A24 4,347 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Hey, I liked F.M. Shaballabiah's new film. It's the first time he didn't take himself so damn seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The Good Shepherd: Disappointing, conventional, tame (ball-less) and forgettable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Hey, I liked F.M. Shaballabiah's new film. It's the first time he didn't take himself so damn seriously. And I'M the one with questionable taste.The Good Shepherd: Disappointing, conventional, tame (ball-less) and forgettable. Yes, yes, yes and extremely yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Yes, I like the fact that Shymatahara has the guts to parody himself. What I find questionable is that people around here always want to see/hear what they already have seen/heard so many times before. People, you already have seen Signs! You already have heard Raiders of the Last Ark! When are fans going to understand that artists evolve and change? I'm glad Shabalamyas did something that was not expected of him and in the process he showed he can actually do an ensemble piece. Bravo to him. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I have not seen Lady in the Water, but I do agree that people (and not just here) seem to want just more of the same. Everyone wants to hear another 70s or 80s score from Williams. It's just not going to happen. Another example might be Casino Royale, where many people claimed it was rubbish and "not a Bondmovie," because "it didn't even have Q [or most of the other elements] in it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Hey, I liked F.M. Shaballabiah's new film. It's the first time he didn't take himself so damn seriouslyYes, I like the fact that Shymatahara has the guts to parody himself. What I find questionable is that people around here always want to see/hear what they already have seen/heard so many times before. People, you already have seen Signs! You already have heard Raiders of the Last Ark! When are fans going to understand that artists evolve and change? I'm glad Shabalamyas did something that was not expected of him and in the process he showed he can actually do an ensemble piece. Bravo to him.. . . . .Well, I guess I should thank you for that...I never have to give an ounce of credibility to anything you have to say, ever again!Ray Barnsbury - who wonders how it's possible to "evolve" from a competent filmmaker into an absolutely terrible one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Yes, I like the fact that Shymatahara has the guts to parody himself. What I find questionable is that people around here always want to see/hear what they already have seen/heard so many times before. People, you already have seen Signs! You already have heard Raiders of the Last Ark! When are fans going to understand that artists evolve and change? I'm glad Shabalamyas did something that was not expected of him and in the process he showed he can actually do an ensemble piece. Bravo to him. Alex All this would be great, if he intended to parody himself. I do not believe he did. I believe he was entirely earnest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Well, I guess I should thank you for that...I never have to give an ounce of credibility to anything you have to say, ever again!Ray Barnsbury - who wonders how it's possible to "evolve" from a competent filmmaker into an absolutely terrible oneDon't worry, he probably be up to his old tricks again with his next film. And Ray, I haven't read a post from you in years. Did you evolve yet? Or are you still pottering around in your small world?AlexAll this would be great, if he intended to parody himself. I do not believe he did. I believe he was entirely earnest.Well, it's your right to believe that, of course, but to me it was pretty clear. It's the very reason why I liked it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Everything I've seen about the film, including all interviews by all people involved, imply that Shyamalan was totally earnest. The look of the film and the score further enforce that. The movie may be so bad it's good, but knowing Shyamalan's track record, I do not see how it could possibly be a parody. The only attempt at anything approaching parody of anything was with Bob Balaban, and that was just painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
publicist 4,643 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Everything I've seen about the film, including all interviews by all people involved, imply that Shyamalan was totally earnest. The look of the film and the score further enforce that. The movie may be so bad it's good, but knowing Shyamalan's track record, I do not see how it could possibly be a parody. The only attempt at anything approaching parody of anything was with Bob Balaban, and that was just painful.All the brouhaha with the Disney people Shymalayan went through makes it pretty clear that he was serious after all.But if a parody was intended, it certainly was a costly endeavour. A one-person ratio (Alex) of entertained people does not ake for good business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 And Ray, I haven't read a post from you in years. Did you evolve yet? Or are you still pottering around in your small world?AlexWow, that's fantastic, I really missed those kinda