Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Lady in the Water Review: 5/10
Shyamalan takes a stab at making a fairy tale film, and while he doesn't completely blow it, he never quite hits the mark either. Giamatti and Howard put in great performances, there is a continual sense of wonder and mystery amidst the mundane surroundings and denizens of "The Cove" but the film doesn't flow with the same ease as Shyamalan's other works. It's definitely not the complete piece of trash many critics labeled it. I think with a greater sense of surreality the film would have worked better. Shyamalan's ultra-realistic cinematic style was ill suited to the fairy tale. Whereas in his previous films his characters reacted in the way people would assume one would when presented with fantastic events. Here, the characters' unconditional acceptance of the wondrous events taking place is difficult to accept given the very real-world setting they perform their lives in. The creation by the writer of Anglo-sounding words such as 'narf' and 'scrunt' in an ostensibly Korean legend seemed boldly anachronistic to me, and stole more of the film's already shaky verisimilitude. Ultimately, the film requires the same sort of childlike faith Clevelan Heep has to watch without rolling ones eyes. Otherwise you'll just be shaking your head and saying, "nobody would do that in real life." And you'd be right. But "Lady in the Water" isn't real life. It's a bedtime story. Keep that in mind and you'll do just fine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, I thought I would be upset when you only gave it a 5, but your review was pretty right on. I especially liked: "I think with a greater sense of surreality the film would have worked better."
ReplyDeleteI loved the movie tho :p
I need to go back through my reviews and give some harsher ratings to other films as well Lauren. I did enjoy the film, but given the director, the likely budget, and what could have been done, I think the film doesn't deserve much more.
ReplyDeleteyeah i wasn't as impressed with this movie either. I sort of enjoyed it, but not as much as say, The Village or Signs. It felt kind of mellowish compared to the other work he has done.
ReplyDeletei did like how the characters discovered they had "roles" like the "guardian" etc. that part was cool. i watched the film quite a while ago, so the details are sketchy.
I can't believe this rating Mike. I think that he pulls of a beautiful faerie story. Remember, he kills the critic who attempts to analyse what a film should do. Children don't analyse, they simply drift off with the narrative. I think you've been up too late with your little dreamer and gave this a surly adult reading. I was deeply moved by the absolutely rediculous plot because that captured a child at play. Children are random and rediculous. They are beings unconfined by even themselves. You need to go take a good long swim in a pool and watch this film again Mike; Shamalan produced something brilliant.
ReplyDeleteTo each their own Philosopher. I watched this at 3 in the morning while waiting for Gunnar to fall back to sleep, resting on top of me. So I was pretty strongly in touch with my inner child. And killing a critic doesn't warrant a good movie - Mayor Ebert and his sidekick who looked very much like Gene Siskel were both ostensibly lost in the mayhem the American Godzilla unleashed. I don't have a problem with ridiculous plots. I have a problem with Shyamalan's trademark ultra-realistic mise-en-scene in this genre. And the LEAST he could have done was called the Narf the Bride of the Water God, or at least used a Korean term instead of a piece of onomatopiea my brain immediately associates with Pinky from Pink and the Brain...NARF! Maybe I'll take another look at it...
ReplyDeletePoint taken, but I did get the under-rested young parent part right. I suggest vodka on the lips, it works in Russia.
ReplyDelete