Lady in the Water Predictions and possible spoilers

Crothian said:
I can say this post is about bunnies when in reality my intention is the post is about ham. If I don't give any real hints the post is about ham and everyone beleives it is about bunnies, that doesn't make me smart.

Admittedly. And that's not what M. Night has done in any of his movies.

Brown Jenkin said:
...but with a MKS movie if you can probably figure that there is another level/meaning that has nothing to do with the genre it is wraped in.

Exactly. M. Night's movie are steeped in Eastern philosophy. In Eastern philosophy, what a thing appears to be is not what the thing is. For M. Night to come out in his movie and say, "My movie is steeped in Eastern philosophy. Nothing is what is appears." would not be good movie making. That some viewers miss his implication isn't necessarily his fault.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I begin to understand why I see Signs as a failure (at least for me):
Apparently many viewers (including me) didn't get the "demon-part". I did get the twist of Unbreakable or Sixth Sense. It was a nice twist and surprise. I understood it, it made sense. But there is no point in Signs where I suddenly understood "Damn it, they are not Aliens, they are frigging Demons!". That alone is not the problem - I doubt I really understood 2001, either, but in Signs, the superficial-concept of aliens has to many holes in it, and I do not only fail to understand the movie, the movie seems stupid and bad.

Maybe, if I will rewatch Signs now, with the new view of "aliens=demons", I will actually be able to enjoy it better, so the movie isn't entirely lost now. But on first viewing, it was a pretty awful movie for me. :(
 



(POSTED FROM THE ABOVE LINK:
Shyamalan, by contrast, doesn't make sequels or franchises (he turned down a chance to script Indiana Jones IV). He doesn't adapt Dan Brown best sellers, or Robert Ludlum potboilers, or Disney theme-park rides. He doesn't rely on CGI, or even use it much—and while he seems to love comic books as much as any of his Marvel and DC-adapting peers, his own superhero movie, Unbreakable, did something different and more interesting. Unbreakable feels incomplete at times, like a shard of a larger, better motion picture, and it doesn't use Bruce Willis' essential flatness and opacity nearly as well as The Sixth Sense did. But for all its flaws, it succeeds in bringing the superhero genre down to earth in ways that no Superman or Batman film could even think about attempting (consider the remarkable moment when Willis discovers his superhuman strength while lifting weights in the basement with his son). By example, the movie also hints that Singer's more conventional comic-book movies—and Raimi's and Nolan's, for that matter—are a good way to make a living, but a creative dead end.

Similarly, Steven Spielberg was widely praised for stripping last summer's War of the Worlds of countless genre tropes—panicked generals, heroic presidents, mad scientists, and so on. But it was Shyamalan's Signs, three years earlier, that was actually the more daring space-invader movie, in its attempt to meld science-fiction and horror by bringing the aliens home, to a single farmhouse and family, and using them as the sum of all our metaphysical fears. Sure, it lost momentum in the last act, with a literal deus ex machina and a less-than-frightening computer-generated alien, but then again, the third-act problem is one that no alien-invasion movie has managed to solve, Spielberg's least of all.

Even The Village, Shyamalan's least-liked movie to date, has a great deal to recommend it. A weird, slight, and beautiful fable about utopia and modernity, it was dressed up as another twist-ending zapper and marketed as a Sixth Sense-style thriller, which left critics and audiences alike feeling understandably cheated. But if you strip away the studio hype and the director's showman tics, it makes an intriguing counterpoint to his earlier movies—as a partial rebuke to their credulous supernaturalism, perhaps, and as an attempt (by a director as sex-shy as Spielberg) to grope, with his blind heroine, through the comforts and terrors of fairy tales toward the darker wisdom of adulthood.

In The Village, as in all his films, Shyamalan seems to be aiming for something, amid our summers of high-grossing superhero movies and our winters of little-seen Oscar-bait projects, that's increasingly rare these days: a marriage of entertainment and art, of mass-market tastes and elite sensibilities. This is a hard combination to pull off, as his stumbles have demonstrated, but it's precisely the goal that the film industry, home to our last mass art form, ought to be aspiring to. So, Shyamalan deserves credit, despite his vanity and his missteps—not because he's succeeding, necessarily, but because he's willing to keep trying and unwilling to take his place with those timid, highly compensated directors who know neither victory nor defeat.
 


Crothian said:
In Signs the aliens are thought to be demons but in the movie there is nothing to indicate that.

Thought to be demons by whom? Anyone whose opinion merits serious consideration (like, for example, M. Night himself)?

Admittedly, I've bumped into that strand of thought, but nowhere other than here. I certainly never got the impression the aliens were really supposed to be demons. What the aliens really were supposed to be is rather beside the point. The movie isn't about the aliens. It's about Mel Gibson's character regaining his faith by finally seeing the interconnectedness of what originally appeared to be random, purposeless, even nonsensical events, starting with the death of his wife. This idea - that events aren't ever truly random and purposeless, but rather form an intricate web of causality - is also part and parcel of Eastern philosophy.
 


Well I saw LitW tonight, and I went in being a bit skeptical. It takes a lot for a movie to make me feel it sucks, so the main reason I went was because even if it was "so-so" I still would have gotten enjoyment out of it.

That said... I liked it alot. I think it is one of his better movies. In the middle of watching it, I felt that my "D&D" buddied would really like it (so I am going to recommend it to them). There is a lot of fairy tale talk, and there are a lot of fantasy words (names of creatures really) that D&D players would understand/recognize.

Another person commented that it reminded them a little bit like "Lost". Because you don't know exactly what is going on, and all these people have an unknown connection.

And no, there is no twist (per se)... There are parts where you think you know who's who, but you don't find out for sure until the end. I did figure a couple peopel out, what their "purpose" was, but not everyone.

If you plan on seeing this, just go with an open mind. And let me give you this one piece of advice. If you want to try and figure out the end of the movie, pay attention to everyone, especially those introduced in the beginning of the film.
 

I saw this on Friday. Perhaps Iowa audiences are a little too down-to-earth or something. Several people got up and walked out. I, frankly, was very disappointed and would have preferred to wait until Netflix.

I'm always one of the first to suspend belief and get into a movie. I had a really hard time doing this with this film. For one thing, the names of the mythical creatures were .. silly. Narf (the nymph). Madam Narf (a special nymph). Scrunt (the wolf things). They were just so silly-sounding that I couldn't get into it; also, I really couldn't be scared of something called a scrunt, and it just reminded me of the little goofy animal in "Ice Age," although I know that's a scrat, not a scrunt.

I didn't feel like some of the characters were believable. Freddy Rodriguez's character, for example. Who in the world would be so stupid as to build up the muscles on only one side of their body? Who does that? Nobody I've ever heard of. I got the impression that the film was supposed to show the drudgery of real life in the early scenes, but Freddy's character just blew all that for me. The eccentricities of the others, sure; there's nothing too odd about a guy who does lots of crossword puzzles or even someone who sits in his dark apartment watching old news programs 24-7. Those characters seem realistic to me; Freddy's doesn't. And when there's a very unrealistic character, it's that much more difficult for me to immerse myself in the make-believe. I'm even more able to buy a water nymph or a scrunt (shudder) than I am to buy someone who maligns their body like that.

I wasn't necessarily expecting a twist although I thought there were some minor ones; you think you know who the guild is but you don't, etc. I didn't need a twist to enjoy the movie. But I expected a lot more out of the ending than I got.

Very disappointed moviegoer here.
 

Remove ads

Top