posts during your absence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Everything I've seen about the film, including all interviews by all people involved, imply that Shyamalan was totally earnest. The look of the film and the score further enforce that. The movie may be so bad it's good, but knowing Shyamalan's track record, I do not see how it could possibly be a parody. The only attempt at anything approaching parody of anything was with Bob Balaban, and that was just painful.It seems that you really believe that I'm the only one who noticed a sense of parody in Lady In The Water. How many quotes do you want? I'm sure I'll find more quotes containing the word "parody" than you with the word "earnest". Could it be that the movie's playfulness is too subtle for you? I don't know. I remember I once said Star Wars was basically a Western and you replied to me that it wasn't because you didn't see a coach or horses or cowboy hats. When I say parody, do you automatically think "Scary Movie"?Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Lady in the Water had *way* too much ego stroking on Shyamalan's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 It seems that you really believe that I'm the only one who noticed a sense of parody in Lady In The Water. How many quotes do you want? I'm sure I'll find more quotes containing the word "parody" than you with the word "earnest".http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lady_in_the_water/http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/lady...n%20the%20water Forget the score. Forget positive/negative. The VAST majority of these people seem to believe that Shyamalan was earnest. You are actually the first person I've ever heard referring to it as an intentional parody. And, EVERYTHING all the actors and Shyamalan himself have said (that I've seen) not only have not implied that it's a parody in any way, but have generally gone right out and said that it was serious movie, with no ulterior motives. I don't think you have any legs to stand on. Now, I don't believe that a person is limited to the director's intentions, certainly. I know I've liked movies for reason that I haven't a clue if the director had in mind. But to say that Shyamalan delibiratly made the movie as a parody is a claim that I don't think you can back up in any way beyond your hunch. I remember I once said Star Wars was basically a Western and you replied to me that it wasn't because you didn't see a coach or horses or cowboy hats. I may be wrong, but I believe that is taken out of context. If it isn't, well, I've grown up since our original sparring. Of course Star Wars is a western. Oh, and no, I do not think parody is limited to Scary Movie. Although it certainly is a term applied generally to outright comedies. If it's more subtle, it's generally described as Satire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Lady in the Water had *way* too much ego stroking on Shyamalan's part.He always does that. At least this time he does it light-heartedly without the "take me seriously" attitude. Since I'm far from passionate about Shahabmarat I'm probably the only one who could see this movie for what it really was. All of you went in expecting the good ol' scares and twists, with other words, the same old, same old. It's no wonder you were disappointed! Did you read the reviews, Morlock? None of them feel a sense of parody? Are you sure? Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I read some of them. Please, point out the ones that say that Shyamalan was parodying himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I read some of them. Please, point out the ones that say that Shyamalan was parodying himself.I will, when I have more time. Meanwhile, why don't you post quotes from reviews that say that he wasn't parodying? Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Washington Post Desson Thomson If the ultimate goal is entertainment, then Lady in the Water enthusiastically rises to the task. In a movie laden with enough symbolism, shamanism and mythic lore to make Joseph Campbell dance a tribal jig, Shyamalan never forgets to have fun. Boston Globe- Wesley Morris There is a good chunk of Lady in the Water that is simply too well made and affectingly acted to dismiss as a mere exercise in arrogance. Empire- Ian Freer There is much pleasure to be had watching a born storyteller juggle more balls than even he can carry. The Hollywood Reporter- Kirk Honeycutt Shyamalan does project genuine menace and suspense into this mundane location, especially in nighttime scenes. But the magic that would transport you from reality into fantasy is missing. Rolling Stone- Peter Travers You leave Lady thinking there are still voices in Shyamalan's head well worth a listen. Newsweek- David Ansen Unfortunately, this narf's a drag: she talks like a fortune cookie and doesn't really do anything. Still, the multicultural cast is fun, the images have a painterly beauty and there are some beguiling comic touches before the story sinks into a swamp of solemn metaphysical glop. USA Today- Mike Clark The character played by lead Paul Giamatti is a dead-on Shyamalan protagonist: emotionally distanced and something of a train wreck. Chicago Reader- Jonathan Rosenbaum It's hard to think of a deadlier shotgun marriage than Jacques Tourneur's poetry of absence