|
|
 |
Lady In The Water
R4 - Australia - Warner Home Video Review written by and copyright: Noor Razzak and Stevie McCleary (3rd February 2007). |
|
The Film
 It is traditional for a review to start by leading you in gently, giving you some points of interest or a nice metaphor, and leading you through what will be discussed. Personally, I’m very partial to an abstract metaphor that eventually ties up in a (hopefully) humorous fashion. However, it is usual to connect these metaphors to the subject matter or themes undertaken in the film. And so, with respect to M. Night Shyamalan‘s Lady in the Water, which certainly doesn’t hide what type of film it is, I will start the review the way I mean to continue, and the way I intend to end. This movie blows chunks. Big-ass frickin’ chunks. I hated it. From start to finish. Worst movie I’ve seen all year, leaving me with a strong sense of bitter disappointment. It’s a self-important masturbatory experience for the writer/director and it sucks because of it. Here we go! I’d heard bad reviews of Lady in the Water, but I ignored them. Why, you ask? It was because each of M. Night Shyamalan‘s films had received more negative press than the last. And in nearly every case, I disagreed with the critics. I’ve been a huge fan of all his previous works. Unbreakable (2000) was my first. I’d missed The Sixth Sense (1999). As a comic fan, and a fan of the cast, Unbreakable was just immensely fun for me. I thought it was very well done. I watched The Sixth Sense soon after. I’d never had the twist spoiled for me, so that was good. I did work it out, fifteen minutes into it, but in no way did that dampen my enjoyment. The film is solid and emotionally gripping. A film does not stand on the strength of a twist. Then Signs (2002) arrived and the backlash begun. Understandably, because of the success of The Sixth Sense, there was much scrutiny on Shyamalan. Indeed, many people had begun referring to him as this generation’s Alfred Hitchcock. This type of label can be a detriment in many cases. And so, Signs was not universally loved. Many mocked the plot, claiming many errors of logic. One of them, is the notion that (spoiler alert) the aliens came to conquer a planet partially covered in a substance that is deadly to them. Firstly, we humans travel out to worlds that don’t even have oxygen, alright? We would die instantly if our suits got punctured, yet not many question our need to reach the stars. Secondly, the film is a look into the nature of whether life is a sequence of coincidences, or whether there are signs that can guide us. That is what the movie is about, not just aliens. The Village (2004) was the worst so far, in the general public’s eye. They thought the twist was uninspired (again, I worked it out early on, but enjoyed the film) and the premise hackneyed. I enjoyed the film. I thought, at its heart, that it was quite sweet and engaging. Naturally, when I heard that Shyamalan was working on a fairy tale-style based film - was indeed looking forward to it. Lady in the Water, this is where it all went wrong. I’d question what he was thinking but there I no proof that Shyamalan put his pants on long enough to consider any rational thought. I heard that he had to swap studios because Disney didn’t agree with ‘his vision’-more to the point, they didn’t understand it. This is the first time I’ve agreed with a major Hollywood studio in a long time. He chose the story based on what his kids wanted to see him do next – okay - and they wanted him to do the short fairy tale that he wrote for them. Wow, his kids must love his work almost as much as he does. We’re probably a few years away from finding out that his kids are just stuffed raccoons, wheeled out to explain his next illogical project. The film opens with some cartoons and exposition dialogue explaining what they couldn’t be bothered slotting in the actual film. It’s largely unnecessary, as it equates to fairies live in the sea, they don’t come around much anymore. We are then introduced to Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) who is a manager at some apartment blocks. He stutters. WE see him introducing a new tenant - he’s a film critic - to the building. The critic gets to meet some of the colourful characters who inhabit the building. I say characters using the loosest definition of the word. Bizarre, unrealistic stereotypes would be a closer fit, but if I stopped right now to attack every problem with the film, we’d never get through the plot. But I’ll come back to it. Anyways, Cleveland catches Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) who is a Narf from some underwater place, coming out of the pool. So he sits down with her and has a conversation. I don’t know what a Narf is, and I don’t really know why any of the things that are happening are happening. Not that much is happening. Cleveland doesn’t stutter around her, so there’s that. In fact, this is the plot in a nutshell: Cleveland talks with Story because he needs to help her return to the bottom of the pool. He then goes and asks an Asian woman about Narf fairy tales and she tells him a little