Count me in as not understanding all the hate. I don't think I'm drinking the Kool-Aid here or anything, but I thought it was a solid, if unspectacular film. I thought Giamatti was awesome, and I would have liked to actually see Bryce Dallas Howard more than just curled up in the shower.

I think M shot himself in the foot with that book and what's come out about his egotistical tendencies. It seems like it used to be cool to like his stuff and now it's turned 180 degrees to being cool to hate his stuff. I was entertained for 2 hours, it was worth my 8 bucks, look forward to the next one.

She was really wasted in this, and I hate to say it, but her character was probably the weakest part of the film. It's really unfortunate, because I thought she was fantastic in The Village in spite of its flaws.

Regarding Shyamalan as an actor, he was fine. He wasn't stellar or anything, but he fit that role pretty well. If you didn't know it was him, you wouldn't notice. He was distracting in The Village, but in this, he's just another character.

das

M. Night isn't bad as an actor, but maybe if he focused on the storytelling, directing, etc. he wouldn't have to worry about remembering his lines, doing a good acting job, and perhaps make a better movie next time.

Sometimes multitasking is a bad thing.

I agree. I'm not a huge M. Night fan or anything. I liked The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs and due to the negative talk, never bothered to see The Village. I enjoyed Lady in the Water for what it was. An original story, with good acting and visuals. Who gives a rat's ass if he's in his own movies? It doesn't distract me at all. If you don't like the guy, don't go see his movies.

It would appear there are many who care about him being in his own movies. For me, I kept wondering how long M. Night would be in Lady. Would he be in it longer than he was in Signs?. I kept thinking his acting isn't getting any better, but it's not bad. Like I said, it was mildly distracting, but I liked the character so it didn't ruin it for me.

If you don't like the guy, don't go see his movies huh? I always hate this argument, the "don't go see the movie" argument is amongst the weakest, especially since you are in a forum in which every nuance of a film is discussed and sometimes with a passion. Let's come up with something a little more interesting for the debate, OK?

How about, if you don't like people discussing and giving their opinion on a director and his numerous appearances in his own films, then don't come to the Lady in the Water thread.....

This one sounds like a train wreck...not even sure I'll rent it.

Very good movie in which I was greatly moved by the story. I really enjoyed the scene where Cleveland is comforting Story as to why she is a Madam Narf. I'm not surprised critics and others didn't like it but I'm glad I do.

I thought Ben Affleck was white?

The more I think about it, the more it baffles me. Elements in the movie like the film critic or M. Night's role as the savior, I mean why? What's the reasoning behind them? They're so blatant, it seems like he WANTS people to knock this film, as if it was intentional. Or is it just plain old hubris?

Is any of this accurate at all?

(it contains spoilers for Shyamalan's flicks before LitW)

http://famousapes.com/celebs/s/shyamalan.html

uh what? he fits the roles? all he does is force himself into the movie by taking a character that could be anyone. its not like his role in LITW had to be an indian dude. it coudl have been anyone and he wanted a big part.

i agree with those saying that he needs to stop writing himself into these movies. if he wants a small 2 second cameo, fine...good for you (doesnt stephen king do this too?) but the bigger parts? stop it.

So are the people complaining that he shouldn't have a large part seen the movie? Just wondering, because the fact that he's in doesn't diminish the movie in any way...its not like he brings the film down with this acting. I actually found the scenes between he and Narf quite touching, one of the few moments in the movie that Bryce has to shine.

I rather liked the movie, it was something different, a fairy tale brought into our world and all that would involve. Paul Giamatti was excellent and the rest of the cast was servicable (including M. Night), they didn't have big part to play because the movie pretty much rested on Giamatti.

I think this is the movie M. Night need to make - he's been cramming the surprises into his movies and they've been lesser for it, he needed to tell a straight away story so that people wouldn't always expect the "twist". No that he's free of that weight, I', very much looking forward to what's next.

The guy has an ego?!?! What, a major Hollywood director has an ego - oh no! These guys basically run peoples lives for months at at time and get to play with millions (hundreds in some cases) of dollars to craft a world that they completely envisioned...and you're surprised they develop major egos.

James Cameron could be the biggest douche in the world, doesn't mean I'd like T2 any less.

Most directors have egos, but they also have enough common sense to know when to temper them. Remember, most big actors (and producers, and...) have egos as well, and if the director wants to get the movie made, sometimes he has to learn when to swallow his pride to keep professional relationships working and the film production going along smoothly.

Shyamalan's problem is that he doesn't know when to temper his ego.

For what it's worth, I don't care if you have an ego or think a lot of yourself or not, but for me you've got to earn that right. Guys like the aforementioned Orson Welles and even guys like James Cameron, they can have all the ego they want, because they have produced plenty of quality work, and are obviously very talent. For me personally, M. Night Shyamalan hasn't earned that sort of status, not even close. Even with that "right" that I think you do one day reach, as stated before, even then you should have enough sense to know when to back off from yourself just a bit, and realize just what it is that you're doing. Many of the great do just that, and it works out just fine.

