Lady in the Water is already a bomb...apparently. Possible spoilers

[Shirley Ujest]

Don't like suspenseful movies, but I find this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204314,00.html) article about this movie rather interesting. Especially the part where Kevin Costner was up for consideration for the lead. If they ever needed a fall guy for a movie going in the toilet, he would be it.


It will be very interesting to see how it does at the box office and how people like or hate it.

[Mahaloth]

This review sums up what I expect to be the general feeling.

Lady in the Water Review (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23908)

Basically, M. Night has a huge ego and needs to be controled. Disney was right to let him go.

[Tuckerfan]

Based on this commentdefend her against the bushy monsters trying to stop her (killer Chia Pets)I'm thinking that a better title for the film would be Attack of the Killer Chia Pets. :D

In reading the reviews of the film, I've really gotta ask, "Is it really based on the bedtime story he tells his kids?" Because if it is, then, well, they're gonna need as much therapy as TomKat's kid (though for different reasons).

[Evil Captor]

Um, so people who are disposed to not like LitW are not liking it. In other news, Generallisimo Francisco Franco is stil dead ...

[astro]

Interesting (as an aside) that the reviewer supports Lissener's take on Verhoven.

It's entirely feasible that M. Night is, simply, having fun with us -- and possibly making fun of himself along the way. The problem is: it's never clear what tone we're supposed to go with here; that elusive balance between sincerity and smart satire (a la Verhoven) is never found

[aldiboronti]

Um, so people who are disposed to not like LitW are not liking it. In other news, Generallisimo Francisco Franco is stil dead ...

The significance lies in the fact that the number who don't like his movies grows with each new offering.

My own response to each movie he makes now is simply, "You gotta be kidding me!"

[Eutychus]

It's entirely feasible that M. Night is, simply, having fun with us -- and possibly making fun of himself along the way. The problem is: it's never clear what tone we're supposed to go with here; that elusive balance between sincerity and smart satire (a la Verhoven) is never found.

"It's a fine line between clever and stupid."

[Mangetout]

Surely Samuel L Jackson was considered for the lead role?

"It's a Lady. In the Water. I have had it with this motherfucking Lady in this motherfucking water!"

[Terrifel]

Um, so people who are disposed to not like LitW are not liking it.Movie reviewers, you mean?

[Omniscient]

You know I must be the only person that actually liked Signs.

I found it interesting that in all the TV ads for Lady in the Water where they throw reviewers quotes up there none are from anything resembling a well known source and one, in English mind you, is from Telemundo. I mean even Battle Field: Earth was able to scrape up some over the top positive quotes for posters.

[Mahaloth]

Um, so people who are disposed to not like LitW are not liking it. In other news, Generallisimo Francisco Franco is stil dead ...

Except that the review I linked to is written by a reviewer who gave positive reviews to every "Night" movie before this one.

[LorieSmurf]

You know I must be the only person that actually liked Signs


Heh. I'm the only person that liked Unbreakable .

[Muad'Dib]

Heh. I'm the only person that liked Unbreakable .
Hey! I liked it as well.

[Guinastasia]

He really sounds like an egotistical douchebag (http://deusexmalcontent.blogspot.com/)

[Charlie Tan]

I said it here around the time The Village opened and I'll say it again. MNS is a very, very tallented director. To bad he can't tell a story for shit.
Hopefully this flop will leave him in the hands of a producer that can controll his ego, and maybe he can start directing scripts written by equally talented writers.

[Derleth]

Heh. I'm the only person that liked Unbreakable .I liked it. It was an origin story movie about an interesting hero with an interesting nemesis. I think it's the only MNS movie that could support a sequel.

astro: I didn't read it that way. I read it more the way I think Eutychus read it: Verhoven ends up on the stupid side of the branch cut.

[Euthanasiast]

Heh. I'm the only person that liked Unbreakable .

By far my favorite MNS film, and I couldn't care less about comics.

