Jump to content

Lousy Reviews For Lady In The Water


rushgoober
 Share

Recommended Posts

I still clearly remember seeing The Village with my wife and my mother. More specifically, I remember us standing up and walking slowly out of the theater when it was over. We were all stunned. Man, what an incredible movie this was! What an amazing acting peformance in the female lead - surely she would get a best actress nomination!

 

Well, we were pretty shocked by how universally panned The Village was. I have loved all 4 of Shamaylan's latest works, and I thought The Village was his best since The Sixth Sense.

 

Well, one visit to rottentomatoes.com will show you that the early reviews are in for Lady in the Water, and let me tell you, they ain't pretty.

 

For the life of me, now that I've seen The Village about 4 times, I can't understand what it was the critics didn't like about it. Even knowing the secrets in advance that all his movies entail, I'm still blown away by it. I can only assume that with The Lady in the Water, he has again been unfairly maligned.

 

I'm seeing it, and I won't be surprised if I love it. Maybe the critics just can't get this guy for some reason. Maybe anything mystical has now "been done before?" confused13.gif

 

Along with David Cronenberg, David Lynch, and a very precious few others, this guy is on the cutting edge of originality and vision in filmmaking IMHO. I'm SO seeing this movie. yes.gif

Edited by rushgoober
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rushgoober im with ya. I have no idea why critics didnt like the village. I have no idea why fans of Night's movies didnt like the village either. I to thought Byrce Dallas Howard was excellent and the story, and of course the ending twist, were great.

 

Im a bit worried about Lady tho. I'll still see it, but I havent gotten that warm feeling about this movie as I have his others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of Night's work, too. Mrs. Rulz and I saw "The Villiage" on a cable movie channel over the winter, and both of us wondered what was so damned awful about it. Fan reviews were a little mixed, but most said they didn't like it; we wondered why.

 

Night's worst film so far (I think) was "Unbreakable," and even that had its merits. "Sixth Sense" and "Signs" were just terrific. (But go to the IMDB message board for "Signs" - you'll find a handful of angry posters arguing that the movie was one of the worst ever, even its religious theme.)

 

I look forward to seeing this new M. Night Shyamalan film, and everything else he does. He's an artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Sixth Sense' was good.

'Unbreakable' was great.

'Signs' was good.

'The Village' was CRAP!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jul 20 2006, 01:32 PM)
'Sixth Sense' was good.
'Unbreakable' was great.
'Signs' was good.
'The Village' was CRAP!

For me it's:

 

1. The Sixth Sense

2. The Village

3. Can't decide between Signs & Unbreakable

 

To me though they are ALL excellent, I just thought some were a bit more superlative than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sixth sense , very good.

signs , good

the village , average

unbreakable , not very good

i will see lady , the lady who does the voiceover work on the trailer creeps me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hierarchy is the same as Tick's.

 

The Sixth Sense

Signs

The Village

Unbreakable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the ending to it. I have a feeling for some reason you'll like it goobs. I didn't know you were an M. Night fan, actually. But the spin in the movie is pretty cool. Let me just say, not really a thriller. It's kind of... uplifting, I guess? The underlying message is, at least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree Goob.

 

Love all of his films

 

1. Signs

2. Village

3. Unbreakable

4. Sixth Sense

Edited by Signals1982
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (thestand @ Jul 20 2006, 10:22 PM)
Let me just say, not really a thriller. It's kind of... uplifting, I guess? The underlying message is, at least.

"Signs" was like that, too, with its spiritual message of "everything happens for a reason." But there were definitely some edge-of-your-seat "thrilling" moments, and Hitchcock-like music at the opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 21 2006, 06:50 AM)
QUOTE (thestand @ Jul 20 2006, 10:22 PM)
Let me just say, not really a thriller. It's kind of... uplifting, I guess? The underlying message is, at least.

"Signs" was like that, too, with its spiritual message of "everything happens for a reason." But there were definitely some edge-of-your-seat "thrilling" moments, and Hitchcock-like music at the opening.

Critics are morons, who cares what they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jul 21 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 21 2006, 06:50 AM)
QUOTE (thestand @ Jul 20 2006, 10:22 PM)
Let me just say, not really a thriller. It's kind of... uplifting, I guess? The underlying message is, at least.

