 'doing it for them' anymore. And there are times when I wish they'd shut up and let the rest of us enjoy a little harmless entertainment.
I also believe the reviewers were closing ranks in support of Nina Jacobson, who was fired by Disney during their recent restructuring. Before that, she didn't want to promote the film, Shyamalan left, and then Warner Bros. was all too eager to snap him up. Maybe not so good for Disney in the end? For the executives it's about business. Even if Shyamalan makes a so-so film now and then, he's still a good profit-making talent product, and one they probably wanted to hang on to. The bad reviews have the 'effect' of making Jacobson look smart--'so there' Disney.
All that said, I'm sure the film will do better overseas, where audiences don't give a rip about what American film 'critics' say.
its called a donkey for a reason.
simply because YOU like a film doesn't make it a worthy effort.
the vast majority of people could care less what critics say.
many films have had big box; been a huge success while being panned by the criticos b/c of word of mouth and the fact it was just 'fun' to see.
This movie flopped; not because critics didn't like it, but because people thought it sucked. And all his 'art' and all his 'craft' couldn't put humpty 'dump'ty back together again. I agree he's lost his way; and perhaps should get lost for a long while before trying his hand at film making again. A good long while.
I really enjoyed this review. My wife and I spent the whole drive home from the theatre talking about the great characters and wonderful fable that M. Night Shyamalan created with 'Lady In The Water'
It is a shame that the world is full of selfimportant, humorless critics (who can not be unbiased), and folks who have the intellect of a common field tick. These seem to be the harshest critics of this movie.
your poor wife; having to listen to her infantile husband go on and on about how 'great' the characters were. And how you promise her to not wet your bed tonight. And how the buzz lightyear pijamas are getting a little tight around the 'funnies'. Your pathetic, and i feel sorry that the size of the field tick's brain was questioned by an overgrown sausage-inhaling turnip.
Hey RoGR. Like me, my wife really liked the movie. You can take ridiculous shots at me because you failed to understand the movie (if that makes you feel superior who am I to ruin your obviously low selfesteem). As far as the intellect issue, if the flea and tick collar fits...
Most of the negative reviews I have read are pretty vague about what they don't like or seem nitpicky. If I didn't know better, I might be tempted to they are saying: 'Look at the young, arrogant, foreign guy whose movies we don't understand or whom we want to punish for being young arrogant and foreign.' Obviously they are not looking in an unbiased way at the film.
To each his own, but most people who don't like this film seem to fit into these categories.
what is the problem with all these sycophants?
the movie was garbage. Open mind or not; biased or not.
because a review is 'unbiased' does not mean that it must be positive.
Some of us watch movies and others just sit there transfixed and wide-eyed,
ready to love whatever giant pile of horse manure is being projected.
rubberob-
In your opinion the movie was garbage.
For those of us who liked to be challenged while we are entertained, this was an enjoyable film. For those who prefer watching people eat bugs for money or prefer watching mindless drek horror or action films (or puerile teen exploitation comedies), so be it.
To me, the critics dislike MNS and are taking it out on the movie. Most of the regular folks who don't like it, don't get it. This combination of sympaticos (the dull and the dull witted) make for an interesting (and troubling) marriage of convenience.
if this movie 'challenged' you, then...enough said.
It sure seems like something strange is going on here. I think for some of the people who didn't like the movie, it's not about the movie. It's about something else. Really. Nobody gets as bent out of shape, as is recorded here, over a movie--good or bad--without some ulterior motive. Either they're enjoying the anonymous 'power' they can wield against unsuspecting contributors on this board by being ugly without consequence, or they're part of a larger undefined movement, or they're just nasty people as far as people go. Or maybe they don't like Shyamalan, personally, for some reason. I mean, think about it--what kind of person goes out of their way to viciously insult total strangers who merely happened to like a movie they didn't, and for what reason? Securitazi thought police? Poisonous wraiths? Borderline personality-disordered individuals? The evilspeak eminating from some of the posters here is unbelievably weird, and those who rely on ad hominem attacks on a public board constitute the type of anti-intellectual mindsets prevalent among facist thinkers aiming for political conformity. I've never seen anything like it. Good grief, it's just a MOVIE. You know--standing in line, popcorn, entertainment. It's not religion.
So for all of you badly behaved persons attacking others instead of fostering dialogue: get over yourselves, calm down, and stop behaving like scrunts. In other words, allow us to believe you have something valuable to contribute to the discussion if you had a problem with the show. Maybe we can learn something. Offer some reasoned, logical analysis. And while you're at it, try to respect your fellow man. Not everyone thinks like you do, and we all know that differences of opinion make a democratic society stronger.
Well spoke donkey.
I just get frustrated by monosylabic scrunts (LOL!)
who creates the ad hominem fallacies?
you do. I understand its diffcult when someone percieves themselves as an intelligent person and yet writes such wildly...i'm sorry I have no other word for this...idiotic things.
do you think your five cent jargon does anything but make you invisible? Syndicated morning talk shows offer more original insight.