[Steve MB]

Interesting (as an aside) that the reviewer supports Lissener's take on Verhoven.
It's entirely feasible that M. Night is, simply, having fun with us -- and possibly making fun of himself along the way. The problem is: it's never clear what tone we're supposed to go with here; that elusive balance between sincerity and smart satire (a la Verhoven) is never found

Personally, I would have put the parenthetical comment at the end of the sentence, for the sake of accuracy.

[ddgryphon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient
You know I must be the only person that actually liked Signs


Heh. I'm the only person that liked Unbreakable .

Hey, I liked both.

[WOOKINPANUB]

At the risk of sounding like one of those "so and so can do no wrong" fan girls that we all know and hate so vehemently, I plan on seeing it, despite the sucky reviews and my own gut feeling about it. I haven't exactly loved all of his movies(I'm looking at you, Signs) but I've found something to like in all of them. To repeat what someone already said, sometimes his stuff doesn't work, but when it does, the pleasure I get out of it outweighs the negatives. So, yeah, I think this could be an overall sucky product, but he's one director that I'll always give a chance ( and I'll also freely admit when he's missed the mark).

[Eleanor of Aquitaine]

Hey, I liked both.I liked Unbreakable and Signs, and I even think The Village isn't too bad. I don't care that they don't make a lick of sense, I enjoy watching them.

Lady is getting some pretty bad reviews, though. Sigh.

[MovieMogul]

It's tracking at 24% at RT, with 20% for Cream-of-the-Crop critics (and even that figure's too high, given that they gave Ripes to several reviews that are not particularly positive except in relation to the others)

Paul Giamatti's supposed to be terrific, though, so I'll probably see it for that reason alone.

[Smeghead]

Roger Ebert savaged it pretty badly.

[Loopydude]

Surely Samuel L Jackson was considered for the lead role?

"It's a Lady. In the Water. I have had it with this motherfucking Lady in this motherfucking water!"


I like this...

"Why is the bitch in my muthafuckin' pool? That freaks me the fuck out! Get the bitch out of my pool, or I will shoot the muthafuckin' bitch in the head? Do you undastand, muthafucka??"

[Skammer]

I didn't care for The Village but I really liked Sixth Sense and Unbreakable -- and I mostly liked Signs, too. But I don't know... there's an awful lot of consensus here among the critics. I think I'll wait to hear more of the word of mouth, and maybe catch it on video to satisfy my own curiosity.

[MovieMogul]

Roger Ebert savaged it pretty badly.Actually, Roger Ebert is still recovering from his surgery. Someone is currently subbing for him on his site (though Roger was never a big Night fan in the first place).

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Hey! I liked it as well.Me too! It's his best film, in my opinion.

[Loopydude]

I tend to like Kurt Loder (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1536840/07212006/story.jhtml)'s reviews, but this one confused me:

"Lady in the Water" is a bewildering misstep for a director of Shyamalan's caliber. Its flaccid pretension suggests a radical misunderstanding of his strengths as a filmmaker; and the large, key role he's written into the picture for himself suggests an unattractive arrogance.

I mean, that this moves sucks nasty goat ass I don't doubt for one second. But what's all this talk about "a director of Shyamalan's caliber" and "his strengths as a filmmaker"? Does Loder mean to suggest M. Knight is anything but a stupifyingly tedious hack, who somehow stumbled, in spite of himself, into directing one barely watchable film (Sixth Sense), and has milked that dubious success for half a decade's worth of total stinkers since?

Kurt, you're slipping, man.

[mobo85]

What kind of a name for a mystical species is "narf?" Did Pinky write this thing?

[Terrifel]

What kind of a name for a mystical species is "narf?" Did Pinky write this thing?Well... sometimes, when a narwhal and a smurf love each other very much...

[Push You Down]

He really sounds like an egotistical douchebag (http://deusexmalcontent.blogspot.com/)


Do you mean the guy whose blog the link is too? The blogger seems like a bigger douche based on the rest of his posts. So a douche is calling another douche a douche? Yankee-my-wankee.

[vivalostwages]

With a nymph being called a narf and the nasty critters being called scrunts, I don't think I could get through this movie without laughing--that is, when not groaning.

[Loopydude]

Well... sometimes, when a narwhal and a smurf love each other very much...