"Signs" was like that, too, with its spiritual message of "everything happens for a reason." But there were definitely some edge-of-your-seat "thrilling" moments, and Hitchcock-like music at the opening.

Critics are morons, who cares what they say.

I actually like reading what critics have to say. I tend to pay attention mostly to the highest-profile critics. When a television commercial or newspaper ad shows great reviews by, you know, someone on a local news station in Cincinatti and some really obscure magazine I never heard of only, I usually take that as a sign that most of the more high profile reviewers didn't like it, or they surely would have used THEIR little capsule reviews instead. This to me is always a huge red flag.

 

I have indeed found then when the best critics love a movie, i have a tendency to love it much more so then movies where the best critics hate a movie. I'm not saying they're always right (like with The Village), as I often will disagree and will often not let good or bad reviews influence whether i want to see a given movie or not, but I'd be lying if I said they didn't influence some of my decisions. Sometimes a movie doesn't look particularly appealing and it gets critical raves, so I see it and I'm usually happy I did. Other times a movie looks possibly appealing and it gets critically slammed which can severely dampen my enthusiasm. Certain movies I will see no matter what the reviews are, and others I won't see no matter how good the reviews are if it just really looks like something I'm not interested in.

 

Movie critics aren't the be all, end all of everything, and I am sometimes shocked by how much I disagree with them, but I agree far more often than I don't, and I do take their professional advice and opinions to heart, at least somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 21 2006, 09:06 AM)
QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jul 21 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 21 2006, 06:50 AM)
QUOTE (thestand @ Jul 20 2006, 10:22 PM)
Let me just say, not really a thriller. It's kind of... uplifting, I guess? The underlying message is, at least.

"Signs" was like that, too, with its spiritual message of "everything happens for a reason." But there were definitely some edge-of-your-seat "thrilling" moments, and Hitchcock-like music at the opening.

Critics are morons, who cares what they say.

I actually like reading what critics have to say. I tend to pay attention mostly to the highest-profile critics. When a television commercial or newspaper ad shows great reviews by, you know, someone on a local news station in Cincinatti and some really obscure magazine I never heard of only, I usually take that as a sign that most of the more high profile reviewers didn't like it, or they surely would have used THEIR little capsule reviews instead. This to me is always a huge red flag.

 

I have indeed found then when the best critics love a movie, i have a tendency to love it much more so then movies where the best critics hate a movie. I'm not saying they're always right (like with The Village), as I often will disagree and will often not let good or bad reviews influence whether i want to see a given movie or not, but I'd be lying if I said they didn't influence some of my decisions. Sometimes a movie doesn't look particularly appealing and it gets critical raves, so I see it and I'm usually happy I did. Other times a movie looks possibly appealing and it gets critically slammed which can severely dampen my enthusiasm. Certain movies I will see no matter what the reviews are, and others I won't see no matter how good the reviews are if it just really looks like something I'm not interested in.

 

Movie critics aren't the be all, end all of everything, and I am sometimes shocked by how much I disagree with them, but I agree far more often than I don't, and I do take their professional advice and opinions to heart, at least somewhat.

yeah great goobs ! now you've insulted all of cincinati !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (tick @ Jul 21 2006, 05:14 AM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 21 2006, 09:06 AM)
QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jul 21 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 21 2006, 06:50 AM)
QUOTE (thestand @ Jul 20 2006, 10:22 PM)
Let me just say, not really a thriller. It's kind of... uplifting, I guess? The underlying message is, at least.

"Signs" was like that, too, with its spiritual message of "everything happens for a reason." But there were definitely some edge-of-your-seat "thrilling" moments, and Hitchcock-like music at the opening.

Critics are morons, who cares what they say.

I actually like reading what critics have to say. I tend to pay attention mostly to the highest-profile critics. When a television commercial or newspaper ad shows great reviews by, you know, someone on a local news station in Cincinatti and some really obscure magazine I never heard of only, I usually take that as a sign that most of the more high profile reviewers didn't like it, or they surely would have used THEIR little capsule reviews instead. This to me is always a huge red flag.

 

I have indeed found then when the best critics love a movie, i have a tendency to love it much more so then movies where the best critics hate a movie. I'm not saying they're always right (like with The Village), as I often will disagree and will often not let good or bad reviews influence whether i want to see a given movie or not, but I'd be lying if I said they didn't influence some of my decisions. Sometimes a movie doesn't look particularly appealing and it gets critical raves, so I see it and I'm usually happy I did. Other times a movie looks possibly appealing and it gets critically slammed which can severely dampen my enthusiasm. Certain movies I will see no matter what the reviews are, and others I won't see no matter how good the reviews are if it just really looks like something I'm not interested in.