bit. Then, Cleveland talks to Story for a bit and realises he needs more of the fairy tale. So he goes back to the Asian lady, (June Kyoto Lu) who gets her daughter (Cindy Cheung) to translate all this, by the way and asks the next part of the story. Then he goes and talks with Story for a while, until he realises he needs more of the story. So, he heads back to the old Asian lady - get it yet? Would it be so hard to ASK HER THE WHOLE FAIRY-TALE? This is case of needing to have the information spread out over the film but not having a good way of doing it. So we’ll just go back to the same person to tell us a bit more of the story. I always ask for just one chapter of the story needed to save a fairy-lady from grass covered wolfs (that would be the thing preventing her from returning home - to the pool) instead of the full story. Good thing that nobody thinks it’s strange that I keep returning to ask these questions too. Eventually we reach a point where Cleveland acquires the help of the tenants, who just walk in and believe this story about the Narf, to help send her home. There’s a great concept hidden under this movie, that these people are unconsciously drawn to this one building to achieve a great deed. It’s buried under petty attacks and self-important garbage. I thought about that while Cleveland walked back and forth between Story and the old lady for forty minutes. The character of the film critic is the first major problem with the film. The critic (Bob Balaban) exists purely because Shyamalan intensely dislikes film critics. I guess that’s a fine reason. The critic speaks in a monotone cultured from a belief that there is nothing new to see anymore. He looks down on everything around him. And the one time that Cleveland asks for advice, because he needs to know how to spot the certain types of characters that Story needs to protect her, the critic gives him a basic rundown of all these people we’ve seen so far throughout the film. He talks about the conventions of film-making and what these characters would have done to make themselves known. After not questioning why he’d be asked these things, the critic eventually goes on to be the only person to die in the film. A death that is so ridiculous that I refuse to discuss it further. Suffice to say, the critic talks out loud in that scene about what type of film he’s in. Naturally, we also find out that the information the critic gave Cleveland was false, just to set up the line, Who would ever listen to a film critic? The absolute worst moment involving this shameless attack on film writers is when the critic returns from seeing a romance film. To Cleveland he questions why characters walk around talking out loud in films when they don’t do that in real life, and why they always reunite and talk at the end of films in the rain, because nobody does that in real life either. Cleveland then turns towards the camera, looking just past it, and asks whether it could be a metaphor for purification; starting anew, to which the critic replies No, it’s not. Get it? It’s because critics don’t know anything. He’s dumb. The other major problem, connected to his indulgence over the film critic issue, is the role Shyamalan plays in the film. He plays a writer - a writer whose words will alter the course of human history. Right. Pretentious, much? In fact, when the critic is revealed to have given terrible advice about who Cleveland should be searching for, guess who the only person who was still right? Shyamalan cast himself in the role of saviour. To him, this made sense. To me, all I can see is someone who believes so seriously in himself that he became a parody of his own accomplishments. The only shining light in the film, naturally, is the insanely talented Paul Giamatti. There is a very emotional scene towards the end with Cleveland that really reminds you to go and rent a better film with him in it. It’s almost painful to watch him put this much effort into a film that never ‘clicks’ or hits a good stride. It’s a pity because, much like Story’s supposed underwater land, there is a wealth of untapped potential beneath the surface. One of my major beefs with the ‘fairy tale’ logic used here is that it both explains everything and nothing at the same time. Need someone to breathe underwater for minutes? It’s magic. Need people to find hidden messages in crossword puzzles? It’s magic. How does she come from another world when it’s just a pool? Magic. Why can you only see a great big wolf by using a mirror? Magic. Why do giant monkeys descend at the end of the film to beat things up? Magic - apparently. Why do the characters in this film talk nothing like real people? Magic? To bottom line it: this film is not very good. It could have done with about ten rewrites to the script, in order to get it to an appropriate level. It could have done with many things, actually. But I would have settled for it not being made at all. This is not a misunderstood masterpiece, this is a massive misfire. Shyamalan’s writer character asks Am I going to die because I wrote this? My magic eight ball says The future looks cloudy. Ask again later.
