Conversations: The film 'Lady in the Water'
Blake Rutherford, the driving force behind the Movies in the Park series and man about town and movie theaters, and our movie critic David Koon discuss the new M. Night Shyamalan film "Lady in the Water," which is playing locally and which has nationally garnered mixed reviews:
Blake: I saw it Sunday. Walked out.
David: Walked out? I thought it was pretty bad too, but no summer blockbuster is so bad I won't stay and get my six dollars worth of air conditioning.
Blake: I would have rather draped myself head to toe in wool and stood in the parking lot and its glorious 112 degree heat for the remaining 45 minutes than have to watch another minute of that film. And I don't walk out of movies, especially in the summer time.
David: My problem was that "Lady" just asked too damned much of the audience — particularly the fact that you have to believe that if a nekkid woman showed up in the pool of an apartment complex, speaking without contractions and claiming she's a princess from a parallel world, folks wouldn't immediately call the Academy of Laughter for a pickup.
Blake: I agree with your point that it asked way too much of the audience. I kept asking myself "this is all a big joke, right?" First there was this girl, who talked slowly, and who appeared to enjoy sleeping on Paul Giamatti's couch, which he too enjoyed, excusing the fact that she was always wet and came from some portal to a magical world which just happened to be in his swimming pool. She's a sea nymph, but M. Night renamed her a "narf." I'm not sure why.
David: Giamatti was excellent as always, but it was only in spite of the horrible plot. Speaking of that, did you stick around long enough for all the "Guild," "Interpreter," "Healer," nonsense? Jeese. That was the most cringe-worth thing I've seen in awhile. The only thing I can compare it to in recent memory is "Shark Boy and Lava Girl." Just utter, starry-eyed baloney.
Blake: There is the movie critic, whom, I have come to learn, gets eaten by the scrunt as an up-yours to the entire movie critic establishment. And who says filmmakers are petty? Jeffrey Wright, a brilliant actor, plays a guy who just stepped out of "Wordplay" with his ability to work crosswords but nothing else. There's a woman with cats who once wrote a book and man who watches war on television all day. And then there's M. Night as a writer working on a book called "The Cookbook," which is compiled, as he states, of random thoughts and ideas. But as the film soon tells us, he's a vessel for this sea nymph to be able to hitch a ride with an eagle to a place called the Blue World. And then maybe he would get that book finished? Would M. Night's book somehow save all of humanity?
Wait a minute, I asked myself, this sea nymph had to swim all the way to Philadelphia. Now she gets to fly back after taking a long hard look at M. Night and giving him that tingling feeling? That's too easy. Oh yeah, there's this scrunt thing running outside. This isn't going to be that easy after all.
So back to this scrunt, which is, from what I could tell, some kind of a wolf/dog/wild boar with a serious beef with this particular narf. It had an uncanny ability to surprise its prey thanks to a grass-like fur which allowed for it to, in a field of grass, appear just like ... grass. Sneaky. Sneaky.
There are also monkeys that hang from trees. Great, I thought. Maybe Curious George would save me from this miserable movie. But then I find out that these monkeys are mean and if you look at them you die. These monkeys don't take orders from some green-faced witch, however. Instead, they control this underworld of nymphs, scrunts, crossword puzzle wizards, movie critics, writers, and a woman with cats. These are sophisticated monkeys. Take that, Victor Fleming.
But as for what really happens, I still don't know. I figured if it was a bedtime story, that the narf escaped the scrunt and made it back to the Blue World, maybe with the maintenance man or M. Night clinging to the wings of this super special eagle. Maybe there'd be a Bette Midler tune followed by M. Night giving a reading at the 92nd Street Y on the eve of winning a Pulitzer. I didn't care then, even though it was hot outside. And I still don't.
The previews claimed this this was a bedtime story and, after some checking around on the Internet, one that Mr. "Sixth Sense" himself made up for his children. I wanted to call those kids and ask "you couldn't convince him to put some Maurice Sendak up on the big screen?"
David: My question is, when will M. Night finally run out of goodwill-gas from "The Sixth Sense" and start being a liability for his own films? His visuals are great, but his plots have really sucked the last two or three go-rounds.