I know the guy has his fans, and that's perfectly fine, not a thing in the world wrong with that. Still, just like I'm sure that there are people out there who wonder why in the world I like a movie like Fools Rush In or Can't Hardly Wait so much I sit back myself, confused over how some people will defend this guy until they are blue in his face. I don't think he can write a screenplay to save his life, I've seen amateur writer's produce better dialogue on a bad day. Many people who are critical of him always point out his horrible writing, just as I just did, but there is one thing that I almost never see other people mention - if you ask me, as a director, he also brings out the absolute worst in the actors that he works with. And the man is hardly original going all the way back to his first film, which in my opinion was only received as well as it was because it was indeed a shock for most who went to see it, and it "got em".

Now, with all of that said, is Lady in the Water a true original film? Yes, of course it is, I wouldn't disagree with that at all. However, just because something is new and original doesn't make it a good thing right off the bad. While watching Lady in the Water, all I could think about was just how bad the film really was.

And to those who say that if you hate the guy, just don't watch his flicks, well I say this. There are certain types of flicks that I just ignore, flicks that I just couldn't care less about ever saying that I watched and flicks that I just don't care to ever have an opinion on. With M. Night Shyamalan, that's not the case. I do see a bit of talent in him, mostly in terms of his directing. When his films hit the big screen, even though I know I will more than likely not be pleased, I still want to be able to have an opinion on his work. Maybe it's that I just love to hate him so much, or maybe that talent that I see flashes of every now and then is just enough to give me hope for his next project.

Anyway, some here seem like you are shocked over the hate for this film. It isn't just stuck up sad sacks who want to complain and hate him for no reason at all. This film is getting slammed and ripped to shreds by critics all over, from the goofs on the internet posting on message boards all the way up to the most respected guys and gals in the industry. I've even seen die hard fans of the guy say that this movie was horrible.

But hey, if you went in and enjoyed it and see it as a quality work, then more power to you. I'll just run off and watch Fools Rush In one more time.

Maybe?

das

Yep, just maybe!

The comparison was meant only in that they were both up and coming directors with large egos.

If M. Night has the clout he believes he has, then why not get the rights to have turned these properties into movies instead of just blatantly ripping them off?

And how is what he did any different than any other time we see movies that incredibly resemble other works of art, or other movies for that matter. M. Night isn't the only director to do this. I am not saying what he did was right, and I would be interested to see where the lawsuits go, but if they go after him, there are plenty more they could tackle.

I was not shouting that it was wrong that he did that. I'm not even sure if any of that is true at all. I was just posting it to show, if true, that he's not this amazing truly original writer like so many seem to think. Anyway, like I said before, if some of that is true then much of it is almost exactly like the work that he's produced.

Lady in the Water is his most original work, but to me, it's just about his worst film yet. If not his worst, then it's at least tied with The Village for that "honor".

I never thought you did. It's Simon and Schuster that filed the lawsuit. I am saying there are plenty of directors out there that could have lawsuits leveled against them. I guess it's because he made money on his movies.

Why give credit to someone else when you can knock off a story and get all the praise for an ingenious script? And I'm not saying he's guilty of rippin goff other stories, I don't know anything about any of those accusations.

I do know that he was considering making a film of the book, "The Life of Pi", which has a big twist ending. I don't know why he passed on that.

To all the people who actually enjoyed this movie: Look, we understand that it IS possible to enjoy it on some level, it isnt completely without its merits. But you've gotta quit acting like every single person who bashes it is just doing so because they hate the director. Anyone who reads even one page of this thread is going to see that a lot of people who really loved most if not all of his other movies, genuinely hated this one. And hated it with good reason. There are plenty of reasons to hate this movie. And if you can manage to get past that and enjoy yourself in the theater, good for you. Your 10 bucks was well spent while i mine was a complete and utter waste. Just dont get so offended when someone remarks on how stupid narfs, scrunts, and the great eaglon sound, because to 80% of the people who saw this movie, it really was stupid. Sure, plenty of the critics out there that gave this movie negative reviews, probably already had it in for M. Night. And if he had put out an undeniably awesome movie that got terrible reviews, that would have ment something. Instead he put out a god aweful movies to a bunch of critics who were already biased. So what does that mean? Maybe it was twice as good as the critics said, meaning it deserves a 40% on rottentomato instead of a 20. Itd still be an F grade if it was a term paper.

PS: Hollywood is filled to the brim with actors. Too many actors if you ask me. Enough so that you could have found 100 people to play the part in which M. Night cast himself. Would you ever put an actor in a movie if his performance was going to be later described as "Not great, but not terrible." or "some people who didnt know who he was liked him." I guess you would if for some crazy reason you have to cast yourself. In a movie that is already going to get beat to death by reviewers, did he really need to open himself up for the extra bit of critisism by casting himself as a martyr & savior of the world? I cant wait to see how M. Night reacts to all this critisism, especially since so many of the critics have such obviously valid points. It would make me so happy to see him say "Ya know what, i screwed up, and made a terrible, terrible movie" but somehow i just dont see that happening

I like this new member. Pretty spot on if you ask me.

Let's be fair now. The thread begins with a triple-banana-dance of joy relishing the negative reviews before the film opened. The tone was set.

I think (or at least hope) we all understand that some people will see this film and enjoy it on the merits, while others will see it and hate it on the merits; but it's disingenuous not to recognize that Shyamalan's career is at that point where many people are hoping he will fail and are anxiously waiting to trash his every move. Certainly not everyone, but enough not to be ignored. The snowball effect created from Signs and The Village all but assured this movie would be panned by a significant number of critics, regardless of its content. I don't think this film is that great, but even if it were better, I'd be shocked if it didn't get trashed by many of the same critics anyway.

das