Long-winded gas is funny but smells bad. Like this film and you.
why bother robberbob.
Its useless when olfactory has gone that dull.
These two are examples why 'stay the course' resonates.
I love it when others prove MY point by illustrating it--thanks beacon and robberbob. However, I do hope you get over your traumatizing disappointment with a MOVIE soon, and are able to move on with your lives . . . but if not, you can continue to post here. We'll understand.
Oh, and remember we're still waiting on those valuable contributions, okay?
No Beacon. We are just a couple of people who liked a movie.
rubberrob-donkey's writings are not 'wildly... idiotic', just because you differ in opinion (which is what it boils down to).
Still, I am surprised that a movie which I consider delightful and intriguing film could provoke such a negative reaction. Go figure.
Nietzsche said “the last men blink.” Blink, and you miss this movie.
For Nietzsche, the term “blinking” was a way to describe the kind of radical reductionism that displaces experiences like the common pleasure of in a stroll in a rose garden with the stark knowledge that the stroll is really nothing more than the motion of sparse electronic charges in what is largely a vacuum. Blinking, then, causes us to fail in our appreciation of what the human experience truly is.
Not wanting to blink, I found Lady in the Water to be simply one of the best movies I've ever seen. I'll see it again, too, which is a rare thing for me to do. And I'll buy the DVD. If I'd listened to the 'professional critics,' I would have missed out on something wonderful. The movie takes the mundane and elevates it to the unique. It takes the common and lifts it to the extraordinary. I left the movie feeling better about the world and the people in it, and found myself wanting to be a better person.
this goes beyond the pale. To invoke nietzsche?
He was a realist; not a romantic or sentimentalist.
This film was for the 'bottled and the botched' as nietzche once said.
Mysticism and fanatsy were completely antithetical to everything he believed.
I saw the film, and my opinions aside, i am certain he would of detested this film as a 'dispractical blur' and most certainly an artifical construct, 'revialist sentimentalim only a disproportionately overgrown child would love'. Its called the kitchen sink and this time there both bolted down.
Hi folks!
Some interesting commentary here.
May I suggest that you all move this (very interesting) discussion over to the Forum section of Monsters and Critics?
Forum has been down for while but site editor James Wray has spent a lot of time revamping it and making it much more conducive to discussions of the sort we have here.
I will start a 'Lady in the Water' thread in Forum Movies - please join me there.
pete misses the point regarding Nietzsche, reductionism, and the idea that reductionism announces the beginning of the end of humanity's humanity, which seems to be what Chris I. is saying. And besides that, what's the point of defining Nietzsche, considering the personal changes/evolution/devolution he went through over the course of his life? All that aside, I have again seen no respect, or humanity, from the 'We Hate 'Lady in the Water' ' crowd-- which seems to suggest the very loss of humanity the other poster was pointing toward. If you don't like bedtime stories, fine and dandy, but the lack of substance in the comments, and the reliance on pure insult from the naysayers, is getting really, really boring. We get it. You hated the film. And you hate those who didn't hate the film.
last i checked 'humanity' meant all the characteristics that we as humans possess. It was only half a century ago that this word was misappropriated and its context transformed and transmorgrified. Its isn't the best in us; its ALL of us, yes War, yes vitriol, yes violence; and yes love, and yes compassion. Without the reciprical slice we are incomplete. Movies and art and music reflect this. And culture that doesn't is latex and meaningless.
I agree that 'lady in the Water' was awful. Not in that it creates awe; you know... it's modern usage. And I hate no one.
scratch that.
I do hate 'intolerants' masqarading as 'tolerants'.
donkey... If the bib fits...
Hey, Calvin, that 'bib' insult was REALLY clever. I feel SO put down. Gosh, how will I ever recover. War, vitriol, violence--you have at it, Calvin. Someone needs to keep those aspects of 'humanity' going, at least according to you. But who said anything about advocating that culture/art/movies not reflect the 'reciprocal slice,' or the ugly side of the world? I would suggest the movie Osama, if you want to get real about that. But since you're very late into this conversation, I wasn't talking about what you're talking about anyway, and who said YOU hated anyone (unless you're some of the same vitriol-spewing hacks posting earlier, now using another name). If you'd like an education on 'intolerants masquerading as tolerants' I'd suggest reading through the entire forum. Those who claim to not like the movie (not problem here) are putting out the most intolerant, insulting crap I've seen on a discussion forum (problem here).
donkey...
we all know lady in the water is something you need. Like Gerber or Beechnut stage 1. Have at it. If it makes you feel better you can program your day around a pirated copy of 'lady'.
You can watch it in the morning and again the evening; heck, you can watch it at night again and again till you like it some more.
