So I didn't see a thread about this movie. I watched it this weekend and wanted to get some opinions on it.
Have you watched it?
Will you watch it?
Would you watch it again? Where?
What did you think about it?
I watched it on Friday and I guess I would watch it again but not if I had to pay for it. Overall I thought the movie was decent and was helped out tremendously by the humor involved. The plot was easy to figure out once you factor in that it's an M Night Shamalan movie.
Surprise though, M Night is not a terrible actor and plays a fairly important role in the movie. I don't know how self aggrandizing that will come off as though. Because of his position in the movie and what his role will be further than that I felt it to be a little arrogant. Still. did a good job.
I don't think I'm going to see it. His other movies didn't impress me. 'The Village' wasn't very good, and I don't understand how this 'Lady in the Water' movie is getting all the raves that it is.
They're just not my kind of movies.
I'm hoping to see the movie very soon. But I prolly will have to wait until I get back on campus and get a friend to DL it for me. I'm a big fan of M. Night. I, unfortunately, haven't seen the Unbreakables or whatever its called. But other than that, I have liked all of his movies so far... thats right, including the village.
I was a little dissappointed when I saw the trailor for it. I didn't want advertising for it, and I'm pretty sure M. Night didn't want any either. The trialors always attract people who are looking for a horror film, but with M Night, you have to think and horror film fans don't like to think or atleast don't expect to. That was the problem with the Village. It wasn't made to be scary, but the trailor made it look like it was so it attracted the wrong audience and made a lot of people dissappointed.
Hopefully I'll see it soon, I dont go to the movie theatres, though. Haven't been since LoTR: Return of the King, and before that Sixth Sense. So I guess in one month..... yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I didn't mind it, the fact that he played a role in his own story really sucked. I think its HELLA better than the village but has nothing on UNBREAKABLE!!!
M Night has always been a character in his own films. Signs? He was the guy that ran over the father's wife. In the village he was the guy in the building at the end (i forget what they are called). I dont remember about the others and I havent seen the unbreakables, so it isn't unusual for him to star in his own movies. Ithink it's just his way of making the story he is telling a little more personal, because what he is portraying through his art is personal, he's just adding to it.
M Night has always been a character in his own films. Signs? He was the guy that ran over the father's wife. In the village he was the guy in the building at the end (i forget what they are called). I dont remember about the others and I havent seen the unbreakables, so it isn't unusual for him to star in his own movies. Ithink it's just his way of making the story he is telling a little more personal, because what he is portraying through his art is personal, he's just adding to it.
I don't mind it when they don't make themselves the focal point of their films. Tarantino usually gives himself very minor roles (Mr. Brown, Jimmie). Shyamalan, from what I understand as I haven't seen this film, gives himself a role of someone who basically changes the world. Self-service much?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
When he was in the others, he had a minor character of the guy who killed the priest's wife (he wasn't in many scenes). In the village, he was only shown at the end as the chief. They are not major roles, sure they may have a supstancial effect on the story, but it isn't like he was the lead character....
I am saying this with out ever seeing Lady in the Water... atleast not yet.
When he was in the others, he had a minor character of the guy who killed the priest's wife (he wasn't in many scenes).
Signs is the movie you're thinking of, and while it's true that Shymalan did not have many scenes, he clearly cast himself in the most important role in the film. The core issue of signs was that the Mel Gibson character was a preacher who had lost his faith after his wife's death... a death caused by the Shymalan character. Directors giving themselves small parts is OK, but the most pivotal role in the movie? Sorry, that's just ego-stroking.
I have not seen this movie yet, and I'm not sure I will. It doesn't look that frightening for one, and his other movies weren't that good. Especially if it has a love story instead of what it is supposed to be.
I'm not a big fan of his work, but I ****ing LOVED Unbreakable. It was definately a great movie. Signs was pretty good too, but the rest of his work did not impress. I'll probably wait until this come out on DVD and rent it.
This was definitely the worst movie I have ever seen. Some parts I laughed at the ridiculousness of it. That was the most complex bedtime story I have ever seen.
If you've ever seen the first commercial for that movie, it is more of a movie like "The Chronicles or Narnia" where it somewhat has violence, but it a younger type of movie.