:D

[Ferret Herder]

What kind of a name for a mystical species is "narf?" Did Pinky write this thing?
Oh good, it wasn't just me thinking that.

[Guinastasia]

The Movie Spoiler's page on LITW (http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/ladyinwater.html)

All I can say is, Shyamalan must've gotten hold of some supremely primo shit.

[Argent Towers]

As far as I can tell, this thread is not discussing the movie, it is discussing the reactions of critics to the movie. I started a thread for people who had seen the movie, but it was closed. So I will post the content of that thread here:

Lady in the Water - ridiculous

I saw Lady In The Water last night, and even though I had slept until noon that day AND had a 2-hour nap, I still dozed off because the film was so boring. It was also pretentious and ridiculous, complete Shyamalan self-gratification.

Lady In The Water could not figure out what kind of movie it wanted to be. It was not a horror movie, and it was not really a fantasy movie. It was not a drama because there was no tension between the characters, and it was not a comedy except for the unintentionally hilarious moments (of which there were many.) It just went nowhere, and had an incredibly weak story and lousy script writing.

It was impossible for me to take the fantasy element seriously with ridiculous words like "Narf" and "Scrunt." It was just too goofy and ridiculous. And what were they trying to do with the name "Cleveland Heep?" Is there some kind of symbolism in it? All too goofy for my tastes.

The whole story, which, as I said, is weak, was so boring and lacking in ANY kind of drama or tension that it put me right into the arms of Morpheus. A poorly written mess, further proof that Shyamalan's filmmaking is going downhill. Speaking of M. Nite, his casting of himself in a hackneyed, ham-fisted role as some kind of political martyr was unbelievably pretentious.

I have no idea how anyone could have enjoyed this movie. Did anyone here find it more bearable than I did?

[Aeschines]

As Charlie McCarthy said in You Can't Cheat an Honest Man,What a flop-er-oo!All I can say is,Haw haw, haw haw haw, you SUCK, MNS!

[scotandrsn]

Did anyone here find it more bearable than I did?

I actually liked it quite a bit (saw it last night). A number of things could have been better, but overall (apart from annoying people walking in uninvited from other films) it was a fine night at the cinema.

I would have to guess that this film might have gotten a better reception from the movie reviewers if MNS hadn't

killed one off in the film, right after someone utters the line, "Who would be so arrogant as to assume they known what someone else's intentions are?"

and I have to agree with you that he has an unholy predilection for casting himself in the most tragic role in his films, but overall it that it had a quiet magic I found extremely appealing.

But in this time when I hear the kids are text-messaging each other from the theaters on opening night to tell their friends whether to bother coming on Saturday, quiet magic does not carry the day. The velvet ropes the theater had put up to control entry during Friday's opening went unused last night, and the theater was only half full.

[Steve MB]

The velvet ropes the theater had put up to control entry during Friday's opening
Did they actually expect to be overwhelmed by the Teeming Millions demanding to see M. Night Shyamalan latest masterpiece right now, or is this the most overblown publicity stunt since some Grade B horror movie distributor got the idea of asking patrons to sign waivers absolving him of responsibility of they died of fright?

[Lexfire]

I saw Lady In The Water this weekend.

It wasn't a very good film. It had its moments but it wasn't very good. It didn't suck....just was weak. I did enjoy parts of it though.

I want to like M. Night....I enjoyed 6th sense. I REALLY enjoyed Unbreakable. I also liked Signs (the parts where there were no guns and such hit me well in a surreal way).

I was very dissappointed in the Village. Very. Lady in the Water would be my second least favorite M. Night movie so far.

[ouryL]

I liked the movie.
The story was muddled but the telling(acting & cinemascope) of it was marvellous.
Too bad Paul Giamatti has'nt a snowball's chance of winning an Oscar for it! :smack:

[Mister Rik]

Well, I kinda liked it. My friend and I laughed quite a bit, along with the other people in the theater.

Just for fun (chugworth.com/comic.php?id=100).

