The bozos were part of the story....

The Sixth Sense -- A+
Unbreakable -- B-
Signs -- B+
The Village -- C+
Lady in the Water -- ?

I got the score earlier tonight.

Everytime I listen to it, espeically "Healing", I'm reminded how fantastic and utterly beautiful this film is.

It may just dethrone Unbreakable as my number one M. Night film of all time.

The score is SUPERB. I cannot wait to see this... I should be going back to work on Saturday, and once I do I will resume my catching up.

Missed this earlier...

Yeah, I agree. It was the only moment in the film that really didn't work for me. I actually didn't mind the Balaban character until that point.

The Sixth Sense: A
Unbreakable: B
Signs: A-
The Village: A
Lady in the Water: B-

I consider myself a big Shyalaman fan and even after The Village, one of my favorite films of recent years, a bit of a Shyamalan apologist.

But a lot of Lady in the Water, despite me liking a lot of it, has problems.

Meh. More later.

I will say this, though: Paul Giamatti gives the best performance I've seen so far this year. Easily. He's amazing.

Me too. I know there was a point to it, but it almost made that movie appear as a parody film, rather than a serious movie.

The more I think about Lady in the Water, the more I want to see it again. I tried really hard not to remember being disappointed by The Village, but it sort of stuck in the back of my mind. I want to see it again, to get a better sense of the film.

Hm...

The Sixth Sense - B+ (though, I haven't seen it in a while.)
Unbreakable - B
Signs - A-
The Village - A-
Lady in the Water - A-



Er... yeah. I want to see it again, but I really, really liked it.

Dead on. The entire film more or less worked, minus that bit.

At times, I did think it was all three of those. The first hour or so, mainly. Story's auspicious entrance into Cleveland's life is sweet and mysterious, and Shyamalan subtly and slowly develops the mythology. I really felt like it was going somewhere.

But at its core, this is a kids' story put in the setting of an adult world, and when it comes to said adults interacting with the story, it's not so much fantastical as it is silly.

None of the tenants seem to question what's going on. They all seem to be under the same "Oh, yeah, well I THOUGHT there might be a water nymph and some grass creatures around here" umbrella. The final scene should be beautiful -- and it is, partly -- but I was mainly dumbfounded by how... dumb I found it.

I do like Shyamalan's themes (that seem to be pervading all of his films now) of submission to a higher power, but this hardly works when your plot is as unrelatable as this. The Village, The Sixth Sense, and Signs were all grounded in some sort of reality; here, I felt a little lost.

Another problem I had with the film was its climax, a scene involving aforementioned grass creatures and tree monkeys that is nearly as obtuse and misplaced as Signs' climactic scene. We shouldn't have seen the alien in Signs (pretty much the reason I thought that was a very good movie and not a great one), and we shouldn't have seen this.

But I was enraptured, more or less. I said it before, but Paul Giamatti carries the film, and he is fantastic. The big emotional scene for him I found a bit silly but ultimately... a little heartbreaking. Bryce Dallas Howard is nowhere near the revelation she was in The Village but still rather adept at handling the material.

I give it a B-.

Yeah, I thought the overt jab at critics was a bit childish, frankly.

Good movie. Not great (Signs and Village level) but definitely not bad. This may follow suit in the Village. I initially thought that it was "only" good, but after several more replays it REALLY grew on me quite a bit. The movie drags in the beginning. A lot. Paul Giamotti SAVES it. Period. After about the first half hour or fourty minutes, it starts to pick up and flesh out the plot and the conflict. There were some nice characters, but what I've come to love about Shyamalan are his themes. He does an excellent job portraying the themes he wants to. And this is no different. It's main focus this time is on faith (as it is with Signs). I'd really like to sit down with it one day to catch everything. And to rewatch Giamotti. Seriously, the guy is a genius. Someone here said something a while ago along the lines of "I could watch Paul Giamotti eat an apple for two hours". I whole-heartedly agree. LitW is no different.

I'd say, if you are a fan of Shyamalan, check this out. It should be worth it. IF you were turned away by Signs and/or (espeially) The Village, you can wait.

B-

You know, I kind of dug it.

Those who bought into what the trailer was selling ( a suspense movie ) are going to abosolutely hate this. That was about, oh, 95% of the people at my screening.

But once I realised that the movie was misrepresented (didn't take long) and just went along with it, I kind of got sucked into the story. I loved the message of the movie. And as someone else pointed out, the score is gorgeous.

I agree with those that say M. Night should have cast someone else in his role. It was a bit distracting and just gives fuel to the critics screaming 'egomania'.

If Night would've amped up the suspense with the Scrunts a few notches the movie would have been much stronger. (More scrunts, and don't let them go out in such a punk way).

A pretty solid B for me. But the movie is destined to only have a cult fanbase. It just won't work for most.

I have never seen a movie that I hated so much but hoped that the lead will get an oscar nomination. Giamatti is that good.