and Spielbergian uplift, but Shyamalan has patented the combo, adding pretentious camera movements that are peculiarly his own--even the jokes are pretty solemn. Miami Herald- Rene Rodriguez It lacks the simplicity and resonance of classic fairy tales: It's so muddled and belabored, it's hard to imagine the tykes ever staying awake long enough to hear how it all turned out. New York Daily- News Jack Mathews Lady, like all of Shyamalan's movies, is a slick production with consistently interesting visuals... But the story is so convoluted and ultimately preposterous that you're almost embarrassed by the earnestness of the actors trying to carry it off. New York Magazine- David Edelstein What's odd about Lady in the Water is that for all Shyamalan's histrionics, he's overcontrolled. Entertainment Weekly- Lisa Schwarzbaum Shyamalan's most alienating and self-absorbed project to date. Philadelphia Inquirer- Steven Rea Lady in the Water boasts an eclectic cast - almost entirely squandered. The Onion (A.V. Club)- Nathan Rabin Shockingly misconceived, poorly executed effort. Austin Chronicle- Marc Savlov There are moments of great beauty throughout (the film was lensed by Wong Kar-Wai cinematographer Christopher Doyle), and Shyamalan's heart is nowhere if not on his sleeve, but even these moments cannot steer Lady in the Water clear of its director's zealously over-earnest pretensions. LA Weekly- Scott Foundas Lady in the Water feels very much like something its author made up as he went along; and, if it weren't so damn weird, it would most certainly put you right to sleep. Time- Richard Corliss Lady doesn't work. Although he detonates a few terrific frissons involving the scrunt, the stabs at comedy are lurching and arrant. The spreading of tension from one character to many dilutes the mood. The would-be rapturous Spielbergian ending is on the wussy side. Variety- Brian Lowry A ponderous, self-indulgent bedtime tale. Awkwardly positioned, this gloomy gothic fantasy falls well short of horror. Chicago Tribune- Michael Phillips The film is a rogue hunk of hooey. ReelViews- James Berardinelli This is sloppy filmmaking, and it's likely to wipe away whatever luster still remains to Shyamalan's reputation. TV Guide- Maitland McDonagh The result is a soggy swamp of nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyahing, its only grace notes are Giamatti's fine, nuanced performance as Heep and Christopher Doyle's handsome cinematography. Charlotte Observer- Lawrence Toppman This isn't nitpicking. Every bit of the tale is as full of holes as a wool sweater at a moth convention, and Shyamalan telegraphs each potential surprise. Baltimore Sun- Michael Sragow If you're not a fan of M. Night Shyamalan's convoluted, teasing thrillers, you'll find that getting into this movie is like cracking a puzzle in which the constructor keeps breaking his own rules or grabbing new ones from ultra-thin air. New York Post- Lou Lumenick A charmless, unscary, fatuous and largely incoherent fairy tale.Wall Street Journal- Joe Morgenstern This cloying piece of claptrap sets a high-water mark for pomposity, condescension, false profundity and true turgidity -- no small accomplishment for the man whose last two features were the deadly duo "Signs" and "The Village." ......These are most of the quotes from MetaCritic. I've omitted about 4-5 of the reviews. One of the says that the movie is often funny, somtimes intentionaly, and another says: "It's as if on some semiconscious level, Shyamalan, who I do not doubt is a serious and self-serious pop-creative original, is calling his own success into question and daring his audience to gulp down larger and spikier clusters of manure, just to see if they will. Or he's lost his mind." (his was the lowest rating on the page). I eagerly await your set of quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Anyone who is misinterpreting Lady as an intentional parody is giving Night far too much credit...as Morlock has said, just read any review of the film, or more importantly, watch the DVD featurettes or Amazon.com preview of the accompanying storybook from last summer. It's perfectly clear that everyone involved in the film, Night most of all, truly thought they were part of something very serious, very empowering, very important. And it's sickening! Alex, you should get your Spidey sense checked. And speaking of which...Ray, I haven't read a post from you in years. Did you evolve yet? Or are you still pottering around in your small world?...last time we chatted here, you were defending the second two Spider-Man films, the third of which is one of the worst films of the year. How the "mighty" have fallen. Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The third Spiderman film is not the worst film of the year.It's an exactly average film.Like most Holywood blockbusters these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Sad, but true, on all counts. Although, truth be told, I even think it's the good kind of average. Not all 'meh', but some good, and a whole lot of bad. The good moments made it enjoyable enough in the theater. Morlock- who wonders if Big Giant Head Alex will even believe the insolence of the plebs. Ray, a major player in the plebian field, is quoting Morlock, who is one of the plebiest of plebs there is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Hopefully Lady knocked some sense into Shyamalan, so he can get off the whole "I'm a master storyteller" routine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 People have been saying that since Unbreakable (Totally unjustly, it's his best, IMO). We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Unbreakable is also my favorite film of his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The third Spiderman film is not the worst film of the year.It's an exactly average film.Like most Holywood blockbusters these days.Nope, it's a mess. Your review was far too kind.Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 A mess is average nowadays. At least this mess was made out of some good parts, along with the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Yes it was something of a mess, but it was certainly enjoyable, despite it's many flaws.I tend to forgive a film a lot if it at least entertains me on some level. (which is why I've come down so hard on the SW prequels). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Me too (on all counts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joni Wiljami 1,206 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QMM 4 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 The script for Shyamalan's next film has some great imagery potential, glad he's moving back to thrillers again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 I tend to forgive a film a lot if it at least entertains me on some level. (which is why I've come down so hard on the SW prequels).Same here. i just really didn't enjoy it very much. Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 The third Spiderman film is not the worst film of the year.It's an exactly average film.Like most Holywood blockbusters these days.Even if the film is more uneven, at least its ideas were more interesting than the first two. Morlock, I don't get it, those quotes say nothing about whether Shamatariam parodied or not. For example, it should say, "Believe it or not, but Shyamatta takes the subject very seriously without an occasional wink at himself". You lost. To spare you from further humiliation, I will refrain myself from posting my quotes. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Does Alex have a crush on Morlock? Crikey, no wonder Stefancos suggested they get a seperate room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Morlock, I don't get it, those quotes say nothing about whether Shamatariam parodied or not. For example, it should say, "Believe it or not, but Shyamatta takes the subject very seriously without an occasional wink at himself". You lost. To spare you from further humiliation, I will refrain myself from posting my quotes. That is one of the lamest things you've ever written. Almost none of them referred to whether or not the film was a parody, because, plainly, it had not crossed their minds, because, plainly, it was not a parody. You've really dissapointed here. Most of those quotes make it quite clear that they are not looking at the film as being a parody. This has been a sad, sad chapter in your history here, making up a ridicules theory that you could not back up. How the great have fallen, indeed. I would love to see the quotes and be humiliated. It's what I live for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Morlock, I don't get it, those quotes say nothing about whether Shamatariam parodied or not. For example, it should say, "Believe it or not, but Shyamatta takes the subject very seriously without an occasional wink at himself". You lost. To spare you from further humiliation, I will refrain myself from posting my quotes. That is one of the lamest things you've ever written. Almost none of them referred to whether or not the film was a parody, because, plainly, it had not crossed their minds, because, plainly, it was not a parody. You've really dissapointed here. Most of those quotes make it quite clear that they are not looking at the film as being a parody. This has been a sad, sad chapter in your history here, making up a ridicules theory that you could not back up. How the great have fallen, indeed. I would love to see the quotes and be humiliated. It's what I live for.Morlock, your quotes are simply not what I asked because they do not directly contradict what I'm saying. With other words, they're not to the point and worthless. Be ashamed, Morlock, be very ashamed. 1) When Act Two arrives and you realise the movie exists purely to fuck around with convention and formula, Lady in the Water almost becomes fun to watch. In fact, you could see the entire film as a parody of earnest fantasies such as the Harry Potter movies, especially when a young boy divines some crucial wisdom by reading cereal boxes, no less.2) There's certainly nothing too serious about Paul Giamatti (The Ant Bully, Sideways, Planet of the Apes remake) in this film.3) Question: There's a great scene where the smarmy film critic gets his due. Was that a thumb in the face to all critics?M. Night Shyamalan: I was in a very raw mood when I wrote the movie. It came out very heightened and parody-like. The movie had an eccentricity about it, like "Princess Bride". The characters are commenting on the story, as the story's going on, do you believe in them? He's a part of a world where everyone is realizing their potential, but he's stopped learning. The moment it's too late, he thinks he's part of the story and he's safe, this couldn't possibly happen. Because that's the only way stories are in a family film.4) In fact, it is Shyamalan’s use of the “critic” — played by actor Bob Balaban — that also makes Lady in the Water different. He breaches the fourth wall, as it were, using the critic to remind audiences that this is a movie and pokes fun at the conventions of movies, such as story structure and how characters are often used. Personally, I thought it was funny.5) Lady in the Water is so characteristic a work that it borders on - indeed, crosses the line into - parody and is so obviously personal that to criticise the picture is somehow to impugn the character and integrity of the man himself. 