Maybe calvin pegged you right. A child blowing bubbles. Its cute. I mean from a distance. I assume you are a grown man. Creepy really. And since no one really likes this movie; critic or otherwise; perhaps YOU are the two or three fools posting in defense of this fecal celluloid as if it was your offspring.
Your pathetic apologies for 'lady' are ALMOST amusing. That YOUR pathetic is extremely amusing.
this is awesome. lmao like never before.
I would say that more people in this thread have been more positve (or at least balanced than negative).
This film works on different levels. If all you can see is the fable and you were one of the little kids who liked to poop in their pants and think it was funny rather than hear or read a fable, then so be it. If you choose to ignore (or more likely fail to understand) the humanist aspects of the film, again so be it. If you choose to ignore (or more likely fail to understand) to satirical aspects of the file, likewise.
All in all an interesting film (to those with brains who don't have axes to grind).
It's really odd that there are some people in the world who don't like a MOVIE, and who go around attacking people who did like the movie, rather than simply discussing it rationally. I believe it's not about the movie at all. Not liking a movie is jus not be that big a deal. There are issues of control and power at play, (and maybe some personality disordered venting going on) and that's all it is. I'm not intimidated by all this nonsense. I liked Lady in the Water. It's not my favorite movie, but seriously, it was entertaining. And that's why I go to movies. Good thing there's enough out there for different people and preferences. Besides, plenty of people DID like the movie. So there--neener, neener, neener.
the mind of 'lady' fans...
'wait a minute...this Character is called 'STORY'. hmmmmmm? What could that possibly mean? Is Mr. after sunset trying to say something with this subtle use of convention? Oh my God! I think so. It may not be obvious to those of you who didn't like the movie; but to me; you know the intelligent guy who thinks that reviews of the movies can be 'beautiful'; yea it meant something. A Fable. yea! no, no a 'Tapistry'! Yea that's it. This film 'challenged' me so much. Nietzsche would have loved this film!'
Lady in the water was one of the worst films I've ever seen.
Preposterous and self-indulgent; it makes 'snakes on a plane' tempting.
To defend this cinematic bile like some of you have; is to expose yourself as an apologist; plain and simple.
robberbob needs his gripe/attention fix . . . Everything that needs to be said has already been said, so leaving the last word to robberbob, I'm sigining off. Go for it robberbob. Say something shallow, hollow, and snide. It will make your day and you can leave the rest of us to enjoy our vices.
I'm glad you admitted that 'lady in the water' is your vice.
I recommend a twelve step program. You can rest now and begin to scratch off the calender days between now and the day 'lady' hits dvd. You might want to stay away but probably won't; in which case we'll probably see you on the some new episode of 'intervention'. Its ok to admit you like throwaway films; just spare your family and loved ones.
i like to dream. i dream wildly and vividly most nights -- and i love to write these dreams down and reflect on them. i dream during the day; i walk with eyes closed through cold breezes and transport myself to the chilly winter nights of Iceland. i speak with people and creatures i create in my mind... and so on. i'm a dreamer.
i love fables and fairy tales because of the fantasy, but also because of the complexity. this movie, however, fails to carry me along or teach me anything -- and it certainly doesn't attempt, in my opinion, anything more complex than those options.
i understand that some people are fond of this film, its characters and lessons. i respect this and am glad you were able to enjoy yourself. personally i find the movie to be an insult. this is not because of a shyamalan bias -- i liked The Sixth Sense quite a bit and have been hoping for him to move back to something so intriguing. this is not because of a style bias -- i was not expecting something with an ending twist; this is partially because shyamalan's storytelling has been evolving (in my opinion, for the worse) and partially because i heard shyamalan explain that this isn't a horror/suspense film with a final twist.
i dislike the movie because i found it dry and cliché. i found little to no humor and an offensive simplicity in the character choices made my our director. the characters are built on the quick cliché they receive and offer no further depth. they all go along for the ride without question -- which they are given little reason to do -- which goes for a boring experience rather than a suspenseful one.
i believe that movie critics are insulted by this movie because of its absurdity, not because the critic is killed-off. that he killed the critic off is an offense not because it is an F-you to the critics, but because it shows that shyamalan presupposed their negative comments. it's as if he knew he was making a highly flawed film...
sadly, the film isn't even beautiful enough to entice me. i am wildly excited by things that please me aesthetically. this goes from the dark and gritty to the bright and joyful -- and anything in between or outside the lines. so much can be so beautiful if filmed and lit well; this film just doesn't do it for me. i find even the scenery, etc, to be tired, unoriginal.
for me the experience of the film is summed up by the final moment (SPOILER): we wait below the water as the Great Eatlton swoops down for Story. all i want is to lift my head from below the water and watch the great bird carry Story up and away: but alas, the camera doesn't move, and instead of seeing a beautiful effect, i'm water-logged.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story