Author Topic: Review: Lady in the Water  (Read 3302 times)

Spriggan

  • Administrator
  • Level 78
  • *****
  • Posts: 10582
  • Fell Points: 31
  • Yes, I am this awesome
    • View Profile
    • Legacies Lost
Review: Lady in the Water
« on: July 19, 2006, 06:31:03 PM »
http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1430&dep=4

And here he is trying to direct the next harry potter (he was the studio's original choice for the first movie).
Screw it, I'm buying crayons and paper. I can imagineer my own adventures! Wheeee!

Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding.


Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock

  • Level 57
  • *
  • Posts: 4591
  • Fell Points: 0
  • I Am Your Worst Nightmare's Dream
    • View Profile
    • Perfect
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2006, 06:52:27 PM »
What did you mean in the line: " Howard, who was easily the strongest element in The Village, brings a mixture of childlike innocence and ageless wisdom to her role."

Is this Howard's influence on the actor, or the beings known as narfs?
“NOTHING IS TRUE. EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.”
                William S. Burroughs

“Who needs girls when you’ve got comics?”
                Grant Morrison’s Flex Mentallo

Fellfrosch

  • Administrator
  • Level 68
  • *****
  • Posts: 7033
  • Fell Points: 42
  • Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder.
    • View Profile
    • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2006, 07:18:51 PM »
I think that's referring to Howard the actress not Howard the director.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." --Mel Brooks

My author website: http://www.fearfulsymmetry.net

Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock

  • Level 57
  • *
  • Posts: 4591
  • Fell Points: 0
  • I Am Your Worst Nightmare's Dream
    • View Profile
    • Perfect
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2006, 07:27:27 PM »
Mmmm... that would make more sense. However, he does mention Ron Howard in that paragraph so it threw me off.
“NOTHING IS TRUE. EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.”
                William S. Burroughs

“Who needs girls when you’ve got comics?”
                Grant Morrison’s Flex Mentallo

Entsuropi

  • Level 60
  • *
  • Posts: 5033
  • Fell Points: 0
  • =^_^= Captain of the highschool Daydreaming team
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2006, 09:13:29 PM »
Good review.

I think the clocks are a little out - the review was more positive than I expect from a 3.5. Thats traditionally been 'it's ok but don't go out of your way for it'. While the review seemed more like a 4 to me - 'good, but not going to be remembered as a great'.

Also, we could have done with a few hyperlinks scattered around this review - mainly to Shalymans other movies, which were referenced repeatedly. Movie links should be to our reviews of them, rather than to imdb.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2006, 09:17:58 PM by Charlie82 »
If you're ever in an argument and Entropy winds up looking staid and temperate in comparison, it might be time to cut your losses and start a new thread about something else :)

Fellfrosch

House of Mustard

  • Level 44
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Fell Points: 3
  • Firstborn Unicorn
    • View Profile
    • robisonwells.com
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2006, 11:03:51 PM »
Am I the only person who found The Village enjoyable?  Sure, the twist was dumb, but the tone (the "feel") was incredible.  The cinematography was wonderful.    The characters were great.  I get the feeling that most bad reviews of the movie were based more on ongoing frustration with Shyamalan's formula than on the movie itself.

(Note: I'm certainly not saying that it was a four star movie, but I can't see it as anything less than three.)
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.

www.robisonwells.com

Nessa

  • Administrator
  • Level 32
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Fell Points: 5
  • Giving life to demon spawn since 1999
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2006, 11:14:35 PM »
I liked the Village. I have my own copy I watch every once in a while. I like the romance, the tone, and the main characters. Signs was too scary for me, but the Village was just right (yes, I'm a fraidy cat).
"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter--'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."  -  Mark Twain

Check out my book reviews at http://elitistbookreviews.blogspot.com/

42

  • Staff
  • Level 56
  • *
  • Posts: 4350
  • Fell Points: 8
  • Unofficial World Saver
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2006, 11:37:11 PM »
I liked the Village. I think it was beautifully crafted. I didn't care for the twist ending, but the whole production was wonderful.

So I'm kind of torn about Lady in the Water. I like the atmosphere of Shayamalan's films, but I realize that he needs to work on his plotting. So it's wether or not I can put up with rumored bad plotting and just enjoy it for the quality craftsmanship.
The Folly of youth is to think that intelligence is a subsitute for experience. The folly of age is to think that experience is a subsitute for intelligence.

Patrick_Gibbs

  • Level 5
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Fell Points: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2006, 02:32:06 AM »
Quote
Good review.

I think the clocks are a little out - the review was more positive than I expect from a 3.5. Thats traditionally been 'it's ok but don't go out of your way for it'. While the review seemed more like a 4 to me - 'good, but not going to be remembered as a great'.

quote]


As far as the clocks are concerned, that's not up to me, but my definition of 3 star is "Solidly entertaining and worth seeing, but nothing to get too excited about." This was a seriously flawed movie, but in the end, I simply can't deny that I had a lot of fun with it.

As for "The Village," I enjoyed the atmosphere, but there were just SO MANY errors in judgement made by the writer/director. The scene with William Hurt and Bryce Dallas Howard (the Howard that I was referring to, though I see the basis for the confusion) in the woodshed, where we learned the secrets of the monsters, was one of the biggest missteps in movie history. Anyone who can put two and two together and not come up with 22 knew right then and there that the only logical reason for this deception was the fact that the story took place now. Consequently, there was no tension whatsover when Howard was being pursued by the monster, which we knew wasn;t really a monster. Now, if you edit out the woodshed scene alltogether, you'd still have a movie full of plot holes, but you'd at least have a twist that would have left you feeling surprised.

