TurquoiseB wrote: >--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >> >> >>>I saw "Lady in the Water" which is M. Night Shyamalan's >>>latest film yesterday afternoon. >>> >>> >>Thanks for the update. I'll see it when it gets here. >>I like his films. They require a greater suspension >>of disbelief than some, but if you can move yourself >>into that innocent space where you can watch the >>film with no preconceptions and no comparisons to >>other films, they are often a remarkable ride. I >>even liked The Village. >> >> > >Uh oh. > >I'll probably see it anyway, but it inspired >Roger Ebert to write one of his rare scathing >reviews. Here's a taste: > >I See Wet People > >The key to deciphering M. Night Shyamalan's fractured >fairy tale, "The Lady in the Water," is to remember >that it is rooted in the ancient mythology of Stephen >Colbert and "The Colbert Report." It is a warning to >Mankind about the dire threat posed by ferocious >topiary bears in America today, and a salute to the >gigantic, soaring eagle who swoops in to rescue Wet >Ladies from pitiless ursine jaws and claws. Colbert >oughtta sue. > >As a bonus, there's a naked water nymph and some >angry tree monkeys with mohawks... You think I'm >making this up? No, but I wonder why Shyamalan felt >he needed to, given the half-hearted way he's presented >his sodden fairy tale in this movie. > >Maybe the children's book is better at stimulating >the imagination. Shyamalan says "The Lady in the Water" >grew out of a bedtime story he made up and continued >improvising and embellishing for his daughters, and >that's precisely the way it feels: improvised and >protracted, nonsensically and unnecessarily, just >for the sake of stringing us along. And, maybe, >putting us to sleep. > >But then, who am I to knock the work of the man who, >in his own film, casts himself as a writer whose ideas >will inspire a future leader who will save the world >-- an artist whose work will not be fully understood >in his own time, but only many years later, and who >is willing to sacrifice his own life for the sake of >all Mankind? For he so loved the world that he gave >his only narf... > > >Sounds as if this one is going to take a lot >more suspension of disbelief than the others... :-) > > > And guess what film wasn't reviewed on this week's "Ebert and Roper"? Yup, they reviewed "Clerk's 2" and "Monster House" but not "Lady in the Water." Nor have they reviewed it in advance. I suspect because Disney owns their show and Shyamalan took "Lady" to Warner Brothers because Disney wouldn't give him enough money ($75 mil) to make the film and Disney is pissed. Maybe it will show up next week though they've scheduled that to be a "best so far" episode. The rest of their show tonight was filled with "in the theaters."
To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