I found it hill-ar-i-ous (repeat) hill-ar-i-ous to watch the commercials after that. They completely turned it around and made it look like a horror movie. So incredibly pathetic. The title "Lady in the Water" isn't going to scare anyone other than a 2-year old goody-goody little girl. The girl's voice for the commercials is so incredibly non-scary. She tries to make herself sound frightening, but my lil' bro, sis, and I are throwing popcorn and soda at the tv and screaming "You freakin suck so get your little girly voice off of the tv!".
@Tneill: There in lies the problem. As i said before, the company or whoever is in charge of creating the trailors advertise his movies completely wrong and it leads to people being pissed. They should show a trailor showing the movie for what it is, not what the public wants it to be; cause if they do that, everyone will hate the movie.
Signs is the movie you're thinking of, and while it's true that Shymalan did not have many scenes, he clearly cast himself in the most important role in the film. The core issue of signs was that the Mel Gibson character was a preacher who had lost his faith after his wife's death... a death caused by the Shymalan character. Directors giving themselves small parts is OK, but the most pivotal role in the movie? Sorry, that's just ego-stroking.
Odd... I remember writing that post and thinking to myself "thats not the others, what am i thinking!" so i thought i went back and changed it... oh well, guess not.
Anyways, i dont really see how you can say that M. Night's character is a "pivotal role". Sure he played a part in the movie, but he wasn't the dad, he wasn't the uncle who killed the aliens, he wasn't the wife, he wasn't the little boy who almost died, etc. Perhaps there is some kind of poetic translation for his role... killing a man's hopes and dreams.. idk. But think about the village how he was the guy at the end who helped the girl out and helped her realize what was going on. He was telling this girl who lives in some outside culture from with-in about the "real world" sort of... so maybe he figured since he was the producer and it was his idea that he had to put himself in a position where he would be the one to help this girl adapt or something.... I really have no clue.
My point is i dont see M. Night's role as pivotal in Signs. His wife could have died anyway possible, M. Night just saw fit to include another character... the movie could have easily have went on with out him.
As for the poetic meanings? Just an idea... a very rough one but possible.
(Warning: This post may contain spoilers for the movie. If you want to go see the movie without being spoiled, then don't read this post).
I have mixed feelings for Lady in the Water. On one hand, it was pretty different from other movies of his. Giving himself a significant role in this one. I don't mind that he did that, I don't think he's being arrogant by doing that. If you've seen the movie, Story (that how you spell her character name?) tells him he's probably going to die before inspiring anybody to change the world from what it is now to something better. I liked those stoner dudes who where 'supposed' to be the guild, not really sure why. Guess it was because they were a little funny.
On the other hand, I kinda thought it was not up to snuff with the other movies he's made. Like it felt kinda corny in ways (kinda like how the title of the movie is a little corny). I did think some parts where hilarious like the part where the monster thing (forget its name) kills the critic guy. It also had an atmosphere kind of like in The Village where no one really shows emotion. I liked The Village, but I don't think this movie should've had any of that if you know what I'm talking about.
I saw the movie for only 3 bucks. Yep. That's right, 3 bucks. Was on vacation in upstate New York when I saw it. It was a cheep movie theatre where all movies where 3 bucks a ticket. Not bad. Saw Miami Vice in there as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Redington, Omniscient God of Bogles
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Have you watched it?
Will you watch it?
Would you watch it again? Where?
What did you think about it?
I watched it on Friday and I guess I would watch it again but not if I had to pay for it. Overall I thought the movie was decent and was helped out tremendously by the humor involved. The plot was easy to figure out once you factor in that it's an M Night Shamalan movie.
Surprise though, M Night is not a terrible actor and plays a fairly important role in the movie. I don't know how self aggrandizing that will come off as though. Because of his position in the movie and what his role will be further than that I felt it to be a little arrogant. Still. did a good job.
Discuss!
They're just not my kind of movies.
I was a little dissappointed when I saw the trailor for it. I didn't want advertising for it, and I'm pretty sure M. Night didn't want any either. The trialors always attract people who are looking for a horror film, but with M Night, you have to think and horror film fans don't like to think or atleast don't expect to. That was the problem with the Village. It wasn't made to be scary, but the trailor made it look like it was so it attracted the wrong audience and made a lot of people dissappointed.
