# Lady In The Water (2006)



## Alia (Jul 31, 2006)

I started this thread yesterday and finished it but before I could submit it my computer froze and I lost it all... *sighs* so I will try it again.  

I took my daughter to see this movie, Lady In The Water the other night. I'm a M Night Shyamalan movie fan. I have always enjoyed his work, for the most part but this movie... well, it was different. I was expecting that twist that caught me off guard in The Sixth Sense and he offered in the Village. But there was no such twist in this movie. 

It's a modern day fairtale that takes place in an apartment complex. After thinking about it for a few days now, I wonder if it was a sattire for movie making. I'm not too sure. Although there were many parts in the movie where I felt it was cheesy, corny and poorly done. I found myself laughing out loud or rolling my eyes saying "Get on with it." It was a movie I would have rented on video more so then seen on the big screen. 

M Night Shymalan did a good job acting, there were more scenes with him then any other film he has made so far. But once again, Bryce Dallas Howard did an outstanding job along with Paul Giamatti. I was impressed with both of their performances.

Here's a brief synopsis of the movie:
http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/41/3041/synopsis.php




> *Time is running out for a happy ending.*
> 
> 
> ​
> ...


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jul 31, 2006)

I haven't seen it, but it looks to me Night Shyamalan's movies are crazy. They look pretty, but the stories are dull and predictable. Take The Village, pretty yes, no, not even pretty, STUNNING. But it was a story of nothing. I fear it will be the same with this one...


----------



## Alia (Jul 31, 2006)

It was a love story. Many people went in to watch it with the misconception that it was a horror movie. It is NOT. It's a love story.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jul 31, 2006)

Yeah I watched it and viewed the romance as being central to the story.  I quit eliked the village actually.  It was interesting anf the love story was beautiful.  The twist was ruined before I saw it but this did not not damage my experience of the film.  No doubt this film will make entertaining viewing.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jul 31, 2006)

Oh, wait, don't get me wrong, I did like The Village, but not because of the story. I liked it because the way it was shot, and the pretty, pretty pictures. I find it more a "living painting" than a movie, really. Partly, I hope Lady in the Water is going be similar, just pretty to watch, but on the other side, I hope the story is better.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jul 31, 2006)

It was beautifully shot.


----------



## ScottSF (Aug 1, 2006)

there was more than one twist in the Village.  The first one was no big shock I wasn't looking for a second one and I made this Jr. High School, Keanu Reeves "Whoa" when it happened.   I really liked the characters and performances, save John Hurt, lately he seems to play the same guy in different clothes.  I think Shyamalan is good at making me like the characters, which makes any tension bigger.  I didn't think I would like Signs, since crop circles are a proven hoax and yet I was on the edge of my seat.  In spite of whether a film succeeds or misses the mark, I appreciate that he is always doing something very different.  Maybe I'll go see Lady tonight.


----------



## Nesacat (Aug 1, 2006)

I saw Lady In the Water on Sunday. I'd read the book by M Night Shyamalan. It's a bedtime tale he made up for his children and the book is beautifully illustrated. It was the book that made me want to watch the movie.

The movie is a good love story. It's visually very alluring and while there are gaps in the plot the overall tale is beautiful. Shyamalan does a pretty good job playing a full role in the movie as well. I went not expecting a twist so was not dissapointed. 

I'll probably watch it again. Village was so much better the second time because I simply watched it for the beautifully shot movie that it was.


----------



## Alia (Aug 1, 2006)

> I'd read the book by M Night Shyamalan. It's a bedtime tale he made up for his children and the book is beautifully illustrated.


 That makes the movie worth it right there... but there was a lot of corny shots in it. I'm not sure what he purpose was for the guy who thought he knew everything (I think he was in apartment 13b ~ I"m not sure ~ he was the annoying one).

Anyways, I rented The Village to watch this week sometime. I haven't seen it since it was in theaters.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 2, 2006)

I haven't seen this one yet but I'm sure I'll get around to it one day 

I agree with Marky, the guy is very good at setting up beautiful shots. His biggest problem right now is his story-telling style...everybody is just looking for the big twist that you just _know _is going to be in there. 

Perhaps this is why he's done something as different (for him) as Lady In The Water?


----------



## ravenus (Aug 2, 2006)

A friend of mine whose I opinion I can mostly rely on saw the movie this week and he was retching. According to him the movie is full of the most tired and annoying character stereotypes and the most ridiculously convenient plot contrivances and Shyamalan basically uses the film as a plug to himself, playing an author whom everyone else has to convince that he is a brilliant writer whose greatness has not been recognized by the world at large.


----------



## Nesacat (Aug 2, 2006)

Alia said:
			
		

> That makes the movie worth it right there... but there was a lot of corny shots in it. I'm not sure what he purpose was for the guy who thought he knew everything (I think he was in apartment 13b ~ I"m not sure ~ he was the annoying one).



He was exceedingly annoying. The only reason I could think for him being there was maybe to show everyone else that they had to figure ut for themselves what they were all about. That no one else could make that decision. None of us fits pre-conceived moulds and it's silly if not dangerous to try and squeeze people into such moulds.

Tell me how you felt about Village.


----------



## Alia (Aug 2, 2006)

> According to him the movie is full of the most tired and annoying character stereotypes and the most ridiculously convenient plot contrivances and Shyamalan basically uses the film as a plug to himself, playing an author whom everyone else has to convince that he is a brilliant writer whose greatness has not been recognized by the world at large.


I agree Ravenus! Your friend is right. It was very different from his other movies, not one I really cared for like the others. 



