Lady In The Water Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Time is running out for a happy ending.
It's not under the bed.
It's not in the closet.
It's in the back yard.
Lullaby. And good fright!
Some stories are real.
The one-trick pony has done it again
A Bedtime Story
The super Cleveland Heep finds a woman swimming in the swimming pool of the condominium during the night; he slips, hits his head on the floor and faints in the water, and she rescues him. He discloses that she is a "Narf" called Story, a character of bedtime stories, that is chased by a "Scrunt" and she needs to return to her Blue World with an eagle. Cleveland convinces the tenants to help and protect Story.
| Paul Giamatti | Cleveland Heep |
| Bryce Dallas Howard | Story |
| Jeffrey Wright | Mr. Dury |
| Bob Balaban | Harry Farber |
| Sarita Choudhury | Anna Ran |
| Cindy Cheung | Young-Soon Choi |
| M. Night Shyamalan | Vick Ran |
| Freddy RodrÃguez | Reggie |
| Bill Irwin | Mr. Leeds |
| Mary Beth Hurt | Mrs. Bell |
| Noah Gray-Cabey | Joey Dury |
| Joseph D. Reitman | Long Haired Smoker |
| Jared Harris | Goatee Smoker |
| Grant Monohon | Emaciated Smoker |
| John Boyd | One-Eyebrow Smoker |
| M. Night Shyamalan |
6.10 out of 10 (22368 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Shyamalan at his all time low
posted on 28 Aug 2009Lady in the Water is the latest Shyamalan film about a "narf" (sea nymph) named Story (Bryse Dallas Howard) who came from the "Blue World" to guide mankind. The problem is that she needs to return to the Blue World on the back of a giant eagle however, her enemies are out to get her and it's up to a few people in an apartment complex led by Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) who were "destined" to help her to find these specific people so she can return to her world. The movie was presented as a fairy tale by Shyamalan, set in a modern day society.Firstly, let me just say that the score by James Newton Howard was brilliant. But the sad thing is that's about the only thing good in this movie. The acting in this film was average. Giamatti did his best with the very weak script he was given and Story's role was relatively easy to play. All she had to do was look mysterious. Everyone else were just... had no depth at all and little to no dialogue. That Korean girl's accent was really painful to listen to. Seriously why did Shayamalon feel the need to add in an Asian stereotype? I'm sure there are plenty of Asians to find who can speak perfect English. And oh yes, Shayamalon's acting was the worst ever. Grab anyone on the street and he would've done just as well if not better.The film being extremely pretentious didn't help either. First it paints movie critics in the most stereotypical way possible presenting Mr Farber as this cynical, unlikable character saying "there's no originality left in the world." Shyamalan even decided to have the dog kill him as a stab at all those who panned his last film "The Village". And then he casts himself as the writer who's book will one day inspire a kid to become the President of the United States of America and change the world, and as I've already mentioned, doing a very bad acting job as well. It's that's not pretentious, I don't know what is. The camera angles in this film were also very uninspired. It would stay in the same place for the longest time for no reason shooting at the back of someone's head while they speak. Sometimes the shot felt like it wasn't composed but instead Shyamalan just sort of placed it there so it could include everyone. The shots weren't pleasing to the eye, and people were often out of focus for no reason or too close to the camera. Shyamalan is really at his all time low because not only were his camera angles weird his dialogue were also very predictable. Heep, while talking to his dead wife about Story mentions "I thought she was... an Angel" and it really made me go "blah".And then there's the plot. It didn't make any sense. Everyone suddenly seem to believe this fairy tale with no questions asked. They just accept that all this magical stuff is happening. 3 minutes after Heep hears about the legendary magical stones he finds them with ease at the bottom of a pool. No one in the film found the fairy tale ridiculous or thought of bringing a gun to shoot the ridiculous moss dog. And I'm still amazed that an ancient story passed on in Asia for god knows how many generations will be so accurate, and even with all the English translations for the monster's names as well! Not the mention although this big change is supposed to take place very soon, no one cared to ask for just what exactly Vick wrote in his "cook book".As for character depth there is virtually none. We're packed with unrealistic situations and reactions from just about everyone. And the movie critic Mr Farber talking movie clichés and getting killed was just embarrassing. Almost made it seem like something that should appear in Monty Python instead! You know, self aware humour. Heep believed Story was a fairy from the blue world so quickly and so easily, not once questioning whether she could be a mental patient who escaped the hospital. There was very little conflict between anyone, everyone just sort of played their role and stood around waiting for their turn to speak.The film gets 4/10 because although it was crap it was watchable thanks for the brilliant music. But nothing from Shyamalan in this movie was even remotely good. Even the CGI for the monsters look like something Uwe Boll would use or cheap horror films from the 70s. So glad it won 2 Razzies! The world isn't blind after all!! 4/10
"Lady" a bit of a misstep, but not a crime.