Blake: You asked a great question, "when will M. Night run out of goodwill gas . . .and start being a liability for his own films?"
One would think with four flops ("Unbreakable," "Signs," "The Village" and now "Lady..."), that it would be soon. But somehow I doubt it. Remember, this is the same wordsmith who wrote the script for "Stuart Little."
Conversations is a periodical feature of the Little Rocking blog involving critics and movie and TV buffs discussing current films, shows and the like. Feel free to add your two cents in the comments, and email us if you'd like your expert opinion to be added to the roundtable one of these days.




Comments
Thanks for the review! That's one decision made easier. Now I'm waiting to hear if the cows in "Barnyard" are truly trangendered, or if the filmmakers are just really that stupid. I can't bring myself to go, no matter how excited my preschooler gets at the previews.
This "conversation" format is leaps and bounds better than a "regular" review!
Posted by: Belinda | July 26, 2006 09:20 PM
Although not a great film, I personally liked lady in the water. But I am wondering to myself.did you go into this movie looking for something to critique? You don't have to fancy up telling people what scenes made you shift in your seat with sarcasm.it makes you look arrogant and ignorant at the same time.
Anyway..
I may be one of the few who actually likes M. Night as a film maker. But it does seem that movie fans and critics alike are holding him to come up with something that is going to match the sixth sense. Why does that have to be? I believe each of his movies has their own story to tell. I've liked them all and the cinematography for his films make a great atmosphere that actually makes his stories interesting. I think the characters in Lady in the Water were unique. From my own personal viewpoint, I believe the characters were run of the mill, they were just basic, nothing special.just people who lived in a apartment complex. I think that the presence of Story may have brought out something that each character did not see before and that is why they gave in to believing that she was from another world. Think about it, some of the people were borderline autistic. Now, given the circumstances that this happened in another apartment complex, I would think that people would react differently. Anyway, I liked the film, not as much as his others, but I thought it was good. I thought M. Night handled the "Critic's" demise perfectly. So, I would say to everyone, The film is nice to watch, the characters are unusual, along with the story.but don't be influenced by bad reviews. Enjoy it or not for yourself.
Posted by: FilmFan72 | July 27, 2006 08:31 AM
Was "Signs" a flop? Perhaps it wasn't "Sixth Sense" but it did fairly well at the box office and with critics. I don't think theres' any argument that the quality of Shyamalan's work is getting poorer and poorer, though.
Posted by: Aporkalypse | July 27, 2006 11:03 AM
David Koon here. As I told Jim some time after seeing "Lady" â?" for all my bitching, Shyamalan actually commtted what I consider a lesser sin. That is: the guy fails here because he made a movie that does too much, not because he made a movie that does too little. Given the choice between those two, I'd much rather watch the former than the latter. "Lady in the Water" might be crap, but at least it's IMAGINATIVE crap; which is better than I can say for 9/10ths of the "blockbusters" I'll see this summer.
Posted by: David Koon | July 27, 2006 01:20 PM
With the exception of Unbreakable ($94,999,143), M. Night's movies have done fairly well...I wouldn't call his films flops...maybe poorly reviewed, but not flops. Sixth Sense - ($293,501,675), Signs - ($227,965,690), The Village - ($114,195,633). I think Lady in the Water is on par with Unbreakable, which will probably not hit the 100M mark.
Posted by: FilmFan72 | July 27, 2006 02:36 PM
I'm not really sure about most people but I personally go see a movie to be entertained. So I think I may count myself as one of the few who came in to this movie with an open mind without any expectations at all and found the movie to be pretty entertaining. Mind you I'm no film critic nor do i claim to be one and i have no problems with how other peopIe see this film. I firmly believe that we each see a movie in our own way and that absolutely no one can say you were wrong in how you saw the film. But I've been reading a lot of reviews about this movie and this phrase often comes up " The movie just asks too much of the audience". I just found it funny because I just saw "Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest" Last week and i don't see any difference in how it asks it's audience to suspend disbelief and I find that it asks even more of me a viewer because It asks me to wait for almost a year and pay for another ticket to find out the ending. Just my 2 cents worth.
Posted by: mmv1976 | July 30, 2006 12:14 PM