Avaliações de usuários

If you enjoy fantasy movies with good acting and an imaginative storyline; you will enjoy this movie.

The entire movie occurs in one very large apartment building with very engaging characters played by well known actors.

To start off with, I actually liked this movie, and at first I couldn't understand why some many people hated, but upon reflection i can see what some people reacted to so harshly.

One thing I liked about the film is the simple story, or more accurately, the atmosphere. M. Night has always been better at creating a mood than fleshing out a story, but the premise of Lady in the Water works for me: It about people reacting to a fairy tale happening in real life. This concept probably put a lot of people off, the fact of the matter is this concept hasn't been used a lot (but it has been done before, i.e. Peter Weir's "The Last Wave", a deeper and more philosophical film), and people aren't used to it. Like I said, I liked it, but most of my friends thought it was stupid.

The main thing that people hated was M. Night's own acting in the film, and on this I agree. He was without a doubt the worst thing in the film. It was a disgusting example of self-indulgence and self-importance, and more than that, he's just a terrible actor and he should stop.

The one thing that I really had a hard time stomaching was the extended sequences with the party band, Silvertide. They were so awful I wanted to walk out of the movie. Picture a blonde version of The Black Crows with even less talent ripping through and f*(^king up a version of Dylan's "Maggie's farm".

Those few things aside, the rest of the cast was great, I thought the story was simple and decent enough, the "film critic" part with Bob Balaban was funny, but M. Night was asking for it with that one, and the movie as a whole was entertaining.

M. Night started out as the new golden boy of Hollywood with "The Sixth Sense", but many have felt he's lost his touch. The truth is he hasn't lost his touch, he just hasn't grown as a director. With "The 6th Sense", "Unbreakable", "Signs", "The Village", and now "The Happening", he keep tilling the same field. it's getting old. "The 6th Sense" was great, mostly because it was fresh, "Unbreakable" was entertaining for me at least due to the comic book references, but "Signs", "The Happening", and especially "The Village" were just plain terrible. "Lady In The Water" was a nice diversion from his formula, but it's getting tired. Perhaps M. Night would benefit from directing a script written by someone else, and not built around some moronic "twist" at the end, and most definitely not acting in it.

It might sound like a joke, that the master of modern macabre, the man who wove such disturbingly morbid tales like "The Sixth Sense", would write a children's book. But he did. And that's the key to understanding and enjoying this movie.

Sometime after the births of his 3 daughters, Shyamalan found himself, as all parents do, ad-libbing a bedtime story to entertain his younguns. It began as a fairytale set in the family's back yard, weaving creative dimensions around common things like the swimming pool, the sprinklers, the tall grass, etc. Who knows how many such stories were rejected by his toughest critics (his daughters), but this one persisted and became a family favorite. Over time & retelling, he refined it, gave it more depth and got it to the point where he realized that this would make a great children's book like the ones he himself grew up on: "Where the Wild Things Are", "The Giving Tree" and such. Lo & behold, he did it.

Where YOUR story begins is that you're considering whether to watch this movie. "Lady in the Water" (the movie) was intended to accompany the book, not as a cinematic replacement but rather as a way to launch the book. As he says on the DVD interviews, this movie is like a "big brother" to the book, introducing it to the world and then allowing the book to flourish on its own in the years to come as, he hopes, a more enduring work of art.

Therefore, this film is NOT some adult story disguised as a fairytale, not like the darkly humorous "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" (1971) or the bitingly satirical "Edward Scissorhands" (1990) or the very complex & symbolic "Pan's Labyrinth" (2006). No, "Lady in the Water" is a simple, sweet children's story with perhaps a salty coating for adults, but inside it's a children's story nonetheless.

So you're sitting there thinking, "Ok then why is it rated PG-13 instead of G? And why does the trailer show a lot of dark, brooding and creepy shots like in Shyamalan's suspense flicks?" Well, I agree that it's a weird way to present a children's story, but I figure it's Shyamalan's way of reaching out to the adults who might end up reading the book to their kids. The movie does have spots of great acidic humor as only adults will understand. It has moments of violence and frightening visuals. There are some oblique references to pot smoking. And it has a chick who's basically naked through the entire movie (nothing is shown explicitly, but nudity is implied well enough). However, the core story remains very sweet and children's-booky. And that may disappoint many adults who are expecting something more complicated or challenging.