6) A lame attempt to joke about this through a movie critic who complains about characters speaking the plot just makes the unfolding dialogue more painful, and his later references to movie clichés represent a sub-Scream level of parody, as if the script is embarrassed by itself.7) I'm grateful at least for the giggles: when the tree people defend the narf by attacking the scrunts, a mystical CGI eagle flying awkwardly above and Paul Giamatti squinting from a nearby misty swimming pool, I choked on a piece of popcorn and wondered whether this had all been one elaborate put-on. A bored director's pantomime of his own career? A shambolic self-reflexive parody of his own filmmaking identity? It's as if M. Night Shyamalan has pulled off the greatest trick of his career: a definition of the word 'nonsense' through a series of images and sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Lady in the Water would've probably turned out better if it was a parody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Lady In The Water is probably a film for the Shyamalan hater. The anti-fantasy film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Morlock, your quotes are simply not what I asked because they do not directly contradict what I'm saying. With other words, they're not to the point and worthless. Be ashamed, Morlock, be very ashamed. Oh, I think they do contradict what you were saying. I could not find quotes that say that the film is not a parody, because from the reviews, it is plain that this film was not concidered as one. The quotes generally point out that the reviewer took the film seriously, at face value. That a reviewer does not refer to it as not being a parody does not mean they thought it was a parody. You asked for something that does not exist. But what you asked for was so limited and flawed in it's reasoning, that it proves nothing aside from your ferver to win this one by points.1) When Act Two arrives and you realise the movie exists purely to fuck around with convention and formula, Lady in the Water almost becomes fun to watch. In fact, you could see the entire film as a parody of earnest fantasies such as the Harry Potter movies, especially when a young boy divines some crucial wisdom by reading cereal boxes, no less. Again, IF you believe that, than that changes the whole film. But, again, I do not believe, nor did any interviews I've seen imply, that this film was less than 100% earnest. Shyamalan actualyl made it well known that this wa a bed time story he created for his kids.3) Question: There's a great scene where the smarmy film critic gets his due. Was that a thumb in the face to all critics?M. Night Shyamalan: I was in a very raw mood when I wrote the movie. It came out very heightened and parody-like. The movie had an eccentricity about it, like "Princess Bride". The characters are commenting on the story, as the story's going on, do you believe in them? He's a part of a world where everyone is realizing their potential, but he's stopped learning. The moment it's too late, he thinks he's part of the story and he's safe, this couldn't possibly happen. Because that's the only way stories are in a family film. I don't believe the story had this eccentricity he was talking about. I think he was in a raw mood when he wrote the film, which is why it came out so bad. But this is the first quote I heard referring to it in this way. Is it on the DVD? Until you came along, I have never seen anyone who thought this was done at all.4) In fact, it is Shyamalan’s use of the “critic” — played by actor Bob Balaban — that also makes Lady in the Water different. He breaches the fourth wall, as it were, using the critic to remind audiences that this is a movie and pokes fun at the conventions of movies, such as story structure and how characters are often used. Personally, I thought it was funny. I thought it was a good old, blunt, 'screw the critics' element, trying to be especially clever. I think it achieves the opposite affect of what you say. Felt to me like he was saying "You want to find all the loopholes, make sense, be cynical? &*%$ you. You can die now".5) Lady in the Water is so characteristic a work that it borders on - indeed, crosses the line into - parody and is so obviously personal that to criticise the picture is somehow to impugn the character and integrity of the man himself. I disagree. Every personal picture that is not good impugnes on the man's character and integrity? I think a man is certainly entitled to exorcise his demons/simply tell a story he likes without it meaning anything about the man. At most, a misguided project. I think this film was terrible. I have every hope that Shyamalan, this turd out of his system, will move on to make good movies again. 