Video
Presented in a widescreen ratio of 1.78:1 this anamorphic transfer is quite good although I found that at times the image was quite soft. The colors were accurate to the director’s vision, with deep blacks considering the majority of this film takes place in low light situations. Skins tones weren’t entirely natural but looking at the lighting design it was never meant to be. Overall Warner Brothers have done a fine job but could have been a tad on the sharper side.
Audio
A single English Dolby Digital 5.1 EX track is includes as well as an English Descriptive track for the visually impaired mixed in Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround. The Dolby EX sound was about as perfect as it can get, the dialogue is clear and distortion free and the mix felt like it had weight and depth to it being aggressive with the sub channels and also subtle when required. The score is beautifully rendered and makes effective use of the entire sound space. Optional subtitles are included in Arabic, English, English for the hearing impaired, Greek, Hebrew and Icelandic.
Extras
First up is "Lady in the Water: A Bedtime Story" a featurette which runs for 5 minutes, in this clip Shyamalan provides some background about the story which was originally conceived as a bedtime story for his kids, he talks about developing it into a film, plus reads excerpts from the companion storybook that he wrote. Next is "Reflections of Lady in the Water" a documentary in 6 parts that covers various aspects of the production that includes: - Intro and the Script which runs for 3 minutes 37 seconds, The director, producers and cast talk about the story and the process of getting involved in the film. The clip provides a glimpse into how Shyamalan works and developed the story which apparently intrigued and inspired the cast and crew. - The Characters runs for 11 minutes 44 seconds, in this clip the director provides additional background on the characters and their purpose in this story, the casting process including what sensibilities the director was after in an actor as we look at the filming of some key scenes. - The Look runs for 4 minutes 55 seconds, this takes a closer look at the photographic design for the film, things such as colour and farming are important storytelling tools as director of photography Christopher Doyle takes us through his process from the storyboarding to shooting, other cast and crew also comment on Doyle’s personality which is interesting considering his eccentric nature. - The Location runs for 3 minutes 12 seconds and takes a brief look at the design, construction and shooting of the apartment complex set which includes both the uninviting exterior to the interiors of the various characters’ apartments. - The Creatures runs for 3 minutes 40 seconds, Shyamalan provides some background on these creatures he created for this story as we take a look at the process of bringing them to life using animatronics techniques. - Post and Closing runs for 7 minutes 37 seconds, this takes us into the post-production process which includes creating the CGI eagle for the film’s climax, the editing process, and the recording of the film’s score. This documentary is deceptive in the sense that it feels like a complete making-of but when looked at in parts the short runtime of each segment allows only the basics to come through and doesn’t go into too much detail. Next is an Auditions reel which runs for 2 minutes 10 seconds and features highlights from the various audition tapes that were recorded of these actors performing scenes from the script. A gag reel follows and runs for 3 minutes 16 seconds, this features the standard fare such as line flubs, missed cues, the actors laughing in-between takes and generally acting silly on the set. A deleted scenes reel is next and runs for 5 minutes 2 seconds, this features two additional exposition scenes between Cleveland and Story, additional exterior shots of the apartment complex, the Guild questioning the myth, Mrs. Bell shows concern for Story’s condition and Mr. Leeds describing his vision. The film’s original teaser trailer is next and runs for 1 minute 41 seconds, and the film’s original theatrical trailer is also featured and runs for 1 minute 29 seconds. Rounding out the supplements are some DVD-ROM features that include web links.
Overall
|
|||||
|