My advice to adults would be to focus not on the plot but instead on the characters. The characters are very well crafted, full of unspoken depth and some with a profound sorrow that's out of place in fairy tales. Paul Giamatti plays the lovable, dorky maintenance guy at the center of the story, but through his excellent performance in brief moments we see that his is deeply haunted by an unspeakable terror in his past. Similarly, Shyamalan himself makes a significant appearance as a secondary character who is haunted by an equally disturbing future. Another character, who only has about 2 lines in the movie, is seen glaring at the world with utter contempt & cynicism--perhaps someone who is haunted by the present. These subtle things are not essential to the fairytale, but they add tremendous characterization for those of us who aren't satisfied with a simple fairytale written for kids.

Oh, I forgot the absolute best character, Bob Balaban who plays a comically arrogant, jaded, cynical film critic who insists that there is no originality left, and all stories are predictable to a fault. He goes so far as to start predicting how his own role in "Lady in the Water" will play out, comically chipping away at the proverbial 4th wall which separates fictional characters from us, the audience. His big scene toward the end of the movie had me absolutely howling.

So there you have it. "Lady in the Water" will certainly not be everyone's cup of tea, but it presents something I've never seen before: a genuine fairytale, perhaps as seen through the eyes of an adult, but still unmistakably written for kids. It's sort of like attending a puppet show where, occasionally the sweaty puppeteer lifts up the curtain and asks someone to get him another beer. I can't think of any other way to describe it.

Wow, people sure do hate this movie. I don't understand why it has engendered such hostility. I mean, I can see problems in the movie that people could object to, but people are calling this the worst movie in years and the like, and I find that completely out of proportion.

So here's what I think: Direction Shyamalan has made movies before featuring ostensible everyman types, but this time he has moved away from Hollywood-everyman to a genuine everyman by casting Paul Giamatti as a sad sack building super. Giamatti is likable and quite funny, and the movie starts off with a breezy humor that instantly made me like it.

There are problems when the plot kicks in with the appearance of a young woman named Story. It turns out she might be a creature called a narf from a Chinese fairytale, so the first problem is, narf isn't remotely Chinese-sounding.

Still, I liked the way the movie builds, as Giamatti tries to help her and discovers neighborliness and credulity aren't dead. I enjoy the movie's optimism about people even if I don't share in it, and I like the way he spreads his typical revelations throughout instead of sticking them all at the end.

While people have claimed the story is slow, I thought it was well paced. And while I can admit to many of the criticized plot holes, I just don't care; it had the feel of a little fairy tale of the modern age, which I found quite charming. And the movie is frequently amusing, which counts for a lot with me.

My main criticism is that Lady in the Water would be a much better film with two minutes taken out. Shyamalan decided to savage movie critics, apparently stung by the deserved panning of The Village (which inexplicably received more positive criticism than this film). That's fine in itself, but in one scene Shyamalan simply steps outside of the movie to make fun of the critic. In itself it's a rather amusing scene, but you don't carefully create an atmosphere and encourage a suspension of disbelief and then just shock the audience into the real world in a petty act of vengeance. Shyamalan ignores one of the fundamental rules of film making; if any scene, even if it's the best scene in the film, takes away from the whole, you cut it. I'm very disappointed in Shamalyan for allowing his bitterness to trump his common sense.

It's a small thing, and I won't say it ruined the movie, but it was jarring. And perhaps that's part of why the reviews are so bad, because that scene made people drifting along on the movie's logic snap awake and start thinking about everything that was wrong. Although that's just a theory. Anyway, cut out that two minutes and it would be a considerable improvement.

As for people complaining the movie isn't that scary, well, I don't think it was trying to be that scary. I do think the director's intent is more important than what he's done in other movies. Just because he usually tries to scare us doesn't mean he is this time; I think he was just going for some mild suspense.

Anyway, while others are saying Shyamalan has lost it, but for me he's been consistent; one good movie, one bad one. Sixth Sense (great), Unbreakable (tedious, but interesting ending), Signs (good movie, tremendous ending), The Village (wretched) and Lady in the Water (funny and charming).

So I don't have high hopes for the next one, but this one was quite enjoyable.

First off, I can see why this film is going to be a box-office flop and why critics and audiences alike will not like it. I, who usually disagrees with most audiences, at least, thoroughly enjoyed this film. The storyline itself is rather ridiculous, I must say. Some girl shows up in a pool? She's a what-a narf? I went into the movie thinking I would hate it, but I came out knowing that I had seen a work of art. That's right. It was art.

First of all, it's a good family film, with enough tense moments to keep you watching, and enough laugh-out-loud moments to calm you down. It was refreshing for once to see a film with good, clean humour. The dialogue was not necessarily hilarious, but the actors, especially Paul Giamatti (Cleveland) delivered the lines extremely well.

