MovieChat Forums > Lady in the Water (2006) Discussion > The hate for the film seems a bit irrati...

The hate for the film seems a bit irrational...


Most of the hate comes from the fact that MNS is playing a character whose work will inspire one to change the world and people associate that with him being egotistical, pretentious, etc. This argument doesn't hold much water considering if a person other than MNS played the character, would the movie have been automatically good? That seems to be the case. People are also unfairly trying to blend the lines between fiction and reality of MNS's character. He is simply playing a character. In no way, shape, or form is he trying to make a statement of how Messiah-like he is. It's a really crappy way to say a film is bad. That's like saying Clint Eastwood is a racist because of his character in Gran Torino. He's simply playing a character who happens to be racist. That doesn't mean he's racist in real life!

Another thing that I found to be a common complaint is that the characters in the film just happen to go along with the whole story without questioning its truthfulness. MNS could have easily solved this problem with using flashy special effects to show that Story was a narf and not some naked girl in someone's shower. For example, in Race to Witch Mountain, the two alien kids had a hard time trying to convince this one character that they are, in fact, aliens. So one of the aliens decided to use telekinesis to move a laptop without touching it, thus convincing the character that they are mystical beings from outer space. But guess what, Lady in the Water is not a film that showcases CGI and effects and implying that the film would have been much more convincing with the use of special effects just shows how little imagination movie audiences have these days. Also, complaining about how people just went along with the idea to save Story is stupid because it was obvious she had an effect on people when they first laid their eyes on her. This was perhaps a substitute for showing special effects to wow the audience.

Other than that, if people stop trying to make a mountain over these two small molehills, I will have no doubt that people would enjoy the film a lot more. Sure, it's a flawed film. Some of the dialogue is a bit clunky and there could have been more of a threat than one "evil" dog preventing Story to go back to her home, but it's a magical film with a beautiful message and a terrific performance by Paul Giamatti. "Every being has a purpose." How can you guys seriously hate this film with such an uplifting message?

reply

Perhaps it’s more telling about our society; that the idea of a group of people finding their true calling is so repulsive and unbelievable.

reply

Not really, that was not my biggest complaint about the movie. What I didn't like was how poorly developed the characters in the movie were. Other than Giamatti, the other characters were one dimensional somewhat stereotypical caricatures. I didn't like how poorly developed the story was. It seemed like everything was just being made up as they went along.

reply

Well, the story is about Giamatti's character after all. The film is filled with many tenants, and with such a big ensemble, it's unrealistic to expect deep character development from each of them. As for the story, I didn't find anything particularly wrong with it except the fact that the villain could have been more threatening so that more could be at stake.

reply

How many deep characters are there in fairy tales?