[Guinastasia]

Another interesting review (http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=12636)

I liked the ending line:


You know, even Shyamalan's buddy Mel Gibson had enough common sense not to cast himself as Jesus.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I kind of liked it. It was oddball but not incomprehensible and the Shyamalan 's writer character didn't bother me at all. The allegories referring to at and the criticism of same were pretty thick (naming the mermaid "Story," for instance) but easy to ignore. It's not great but it's not boring.

[Cartooniverse]

Flaccid Pretension. Great band name.

He is unnervingly overfunded and underskilled.

I truly bought into The Sixth Sense. The rest of it? Meh.

[pesch]

What the heck, here's another viewpoint:

Harry Knowles loved it, but with reservations. (http://)

[t-mobileguy]

Can anyone spoil if there was a big twist in this one? I read the spoiler site above but I got the feeling the guy who wrote it was atoned out of his gord when he watched it, and might have missed a plot point or three.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Can anyone spoil if there was a big twist in this one? I read the spoiler site above but I got the feeling the guy who wrote it was atoned out of his gord when he watched it, and might have missed a plot point or three.
There's a minor twist but nothing big and nothing really affecting the audience's expectation of the ending.

[Baldwin]

Actually, Roger Ebert is still recovering from his surgery. Someone is currently subbing for him on his site (though Roger was never a big Night fan in the first place).Not true; Ebert really liked The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. So did I.

The Village was a big disappointment: there's nothing wrong with having a "paradigm shift", as Shyamalan likes to call it, but in The Village it was the wrong one. The real paradigm shift should have been a gradual change of perspective about the moral righteousness of the Elders' attempt to protect their children by raising them in a closed world of ignorance and fear. In fact, it could have worked just as well if it were actually set in the 19th century; there were actual isolated communities like that, and you could imagine one that goes to extremes and wants to raise children with no knowledge of the corrupt outside world (only to find that you can't escape human nature, good and bad). Just forget about the big freakin' Twilight Zone "twist".

The reviews I've read of Lady in the Water sound like it's a work of metafiction -- a story about storytelling (with a character named Story, for Pete's sake). That would be fine if you have the right touch, but it sounds like it came out heavy-handed and kinda stupid.

[kittenblue]

All I know of this film I've learned from the previews and here, and I don't intend to go see it, so could someone please spoil why her hair changes from blonde to red?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

All I know of this film I've learned from the previews and here, and I don't intend to go see it, so could someone please spoil why her hair changes from blonde to red?
I don't remember that. I'm pretty sure her hair was red from the beginning. Are you sure you didn't see a lighting effect or something.

[kittenblue]

In the previews I've been watching all week, she's blonde in one scene and a redhead in the next. Maybe it is just the lighting, but it's an extreme difference. And since every litlle detail is supposed to have vast significance in one of his films, I just want to be sure.

[Mister Rik]

All I know of this film I've learned from the previews and here, and I don't intend to go see it, so could someone please spoil why her hair changes from blonde to red?
Her hair is dark red for most of the movie, until she is "killed". When she is brought back to life her hair has changed to strawberry blond.

[Key Lime Guy]

I thought Signs was excellent. Is there a thread here with intelligent criticism? Sorry for the minor hijack.

[ouryL]

Blonde - Dry
Red - Wet? :confused:

[Mister Rik]

Blonde - Dry
Red - Wet? :confused:
Nope. When her hair changed, so did her eyebrows and eyelashes.

[thwartme]

Well, I caught it last Friday, but I've been away from the dope for the last few days, so I actually had to search for this thread, to see if I'd missed something about LitW.

Apparently, I hadn't. General consensus seems to be that it was a boring, poorly constructed movie.

To get the caveats out of the way, I have enjoyed MNS's previous films. All of them, admittedly some more than others. Unbreakable was my favourite, and Sixth Sense the only one that actually portrayed any sense of fear. IMHO, of course.

Lady In The Water seems haphazard in its execution. The essential backgound of the film - the underlying fairytale of the Narf - is entirely imparted through straight exposition. This is the most flagrant film-violation of "show-don't-tell" writing in recent memory. I would have accepted a flashback sequence, a personally related experience of some strange traveller, a mystical vision or, for that matter, an animated educational film the other characters rented on video, rather than the overwrought opening narration and dribs and drabs of detail from the nice Korean lady.