6) A lame attempt to joke about this through a movie critic who complains about characters speaking the plot just makes the unfolding dialogue more painful, and his later references to movie clichés represent a sub-Scream level of parody, as if the script is embarrassed by itself. I think it represents bad story-building and telling. It's not so bad it MUST be good. It is just so bad.7) I'm grateful at least for the giggles: when the tree people defend the narf by attacking the scrunts, a mystical CGI eagle flying awkwardly above and Paul Giamatti squinting from a nearby misty swimming pool, I choked on a piece of popcorn and wondered whether this had all been one elaborate put-on. A bored director's pantomime of his own career? A shambolic self-reflexive parody of his own filmmaking identity? It's as if M. Night Shyamalan has pulled off the greatest trick of his career: a definition of the word 'nonsense' through a series of images and sounds. .....or, one big, steaming, pile of nonsense. This is not a director who seems to care coming off as arrogant, and this film was one more film he tried to sell to us, similar in many things to his previous films. I think you give him way too much credit. He honestly tried to tell a fantasy story, and told a bad story. If he tried for parody, he failed for everyone but you, Mr. Cremers. Even that quote you provided does not begin to explain the layer you found in this film.Lady In The Water is probably a film for the Shyamalan hater. The anti-fantasy film! Except....it is a Shyamalan film, in every level of it's being. The fantasy is earnest, and the humor lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Ok, this is getting out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Ok, this is getting out of hand. Oh, sure- take his side, why don't ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Except....it is a Shyamalan film, in every level of it's being. The fantasy is earnest, and the humor lame.According to ... you. The fantasy only plays a secondary role. For the first time, humans felt human. This is the second aspect that is new for this director. And I really enjoyed the humor. It puts the heavy-handedness Shymalian usually is guilty of into perspective. What a relief! The director surprised me with this film, something he never did before. That's why it wasn't 100% pure Shymalitan. AlexNow I will post your reply:No, no, you got it all wrong, the fantasy played on the foreground. Like every time, the characters in Shyamalan's film are very, VERY human. The humor is lame. I don't think he usually is heavy-handed so that's not true. It's the first time a Shymalyatan film didn't surprise me, something he always managed before. I ordered a surprise twist and I didn't get one. Morlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 I still can't judge on Lady in the Water, but there was actually quite a lot of humor in Signs compared to his other films, although it's never played for big laughs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 What humor?! Signs is one of the very worst movies ever. Top 10 material! It's everything I hate about the director. I rather watch 3 Harry Potter films than one Signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 The dry shots of the family with tin foil on their heads, Merrill's confrontation at the recruitment office, a lot of Graham's reactions to his kids and vice versa. It's dry and subtle, but it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 It was a rhetorical question (plus rant), Marc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 No, no, you got it all wrong, the fantasy played on the foreground. Like every time, the characters in Shyamalan's film are very, VERY human. The humor is lame. I don't think he usually is heavy-handed so that's not true. It's the first time a Shymalyatan film didn't surprise me, something he always managed before. I ordered a surprise twist and I didn't get one. Morlock If only it would be that easy......The fantasy was always there. I don't think the characters were any more or less human. The humor is very lame. I think he is always heavy-handed, including here. It is the third time a Shyamalan film didn't surprise me. I am actually on record as not being a fan of his twist endings. But it is the first time that the ending was not at all good or interesting, though. I wasn't a big Sixth Sense fan, but it was a fine ghost story ending. Unbreakable brought on operatic, tragic proportions to the story, which I loved. Signs was a very preachy ending, but I did like it very much. I liked the innocense of it. A movie about alien invasion that is not about alien invasion, but about something very human. The Village was a mess of ideas, and the ending did give one something to think about. Lady in the Water's ending was just your typical showdown. It is not Shyamalan parodiying himself, he has never had a straight ending before. And you, still, are the only person I've seen who has this view of the film. That's great for you. But that does not mean what you see is necasserily there. The humor was not funny. In Signs, it was not hillarious, but it was very appropriate, and helped one like the