Film #4 of Gustav's M.National Shyamalan-a-thon

I thought about it, but honestly could not arrive at an answer. I do not know what was going through M.Night’s mind when he came up with this idea. Even more baffling is what gave him the impression that this would work and be accepted. The concept is total bollocks. The juxtaposition of fairy tale elements along with reality simply does not work here, as all the characters are mere devices, cardboard-like, uninteresting, ill-conceived, and dreadfully executed. They come off looking utterly dim-witted as they are shown to comfortably believe in such fatuous happenings.

Part of my frustration stems from the fact that the film did not even deliver on the promise of an…

This corpse has been picked over plenty, and while I'll stipulate that it's a bit undercooked and pretty silly, on a rewatch I think it's one of those things you just have to deliberately slide into, which makes sense given that it's all of a piece with SIGNS and THE VILLAGE in its depiction of an insular community or group united by belief. You can choose to read Bob Balaban's character as a snipe at all critics, or you can take it as a representation of blanket, unfeeling skepticism. Up to you. Anyway, Shyamalan may exhibit all manner of ill-advised creative hubris but that doesn't mask his exceptional capabilities as a visual filmmaker. It's hard to make an ugly movie…

I often talk about how much I want an adaptation of Stephen King's Lisey's Story but Lady In The Water is pretty much the... exact vibe for me. Super important that almost every shot before the Lady is introduced is obstructed - there is something missing from the lives of everybody in this, the decreasing length of Shyamalan's shots slowly finding the core of what makes these people tick - but this isn't a film about people; it's about conflict (involving people). If the Water is purity/the capacity to imagine & believe/where all myth comes from then the Land - the location of our narrative - is a blight on the freedom of half-lit 'truer' perception. Just look at how this…

I have no intention of writing an essay on why people just don't get it, or about how it's some cult masterpiece waiting to be discovered in the future. People have made their opinions clear on the film, and that's fine.

The biggest criticism of Lady in the Water generally circles around the film critic and Shyamalan's godlike writing powers. Neither of which I really took note of back in 2006. I really wasn't trying to examine every little detail, I didn't really follow any film criticism seriously, I was just swept along with the silly fairytale that found the magical in the mundane.

Who knows why we connect with some movies the way we do. honestly, I can't explain…

One evening, Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti), who became the superintendent of a Philadelphia apartment complex after his family was murdered, discovers Story (Bryce Dallas Howard), a naiad-like character (called a "Narf") from the Blue World, in his building's pool, immediately rescuing her from an attack by a "Scrunt",[5] a grass-covered, wolf-like creature that hides by flattening its body against the turf.

Story is here to find the Author, a specific writer whose book will better humanity's future. After questioning residents Farber (Bob Balaban), Bell (Mary Beth Hurt), Dury (Jeffrey Wright), and five nameless smokers, Brown discovers the author, Vick Ran (M. Night Shyamalan), who is writing The Cookbook, containing views and ideas so significant they will inspire a future President,…