Lady in the Water Predictions and possible spoilers

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Trogdor for one.

 

[Hijinks]

Trogdor for one.

Who I've never heard of *shrug*

I find that most people are just people. They don't do such really odd things as the people in this film, and that's what bothered me the most.

 

[Jhamin]

I go to movies for several reasons. I want to be entertained, I want to think, I want to appreciate craftsmanship.

Ya know what? I *Love* Shyamalan movies. They do all three.

I think some are better than others, but all the ones so far have been worth watching. There are so many by-the-numbers movies churned out week to week that it all sorts of blurs together. How many moves are there that actually do anything unexpected, or anything we haven't seen before?

The Sixth Sense had a twist. Which is why it has become a modern classic instead of an above average supernatural thriller. People decided that *all* of Shyamalan's movies now had to have a twist ending. They then proceeded to get upset when his later movies didn't all follow the same formula. (Or said the info given at the end was stupid, and therefore the movie was stupid, even if it had little to do with the point of the movie)


Thing is, there is a formula but "twist ending" isn't it. Shyamalan does each of his moves in a new genre. And in each of these genres he explores and plays with the conventions of that genre while telling a story that usually is only vaguely related to the sorts of stories that usually get told there.

When you watch these movies you have to explore them as the characters do. You don't automatically know how the movie ends 10 min into it. THAT IS A GOOD THING.

Which isn't to say that you are a moron if you don't like these things. Each one is set very strongly in a specific genre and if you hate the tropes of that genre there is little to like in the movie version of it.

If you don't like faerie tale logic, where people work out only one side of their body because all a guardian needs is a strong right arm, then The Lady in the Water is a really stupid movie.

My Fiance and I went expecting to see a Russian Faerie tale, and we were very pleasently enganged.

 

[rom90125]

My wife and I saw it over the weekend and we both walked away liking this film more than our previous venture...Stuperman Returns. Granted, some of the characters were way over the top and the names of the creatures were a tad goofy, but all in all it was an entertaining rebound from The Village.

 

[Almacov]

Just saw the third trailer....that was no wolf. Unless it was the worst-rendered CG wolf ever created. Besides, it was clearly bipedal as it jumped at the end of the trailer. It almost does sound like maybe this could be about the Fey, or something...

Banshee

Well, judging by some of the posters I've seen, and ads on the sides of buses, the wolf-shaped thing is definately some form of animate plant creature. It seems composed of thick, thorny vines, as though it were a creature with the "Wood element" template in the Manual of The Planes.

I'll probably see the film myself... I'm not sure whether I'll be seeing it in a theatre though.

 

[Justin]

...the wolf-shaped thing is definately some form of animate plant creature.

 

[Mistwell]

I think people though hear him say there is connections and then believe it. I never heard anyone around hewre say Signs had demons in it until someone linked to an interview. I get that movie is about faith, but faith doesn't mean demons anymore then it means aliens. In past threads on his movies I always asked posters to point out in the movies were the other level/meaning is and no one ever could point it out. Frankly it reminds me of going to an art exhibit and listening to people repeat intelligent things about the art that they had heard or read without any real understanding to explain it themselves.

I did it, here, when I said I went back and watched Signs from a different perspective not going in assuming it was aliens, and pointed out each scene that struck me as indicating a different level than the alien level. I don't know if you commented on the thread or not, but it was certainly done, and I seem to recall a few others saying similar things as well.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I think you are being way to harsh on that theory. It was my temptation to do so as well. So one day I went and re-watched it assuming this time they were demons and not aliens.

And I'll be damned if it didn't hold up quite well. I posted it here, with a break-down, and other doubters read it and some were surprised at the consistency of the demon theory, and the number of things usually missed that really did point to the demon-theme.

I suggest you go back and watch it again with an open mind, discarding any sense that you know for sure what they are. I think you will find a surprise.

My wife and I saw it over the weekend and we both walked away liking this film more than our previous venture...Stuperman Returns. Granted, some of the characters were way over the top and the names of the creatures were a tad goofy, but all in all it was an entertaining rebound from The Village.

I liked it a lot also.

And there was no surprise endings. There were some surprises, but not in the surprise-twist theme like many of his other movies, just more in the ordinary building a story sort of way. In fact, he tells you early in the movie each event that is supposed to happen, and how things should end, and they do all of that just as he tells you.

And I thought it was really funny what happened with the film critic.

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

Haven't seen it tho I think more of the blame should go towards whomever makes the trailers not MNS. Course it gets cloudy if he's got to approve it before it gets aired. However some 'showmanship' has to be used otherwise the film won't make money since no one's butt is in the seat. PT Barnum was famous for this like his 6' tall man eating chicken.

Unfortunately Hollywood has a tendency to stupid-ify things for Da Masses to understand plot points. True, (our nation as a whole) we're a few fries short of a Happy Meal at times but dumbing everything down tends to make things worse. The Truman Show might've been better had the twist not been spoiled in the trailers. Compare that to say Stir of Echoes.

Honestly, I didn't think I was being too surprised with his first 3 movies. I was expecting a semi horror / mostly thriller flick with Sixth Sense ("I see dead people.") and wondered what the heck was going on in Unbreakable so figured a mystery / thriller (the only survivor of a train crash). As for Signs, I was thinking another horror flick with that chupacabra looking thing out in the middle of nowhere, as it brought back fond memories of John Carpenter's The Thing. I didn't see The Village but I wasn't interested in what I saw (the trailer).

Now I don't know if I'll watch it or not since Hollywood's making me kinda depressed with all these original movies coming out. I've high hopes for Spidey 3 and TMNT tho when this comes out on PPV or DVD, I'll probably watch it, especially since they'll be cheaper then.

 

[Umbran]

And I thought it was really funny what happened with the film critic.

I wonder sometimes if this film's lack of critical acclaim can be partially blamed on that