The acting was tremendously well done also. Paul Giamatti is always fantastic, and while Bryce Dallas Howard seemed to act in the same manner as she did in The Village, she was still convincing. The ensemble cast worked well together. Some might bash M. Night for casting himself in a not-so-cameo role, but he proved that he can actually act! No, his performance will not win him an Oscar, nor should it, but I think there is definite talent there. I hope to see him in bigger roles, in films not his own.

The plot had many twists, maybe too many, but no matter. I kept trying to guess what was going to happen, but it I was always wrong. It was quite interesting.

What most made this film a work of art was the directing. M. Night has a rare talent that will go completely under the radar for this film because no one will see it. The camera angles were inventive-that's right, inventive. I may be one of the few who actually cares about camera angles and how a scene looks, but it looked great. The final product was polished.

I truly believe this film is M. Night's best work. He made the story up himself, wrote a screenplay that made us laugh, smile, cringe, and jump just a little, and directed a great ensemble cast including himself. Quite a feat.

So before everyone starts ranting about how stupid the storyline is or how "so-not-scary" the film is, just appreciate the uniqueness of the film, and remember what makes this film good. Forget the crazy story. It's everything else!

Not the best movie of the year; but it's actually quite enjoyable. The film is good for the entire family; it plays like a fairy tale meets a "Who Done It?" Don't go in expecting too much and you'll leave very satisfied. Disney lost out on this deal. The professional critics are complaining about M. Night's extended cameo -- there's nothing wrong with acting in your own movies, especially if you can pull it off, and I thought he did -- and the lady I was with thought he was very easy on the eyes. There is a very humorous scene where the actor "breaks the plane" of suspension that the adults enjoyed immensely, and there is another good subplot of redemption. Take your family to the matinée and you will have a good time together.

I can't rate this film.

When I go to see a Shyamalan film, I expect to be entertained and stimulated, but I never know exactly how this will be accomplished. Shyamalan's films use ambiguity aesthetically and he draws his audience through the seduction of interpretive participation. Of all of his films, perhaps Lady in the Water does this most profoundly. Although I understood the entire film - the plot, the themes, the method - I walked away asking "what the hell did I just see?" It's easy enough to categorize the film. Lady in the Water is an absurdist comedy. But it makes you ask yourself why you are laughing. With Shyamalan's talent as it is, it is impossible for me to believe that any aspect of the humor of this film was unintentional. Yet the other side of LITW is dark fantasy, in the tradition of Michael Cohn's Snow White.

With a cast David Lynch would have been happy with, Shyamalan tells a fable from East Asia as it is experienced by a superintendent (Giamatti) at an apartment complex full of mundanely odd characters. A strange and beautiful young woman (Howard) has emerged from the complex's pool, apparently seeking contact with the surface world so she can find folkloric archetypes who can protect her from the evil creatures that hunt her and return her to her world beneath the waves.

Giamatti, Howard, and Shyamalan himself are all very entertaining. Howard - a very unusual looking and uniquely pretty woman - is shot so beautifully that it is very difficult to take your eyes off of her. M. Night's performance is so bizarre, it is hard to tell whether or not he is acting.

LITW is definitely the strangest film I have seen from Shyamalan. I have been up and down with him since the beginning of his career, enjoying his early films, very much disliking Signs, and being impressed with the Village. I believe that with the Village and LITW, M. Night is establishing a new and unique direction for himself. And if he keeps going this way, I will gladly follow.

A superintendent at an apartment building in a suburb of Philadelphia (Paul Giamatti) discovers an innocent redhead in the pool (Bryce Dallas Howard) who needs the assistance of several tenants to escape the creatures that threaten her and her mission.

"Lady in the Water" (2006) is a drama/fantasy based on a bedtime story that writer/director M. Night Shyamalan told his kids. Like most Shyamalan pictures there's a moving reverent ambiance amidst the amusing and sometimes horrific dramatics. It's very original, coming across as a Shyamalan flick mixed with elements of fantasy movies, like "The Wizard of Oz" (1939). Think about it, "The Wizard of Oz" meshed a family drama with a dreamlike fantasy involving wonder, humor and slight horror along with a profound message, and so does this film (which isn't to say it's as effective as "Wizard").

The set of the apartment complex and the cinematography thereof combined with James Newton Howard's score are all superb. Plus there are some amusing moments, like with the dour film critic (Bob Balaban). Similar to "Signs" (2002), there's a good theme about coming to grips with tragedy and moving on with a newfound sense of purpose. Moreover, Bryce is very appealing as the naïve fantasy creature and the movie leaves you with a warm feeling.