It was good for what it was. I loved the ending though, it was really bittersweet. That was definitely the highlight of the movie for me. The performances were all great Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard are amazing. The chinese woman was really good too, she was a riot! Whenever she'd ask her mom about the story, I'd crack up. Also, I didn't find the part where Paul Giamatti was listening to the story to be funny, he had to act like a kid for the story to be told to him. I also didn't find the "they live in trees, they look like monkies!!" line to be funny . I found one scene really funny though, and I wasn't supposed to . It was the first scene with Bryce Dallas Howard and Paul Giamatti with the creatures. I just found it funny how she was making all those little noises and pointing at it . Anyways, it was entertaining. I'll probably buy it on DVD.

7/10 (B-)

An interesting fable that utilizes one of the strangest metaphors I've seen in film. Definitely M. Night's weirdest and most original film yet. The tagline "A Bedtime Story" is dead-on accurate, as the film opens with a cartoon representation of the prologue to the aforementioned bedtime story, and finishes with a happy ending. What happens in between, though, is one of the most bizarre and unique tales told at any bedtime. This is not a mermaid movie, this is a imaginative fantasy that works - and works well - due to great performances, colourful characters, and an intriguing story.

My biggest gripe with the film was its lack of depth. Though it is about the same length as Night's previous four films, it feels far too short, and I wish it would have added about 15-20 minutes of character depth to some of the cast, most notably Giamatti's Cleveland Heep. The story takes a bit of time to get going, but then it feels rushed toward the climax, and could have used a bit more build-up to more effectively draw us into the story. Even though, I felt very drawn into this story, despite its strangeness (or, perhaps, because of it), due to great character interactions and superb writing. Two minor complaints would be the film critic character (an obvious attempt by Night to snub his nose at those who critique his films, and completely out of place in this one) and Night casting himself in a pivotal role (a sure sign that his ego may be getting abnormally large). However, they are quite minor, and did not detract from the film while I was watching it - only after did I notice it. Still, the lack of depth truly hurts this film.

The film's positive qualities, however, are much greater. The story is very involving and interesting, and never feels too far-fetched or unbelievable. The characters are amusing and entertaining, but mostly there for just that, with the exception of Giamatti's protagonist, who is layered, complex, and very real. Indeed, Giamatti gives by far the best performance of the film, as his character's transformation throughout the film is not only noticeable but quite realistic. Howard is solid as the 'narf' of the title, and Night himself is decent in a central, albeit small, part. The visuals are exceptional, as one would expect from a Shyamalan film, and the direction and cinematography are creative and outstanding. The special effects, one of the weak spots with 'Signs', are used sparingly here, but are fantastic, and the production design is simple, but effective. All in all, a fantastic production.

Overall, this is probably Night's weakest film, but that's like saying that the fourth runner-up at the Miss Universe is the ugliest of the top five. This is a magnificient fairy tale, set in a modern day environment, with a colourful cast and a compelling story. Perhaps a bit shallow in its portrayal of the lead character, but it's still a very well-told story, beautifully realized. Nearly perfect and my favourite of the year thus far.

This was one of my most anticipated of the year. I really liked the first 30-40 minutes. After that it got a bit repetitive. It was ok but I wanted more. I expected the story to go a different way, but it was all just about bringing her home. And I wanted waaaaaay more Bryce Dallas Howard. She's the main reason I loved The Village so much but here she was incredible underused. Shyamalan on the other side gave himself way too much screen-time. I don't like him as actor. All in all, another disapointment this summer but one that I'm giving a second chance. B-

My Shyamalan Ranking:
1. The Village - A
2. The Sixth Sense - B
3. Unbreakable - B
4. Signs - C+

lol Every time this guy was on screen I thought the same. They look nearly exactly the same.

I can't remember the last time I've been so befuddled by how ridiculously enamoured people are over this movie. It's a piece of shit, and I really can't imagine how anyone would think of it as anything else. The storyline is a meandering mess that endlessly stalls with that "Connect the dots role playing game" bullshit, the tenants are at best caricatures, and the compost wolf is a laughable villian that never seemed remortely threatening for a minute. It's as if M. Night lives in some sort of slight alternate reality where humans can breathe underwater for 10 minutes at a time, people instantly believe that a woman could be a sea nymph, and everything is as alienating as possible. The film never lets you believe for one second the things that are unfolding onscreen, and the ending is one of the most absurdly hillarious anticlimaxes cinema has ever seen. Paul Giamatti was good, but c'mon, he plays a lonely, wise, balding guy, just because he's able to turn his stutter voice on and off doesn't mean he deserves a fucking Oscar. Lady in the Water is well directed, but the script is one of the worst in movie history that a major A-list Hollywood director has ever had to work with. D

C


No, Mr. Shyamalan, just NO! You've lost it...at least a bit.

This movie is not even bad. For the most part it is just RDICULOUS. I must say that unlike The Village I wasn't bored here and there is no outrageously bad twist here. The movie is simply crazy and ridiculous in its entirety. I don't even know where to begin...