Hopefully I'll see it soon, I dont go to the movie theatres, though. Haven't been since LoTR: Return of the King, and before that Sixth Sense. So I guess in one month..... yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Thanks to Craven at Epic Graphics!
that's all i'm gonna say on the matter.
Bazaar of wonders
Werd,
Thanks to Craven at Epic Graphics!
I always thought it was a Hitchcock thing.
people i know say its stupid
and i wont go see it
Quentin Tarantino has put himself in a few of his movies as well. I like when directors do that.
I am saying this with out ever seeing Lady in the Water... atleast not yet.
Thanks to Craven at Epic Graphics!
Signs is the movie you're thinking of, and while it's true that Shymalan did not have many scenes, he clearly cast himself in the most important role in the film. The core issue of signs was that the Mel Gibson character was a preacher who had lost his faith after his wife's death... a death caused by the Shymalan character. Directors giving themselves small parts is OK, but the most pivotal role in the movie? Sorry, that's just ego-stroking.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
It was cool, but I probably wont see it again.
[thread=45652][/thread][thread=44005][/thread][thread=15718][/thread]
TOTEM Count: 8 No Foils
I would have payed $8 to not have seen it.
If you've ever seen the first commercial for that movie, it is more of a movie like "The Chronicles or Narnia" where it somewhat has violence, but it a younger type of movie.
I found it hill-ar-i-ous (repeat) hill-ar-i-ous to watch the commercials after that. They completely turned it around and made it look like a horror movie. So incredibly pathetic. The title "Lady in the Water" isn't going to scare anyone other than a 2-year old goody-goody little girl. The girl's voice for the commercials is so incredibly non-scary. She tries to make herself sound frightening, but my lil' bro, sis, and I are throwing popcorn and soda at the tv and screaming "You freakin suck so get your little girly voice off of the tv!".
It's pathetic and I wouldn't dream of seeing it.
no offense to anyone who actually liked it.
I love you Krashbot!
My H/W List/Coffeehouse/Psychic Graphics/Go Extendo!
Odd... I remember writing that post and thinking to myself "thats not the others, what am i thinking!" so i thought i went back and changed it... oh well, guess not.
Anyways, i dont really see how you can say that M. Night's character is a "pivotal role". Sure he played a part in the movie, but he wasn't the dad, he wasn't the uncle who killed the aliens, he wasn't the wife, he wasn't the little boy who almost died, etc. Perhaps there is some kind of poetic translation for his role... killing a man's hopes and dreams.. idk. But think about the village how he was the guy at the end who helped the girl out and helped her realize what was going on. He was telling this girl who lives in some outside culture from with-in about the "real world" sort of... so maybe he figured since he was the producer and it was his idea that he had to put himself in a position where he would be the one to help this girl adapt or something.... I really have no clue.
My point is i dont see M. Night's role as pivotal in Signs. His wife could have died anyway possible, M. Night just saw fit to include another character... the movie could have easily have went on with out him.
As for the poetic meanings? Just an idea... a very rough one but possible.
Thanks to Craven at Epic Graphics!
I have mixed feelings for Lady in the Water. On one hand, it was pretty different from other movies of his. Giving himself a significant role in this one. I don't mind that he did that, I don't think he's being arrogant by doing that. If you've seen the movie, Story (that how you spell her character name?) tells him he's probably going to die before inspiring anybody to change the world from what it is now to something better. I liked those stoner dudes who where 'supposed' to be the guild, not really sure why. Guess it was because they were a little funny.
On the other hand, I kinda thought it was not up to snuff with the other movies he's made. Like it felt kinda corny in ways (kinda like how the title of the movie is a little corny). I did think some parts where hilarious like the part where the monster thing (forget its name) kills the critic guy. It also had an atmosphere kind of like in The Village where no one really shows emotion. I liked The Village, but I don't think this movie should've had any of that if you know what I'm talking about.
I saw the movie for only 3 bucks. Yep. That's right, 3 bucks. Was on vacation in upstate New York when I saw it. It was a cheep movie theatre where all movies where 3 bucks a ticket. Not bad. Saw Miami Vice in there as well.