On the negative side, the somewhat convoluted fable will be less than compelling for certain viewers and some critics understandably complained that it was a mistake for Shyamalan to cast himself as the writer whose words are the seeds to changing the world, although it didn't bother me; I think he's perfect for the role. Still, M. Night casting himself as the savior of the freakin' planet is a tad pretentious.

The film runs 1 hour, 49 minutes, and was shot in Levittown, Pennsylvania, a suburb northeast of Philadelphia.

GRADE: B-

This is a highly missunderstood masterpiece. One of a kind movie among Night.s creation. One that requires patience and full attention. Unique(still in 2019) script, unique development of the story, well penciled and motivated charaters. Allow it to get under your skin. One a of kind fantasy story.

I won't bother to write a review of this movie, nor will I rate it against other films. This isn't a movie that should be judged according to some rating system or reviewed; it would be similar to reviewing the Bible. It's so clear why M. Night Shyamalan made this movie at this time in our evolution and history, that whether or not the movie was a good story (which it was), whether or not the cast was good (which it was), whether or not it was entertaining (which it was) is completely irrelevant next to the message of hope, and the spirit of unity. M. Night Shyamalan truly has a vision and has the ways, means and courage to use his position to make his vision understandable to the people. Indigos and other Starchildren will find this film a true reckoning to the spirit.

I love it. And in the spirit of all movies Shyamalan, I'll keep mum about the plot.

I loved the pace, the control, and the development of how the plot unfolded. It had a whodunnit feel of a mystery that is carefully revealed layer by layer. The ensemble cast and characters were fantastic, with each character possessing usefulness to the story and to peer characters, and their eccentricities make them a joy to watch. You have the Korean mother and daughter, the Vietnam Vet, a father and son, a new neighbour, a group of cock-talkers, a guy who works out only his right side, and so on. Although most of them are one- dimensional, they are no less than endearing in their own way, like those in Cocoon or Batteries Not Included.

I love the superb acting by the main leads of Paul Giamatti, who's fast becoming one of my favourite character actors, and in here, provided his character Cleveland Heep with much emotional baggage, pain and that almost natural stammer when nervous, and Bryce Dallas Howard, her Lady in the Water, name Story, is so beautiful, yet so enchantingly vulnerable. Both anchor this movie well and brought about believable character development, or in the case of Story, that oracle air of wisdom, wit and fear of the unknown.

I love the special effects, done no less by Industrial Light and Magic. They're a pretty sight, even though some scenes were dark, literally and figuratively. Cinematography was done by Christopher Doyle, so those in Asia should already well be aware what he's capable of.

There's a major departure from his previous films, which I think is probably good to keep things refreshing for the moment. Some points and scenes in the movie are so deceptively simple that you will almost guess the outcome before the next scene transition. The movie ended the way it should, instead of relying on the "next big gimmick". And probably bad news of those who loathe directors cameo-ing in the own movies, well, this time round, Shyamalan has quite a significant role for himself.

And I know why many critics out there didn't give this movie the rating it deserves. They are surprised at Shyamalan's audacity in taking a huge swipe at critics in general, since they have been highly critical of almost all his past works. It's an obvious no-holds-barred jibe at their anal characters of being high and mighty and of imposing their thoughts and opinions on others, when little do they know that their opinions mean squat most of the time. There's another cheeky reference too at romances in the rain, which I thought perhaps cinematographer Doyle would have found it amusing given his work on Wong Kar-wai's In the Mood for Love and 2046 (citing these 2 as I've recently watched the former).

But those aside, thank you M Night, for sharing with us a wonderful bedtime story, which I think will be repeated at bedtime to many children around the world. It's beautiful, simple, easy to grasp, and allows for good shuteye fantasy.

Tolkien spent decades creating his mythical world of Middle Earth, and populating it with fell beasts, otherworldly races, and magical talismans. M. Night seems to have doodled his up on a cocktail napkin near the end of a really effed-up party.

There's a lot of truth to the notion that a great mythic story gives ordinary peoples' lives a sense of purpose.

This isn't that story, or even anything close, but it held my attention and I didn't find it unwatchable.

I give it 2 1/2 stars for overall plot, score, and Paul Giametti, and another 1/2 star for the fact that my friend Maggie and I were surprised how hot Night looked in that cream-colored long sleeved sweater, doing laundry.

We totally did not see that coming.

There's your twist.