> He was exceedingly annoying. The only reason I could think for him being there was maybe to show everyone else that they had to figure ut for themselves what they were all about. That no one else could make that decision. None of us fits pre-conceived moulds and it's silly if not dangerous to try and squeeze people into such moulds.


Yeah... but he got it all wrong though too!



> Tell me how you felt about Village.


Advice: Never watch a brilliant fantasy story with a non fantasy lover. My dad was horrible during the second go around but I still loved the movie.


----------



## Coolhand (Aug 4, 2006)

Hmm. Not sure about this film. I've never really got the fuss about M night Shyamalan. I thought Signs was very good, but the rest of them left me cold. Especially the Village. I was furious when I found out that I'd basically been watching Scooby Doo.

(Joquim Pheonix and Bryce-Dallas Howard unmask the tied up monsters)

"Hey it was the Village Elders all along! They were dressing up as monsters to scare people away from thier social experiment."

"Yes! And we'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you pesky kids!" 

Sorry, I almost threw popcorn at the screen when the was revealed.

Well, I'll give the new movie a chance. You never know.


----------



## McMurphy (Jan 29, 2007)

I am sorry to say that I failed to watch the movie during its in-theatres run due to all the negative reviews it had gotten in the papers and television.  Last weekend, however, I finally rented it out and was pleased to be surprised.  

I really think that much of the bad press the film had received was due to the fact that Lady in the Water wasn't the same sort of film that his previous efforts offered to the public.  As other members have already noted, the movie was a modern-day fairy tale, not a thriller waiting to spring its final trap on viewers.  If one had gone into the theater with the latter expectation in mind, I can understand the disappointment.


----------



## Urien (Jan 29, 2007)

I saw the movie the other night. I was surprised to enjoy it. But it's the one that most requires that you leave your disbelief at the door.

This is probably because the fairy tale used as a vehicle is not an established one, hence has no archetype human tram rail to run on.


----------



## philoSCIFI (Feb 1, 2007)

I think M. Night's movies are either hit or miss, though this one... It seems 50/50. Some people love it. Some people hate it. I personally enjoyed most of it. It had me laughing at times though who knows if that was the intention of certain parts of the film. 

Like McMurphy, I too couldn't bring myself to watch it in theaters. Not only did I not care for the negative reviews, but the movie's previews didn't appeal to me. I eventually watched it a few weeks ago and like many was surprised to find I actually liked it.

I don't know about the "modern-day fairy tale" plug albeit it seems to be the best words to describe it. Aside from my little gripe an lack of articulation on that comment, I can definitely understand the disappointments as well.

What I ponder most about the film though? M. Night's story seems like it would be a great book (which I have yet to read, but would like to). It also seems like the story would have done better if it were a stage production. I don't know why or how to explain it, but it just seems to have that feel to it.


----------



## Dave (Jul 14, 2010)

I only just saw this for the first time. I like his other films...


Alia said:


> ...this movie... well, it was different. I was expecting that twist that caught me off guard in The Sixth Sense and he offered in the Village. But there was no such twist in this movie.


That was also my experience.





Coolhand said:


> I was furious when I found out that I'd basically been watching Scooby Doo. (Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce-Dallas Howard unmask the tied up monsters)"Hey it was the Village Elders all along! They were dressing up as monsters to scare people away from their social experiment.


I expect he thought that was the twist.


Alia said:


> I wonder if it was a satire for movie making. I'm not too sure. Although there were many parts in the movie where I felt it was cheesy, corny and poorly done.


There was a lot of talking to the camera and self-indulgent commentary on writing fantasy and film-making. The special visual effects were reasonable, but voices are very badly dubbed in parts, and scenes too dark in others to see what is happening. I also hate films with quiet talking followed by loud effects. I can't watch them without waking up the whole house, or missing conversations.


Alia said:


> ...there was a lot of corny shots in it. I'm not sure what he purpose was for the guy who thought he knew everything (I think he was in apartment 13b ~ I"m not sure ~ he was the annoying one).


Exactly. His final scene in the corridor - was that meant to be fall around funny? It just didn't work at all.

And he was an annoying MacGuffin. He knew all about the previous history of Cleveland Heep, and so was presumably an important minor character, but instead you find he could have easily been cut from the script and some money saved.

And then there was a good half an hour wasted asking each other who was who - Are you the healer, no, are you the healer? She's the healer, no he's the healer. Are you the Guild? No they are the Guild? Are they the seven vestal virgins? No, they live on the top floor. Pointless and boring drivel.


ravenus said:


> ...the movie is full of the most tired and annoying character stereotypes and the most ridiculously convenient plot contrivances and Shyamalan basically uses the film as a plug to himself, playing an author whom everyone else has to convince that he is a brilliant writer whose greatness has not been recognized by the world at large.


So, you're saying that it is a purely self-promotional film? A little harsh maybe?


Alia said:


> It was a love story. Many people went in to watch it with the misconception that it was a horror movie. It is NOT. It's a love story.


I'd say it was a story about redemption. The Doctor who had hidden himself from the world was actually 'the healer' and the most important member of the Scooby Gang, he just didn't know it. After many years, beating himself up for being at work when his family was attacked, he was in just the right place when called upon by the Water Nymph.


----------



## Dave (Jul 14, 2010)

philoSCIFI said:


> It also seems like the story would have done better if it were a stage production. I don't know why or how to explain it, but it just seems to have that feel to it.


That is a interesting point - hence the second post from me. I expect it feels like that since everything is filmed in, or around the swimming pool, so you could stage it with a single set. Some of the character interactions which I found annoying in the film, were a little like pantomime, and maybe they would have worked better and actually been more funny on a stage.


----------

