NEW REVIEW!!
LADY IN THE WATER
(2006, dir. M. Night "Jesus Christ" Shyamalan)

I saw this film with my best friend/brother, Defender of Future. We decided to write the review together. Here goes. Joint review. History in the making.

ARDEN: So, Defender, I didn't think it was that bad. The critics are making it sound as if my eyes were supposed to burst into flames as the ending credits rolled. But I found myself enjoying parts of it. Does that make me a bad person?

DEFENDER: Not really, but you're letting your fans down by having such low, easily-met standards. Granted, I enjoyed myself, but I also sat down and sat through such wondrous travesties as Underworld: Evolution and the remake of When a Stranger Calls.

ARDEN: True. But, as we discussed on the way to the theater, this seems to be the weekend from hell. Movie-wise. We only had so many options and Monster House was sold out. So we made an M. Night of it. Like that pun?

DEFENDER: *sticks finger down throat* Anyway, Paul Giamatti. Do we ALWAYS have to have a chubby old bald guy juxtaposing the prepubescent female lead? Two words - back hair. In the water. No shirt on. That was probably more than two words.

ARDEN: Yeah.... ill-advised costume choice or lack there of. How many great actors were there in this movie though? Let's count them. Bryce Howard, Jeffery Wright, Jared Harris (who I think had 3.5 lines), Bill Irwin, Cindy Cheung, Bob Balaban. That's like 5 really great people. And who's playing second banana to Back Hair Giamatti? M. Night Shyamalan himself. Weird. I mean, I get that he wanted to be in it and be all Hitchcock/Welles/Allen/Beatty or whatever but... Jeffery Wright would've kicked ass as the writer who becomes Jesus (I think?) And you know, Jeffery Wright actually studied acting. Won awards for it. Could've turned in a compelling performance.



DEFENDER: You really had to stick Beatty in there, didn't you? Speaking of people you're obsessed with, I think Mark Ruffalo could have turned in a pretty good performance as Shyamalan's part. But he also could've played the freaking dog, and made it scarier. No offense Shy, but you can't exactly expect the effects to carry the scares if you're half-assing them all the time. Arden and I agree - a puppet would've been scarier. Get Jim Henson's creature shop on that shit.

ARDEN: NEVERENDING STORY! Just get that same puppet and paint it green. Right? Like that puppet is still around. Some has it! Just call that guy and get it in the movie. Ok. Let's talk about the mythology of the piece as that's something I brought up in the blog earlier this week. That large studio movies are lacking original mythos and Lady in the Water was hemorrhaging it.

DEFENDER: Puh-leeez! What was up with that opening sequence? With narration by either a really old Native American man or Leonard Nimoy, and some really cheap animation that was clearly done by Shyamalan. It really sums up what Shyamalan thinks about these myths: they are all done with the same voiceover and crappy drawings for association. At least the Aboriginal peoples who made this type of stuff up put their HEARTS into it. They weren't trying to sell "scrunt" action figures!

ARDEN: Dude, if you google "scrunt" what do you think comes up?

DEFENDER: I don't know, but something keeps making me think of nude pictures of Zach Braff.

ARDEN: Probably not too far off. Anyway, I really love cinematographer Christopher Doyle (regular collaborator with Wong Kar Wai) but I felt he and Shyamalan were a bad match. There were a couple shots where I was literally thinking "What... exactly... am I looking at?" But maybe that was the point. But those weird establishing shots in the middle of scenes. The over-the-head shots dampened the drama. And the backs of peoples heads are only interesting the first few times.

DEFENDER: All I've gotta say is, POV shots. Ones that were definitely done with a camcorder and some duct tape. I can imagine Shyamalan running around the set after hours, as the grip wanders over to see him covered in goose dung and setting up for "one last shot". I think this has gotta be a new low for him.

ARDEN: For Shyamalan? Or for POV shots in general?

DEFENDER: Undoubtedly both.



ARDEN: I think he just got a little case of cabin fever or something. You know? Kinda flipped out. Narfs and Tartutics and Eatlons will do that to you. Especially when he's serving up such huge portions of exposition. I swear, I think someone was pumping crystal meth into the theater through the AC. I was about three minutes away from grabbing a beret and machine gun and pledging my undying support to Operation: Shyamalan.

DEFENDER: Kumbai-ya indeed, Arden. This was like Scientology all over again, man! And that exposition was awful. It's one thing to tell us the names of this shit. It's another to explain the WHOLE FREAKING MOVIE and then expect us to sit through it. Healers, and Guardians and Guilds, oh my! It was a little Wizard of Oz, wasn't it? Flying monkeys and all (that's not a spoiler, because it's vague, right?)

ARDEN: Cinephilia encourages spoilers. That's what makes it different! Did the monkeys fly? But yeah, long drawn out exposition and then BAM! It was over. Like someone ripping the IV needle from my arm just as I was getting used to the morphine drip.

DEFENDER: Ditto. I think that's one movie that I enjoyed seeing the tail-lights of a bit too soon, though. Still, I ate it up when the projector was running, so I think I'm playing bad-cop. In all honesty, if you liked Shy's other work, you'll probably like this one. If you didn't, it will do nothing to make you think otherwise, except perhaps make you hate it even more.

ARDEN: I agree. Whenever Bryce shot one of those beautiful "help me" looks or Giamatti stammered about trying to do the right thing, I swooned on the inside. Shyamalan conjurs up some of that movie magic he's capable of it just felt a little we're all in this psych ward together!... kind of... thing.

Bottom Lines?!!
ARDEN: It's not as bad as the critics are making it out to be. I would say I enjoyed 65% of it and the rest was relatively painless but really easy to ridicule. But it's kind of like making fun of your little brother, right, Defender?!

DEFENDER: I wouldn't know. This movie is sort of like A Wrinkle in Time sans the suspended plausibility/actual research/talent. Which means it's still really cool and weird, but it boils down to a couple of CGI monkeys beating a grass wolf. More ridiculous than it is thought-provoking.