reply

Most of the hate comes from the fact that MNS is playing a character whose work will inspire one to change the world and people associate that with him being egotistical, pretentious, etc. This argument doesn't hold much water considering if a person other than MNS played the character, would the movie have been automatically good? That seems to be the case. People are also unfairly trying to blend the lines between fiction and reality of MNS's character. He is simply playing a character. In no way, shape, or form is he trying to make a statement of how Messiah-like he is. It's a really crappy way to say a film is bad. That's like saying Clint Eastwood is a racist because of his character in Gran Torino. He's simply playing a character who happens to be racist. That doesn't mean he's racist in real life!
It is kind of hard to believe that a movie would just happen to have an "arrogant" critic character AND just happen to have a "misunderstood" writer character (who just happens to be played by the writer/director whose previous film was a critical flop). It's hard to beleive that he is not trying to make some kind of statement on how people "just don't understand him yet", at the very least. Even if he hadn't cast himself as the character, I think people would have still make the connection.
Another thing that I found to be a common complaint is that the characters in the film just happen to go along with the whole story without questioning its truthfulness. MNS could have easily solved this problem with using flashy special effects to show that Story was a narf and not some naked girl in someone's shower. For example, in Race to Witch Mountain, the two alien kids had a hard time trying to convince this one character that they are, in fact, aliens. So one of the aliens decided to use telekinesis to move a laptop without touching it, thus convincing the character that they are mystical beings from outer space. But guess what, Lady in the Water is not a film that showcases CGI and effects and implying that the film would have been much more convincing with the use of special effects just shows how little imagination movie audiences have these days. Also, complaining about how people just went along with the idea to save Story is stupid because it was obvious she had an effect on people when they first laid their eyes on her. This was perhaps a substitute for showing special effects to wow the audience.
Adding CGI wouldn't have changed the issue people have here, so it wouldn't have done a lick of good. Even if you added CGI, you would still have people not acting like people from the real world. Yes, it is made fairly clear that Story is influencing the people around her. However, it feels like Shyamalan takes the lazy way out here by doing this. It is almost as if he wasn't in the mood to write the conflict necessary to make this sort of story work better. If a movie is pitched as a fairy tale introduced into the real world, when the characters don't act like they are from the real world many in the audience are going to be irritated. It makes it harder to relate to what is going on up on screen. I personally found it disappointing that he didn't fully follow through with his own premise.
Other than that, if people stop trying to make a mountain over these two small molehills, I will have no doubt that people would enjoy the film a lot more. Sure, it's a flawed film. Some of the dialogue is a bit clunky and there could have been more of a threat than one "evil" dog preventing Story to go back to her home, but it's a magical film with a beautiful message and a terrific performance by Paul Giamatti. "Every being has a purpose." How can you guys seriously hate this film with such an uplifting message?
A message doesn't suddenly make a bad film good. You also have to take into account that not everyone is necessarily going to agree with a particular message.

reply

Touche.

reply

I think people misunderstand the critic. He arrives into Cleveland's life at the same time as Story and I believe this is on purpose. The critic represents skepticism and lack of hope in Cleveland while Story represents renewed faith and interest in the world as well as healing.

I think Night's writer character represents how writing Lady in the Water helped him with something personal - Story helps the character escapes doubt.

reply

Most of the hate comes from the fact that MNS is playing a character whose work will inspire one to change the world and people associate that with him being egotistical, pretentious, etc. This argument doesn't hold much water considering if a person other than MNS played the character, would the movie have been automatically good? That seems to be the case. People are also unfairly trying to blend the lines between fiction and reality of MNS's character. He is simply playing a character. In no way, shape, or form is he trying to make a statement of how Messiah-like he is. It's a really crappy way to say a film is bad. That's like saying Clint Eastwood is a racist because of his character in Gran Torino. He's simply playing a character who happens to be racist. That doesn't mean he's racist in real life!

Another thing that I found to be a common complaint is that the characters in the film just happen to go along with the whole story without questioning its truthfulness. MNS could have easily solved this problem with using flashy special effects to show that Story was a narf and not some naked girl in someone's shower. For example, in Race to Witch Mountain, the two alien kids had a hard time trying to convince this one character that they are, in fact, aliens. So one of the aliens decided to use telekinesis to move a laptop without touching it, thus convincing the character that they are mystical beings from outer space. But guess what, Lady in the Water is not a film that showcases CGI and effects and implying that the film would have been much more convincing with the use of special effects just shows how little imagination movie audiences have these days. Also, complaining about how people just went along with the idea to save Story is stupid because it was obvious she had an effect on people when they first laid their eyes on her. This was perhaps a substitute for showing special effects to wow the audience.

Other than that, if people stop trying to make a mountain over these two small molehills, I will have no doubt that people would enjoy the film a lot more. Sure, it's a flawed film. Some of the dialogue is a bit clunky and there could have been more of a threat than one "evil" dog preventing Story to go back to her home, but it's a magical film with a beautiful message and a terrific performance by Paul Giamatti. "Every being has a purpose." How can you guys seriously hate this film with such an uplifting message?


This x10

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

reply

I generally reserve me true movie hate for gross stuff.

reply