So, all the interesting stuff is simply stated, which makes it far less interesting. Then, when characters are confronted with this information, there is almost no (none at all?) moment of 'gosh, what a strange story!' surprise. Everyone just accepts the situation, and offers to help. MNS and his on-screen sister are more surprised to think that their landlord might have scored with the cute redhead than that she might be an otherworldy creature sent to save mankind.

The only saving graces the film offers are in it's cast. Shyamalan's self-aggrandizing mega-cameo aside, there are some solid performances here. Giamatti makes the most of barren material. Supporters Balaban and Choudhury are deeper and more real than the story itself, and Bill Irwin is wasted in his small role.

But the work of these excellent actors cannot save a film from sinking, when it is built on a foundation of sand. There may have been enough story here. I think Shyamalan has a clear idea of the back-stories of each of the tenants. I think he has a rich and colourful image of the life of a Narf in his head. He shared none of it with us.

thwartme

[Evil Captor]

I revived this thread to say how much I enjoyed LitW. It had its flaws, but they were negligible compared to its strengths. To me, the story was about the way members of this oddball community in an apartment complex take on mythic roles when they encounter the supernatural. It was interesting to see ordinary human beings become elements in a mythology that most of them had never heard of. I particularly liked the way they frequently missed out on who was supposed to take on what role in the mythology because of their mundane preconceptions about who they were.

It had a great Tim Powers magic realism feel. My major problem was that I thought it should have tkaen a lot more hitting over the head with the supernatural for these regular folks to buy into it, or that they would tend to interpret in terms of their own supernatural (i.e., religious) beliefs.

Still, it was a pretty good movie, I'm looking forward to watching it on cable and seeing what more I can dig out of it.

[lissener]

It was one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. I wanted to make stickers for the renters at my video store: "Just when you thought The Village was the stupidest movie ever made."

[Tangent]

With much trepidation, I finally watched this the other day. I've heard only terrible things about it, but I have a crush on Bryce Dallas Howard so I was going to cave sooner or later. Bryce was great in The Village--too bad the rest of the movie sucked. She is wasted in Lady In The Water. The rest of the cast are engaging enough, and Paul Giamatti is excellent as usual, but that wasn't enough to save LITW for me.

Shyamalan has a knack for taking the basic themes, the atmosphere and mood, and the storytelling styles that I love (fairy tales, fantasy, mythology, magical realism) and he blends them all together hamhandedly into really terrible movies. It's been said many times before, but if he could put his ego aside and apply his directing talent toward a movie with a screenplay by someone who can actually write a good story, then he might be able to come up with a great movie. I won't hold my breath.

[blondebear]

It had a great Tim Powers magic realism feel. I would second that. Giamatti is good, Ms. Howard is luminous, and the film looks great. In my book, though, LITW is one of those films with a lot of style, but not the corresponding amount of substance.

[elfkin477]

It had a great Tim Powers magic realism feel.
I'm glad to hear you say that, since that's the sense I got of it as well: it was a poorly executed attempt at magical realism. Instead of correctly portraying the elements of magical realism, it became a movie about a man who puzzled people (at least those I saw it with, but I'm sure they had to have had company) when he seemed to far too quickly buy into Story's embodiment of a fairytale character for no apparent reason. The fact that he had to be convinced at all is where it failed; were it truly magical realism the magic simply would be rather than require an explanation.

I hope that this movie's lack of success is illuminating for Shyamalan. Each of his films has been worse than the last. Maybe with a few holes punched in his inflated sense of self-worth, he go back to writing movies that are decent rather than expecting people to love the ones that follow simply because they're his.

Still, I guess it wasn't a complete waste of the dollar I spent renting it. It's just that it could have been so much better.

[singular1]

Bleaugh. One of the very few movies I ever sent back without finishing. I just couldn't make it through the muddy, drawn-out mess.

[vivalostwages]

It was a mixed bag for me. I liked Giamatti and Howard a lot, and some of the elements were interesting, as well as some of the apartment dwellers. Too much of it was silly, however. Too bad.