 

Movie critics aren't the be all, end all of everything, and I am sometimes shocked by how much I disagree with them, but I agree far more often than I don't, and I do take their professional advice and opinions to heart, at least somewhat.

yeah great goobs ! now you've insulted all of cincinati !

doh.gif

 

ya had to bring up that one aspect of my post, didn't ya? tongue.gif

 

 

cincinatti was just a city that popped into my head. i have nothing against the city and i've never even been there. um, what else can i say here.... i used to love wkrp in cincinati! unsure.gif

 

 

anyway, my apologies to anyone offended by my choice of city. for those who love cincinatti, change it in your mind to boise, idaho, and for those who love boise, change it to cincinatti. for those who love both, change it to ramsdale, alaska.

 

 

 

ph34r.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

going to see it now , let you know what i thought in a couple of hours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 21 2006, 10:26 AM)
QUOTE (tick @ Jul 21 2006, 05:14 AM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 21 2006, 09:06 AM)
QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jul 21 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 21 2006, 06:50 AM)
QUOTE (thestand @ Jul 20 2006, 10:22 PM)
Let me just say, not really a thriller. It's kind of... uplifting, I guess? The underlying message is, at least.

"Signs" was like that, too, with its spiritual message of "everything happens for a reason." But there were definitely some edge-of-your-seat "thrilling" moments, and Hitchcock-like music at the opening.

Critics are morons, who cares what they say.

I actually like reading what critics have to say. I tend to pay attention mostly to the highest-profile critics. When a television commercial or newspaper ad shows great reviews by, you know, someone on a local news station in Cincinatti and some really obscure magazine I never heard of only, I usually take that as a sign that most of the more high profile reviewers didn't like it, or they surely would have used THEIR little capsule reviews instead. This to me is always a huge red flag.

 

I have indeed found then when the best critics love a movie, i have a tendency to love it much more so then movies where the best critics hate a movie. I'm not saying they're always right (like with The Village), as I often will disagree and will often not let good or bad reviews influence whether i want to see a given movie or not, but I'd be lying if I said they didn't influence some of my decisions. Sometimes a movie doesn't look particularly appealing and it gets critical raves, so I see it and I'm usually happy I did. Other times a movie looks possibly appealing and it gets critically slammed which can severely dampen my enthusiasm. Certain movies I will see no matter what the reviews are, and others I won't see no matter how good the reviews are if it just really looks like something I'm not interested in.

 

Movie critics aren't the be all, end all of everything, and I am sometimes shocked by how much I disagree with them, but I agree far more often than I don't, and I do take their professional advice and opinions to heart, at least somewhat.

yeah great goobs ! now you've insulted all of cincinati !

doh.gif

 

ya had to bring up that one aspect of my post, didn't ya? tongue.gif

 

 

cincinatti was just a city that popped into my head. i have nothing against the city and i've never even been there. um, what else can i say here.... i used to love wkrp in cincinati! unsure.gif

 

 

anyway, my apologies to anyone offended by my choice of city. for those who love cincinatti, change it in your mind to boise, idaho, and for those who love boise, change it to cincinatti. for those who love both, change it to ramsdale, alaska.

 

 

 

ph34r.gif

Hey! I used to live in Alaska! rage.gif angry.gif dazed025.gif

Edited by Jack Aubrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok so for whatever its worth here is my take on it. i think m.night is a master as far as his thoughts and ideas. its really is an original story. however it does not keep you riveted to the screen for the 2 hours , and my mind wondered a couple times. in the end if your a big fan of m. night youll probably find the movie entertaining. overall i would give it 2 out of 4 stars. then again what do i know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jul 21 2006, 08:32 AM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 21 2006, 10:26 AM)
QUOTE (tick @ Jul 21 2006, 05:14 AM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jul 21 2006, 09:06 AM)
QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jul 21 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 21 2006, 06:50 AM)
QUOTE (thestand @ Jul 20 2006, 10:22 PM)
Let me just say, not really a thriller. It's kind of... uplifting, I guess? The underlying message is, at least.

