Lady in the Water -- In which Maureen disagrees with Molly and rants…

Let the cage match begin....

As I commented on Molly’s post, I too walked out of the theatre thinking… And since I normally love movies that make me think, I suppose that’s something positive. Problem is, I was thinking, “M. Night! Why have you forsaken me? Why have you let your ego get the better of you? Why have you presented your loyal fans with this self-indulgent drivel?”

Like Molly, I’m a huge fan of M. Night. I even loved THE VILLAGE, though many didn’t. I thought UNBREAKABLE was fabulous—not to mention his movies that most people loved—SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS.

What bothered me most about LADY IN THE WATER is how self-indulgent it seemed. He makes all these wink-wink-nod-nods about writing and storytelling, but then does all those things he’s making fun of (i.e. clunky foreshadowing). I think SCREAM was better as storytelling satire than this, and ADAPTATION much smarter. M. Night, it’s been done before and done better.

At first, I thought Bob Balaban's film critic character was a funny, clever idea. Have someone tell Paul Giamatti’s character how stories normally turn out. Even though I didn’t buy that Giamatti’s character would think of asking the critic for help—I was still giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point. Truth? I was actually really smiling through that part. “Oh, M. Night. You are so clever. You’re not going to let me down. All those critics who hated this movie were wrong. Disney was stupid to fire you over this movie. It's cool and smart. Everyone else was too dense to get it.”

But I soon changed my mind… Perhaps I was expecting more from the film critic device? Maybe some unexpected twists? Maybe some misdirection that worked? Maybe something that made me question reality and who was sane or not sane? Something….
While the critic’s predictions were wrong, it was so freakin’ obvious which character was the correct choice in each case. In fact, I’d picked the right one in each case from the start. Huh? It’s not the sisters? Huh? It’s not the kid? Huh? It’s not Giamatti? (He’d already healed her.) And why was that freaky character played by Freddy Rodriguez there if he wasn’t the Guardian? For me, the film critic device made the plot too predictable and took all the magic out of it. (SPOILER: Although I did laugh when he got killed.) If he chose to give two viable choices for each “helper” just to create another plot point (Oh, no, we chose the wrong people!) then shame on him. It was a weak climax for the movie because it was so predictible.

And why did M. Night cast himself in an important role???? He can’t act. He’s not very interesting to look at, and in the hands of a better actor, that role might have added some depth to the film. His character was given a huge burden (changing the world) and then found out about his own death, yet had the same deadpan expression on his face the entire film.
No reaction?
Seriously?
M. Night, cast an ACTOR next time! (And I mean, come on… casting yourself in the role of a writer whose words are going to change civilization for the better???? How self-indulgent and egomaniacal can you get!)

I think that’s where he lost me… After we found out who his character was, I just couldn’t stop rolling my eyes.

One more rant… I think the way Giamatti learned about the story was as contrived as you can get and I thought several characters were stereotypes beyond belief (particularly the Korean woman and her mother). I get that even the “real world” of the movie was supposed to be fairytale-esque, (i.e. freak-show-character who works out one side of his body) but, like I said… M. Night had already lost me.

Maybe his next film will win me back. (If someone lets him make one.) I hope so.