[Evil Captor]

I guess I was better prepared to enjoy the movie because I've read Powers and Crowley and Zelazny and other of the better fantasy writers. Granted LitW wasn't as powerfully handled as their stories, but hell, not much is. The mythology involved was at least fresh and new, not another tired retread of vampires and werewolves and such. And the characters were interesting, if underdeveloped.

I'll watch it again but it doesn't strike me as a movie that you need to unravel on the first viewing. Maybe there's more there than I think there is, maybe there's less, but at least there's something, which is more than you can say about your average Tolkein retread.

[Argent Towers]

It was a mixed bag for me. I liked Giamatti and Howard a lot, and some of the elements were interesting, as well as some of the apartment dwellers. Too much of it was silly, however. Too bad.

Yeah, if I'm going to watch a movie with a fantasy setting I like for it to be less silly, and if it is going to be silly I don't want everyone in the movie to be so damn serious about all the silliness. "Narf?" Could they have come up with a worse name for a creature as graceful as Howard's character? Yet spoken with a completely straight face by all the characters. And the whole thing with "Heep" (another silly name) mis-identifying the roles of the tenants who are supposed to help Story was a really lame twist (I got the impression that it was supposed to be some kind of big surprise.) None of the characters were well developed, as Evil Captor said, but even if they were, I still wouldn't have liked the movie.

Shymanamalamamanalamamana,aamamamanamanamanaman is a hack.

[Terrorcotta]

I've always liked MNS's movies for the richness of the visuals and ideas but I don't bother inviting my brain to the show. I just go along with the story. The Village stopped me cold when they sent a blind girl into the woods with nothing more than some directions on how to get out but I still watched it a few times on cable just to make sure I hadn't missed something (I hadn't).

For the MNS detractors there are no more movies in production from him in any capacity (from the IMDB).

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

I actually liked it quite a bit.
It was very silly, but it looked to me that it was supposed to be silly.
I actually laughed out loud during some parts, but wasn't sure I was supposed to.
I think I am going to watch it again tonight and look at it as a sort of magical, fairytale comedy.
Maybe that will make it more clear what type of movie it is.

[Terrorcotta]

My bad, there is some talk of MNS directing the movie version of "Avatar: The Last Airbender".

Ooops!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31186

[smiling bandit]

The mythology involved was at least fresh and new, not another tired retread of vampires and werewolves and such. And the characters were interesting, if underdeveloped.

Actually, when was the last time anyone did try for a decent vampires or werewolves film. Sure, they drop the odd "CGI substituing for plot" flick on us with a vampire or werewolf or something in place of the Alien (from the Sigourney Weaver flicks). And they keep doing medoicre slasher and "chainsaw massacre: flicks.

But when was the last time anyone did an actualy horror movie? Interview with the Vampire?

[WhyNot]

I liked it, but it was my least favorite of his films (yep, I'm the one person in America who like The Village.) It sort of reminded me of a Charles DeLint novel, in the way the fantasy was just part of reality in a pretty casual way, without wasting time on heaps of skepticism.

But, and this is just the silliest nit ever picked, the names "narf" and "scrunt" bugged the shit out of me. Not just because they're stupid sounding, but because they supposedly came from a Chinese fairy tale, and those sounds just aren't anything like anything I've heard out of a Chinese person, nor were they spoken by the actual Chinese woman in her tale! If the daughter was translating, why not "nymph" and "murderous Chia pet?" OK, sorry, "Grass Wolf" or something?

Her hair got lighter as her makeup got paler and whiter. It started out very red and straight, went to lighter red and wavy. I think she was supposed to be "fading away" or something. Not entirely clear. But yes, when she was revived from near (or actual, it was unclear) death, her hair went from red and wavy to blond and straight. Then it got blond and wavy. Most annoying, with no explanation. It was never wet, even when she was in the water or the sprinklers or the shower.

But, for what it is (A Bedtime Story), I liked it. I don't think it's going to become the next Little Mermaid like MNS hopes, but I'm not sorry I spent the time watching it.