On the other hand, if you want to talk about logic, why the hell did this group of psuedo intellectuals choose to live their lives without penicillin? Does that really qualify as one of the evils of the outisde world? These people weren't Chrsitian Scientists, for crying out loud. They just thought society had become corrupt. They would have had to have a village doctor, and he would have been resonsible for going into town and getting resupplied now and again.

I mean, think about it: this was a fictional world they lived, one that seemed like one part "Little House on The Prairie," one part "The Crucible," and just a dash of Jim Henson's "The Dark Crystal" thrown in for good measure. Why go to so much effort to maintain the illusion of a specific time period? It wasn't for the benefit of the children of the town, but for the audience, so Capatin Ego could pull one over on the "howdedodats" in the audience, who are smarter than this jerk gives them credit for.
"It takes man to suffer ignorance and smile. Be yourself, no matter what they."
- Sting

fuzzyoctopus

  • Level 57
  • *
  • Posts: 4556
  • Fell Points: 0
  • fearsome and furry
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2006, 02:34:48 AM »
NINE percent on RT.  That's just... wow.
"Hr hr! dwn wth vwls!" - Spriggan

I reject your reality, and substitute my own. - Adam Savage, Mythbusters

French is a language meant to be butchered, especially by drunk Scotts. - Spriggan

Fellfrosch

  • Administrator
  • Level 68
  • *****
  • Posts: 7033
  • Fell Points: 42
  • Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder.
    • View Profile
    • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2006, 12:16:56 PM »
I've never seen The Village, primarily because I thought that Signs was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. I was very excited to hear that Lady in the Water was a break from the formula, but if it's not then that's very disappointing.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." --Mel Brooks

My author website: http://www.fearfulsymmetry.net

Parker

  • Level 12
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Well, what if there is no tomorrow?
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2006, 01:26:01 PM »
I can't help but think that the reason Shayamalan's movies are getting progressively worse in the eyes of critics is because they're getting sick of him as a director and person.  It's sad when a person's reputation begins to get in the way with the person's work, ala Michael Jackson.  I've liked all Shayamalan's films so far, and I think that if each of them had been released under a pen name or something, people would have been more wowed by them.  Sixth Sense got into the hype machine, and when Shayamalan emerged, I think the press had tainted him, turned him into something else.  Now that same press is criticizing a monster it helped to create.

Patrick_Gibbs

  • Level 5
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Fell Points: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2006, 01:51:42 PM »
Quote
I can't help but think that the reason Shayamalan's movies are getting progressively worse in the eyes of critics is because they're getting sick of him as a director and person.  It's sad when a person's reputation begins to get in the way with the person's work, ala Michael Jackson.  I've liked all Shayamalan's films so far, and I think that if each of them had been released under a pen name or something, people would have been more wowed by them.  Sixth Sense got into the hype machine, and when Shayamalan emerged, I think the press had tainted him, turned him into something else.  Now that same press is criticizing a monster it helped to create.


I see your point, but I think people would have watched those other movies and thought "their just trying to make another Sixth Sense." The stamp is unmistakable.

I think your accusation about the press helping to create a monster and then tearing it down is valid -  Tim Burton, Kevin Costner, Leo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck are all examples of this, just to name a few  - but the fact is, for whatever reason, Shymalan seems more concerned with his image than his his actual work.
"It takes man to suffer ignorance and smile. Be yourself, no matter what they."
- Sting

Paul_Gibbs

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Scorcese in '07
    • View Profile
    • www.laughingstock.us
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2006, 01:20:28 AM »
Quote
I've never seen The Village, primarily because I thought that Signs was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. I was very excited to hear that Lady in the Water was a break from the formula, but if it's not then that's very disappointing.


As science fiction, "Signs" is idiotic. From a pure science standpoint the idea of aliens who are destroyed by water is a blatant violation of the immutable laws of physics, which are the same on every planet. Any astrophycist who past 5th grade will tell there are two thing necessary to support life: Water, and energy. No, this couldn't be different because it's on a different planet. That's fairy tale thinking, and about as sound as "In Rand McNally they wear shoes on their heads and hamburgers eat people."

That said, as a character study, I thought "Signs" was by far Shyamalan's most compelleing film. It's the only one I've bothered to watch multiple times.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2006, 02:36:09 AM by Paul_Gibbs »
"So long, and thanks for all the fish."

FirstMateJack

  • Level 12
  • *****
  • Posts: 485
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Only one man can kill this many Russians.
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2006, 10:40:27 PM »
Quote


As science fiction, "Signs" is idiotic. From a pure science standpoint the idea of aliens who are destroyed by water is a blatant violation of the immutable laws of physics, which are the same on every planet. Any astrophycist who past 5th grade will tell there are two thing necessary to support life: Water, and energy.



Hehe, then you take collgiate astrophysics and learn that the reason physiscists argue all of the time is because they disagree on these immutable laws.

Quantum tunneling came from the discovery that the sun is temperature is off for how fast the atoms are moving inside. Therefore they must just be jumping around without actually moving.

The scientists at ground zero for the first nuclear warhead were taking bets for whether or not they would start a fuse that would actually ignite the entire world. They decided it wouldn't. But if cold fusion were possible, it would have fused, and ignited the next atom, which would ignite the next would would etc......

Hehehe. when you get down to it, we really know nothing of physics. Ask a scientist or a professor.

This is a good one:

So, an object will do exactly what it did 5 seconds ago unless something acted on it. Everything was together (even time and space) before the big bang. What acted on the infinite mass to make it blow up?

"We don't know"

some physics we have not discovered?

Who knows.
Delicious! Like a tall cool glass of Nestle' Quik mixed in Orange Juice!