M. Nights next film "Lady in the Water' - Page 8

James@R · 07-24-2006, 05:11 PM

Saw it today with an audience of about 10 other people. There was polite, isolated laughter/giggles throughout the film, and lots of laughter on the way out of the theater.

I didn't hate it, but it was far too heavy-handed for its own good. It's also never good when a script has to spend more time explaining its mythology than telling a story about it.

Kirk Tsai · 07-25-2006, 03:36 AM

The central storyline is ridiculous fantasy, but no one in the film really questions it. They all pretty much take it as truth. I think this might be the most fundamental misstep that MNS took for this movie. If the surrounding characters around Giamatti--the only really grounded character--were more questioning or cynical, Giamatti would have even stood out more. The title character is also devoid of any character; she is a plot device.

That said, I cannot agree that this was a made for TV movie. The camera choices of MNS are always interesting. He is unafraid of bold camera moves or shifting focus within a shot. And above all, this guy just really likes to tell a story, one thing after another. He really believes in the power of storytelling, and to me, it kind of worked. Some of Giamatti's scenes are quite touching as well.

Howard's score is beautiful. Let's hope their collaboration never ends.

Carlo Medina · 07-25-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

If the surrounding characters around Giamatti--the only really grounded character--were more questioning or cynical, Giamatti would have even stood out more.

I can certainly see the merit in your statement. But for me, the characters' willingness to join in heightened the "fairy tale" aspect of the story (as it was based on a bedtime story he told his daughters). Had he been going for a realistic feel to it, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But he establishes (for me) early on with the opening intro that this is a fairy tale, and thus I am okay with the lack of cynicism.

James@R · 07-25-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina

he establishes (for me) early on with the opening intro that this is a fairy tale, and thus I am okay with the lack of cynicism.

I didn't have any problem with the lack of cynicism, or the goofy plot. But I did have a problem with the film hitting us over the head with the message. It seemed to constantly stop and tell us what we were supposed to be thinking.

A fairy tale would be one where you accept the goofy plot, then are allowed to realize what it's really about.

WilliamG · 07-29-2006, 02:50 PM

Wife and I saw this last night. My immediate thought as soon as the credits rolled was "Ok, now exactly what did I just see? I spent around 2 hours for this?!'
She liked it and was willing to analyze it a bit. I just shook my head. I've enjoyed all previous MNS films, but I'm still thinking about this one.
James Newton Howard's score was really nice, and I sat a little straighter when I heard signature hints of Signs toward the conclusion.

We saw some friends there and at the end, one mentioned that she hadn't heard much talk about the movie and wondered why. I told her to look around - there were only about 11 others in the room, and this was at the 7:10 showing - THAT was the reason. NO ONE was seeing it.

Something I'm surprised no one to date has mentioned, though: I kept being taken out of the film by poor editing, i.e., that stupid boom microphone popped in in the top of the frame in around 4 or 5 shots!

Malcolm R · 07-29-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamG

Something I'm surprised no one to date has mentioned, though: I kept being taken out of the film by poor editing, i.e., that stupid boom microphone popped in in the top of the frame in around 4 or 5 shots!

I think that's the fault of your local projectionist, not the editor. Though it is a somewhat odd coincidence that the ONLY time I've seen the same issue at the theater was with another M. Night film, "Signs".

WilliamG · 07-29-2006, 08:06 PM

Malcolm R-
I don't understand. How could it be the projectionist's fault?

Malcolm R · 07-29-2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamG

Malcolm R-
I don't understand. How could it be the projectionist's fault?

Because it's up to them to set up the projector with the correct lens and aperature for each film according to the aspect ratio of the print. If they set it up wrong, you end up seeing things that aren't meant to be seen...like boom mikes, or more of the image is cropped than necessary.

A more technical explanation from Wikipedia:

Different lenses are used for different aspect ratios. Each of these lenses comes with an aperture plate, a piece of metal with a precisely cut rectangular hole in the middle of equivalent aspect ratio. The aperture plate is placed just behind the gate, and masks off any light from hitting the image outside of the area intended to be shown (most modern films have extra image on the frame that is meant to be masked off in the projector).

Brett_M · 07-29-2006, 11:29 PM

I liked LITW very much. I bought into it hook, line, and sinker and enjoyed every minute of it. It was moving, had a great score and featured some interesting visuals.

I think we all need to lighten up a bit. Just my opinion.

Ricardo C · 07-30-2006, 12:18 AM

Quote:

I think we all need to lighten up a bit. Just my opinion.

Shyamalan first

Greg_S_H · 07-30-2006, 12:22 AM

In the Superman Returns thread, you said people who didn't like the film needed to get over themselves. Now, people who don't like this film need to lighten up? It is possible for people to dislike a film you happen to like. No big deal.