[Menocchio]

Here's my review from when I saw it:

t's okay. See it if you like stories about stories and have nothing better to do.

If you've heard me speak about M Night Shymalan's previous films, then you know how incredibly harsh a review that is. His other films rank among my favorite movies ever. They're suspensful, scary, thoughtful, and full of characters that seem like real people in fantastic situations. This one... Is kind of charming if you're willing to put up with the nonsense. But it lacks the polish and spark his previous works did. This is by far Shymalan's weakest film, which makes a disturbing trend since I said the same thing about both Signs and later The Vllage.

That's not to say that it lacked Shymalan's signatures, though.
Red signifying death? Check.
Water imagery? Oh, big check there, obviously.
Distracting appearance by the director in a secondary role of ego-stroking importance? Check. Although to be fair, his performance was good enough (unlike in Signs and the Village). If you didn't know who he was, he wouldn't stand out.
But seriously, the guy needs to break away from his own tropes. They've become predictable and trite.

As I mentioned before, one of the things I liked about his previous films is the verisimilitude of the characters and their reactions to the situation. I could believe the Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson were real people, and that they'd act the way they did. Not so here. The characters here are a collection of oddballs that all immediately accept their roles in acting out a bedtime story (no, seriously, it's always described as a bedtime story, never a myth or a legend, which lends an absurdity to the thing). None of them ever question it, they just accept that the naked girl is a "narf", and only they can fufill the ordained roles and save her from the "scrunt" (kind of a wolf made out of grass, in an uninspired CGI design).

Other works have approached movies about fiction or about archetypes with much more cleverness. There's an archness to Shymalan's writing here that's slightly annoying. He's winking to the camera almost constantly. There's even an unlikeable movie critic that lets Shymalan get some artistic revenge. The problem is that while many works strain the fourth wall or star people who are aware that they are fulfilling roles in some legend or archetype, they usually chose archetypes and stories that resonate through history, art, and the human psyche. Shymalan is just telling a bedtime story. It has no punch.

And that's it's real strength, too. The story, while ridiculous, is kind of charming. The oddity of the piece makes it enjoyable and worthwhile. It's a silly story that a parent would tell to his kids, but with scary CGI monsters and plotting that's supposed to be suspenseful, but isn't. It kind of works if you're willing to hear the exact same story you'd tell a ten-year-old.

As for the acting, Paul Giamatti does what he can with what he's given, and Byrce Howard is ethereally beautiful.

To sum up again: decent, not great, which is a big disappointment given Shymalan's previous works.

[WhyNot]

I think it's worth pointing out that it's LITERALLY a bedtime story. This is a story Shyamalan told his kids at bedtime, that grew in scope over subsequent retellings until he decided to film it. So any similarity between this movie and a bedtime story is entirely intentional.

[mazinger_z]

I didn't read through this whole thread, I just saw the movie last weekend. I like it better than Signs (weakest) and The Village, but nowhere near as strong as The Sixth Sense or my favorite, Unbreakable.

Anyway, I posted to comment on something I see in a lot of threads discussing movies. While your post certainly isn't the only one to point this out, it was just easiest to pick on None of them ever question it, they just accept that the naked girl is a "narf", and only they can fufill the ordained roles and save her from the "scrunt" (kind of a wolf made out of grass, in an uninspired CGI design). I hate it when people point out CGI flaws, or hate on a movie because it has CGI, as if CGI is any less real than props, or even the convention of the movie itself.

Just to point out even further, watch the DVD extras. There is no CGI in this film (well, not like we think when we see the Star Wars prequels). All the monsters were hand made with a bunch of animatronics placed in it, and a bunch more puppeteers to work them. This was some of the best special effects I have seen.

This movie failed for me because it didn't show the world from which the Lady comes from. A lot of the story is through exposition, and like the 6th Sense, he only tells us parts of the story to make the story flow, and introduces other parts of the story to explain why things didn't work out initially. But, I did like the kid reading the cereal boxes. That was pretty cool. But, like I said before, any sense of urgency was made completely by expostion, and not through action or consequence of action or inaction.