Wednesday, July 26, 2006

What's Up With That?!

After reading a gazillion reviews, I thought it would be fun to go see M. Night Shyamalan's new movie, Lady in the Water. I knew what to expect, after all. Craig surprised me by taking me to the movie. Of course, by the time we were halfway to the theatre I knew what we were doing. It was a nice surprise, however.

I went to the movie expecting to be disappointed and I certainly was. I had hoped that it would have some camp value, but it failed even in that area. I can think of 5 ways that Shyamalan could have made this movie work. Unfortunately for him and Warner Brothers, he could not think of them.

1. A decent script. With actors like those, you cannot go wrong with a good script. The worst actor in the movie was Shyamalan. Everyone else was great. So I ask you, why the sucky lines?

2. Logic. It's a wonderful thing, logic. I wish more people including Mr. Shyamalan would learn to use it. I have many questions about the movie. For example, why is the sea nymph named Story? Why is she called a Narf of all things? Why is the wolf with grass supposed to be so scary? It's a freaking wolf with grass on it? And why is it called a Scrunt? Why does it have to inject Story with poison? Why can't it just eat her? Why can't Story talk about herself or the Blue World? Why can't she just call it the ocean? Why does the Scrunt want to kill her at all? Why can't they just drive her to the ocean? Why does a giant eagle have to carry her? This could go on forever . . .

3. He should not have cast himself as the writer whose book would save the world. For one thing, he's a skinny, weird looking fellow and slightly wooden when he's acting. For another, that's just the most arrogant thing I've ever seen in a movie! Also, Shyamalan's not the best writer, as evidenced by this movie's dialogue. He set himself up to look bad by casting himself like that.

4. The film critic as a jerk who gets mauled by the Scrunt was probably not a good idea. I mean, I know Shyamalan dislikes movie critics, but constructing that character for the worst movie he ever made may not have been the best PR for future work.

5. The characters should not have believed so implicitly in an alternative universe that made no sense. Some surprise or shock would have made that alternative universe a lot more believable.

Postitive thoughts: I am glad I went to see the movie. It gave me a good feeling, despite the let down it was made to be. I realized that Shyamalan has more guts than a pile of entrails. He made that story into a movie! The man is fearless. He wrote something that he liked and made it into mass media because he wanted to. I only hope I can be as fearless when I start trying to get published. The man earned my undying respect for Lady in the Water. I think I'll go see his next movie, if he makes one. The sheer audacity and idiocy that it took to make that story and script into a movie will never cease to amaze me. There was something charming and fairy tale like about the movie. I desperately wanted it to be a good movie because the idea was so different. I enjoyed it for that element as well. Oh, and the twist ending is that there is no twist ending.

4 comments:

Mel Chickk said...

Seeing the previews on TV made me think, stupid movie. Then I saw a show on HBO, one of those, "The making of..." kind of deals about this movie, it looked really interesting. Nobody I know who has seen the movie has really liked it though. Too bad.

Esther said...

It is interesting and it has so much potential. I really wish it had been good. The concept was a very original idea, a little more tweeking and critiquing could have done wonders for the film.

little-cicero said...

So it was basically The Little Mermaid, but with a worst script, a less interesting story, and no Sebastian? I'm glad I saw Superman the other night!

little-cicero said...

Oops, exchange "worse" for "worst". I've been criticized for spelling, but that one deserved it!