I suppose I'll begin with the positives of which there are not too many. The score is once again magnificent here. Say what you will about Shyamalan, but he always knows how to get the right composers for his movies and James Newton Howard's score here is brilliant. Haunting at times and beautiful at others. The cinematography is very effective as well. Bruce Dallas Howard who I didn't see being mentioned in the thread for some reason did a very solid job and I liked her the most out of the whole cast. True, she wasn't given much to do, but her angel-like face and her passive acting very much fit the character. I was not as enamoured by Giamatti as everyone else here is. He plays a typical grief-striken "Shyamalan-ish" character who gets his redemption at the end...yadda yadda. The direction is pretty good here and Shyamalan shows that he can still srt up an atmosphere very well. That said, he obviously does not know how to write a screenplay well anymore or how to act.

Which brings me to the negative aspects of the movie which are two, but these are HUGE ones.

First of all, the whole story is stupid, ridiculous and...well, I'm at a loss for words, but you get it. Shyamalan just thinks up some funny sounding words (seriously, I had to laugh outloud in the theatre when Giamatti said something to the extent of "The Tartutics still haven't come") and puts them in this pedestrian context and expects from us to believe any of this?! Moreover he also expects from us to actually believe that all the residents of the apartment complex actually believe Cleveland's story right away? That is dumb. There are several absolutely stupid scenes. Giamatti behaving like a baby? Some in my theatree laughed at that scene, all I could do was thinking how embarassing it must be for the actor to play this pointless scene.

My second complaint is how self-indulgent, self-absorbed and arrogant this movie is. Shyamalan who is on the same acting level as Orlando Bloom or so casts himself not just in a major role, but actually in the role of a misunderstood prophet who will write a book that will inspire people worldwide and will become the inspiration for the future president. On top of that, the only negative character is the movie critic who, apart from getting eaten, shows himself as a souless, lifeless and clueless person, a direct contrast to Shyamalan who obviously sees himself as a visionary.

The Sixth Sense is one of my all-time favorite films and I loved Signs, but after the double-whammy of The Village/Lady in the Water and the self-indulgence of the latter, I just hope that Shyamalan will have to suffer through a good strings of bombs and embarassments now that will limit his creative freedom as far as possible, so he won't direct his own written scrips and will stop casting himself. He needs to get down from those clouds he spends a lot of time in and come back to earth and explore what he is good at. Directing, that is, not screenwriting (anymore apparently) or acting.

I had the misfortune of seeing this film twice in theatres, two days in a row because I had seven free passes and used them up with two groups of friends. It did not get any better on the second viewing. In fact, it is bordering on a C- currently.


1. The Sixth Sense - A
2. Signs - A-
3. Unbreakable - B-
4. The Village - C
5. Lady in the Water - C

uum what can i say... well it sure was original. It was to slow but somehow keep me interested on what was going to happend next. The whole thing of who is who was kind of annoying, very predictible plot, nothing thrilling or exciting, no twist or shocking moment and the worst part was the ending.. ... Very dissapointing.

C

1. Signs - A
2. Sixth Sense - B+
3. The Village - B
4. Lady in the Water - C
5. Unbreakable - C

The film has a nice score.

Otherwise... pretty much agree with Lecter...


Yes, definately. The residents of the building could have been given backstories and a chance to breathe and rebel against the ideas put into their heads/forced upon them/presented to them by the arrival of the lady in the water, and the threat level could have been raised if I had (for example) cared more about the Lady in the Water.

Also, the elimination of the pre-title explaination of the plot... if revealed during the course of the story rather than at the beginning, would have drawn the audience into the positions of the residents, discovering the girl for the first time.

The Sixth Sense - A
Unbreakable - B+
Signs - A-
The Village - B
Lady in the Water: A-

barely beats out Signs for my second favorite Shyamalan Film

The ending of this movie gave us a glimpse of M. Night Shyamalan's brilliance. I saw it in The Village, Unbreakable, and The Sixth Sense, all films which were wholly made with his brilliant, smooth fantastical storytelling (and to a lesser extent Signs, which remains his weakest effort on the emotional side).

Lady in the Water had many moments where I revelled in M. Night's ability to spark fantasy and emotion, but overall was a clumsy, disappointing effort. Too many of the characters took a huge leap of faith and went along with Cleveland's plans and such. The characters were by a large poorly developed, and ultimately, there was little emotional connection to Story or Cleveland for that matter (however, Giamatti was completely brilliant in his role and made his character and emotions certainly believable at least).

I actually felt that the humorous and quirky moments in the film succeeded very well, much more so than any of the emotional, dramatic connections Shyamalan was trying to make. In that respect, he succeeded. The final scene had some great shots, as well as some others during the film, but the execution as a whole was not smooth enough. I didn't find myself interested in the film at all moments, like his other films.

Once again, Giamatti was brilliant, Bryce Dallas Howard was adequate with what she had to work with (she's just plain captivating always; a natural, I would say) and some other supporting cast members were interesting to explore.

I can see why critics bashed this: the movie critic character in the film was essentially directly called an arrogant fool, and ultimately suffered a horrendous death. I found that hilarious.

Unbreakable: A
The Village: A-
The Sixth Sense: A-
Signs: B
Lady in the Water: B-

Peace,
Mike.

I kind of agree with some of your points Mike. I also felt that overall this was M. Night's weakest film, though I did like Signs a bit more then you it appears. Nice to see you have Unbreakable at the top (I have The Village in that spot).