posted on 26 Aug 2009First off, Shyamalan's taken an unfair beating lately. He's become Hollywood's new kicking boy. Before "Lady in the Water" was even previewed, Hollywood columnists were knocking it, predicting it was going to be a pooch and slamming Shyamalan as a self indulgent, pretentious egocentric. Why? Because he broke from Disney to make this pet project and decided to cast himself in a major role. So, obviously, he's lost his mind, right? Funny that nobody called George Clooney a self indulgent, pretentious egocentric when he decided to write, direct and cast himself in the overrated "Good Night, and Good luck." I guess the same could be said about Woody Allen, huh? Come to think of it, isn't Hollywood all about self indulgence anyway? Do you really think that Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or, even say, Robert Altman, aren't more than a little egocentric? Give me a break. Having vented that, I can honestly say that after seeing "Lady" it is a bit of a misstep for Shyamalan. That's not to say that there aren't good things on display here. His talent for creating moods and apprehension with silence is presented through a muddled story with a few too many characters. I admire, as I always do, his originality and confidence in taking risks with his leisure pacing and scenes with slightly off-kilter dialogue. He has some fun getting this "story" to present itself, but in the end, one feels that it doesn't add up to much. . . kind of like a bedtime story, I guess.
A very great movie.
posted on 24 Aug 2009I have read many comments here about this movie, and I had doubts about going to see this movie. But when I went to see this movie, I thought it was great! Many people do not realize what M. Night does in his movies. This is definitely an M. Night film. From the creatures to the story, this movie was very original and it flowed well from beginning to end. This movie contained many twists. It made me gasp! Overall its a great mythical story.This movie had many different moments. From very emotional moments to very frightening moments. The portrayal of the story was very well thought out. The acting in this movie was superb enough for people to enjoy.You must watch this movie NOT as a supernatural thriller or a horror movie, but as a mythical tale with deep meaning into it. This movie is VERY DIFFERENT compared to all of M. Night's movies.However, In technical terms, this movie had its flaws. The camera angles appeared a bit shaky in the near beginning of the movie, but improved near the end. The special effects surprisingly improved from his previous movies. The creatures looked well and the CGI was good. James Newton Howard really captured the moments with his moody and calm score.Overall, Lady in the Water is an enjoyable movie. Despite very small flaws, it is very well crafted and thought out. M. Night Shyamalan has once again succeeded.
A New Direction
posted on 24 Aug 2009First of all, I'll reiterate the premise of several other commenters I've seen on various sites---this movie is a fantasy, NOT a horror movie. I feel like a lot of the negative reactions I've heard from friends have revolved around unmet expectations in terms of shock value. What I found intriguing about this particular film was that M Night managed to tie a lot of the themes from his other movies into a very different kind of film than his previous works. The general idea behind his crazy twists seems to be the unpredictability of life. If you've seen this most recent film, I think M Night's general point about the unpredictable, often serendipitous nature of our world is solidified by his choice of who dies in the movie. The bottom line: life is unpredictable, it has no formula. We all get our fair share of curve balls, and often what we think we know of life gets flipped upside down or just thrown into the garbage can. Shymalan's choice of several smaller twists rather than one large twist in this film reflects well the overall message. While I did find some of the monster moments a bit over the top, its completely excusable because again, we're dealing with chance, not mathematics. A totally mathematical, rational, scientific world is boring, and M Night assures us that we don't live in one like that. While we don't live literally in a world of monsters, creatures etc. (as far as I know), we do live in a place dictated by something more magical/fantastic than what that movie critic character likes to believe. And while there is room for some fantasy, some magic, some chance, then there is also room for hope. And so that is M Night's magic, and while I won't call it the best movie I've seen this year, I will call it a film of hope, and a lighter, more positive endeavor on the director's part.
Part Real. Part Fable. All Night.
posted on 22 Aug 2009M. Night Shyamalan's *Lady in the Water* is truly what it sells itself as – a bedtime story; make-believe of the highest order, taken with a generous pinch of sandman salt and a mountainous suspension of disbelief.Artfully woven, beautifully shot and accidentally involving, this movie solidifies writer-director-actor Shyamalan as a tale-telling talent akin to Stephen King, a director rivaling the eye of Spielberg - and an actor only slightly better than Keanu Reeves.Yet, redemption. Regarding his thespianic dabblings, I've got two words for Night's naysayers: Darth Vader. Though he is far from usurping the thrones of Oldman or Ford, Night need only display *two* emotions on screen to put him miles above the Christensens and Cruises - and he pulls off his emotionally-draining role in *Lady* quite commendably.Up against Paul Giamatti, he has to. As Night is the new breed of fantasist, turning Hollywood's formulaic swill in on itself, so too is Giamatti – through sheer talent – redefining the new breed of leading man. In *Lady*, Giamatti mines his well-known, put-upon Everyman character, yet taps into acting territory reserved for the De Niros, Hoffmans and Day-Lewises. Playing a lonely, stuttering caretaker – and making it look as painful as it must really be (a stutterer AND a caretaker) - he turns in a gutsy performance that makes all his awards for *Sideways* and *Cinderella Man* sit that much more securely on his shelf.Giamatti is Cleveland Heep, caretaker of an apartment complex called The Cove, which has raised the condition of Nothing Ever Happening to an art form. Into this lusterless community, up through the swimming pool, comes Story (Bryce Dallas Howard, daughter of director Ron), one of an ancient race of Sea People, called a narf (which translates as "great legs, but a face like Richie Cunningham"), whom Cleveland keeps finding naked in his shower, quickly buying her tale of being sent to mystically jog the inspiration of surface people (the nakedness only helps).The narf legends are intermittently revealed through one of the Cove residents: apparently, Story must gather together a group of prophesied icons such as The Guild, The Healer, The Wordsmith - but lands a coterie of Batman villains instead, in the form of The Whiner (Giamatti), The Puzzler (Jeffrey Wright) and The Stoners (a bunch of surfer dudes).Even as a patch of Big Bad Astroturf stalks her – all the better to scrunt you with, my dear! – Story, with Cleveland's unintentionally-comedic help, discovers The Writer (who is actually – wink wink - The Director) whom her presence inspires to complete a magnum opus which will "change the world." By casting himself as The Writer, Night brings down the wrath from all walks of entertainment wannabes (critics, directors and writers alike), who begrudge Night this indulgence of Ego and frankly, I'm getting sick of the hypocrisy – who gets anything done *without* Ego?! It's all ABOUT Ego. As Gene Simmons so astutely sneers, "You wish you were me." Try looking on the bright side of Night's humble, Homeric character – it may be the only time we'll ever hear him say he is "nothing special." *Lady* works effectively as long as we believe that Cleveland believes wholeheartedly in Story's veracity - but convincing one lonely, balding man you're a magical sprite can't be that hard with legs like those; we are distracted minimally when *everyone* buys into the fairy tale as readily as Cleveland. The Night sleight-of-hand is employed just when we feel secure with the story's predictability - what we thought was a plan coming together was merely misdirection. We recall Night's notoriously subtle foreshadowing - how he merely pencils in, rather than hammers home - and realize that he has once again concealed his mystery in full sight.The failing of the movie is in its less-than-compelling climax, for even when the plan DOES come together, we ask ourselves what exactly came together.Yet again – redemption: the stirring and stunning music of James Newton Howard dynamically spirits us into this world of twigs shaped like wolves and mermaids shaped like Twiggy, salving the wounds of weak plot; Giamatti provides a surprising amount of humor amongst the suspense, at times, overlapping the sublime and ridiculous; Night's film-making itself is a wonder to behold, with his penchant for making every frame count, his creative camera placements and artful use of out-of-focus shots.*Lady* even gives us a self-referential movie critic (Bob Balaban, whom some critics take as seriously as he satires them), who didactically elucidates "movie formula," specifically so that Night can show us how *Lady* ingeniously subverts that formula… As much as he is lauded by film *aficionados* and fans alike, an unsophisticated coterie obsessively maintains that unless an M. Night Shyamalan film contains a "twist" exactly like that in *The Sixth Sense*, it is worthless. Who made up *that* rule? Writing, acting, music, sound design, ingenious plot arcs matter not to these bent-parochial netherworlders. Either they need to get over their stone-stupid provincialism, or they need to get laid.Maybe one of the most poignant messages of *Lady in the Water* is that even the insignificant among us may have a significant role to play on some grander canvas. Unfortunately, only the "significant" will glean that message. While those who pule for twists and horror and moronically await *Sixth Sense Part II: The Seventh Sense*, or *Sixth Sense III: Ocean's Fifteen* should take my advice and get themselves a massage.And – like this movie – include a happy ending.(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)
Only truly talented filmmaker could make a movie this bad.
posted on 20 Aug 2009I have enjoyed every previous Shyamalan film, from "Wide Awake" to "The Village." But this one was totally out of control.Those who defend it say that you must get into the correct mood for it - you have to see it as a bedtime story. But children aren't stupid - how many kids do you know who could sit through a story like this being told to them without asking, "Why...?" every ten seconds? It seems like Shyamalan didn't have answers, so he kept inventing them as he went along, with plot constantly piling on top of itself faster than he could maintain it. The greatest bedtime stories are simple, interesting, and imaginative (Wizard of Oz, E.T., Mary Poppins). This one is so confusing and self-indulgent that I simply think that Shyamalan lost control of his ideas. He should have scaled down.Shyamalan has blasted film critics for liking "Signs" (his best film) and flogging his other work (which I guess means only "The Village" - all his other films got good reviews, did fine at the box office, and/or were nominated for awards). He said on his NPR interview, "They like my popcorn film, but they get upset when I try to make a film that has a message." Paradoxically, "Signs" has a GREAT message (looking for signs and meanings in all little subtle banalities of life), but I can't for the life of me figure out what message (if any) "Lady in the Water" has. OF COURSE we don't mind if you make a movie with a message, Mr. Shyamalan. Just tell it well.It takes a truly inspired filmmaker to make a film this ambitiously bad. I believe "Lady in the Water" is the "Zardoz" of our generation.
Couldn't wait for the lady to go back in the water!!
posted on 16 Aug 2009This plot was so ridiculous and plodding, I simply couldn't wait for apartment dwellers to figure out the so-called "mystery" of this silly fairy tale and get "The Lady" back in the damn water (so I could leave the theater and go home). I found the characters all to be most unlikeable and uninteresting. Personally, I like offbeat plots and science fiction, but I can only describe this script as silly, ridiculous, and totally laughable. The ads for this film said something to the extent that the movie will make you believe the unbelievable. That's a real joke. Shyamalan doesn't do that at all. I personally never bought into the story, and after two hours of a swimming pools with hidden underground caves, grass-backed wolves, and countless glassy-eyed, "I went to acting school for this" stares into space from the Lady in the Water named Story(Bryce Dallas Howard), I couldn't wait for the ending credits.
Disappointing
posted on 16 Aug 2009M. Night Shyamalan sadly hasn't hit one out of the ballpark since his first movie, "The Sixth Sense." "Unbreakable" came close. But I keep watching his films with great anticipation only to leave the theater disappointed. "Lady in the Water" has some good moments, but ultimately falls short. Without writing spoilers, I can say the biggest flaws are the lack of suspense and the lack of character development of the "Lady." (Hey, even fairy tale characters have endearing quirks or charming qualities.) As to the first point, we know from the beginning the Lady will return to her world without much ado. The only surprises are the parts the other characters play in helping her do so. And while the supporting characters are amusingly eccentric, the Lady's character is so flat, I found I didn't really care if she got back to her world or not. Obviously the fairy tale is a backdrop for larger themes of healing and redemption but with little substance to the fairy tale, it simply comes off as a flimsy structure on which to hang "Author's Message." Shyamalan obviously loves Bryce Dallas Howard's face, as her endless close-ups reveal. Yet the actress isn't given much to work with here. At the same time, the director gives himself a larger role than usual, which I found distracting--he's not much of an actor, and I don't think we needed him in the film. Paul Giamatti shines in the leading role, and his performance brought tears to my eyes. True, there are poignant moments as well as a lot of humor in this film, but I left the theater feeling as though I'd eaten cotton candy--it was sweet, but not filling at all.7/28/06--Forgot to mention "Signs" as one of his best movies!
M. Night Spins Another Round of Nonsense
posted on 16 Aug 2009Paul Giamatti is a fine actor, and having met him personally I'm predisposed to give him a thumbs up when he does a great job as he did in The Illusionist. Herein, though, the job is hopeless in that Mr. M. Night has given him nothing but nonsense to work with.Mr. Giamatti plays a down-in-the-dumps super at a second class Philadelphia apartment building (which looks oddly like a cheap motel). He has good reason for his try-to-look-happy sulk; having lost his wife and children via an unspecified crime. One night he's cleaning the pool and is more-or-less attacked by a half-naked teenybopper (Bryce Dallas Howard) who happens to be a fish --- or at least one of the sea-men as opposed to land-men as the two teams apparently separated centuries ago.In a listless role, Howard is to communicate the lame old message of the '50's science fiction movies, e.g. Mankind Is Too Violent. (Gag me, please.) Not too bad because she forgets the Big Message, being pursued by a violent beast (like the wild boar in LOST) and some other animal that disguises itself as grass-sod (seriously!). It's possible some eagle (not a Philadelphia Eagle, but a mythical eagle) will save the day.Giamatti and the other inmates at the apartment complex set up a huge pool party in order to draw-out the boar-like beast and set the nymphet up for a trip home --- mission forgotten --- via the eagle. All this to fulfill a great pseudo-intellectual point which motivated very many moviegoers to vote this stinker a 10.This review makes no sense, I know that; because the movie makes no sense. Lines aren't connected; nothing adds up. Personally I've had my fill of mythical eagles, dragons, men with wings, the whole ball of wax that Hollywood has been trashing movies with throughout 2006.
Just Short of Awful
posted on 16 Aug 2009I was amazingly disappointed by this movie. How many incredible coincidences have to occur before someone says, "C'mon, man!". Suspending disbelief is something I enjoy. Suspending all reasonable thought is another.The plot, though complex, lacked depth. Conveniently, the movie relies on a character who can provide extraordinary detail about this legend, just when it is needed most. I guess three witches around a cauldron, or a voodoo woman casting chicken bones has been used too often.As a fan of "Sixth Sense" and "Signs", I would put this on a par with "The Village", which is not good.
Dominic Grenga
posted on 16 Aug 2009This was by far the worst movie I've ever seen. Everything about it was incredibly lame and seemed to be written by a child. I kept waiting or something good to happen, but nothing ever did. I thought my head was going to explode after watching it. I have never seen anything so bad in my life. The characters are called narfs and scrunts, which is lame enough. But they didn't have to have a little kid reading prophecies off of cereal boxes. If there was any effort to make a serious movie here, I certainly couldn't see it. If it was supposed to be a mockery of fairy tales, then that makes this even worse. Soul Power.
An unexpected fairy's tale.
posted on 14 Aug 2009I think the thing about this movie is that people may go in expecting it to be a weird horror/supernatural thriller. While it does have supernatural elements, its much more of, well, I guess a fairy tale. It's got some great scares but overall it will be enjoyed more if you know ahead of time your not going to be sitting on the edge of your seat.The theme of "finding your purpose" definitely is poignant in this day and age, I love all the self reflexive humor as far as story structure goes too.SFX were decent, not awe inspiring but good for what was required. The film is really about the characters though and their arcs. I'd say the film is much more for the introspective crowd than the hardcore comic kids who want plenty of screams.
This is NOT a Horror Movie
posted on 14 Aug 2009Most people were disappointed because this movie was more of a Fairy Tale than a Horror Movie, the trailers making the film portrayed as such. That may have been the fault of the studio/advertsers. I don't believe M.Night wanted this to be a horror flick. Basically he has created a Fairy Tale with his classic twist.The story deals with an apartment super discovering a mysterious woman in the complex's swimming pool. She turns out to be a creature from the "Blue World" (listen carefully to the prologue to understand this). She needs to contact special humans in order to return to her world. Other creatures wish for her NOT to return and will try to stop her at all costs. M.Night weaves a new approach to a scenario where the humans in the apartment complex learn to become their true potential in solving this "otherworld" mystery. Don't be put off by this being a Fairy Tale (it might be too scary to young kids) and look at HOW the story unfolds.
Do you believe mankind can be saved?
posted on 12 Aug 2009I was one of 50 or so afternoon matinée audience members to see this film on its first day of release. The experience of viewing it on the large screen was certainly highly worthwhile since it at times grabs and pushes you to moments of fear, sadness, and elation. Maybe it is a bit gimmicky and new age-ish for some people's passing judgment on it but I found it enthralling. The performances are top-notch as we see some physical transformation and special effects, much better than those in the director's SIGNS (2002), that keep us guessing whether our sense of movie conventions can be trusted or not. If I could tone down some aspects of it, I guess the music was a bit heavy to affect first-time viewers; the motley group that comprise the apartment complex population was quite a bit more harmonious than much of America 2006 (Year 5 of the "war on terror") is usually depicted in the mass media and in my circle of experience. I give a vote of confidence to this director who has invested a lot of hope in the salvation of humanity - - via myths - symbols - group problem-solving. I will be going back to see this film for a second and third viewing!
Bizarre...but that's not to say it wasn't a good watch
posted on 12 Aug 2009I really did like this movie. I have liked every single one of Shyamalan's movies thus far (yes, even "The Village"). I feel that critics are unjustly bashing everything about it...but, while I do love the movie, I can see why many would dislike it.I'm still not completely sure what the heck I watched...yes, I did love it. I loved the way it made me feel, the wonder and everything. However, it was really out there. It involved a water nymph with changing hair colors, a fat wolf with grass for fur, evil tree monkeys, a gigantic eagle, a guy that has one arm 4.5 inches buffer than the other, a punked out study-freak Asian teenage girl, and Paul Giamatti trying to pretend to be a kid by curling up in a couch after eating cookies and drinking milk. Yes...this is definitely not a typical movie, even for M. Night Shyamalan.I thought there were a few discrepancies with the plot...like, how did Story (wtf was with her name, anyway?) end up in the pool? How did nobody notice this door thing down there in stark daylight, yet Giamatti's character finds it in the middle of the night? However, the direction and cinematography more than make up for this. The wet, dreary atmosphere is present all throughout (with an undercurrent of wonder and oddness), and I loved every bit of it. The acting was great, although I was a bit surprised that Shyamalan's role was so big this time around. He was pretty good anyway, even though he wasn't given much to do.I will admit, however, that I burst out laughing at a few moments of the dialogue. When Giamatti awakens to Story, one of the first things she says is "Do you feel an awakening? It should feel like pins and needles". Now THAT line had me howling. And the terms for the creatures alone were pretty out there... "narf" and "scrunt". They're pretty funny words. But, I guess that doesn't matter.Another criticism would definitely be the critic character. His character stuck out like a sore thumb, was completely misplaced, and his death scene was just...bad. I can stretch my mind for some logic, but his dialogue in this scene was just inexcusable. I was like "Good lord...just shut up and die already." And that's not a good thing.All in all, I thought it was a pretty captivating film (also with a great score) with an interesting message about humanity and an outstanding fairy tale type of mood (and no...not the sweet Disney sugar-coated fairy tale type). I do recommend it, but don't go into it expecting anything. Because there's really nothing to expect. This film is such a mish-mash of completely new subjects and is so outlandish that you shouldn't go into it expecting anything. If you do, you may be disappointed. I went into it not knowing what to expect...and I'm pretty glad I did. If I was expecting a straight-up fantasy or a horror film, I would have been let down in both departments.Just don't have any prior thoughts, see the movie, and wonder about it. Whether or not you like it, you will have to admit that it has some sort of affect on you, be it the atmosphere or the odd situations. It's certainly not a movie you will forget any time soon.
Don't like the genre labels mislead you.
posted on 12 Aug 2009I was very skeptical about buying a ticket to see another M. Night movie... I liked the Village better than most people, but still thought it was definitely lacking, so I wasn't sure what to expect from his newest film. Finally I decided to watch it, and found it to be a surprisingly entertaining movie! The story presented to us isn't a horror movie, it isn't a psychological thriller, it isn't even a mystery. It's just a nice story, with some good moments and laughs and interesting characters. That being said, it's important to note that Paul Giamatti held this movie together. I especially liked some of the supporting characters, but they would have been out of place without a strong lead. Without him the story (which being a fantasy is already slightly unbelievable) would not have been accepted by the audience. The plot could have had Easter Bunny fall from the sky and steal all the chocolate in the world, but somehow that would have been okay as long as we got to see the stuttering Heap's reactions and emotions.Bottom line: don't sit down to watch this movie with any prejudices or previous expectations. Sit down, and watch each minute as it passes. It may not be what you thought it would be, and some people may be disappointed by that. However, this movie is genuinely entertaining, and I challenge anyone to watch it without smiling at least once.
Help me to understand...
posted on 10 Aug 2009I enjoyed the movie, but I have a few questions. 1) who kept turning on the sprinklers? Was it the lady, because she was safer around water, or was it the dog-creature to further his camouflage? 2) What exactly was up with the 3 monkeys? The old woman (through translation) basically said they were 'so evil', and that they helped to enforce the 'rules'. Well, where were they throughout the movie when the dog broke the rules and tried to attack? And, if they are pure evil, then why are they not attacking the lady? 3) The guy that ended up being the 'guardian', the one that only worked out on half his body. Once they revealed that he was the 'guardian' I thought for sure that his 'strong half' would be used to help kill the dog or something, but it wasn't. What was the whole purpose of the weight lifting crap? Just to throw us off? I guess that's it. Can anyone enlighten me, or give me some opinions?
Actually not bad
posted on 10 Aug 2009I avoided this movie after hearing the horrible reviews and being utterly disgusted with The Village. This movie was surprisingly pretty good. I liken this movie to Signs in which I didn't really GET it until the second viewing, so I suspect not everyone GOT this movie either. While the movie is a "bedtime story", I also took it as a meta analysis of literary criticism as a whole, not just on M.Night's work in particular. Who is to say what a writer meant when he wrote a character or a scene? Only the writer can and one can't assume all classic conventions of storytelling always have to occur (hence the critics erroneous analysis of his possible fate).I only have 2 complaints: 1)there were so many characters in this movie, you could easily completely forget about them until they were pulled out in the end. 2)directors should only do cameos, not be a necessary character to the plot. I just didn't buy the "actor" or character as writing something as influential as creating a world changing movement in consciousness.M. Night's movies have been promoted as being "scary" and with a twist. This could potentially be his downfall as this movie has neither. It is mostly character driven and for the ADHD audiences, this movie would be too slow and boring. Too bad.
Better than I was expecting
posted on 08 Aug 2009I loved this movie. I don't know what all the fuss was about. I read a lot of bad reviews before I saw it so I was expecting it to be awful but it turned out to be a great combination of comedy and suspense. Even though the story line was somewhat predictable I was entertained throughout the film. The characters were interesting and real. They could easily be people I know. You don't see many fairy tales in films today and when you do they often seem cheesy but I feel this one worked. I watched it with my four kids and they really liked it as well. They caught on to most of the key themes presented. Overall, a fun and positive bedtime story.
Should have been labeled a comedy
posted on 30 Aug 2009I wasn't expecting this movie to be very good, seeing that The Village (and I'm sure other movies Shyamalan is said to have written and directed) was stolen from other writers. I was hoping he would come up with something a little more "original" but its starting to look like he cant even write a script on his own without butchering someone else's story. But I guess if he's going to make a bad movie he might as well put his name on it and spare the original author the pain of admitting it was their idea in the first place.Shyamalan has obviously lost whatever "touch" I ever thought he had and I'm sorry I wasted my money and time. I don't think I will bother seeing another movie of his in theaters. I'm sure if the movie was labeled as a comedy I would have given him a higher vote.