characters. And I'm still interested in those quotes. I've actually asked a lot of people ,looked online, and still have not found an opinion that the movie is a parody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Morlock, the heavy-handed treatment of the characters is what always made them less human in previous films. In this film, humans are much lighter and constantly complaining about nothing.Predicted Morlock answer:In Signs people also were complaining. For instance, Gibson's character complains about his lack of faith in God and that makes him the most human character in the history of modern film. The scene at the end is so sad, it touches my human heart and soul.Alex's response:Sigh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robthehand 3 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Rocky: I love this film. Making a feel-good film that's not nauseating or overly cheesy isn't easy (judging by the number of failures), but this one really succeeds. The training montage and final boxing match are perfectly executed, and I admire Stallone and Avildsen for taking their time in the build-up. I think the film's reputation has been damaged by the increasingly sillier sequels (not counting Balboa), but as a standalone film it's practically perfect.Fistful of Dollars: It's the weakest of the trilogy, but it's still a fantastic film. I know Morricone hates his score for this film, and while it's certainly not as sophisticated as GBU, it works.Blow Out: Just as good as ever. To my mind this is De Palma's best film, or at least tied-best with Carrie. The score is very good, especially at the end.E.T.: Sometimes I love this film, sometimes I just like it. This time I loved it. I don't think it's perfect by any means, but it's very well-written, directed, acted - and of course, scored. I don't think the ending is too over-the-top, as some people say it is. E.T. himself is incredibly well realised, it's so easy to forget you're watching essentially a puppet.Carlito's Way: Wow! I never considered this to be among De Palma's best, but that might change now. Unlike some of De Palma's weaker films, the characters here are all very well developed. The action set pieces are (not surprisingly for a De Palma film) perfectly executed, with the railway station scene particularly impressive. Many smaller moments, such as Kleinfeld's death, are equally impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Morlock, the heavy-handed treatment of the characters is what always made them less human in previous films. In this film, humans are much lighter and constantly complaining about nothing. There is only one character in this film. The rest are charicatures. Predicted Morlock answer: The scene at the end is so sad, it touches my human heart and soul. What's sad about it? Signs gave me hope that just becuase there are elements of a modern blockbuster, doesn't mean it needs to be a modern blockbuster. It could use Aliens as a device, and not as the plot.Blow Out: Just as good as ever. To my mind this is De Palma's best film, or at least tied-best with Carrie. The score is very good, especially at the end. I liked it a lot. Travolta is excellent, and the score is terrific. Not a huge Donnagio fan, but there's no arguing with his DePalma work (I think that Carrie is easily DePalma's best film from that era, and it has Donnaggio's best score). Carlito's Way: Wow! I never considered this to be among De Palma's best, but that might change now. Unlike some of De Palma's weaker films, the characters here are all very well developed. The action set pieces are (not surprisingly for a De Palma film) perfectly executed, with the railway station scene particularly impressive. Many smaller moments, such as Kleinfeld's death, are equally impressive. When I saw it, it was introduced to me as a "weak Scarface". I approached it with some terpidation (I liked Scarface at the time). But I thought it was terrific. And IMO, the ending is by far DePalma's best, far better than The Untouchables. I love Doyle's score for that scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,347 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 There is only one character in this film. The rest are charicatures.The obvious caricatures are part of the parody feel. The main character was the biggest caricature of them all. Humans often are caricatures. Rocky: I love this film. Making a feel-good film that's not nauseating or overly cheesy isn't easy (judging by the number of failures), but this one really succeeds. The training montage and final boxing match are perfectly executed, and I admire Stallone and Avildsen for taking their time in the build-up. I think the film's reputation has been damaged by the increasingly sillier sequels (not counting Balboa), but as a standalone film it's practically perfect.Fully agreed!E.T.: Sometimes I love this film, sometimes I just like it. This time I loved it. I don't think it's perfect by any means, but it's very well-written, directed, acted - and of course, scored. I don't think the ending is too over-the-top, as some people say it is. E.T. himself is incredibly well realised, it's so easy to forget you're watching essentially a puppet.The last time I just liked it. E.T.'s real power to come to life lies with the kids. They believed in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts