Well, the purpose of everyone was to let Shyamalan be inspired so he could write his amazing book. They didn't have much individual purpose.

And I don't think people are complaining about the lack of a twist at the end. They're complaining about how abrupt the ending is. There doesn't need to be a twist (I'm glad there wasn't, the last thing this story needed was another arbitrary rule change), but the pacing there was really, really off. The movie had buildup, and a climax, but no denouement.

OK, OK ... I'll say it. Why not? I'm a man monkey. I can take the backlash.

People are taking this film way too seriously. I don't know if it's marketing or the hype-machine that has become Shyamalan or the hype-machine that has become rabid Shyamalan hatred or people expecting everything to be The Sixth Sense or what, but this is a light, silly, kids' film (older kids -- it can be scary at times) with a few moments of drama thrown in. It's obvious and self-referential and has its tongue firmly in its cheek for nearly the entire film, and it is ridiculously mismarketed. It's just a silly fairy tale, and it's not supposed to be believeable, and it's certainly nowhere near the horror genre. Shockingly, I think nearly everyone at my showing was enjoying it.

These are jokes. He's just having fun with the audience.

I don't think this is a great film, but damn, people seem unnecessarily harsh with this thing. It's flawed, but Giamatti is fucking awesome, and people who don't really know much about Shyamalan and who don't have any expectations about what it should be will probably enjoy most of it. When I bought my ticket, some lady behind me asked the cashier, "Is this scary?" The cashier replied, "No, ma'am. It's actually really funny." At the time, I thought , but she was more-or-less right. This thing's pretty much a comedy/fairy tale.

If I had to compare it to anything, it's closest to Signs, but funny and without the religion. I dunno. There are things I didn't like about it, and I'd only give it a C+/B-, but it's nowhere near the mountain of suck people are making it out to be.

das

*ducks*

That's not the purpose of everyone. That's just what she has to do to be set free. People seem really hung up over him playing the writer, but he's fine in the role, not great, but fine.

It didn't need one. The story was over. .

das

I just called him that because for the life of me, I can't remember the character's name. And it was stated pretty clearly that it was their purpose, yes. They were all gathered together by fate to protect and nurture the vessel.

And I probably would have enjoyed the comedy more if so much of it didn't rely on stereotypes being stereotypes.

Signs wasn't all that great. After you watch it twice, what is the point? A story that spends it's time concealing something only to reveal it at the end is story telling at its weakest.

I think that his subsequent movies got stronger, not weaker. Unbreakable was a great movie, but I feel that people are disappointed in that movie and don't fully realize they only got a third of the story, since he was never able to finish the trilogy.

Signs was his strongest movie to date, full of allegory and rewarding to repeat viewings and for those who pay attention to the details and cogitate on the movie after the movie has stopped.

Village could have been so much better if he just didn't blow the "twist" at the end into something so ludicrous. Hell, I would have bought that the whole village had been abducted by aliens and the "monster" they created was actually a real manifestation of the aliens who abducted them, and the twist was that the villagers tried to escape this evil on Earth, but found much worse. It still probably would have sucked, but maybe not as hard.

And now Lady in the Water is just maturbatory, and hardly worth attention. I'd rather go back and watch Wide Awake than spend time on this movie.

I just wish he'd stop trying to pander to the corporation who made him, and get away from that and start to make movies he truly wants to make. The studio is probably pressuring him into trying to make the new Sixth Sense, or at least be the new Alfred Hitchcock/Rod Sterling, and it's just not going to work. He should go out on his own next time and make a movie he wants to make. Make "Breakable" and "Broken" and complete the "Unbreakable" trilogy. That would be a good place to start.

He isn't. He left the corporation that made him and burned all bridges with them because they didn't like his script for this (they still said they'd let him make it and he would have final say on everything, but he left anyway and then had a tell-all book written about how horrible they were to question his script).

This is the movie he wanted to make.

Nobody is pressuring him to do anything. Even though Disney didn't like the script for this film, they still offered him $60 million and final cut. Final cut. Apparently James Cameron can't even get final cut, which is why he hasn't made a film since Titanic.

I will agree that Unbreakable is really a great movie, though.

They were gathered to protect Story, not Vick. Once they meet the first time, his path is set in motion. The rest of the film, and the purpose of all the characters, is about helping her escape after she inspires him.

I do agree about the stereotypes, though. I mean, come on ... we get it already. Black people are badasses at crosswords, Indians love to write socio-political novels, ditzy Korean party-girls love to read, and Puerto Ricans only work out one side of their bodies.

das

They were gathered to live there for the vessel's benefit, not the narf's. This was stated clearly.

Crabby critic who doesn't like anyone, snippy Asian woman with knowledge of obscure myths (and her pidgin-english speaking daughter), Jewish woman listening to Herp Albert and kvetching about her husband, stoners sitting around doing nothing but smoking... cigarettes... all day, kind old cat lady, etc.

That's not Ebert's review; it's his editor's.

I like it. It's a story about storytelling. A great story about storytelling. I'm not here to talk about Night's previous films nor his ego nor his Disney departure. I'm here to talk about LitW. I flipped for it.

I feel pretty bland about the whole thing. I understand why people hate it, and I understand why people like it. I'd probably give it a ** out of *****.

My wife on the other hand, who usually loves fantasy/fairytale stuff seemed to really love it. She currently thinks it's the best of his movies (with the caveat that I had to relate the entire plot of Sixth Sense to her and watch it with the lights on to get her to see it), but that may change. I definitely agree with das assessment of it being more a comedy. People in our theater were laughing constantly, and only the two drunk assholes sitting next to me seemed to not be enjoying it.

I haven't seen this movie, but the negative press and word around here has me interested more than ever. Like Oliver Stone's Alexander, I am curious to see just how big a train wreck this proves. If nothing else, it sounds as though I can get a decent nap out of it!

I didn't have a problem with the ending. It was abrupt, but it was fitting. Most of the problem I had was all the stuff around the apartment inhabitants claiming their roles in the final ritual. The crossword puzzle, the cereal boxes, "no, YOU brought the butterflies!!", "the man with no secrets!!", it was all just very uninteresting to me. The back and forth between the asian girl and her Mom got old. The end scene with the movie reviewer was lame. Everyone there just accepted the story at a moment's notice and shows up to help? Yeah, I realize it's a fairy tale, but still. And Sham's cameo's have just become totally distracting for me. I sit there wondering when his mug is going to show up on the screen and then when it does, I can't help but sit there and think,"well, there he is again".

That being said there were some entertaining moments, mostly with Paul G, interacting with people. I didn't hate it, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

I'd like to know what this huge fucking chip is on people's shoulders. Everyone (from critics to the "internet") seems hell bent on castrating this film. It's not a bad film. I even bet if some unknown made this movie it would be a bit better reviewed and it would be praised as some indie sleeper.

I guess I'm the exception when I see a movie based on its own terms instead of constantly thinking about the agenda the director or actor has. Half of the criticism in this thread is against Shyamalan, which makes me think people are disliking this movie because of him, not because of the film.

Anyways...

I think this movie doesn't pull you in as much as his previous ones. The best fairy tales are ones where you can envision a backstory because eventhough the characters are one dimensional, there is an aura of mysticism around them, you can sense there is more to it than what is being said. That's the missing component in Lady in the Water.

I would give it a B-. It's a decent film. If you've been soaking in all the negative press, you might actually be surprised by it.

i thought it was lame that m night shamalan gave himself a big role. thats like the coach of a football team naming himself quarterback - just because he can.

can someone explain

also is that a real bedtime story? or was it all made up for the movie? anyone hear about narfs before?

i was thinking the exact same thing and kept waiting for it in the movie...guess not.

agreed. worst movie of all time.

For everyone who is saying this one is a comedy, I wonder if Shyamalan intended the humor, or might he get mad at the suggestion that whole groups of audiences were laughing at the film?

Why is The Village so widely panned? Is it the expectation going in based on previews, bad story in general, bad acting...?

I saw it, having seen tons of previews, expecting one thing, left like I saw something else, like an extended Twilight Zone episode, and loved it.

With Signs and The Village especially, people seem to get really mad because it didn't go like they thought it would in their heads, but haven't movies with those type of endings already been made?

I really appreciate the choices he makes - although this new one is getting SO badly panned I think I may wait for a rental.

In your opinion. In my opinion, it was god-awful. Just because someone disagrees with your assessment of a movie doesn't mean their is a conspiracy to attack the filmmaker.

That's kind of an arrogant and presumptuous thing to say.

I have yet to see a MNS movie that I have liked...will NOT be seeing this won..he was a pretty good interview on Howard Stern though.

i was on set for 30 days shooting behind the scenes footage and interviewing the cast and crew. the humor is intended.

Too bad they didn't tell the marketing department...

BTW, according to Box Office Mojo, Lady in the Water made an estimate of $6.85m on Friday, which will probably put its weekend at around $20m (third place behind POTC2 at $30m and Monster House with $22m).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2006-07-21&p=.htm


Anyways, I hated the Village and because of that, I made up my mind when I saw the stupid teasers some time ago that I would wait to see this on DVD. Now, with the negative reviews (both critics and regular Joes), I might just wait for TV at this point.

This is why I do think it's a bad film. The mystery aspect of the plot doesn't go anywhere thanks to the constantly changing rules, it doesn't work as a character piece because they're too shallow to be anything but pawns in a larger picture, and the mythology itself lacks that all-important "magic" as you pointed out. What, then, are you left with? The film looks and sounds very nice, but there's nothing to grab onto... if neither the characters nor the mythology are compelling, what does this movie have that keeps it from being a bad film?

The script isn't really internally consistent (character motivations don't make any sense internally, they only make sense in the context of "character x has to do thing y to get to plot point z" which is lazy writing and cheats the audience). That's pretty much the beginning and the end of it for me... yes, the ending pissed me off, but not because it was a lame twist. It pissed me off because once you go back and think about everything leading up to it, a good chunk simply didn't hold together. What made The Sixth Sense work so well is that when you know the twist, you can go back and watch the movie and see how things fit together more or less perfectly, but in The Village it seems like most of what happens is there to trick the audience, rather than because it makes any sense in the context of what's going on.

Essentially, Shyamalan was known for his twist endings, but The Village was the first time he cheated to get it, and it undermined the integrity of his characters which pretty much kills the thrust of the story itself. I'll defend the ending of Signs (which is a great movie), but The Village is where he lost me.