"Signs" was like that, too, with its spiritual message of "everything happens for a reason." But there were definitely some edge-of-your-seat "thrilling" moments, and Hitchcock-like music at the opening.

Critics are morons, who cares what they say.

I actually like reading what critics have to say. I tend to pay attention mostly to the highest-profile critics. When a television commercial or newspaper ad shows great reviews by, you know, someone on a local news station in Cincinatti and some really obscure magazine I never heard of only, I usually take that as a sign that most of the more high profile reviewers didn't like it, or they surely would have used THEIR little capsule reviews instead. This to me is always a huge red flag.

 

I have indeed found then when the best critics love a movie, i have a tendency to love it much more so then movies where the best critics hate a movie. I'm not saying they're always right (like with The Village), as I often will disagree and will often not let good or bad reviews influence whether i want to see a given movie or not, but I'd be lying if I said they didn't influence some of my decisions. Sometimes a movie doesn't look particularly appealing and it gets critical raves, so I see it and I'm usually happy I did. Other times a movie looks possibly appealing and it gets critically slammed which can severely dampen my enthusiasm. Certain movies I will see no matter what the reviews are, and others I won't see no matter how good the reviews are if it just really looks like something I'm not interested in.

 

Movie critics aren't the be all, end all of everything, and I am sometimes shocked by how much I disagree with them, but I agree far more often than I don't, and I do take their professional advice and opinions to heart, at least somewhat.

yeah great goobs ! now you've insulted all of cincinati !

doh.gif

 

ya had to bring up that one aspect of my post, didn't ya? tongue.gif

 

 

cincinatti was just a city that popped into my head. i have nothing against the city and i've never even been there. um, what else can i say here.... i used to love wkrp in cincinati! unsure.gif

 

 

anyway, my apologies to anyone offended by my choice of city. for those who love cincinatti, change it in your mind to boise, idaho, and for those who love boise, change it to cincinatti. for those who love both, change it to ramsdale, alaska.

 

 

 

ph34r.gif

Hey! I used to live in Alaska! rage.gif angry.gif dazed025.gif

well i know you didn't live in RAMSDALE, alaska, cause I made it up. yes.gif

 

so THERE! tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got back, and all I can say is wow. This is an amazing movie. Like I said, I went into this knowing the plotline of the movie, and was still blown away. The fact that M. Night could completely create his own mythology and create a seperate story around it in the span of 2 hours is amazing to me. Again, I reinforce the fact that this is NOT a thriller. I would categorize it as a drama/comedy/thriller, in that order. And yes, it is a comedy, above the point of simple comedic relief. I rarely laugh out loud at movies, but the opening scene and every time the critic talked had me laughing.

 

One thing I noticed is that M. Night wrote himself into this much more then his brief cameos before. And honestly, he's not too shabby of an actor. And then there's Mr. Giamatti. Honestly, he is one of my favorite actors of today. He gave an amazing performance in this movie. He was passionate, and his delivery (a major plot point in this movie is his stutter) was on point. Also Jeffery Wright and Bob Balaban, though both were given limited screen time, both gave amazing performances.

 

The storyline in general is strictly linear, compared to other offering from M. Night. There's many small twists and roll-reversals, but overall, it's a linear movie. And honestly, if M. Night attempted to put spins in it like his others, it wouldn't have worked.

 

Honestly my favorite M. Night movie, because it hit me harder emotionally then any of the others.

 

8.5/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just came back from it.

 

I liked it a lot. Stand said it really well, he gets you caught up in this whole fantastic story and keeps you riveted.

 

I just don't why critics hate his films so much. And he slighty touches this in the film.

 

He is bringing something new to the table everytime. Far more interesting than the everyday mundane crap from Hollywood. Well done film, but not for everyone. The general public will not like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing!

 

M. Night Shaymalan is a genious, and is the best writer/director in today's world; but the greatest part of this movie was actually the acting. I'd never even hear of Paul Giamatti until this, but he proved himself to me in this movie. The story in this film is a thing of true beauty, it's slight failings are unimportant, and can be overlooked.

 

I think critics disiked this movie because of how accurately this movie portrayed them. rofl3.gif

 

Mr. Shaymalan deserves so much more credit than he gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well there ya go goobs , you wanted some good feedback and you got it. while i would say the movie was decent , riveting was definetly not a word that described it for me. Edited by tick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...