Post by obliv326 on Jul 26, 2006 3:19:05 GMT -5
saw lady in thbe h20 today. i had read a few reviews, knew a few things ab out it, and maybe that had prepared me, but...i liked it...
i have a theory...indulge me a tangent. a few weeks back, i was reading a famous music magazine. i think it was spin, but i cant remember, and i am too lazy to go look for it...so, too bad...
anyway, there was a review of a few new albums, and i specifically remember they had reviewed the new albums by a pair of highly respected rock bands, and thbe album by a r&b diva formerly in a larger group now making her debut, all of which will remain nameless to avoid controversy.
the bands, whose records were generally well regarded in the text of the review, was given 3 stars (out of 5). the diva, whose album was pretty well disregarded as pop tripe in the text, was given 3 1/2 stars.
we dont always rate things on a level field. i am quite certain that the reviewers considered the albums by the bands to be superior to the pop diva, yet, possibly because mmore was expected of them, they scored lower.
this isnt unique to music. it is possibly nmore common in movies. how many times has a spielberg film gotten trashed, and some amateurish indie film gotten a rave, simply because of the different level of expectations. a case in point...there is a film called "go fish." it is a cleverly written film, and one of the first to tell a story frtom a lesbian POV w/o being a piece of objectification or some male fantasy.
it is also so completely amateurish as to be unwatchable. they director, o whoever is responsible for the visuals style, is so clueless that, at one point, they place two actors in a space too small to get both the actors and thne camera inside, and ather than cutting between them, or moving outside the space into the street, or, geez, going somewhere else, it chooses to sit right betwen them, in fact showing nothing but the ends of the actresses noses for the bulk of the scene.
later, the same problem occurs. this time, the reult is a sloooooow pan between the two, resulting in about 10 seconds of an out of focus background the whole of the shot.
why did is just spend tywo paragraphs on a 12 year old lesbian film w/nothing to do w/suspense or horror or anythng else that mr west is known for?
because that film, with its home movie quality careaowrk, has a 73% rating on rotten tomatoes. this is higher, or even with, such films as the fog, monster house, the terminal, jurassic park 2 &3, empire of the sun, unbreakable, killer's kiss (an early kubrick feature), solaris, kingdom of heaven, legend, alien 3, jeepers creepers 2 & 3, both versions of the grudge (japan and us), and the ring...are you seriously going to tell me that go fish is a better cin ematic achievement than any one olf these films? or hell, lets not be snobs...is it, by far, the most dull of everyone of these films listed above? while that is a very subjective question, most people reading this, it being on a web page for a horror qriter, will be inclined to agree with me. the ;playing field is not level. if it were, the good intentions of a film like 'go fish'...and lets face it, that is the major strength theere...would not stand a chance against the sheer technical, well, averageness of these other films wuld be enough to persuade most viewers.
the field is not level for m. night shyamalan. in a way, this is good, things are expected of him that are not expected of most filmmakers...he was the next big hope. the guy who was going to give us the new aliens/poltergeist/et/the thing, all wrapped up in one guy. in many ways, it wasmnt fair. it took steven spielberg four huge blockbusters, and Almost a decade, before he got baclashed as badly as spielberg did after ET.
most of shyamalan's 'heat' came from sixth sense, which would have put him in the same place, career wise, as spielberg after jaws...yet, look at the difference between the hype on unbreakable and spielberg's follow up, close encounters....shyamalan gets plastered on tne cover of USA today, and good moprning america, the whole nine. if you can believe it, the follow up to the biggest blockbuster if all time, and the film that actually changed the way movies were made, was overshadowed, and relegated to also ran status...by a little film called star wars.
still, spielberg had ce3k and raiders of the lost ark before he built up the perfect storm for the summer of 82...when he blew up even larger than it seemed possible, not onl;y with ET, the SECOND time spielberg made the biggest blockbuster of all time (he has done it 3X so far)but poltergeist as well...not a bad way to take on expectations.
shyamalan, after his jaws, was under rhe microscope. unbreakable wasnt the world beater we all expected, but, looking back, it is actually a pretty fine picture. the thing is, it fits hos ouevre perfectly. he has a darker world view, a cynical streak, that seems to play against the typical bright, sunny hollywood worldview. it c ertajnly makes the films a little more bitter to take. unbreakable, dark, shattered masterwork that it is, is no CE3K, and its really ouir fautl for expecting that of shyamalan.
the word now on m. night is that he is a disappointment...cant be trusted. fanboys harp on signs as full of holes (Imostly about the whole water thing, which i actually think can be defended logically and scientifically) about the way the village as a complete 'ripoff', and the early word on lady in the water is 'total disaster'...
well, you know, i happened to catch the village on cable a few months back, and guess what...its really not that bad. wuld it have been better w/o the big 'twist'? i think so, but you know, maybe the reason it was such a disappointment is b/c the setup was so compelling to begin with. once you get over that, and just let yourself watch some of the cinematography, dialogue, and some of the really bravura acting in the film, its actually a nice little film, flawed as it is.
SPOILER POSSIBILITIES....(ALTHOUGH I'LL TRY TO BE VAGUE)
which brings s up to lady in he water. reviews go on and and on about the whole fairytale thing, and how it is just "too much" to try and get into a 2 hour movie. the fact is that the film is really about seeing this story unfold before the audience. you either buy into t or not...granted, the unfolding of the story does take p the bulk of the narrative, and in that way, it should have been longer. i would honestly like to have seen about another 1/2 hr to 45 minutes with those characters, esp in the climactic scene.
as for the specifics, giamatti is great, as he always is. he does have a gimmick, stutterung, which seems forced a couple times. other actors, fine ones, do great work, but have little to do. jared (son of richard) harris is fine as a pothead weirdo. jeffery 'basquiat' wright is similarly solid in a small role. surprisingly, m. night himself is good in a more substantial role. conveying intelligence and quiet concern. and as most reviews have indicated, bob balaba steals the ebntire film. hes worth the price of adissikon himself, giving one olf his typically quiet, distrted performances. he alone elevates the film a livele abovve wherre it would be otherwise. all these name actors with little to do lead me to believe that maybe there is more lady in the water sitting in a cuttin g room floor somewhere. i personally would love to see it...if only out of curiosity. esp if theres more balaban somewhere. he really is priceless...
still, it washes over you, and if you let it, you can find yourself enjoying the film as the little gem shyamalan no doubt has in hiis head. so, if you care what i say at all, go see it. i mean, lets be honest,...on a level playing field, you KNOW this film would have to be better than click, little man, or clerks II...shyamalan, as writer/director, is guaranteed to be better than those other guys as director (and yes, kevin smith is not tyhat good...sorry.write me, we'll argue...and ill probably get around to blogging on him at some point...)
anyway, maybe we should lower our expectations for shyamalan, and just try to take him for what he is worth...sixth sense was not an aberration, but it ws not the indication of what we were expecting. let him blaze his path andi think when we are down the path with him for a while, and stop trying to make him into the 'spielberg for the n ew millenium', we'll most likely have some interesting stuff...
i have a theory...indulge me a tangent. a few weeks back, i was reading a famous music magazine. i think it was spin, but i cant remember, and i am too lazy to go look for it...so, too bad...
anyway, there was a review of a few new albums, and i specifically remember they had reviewed the new albums by a pair of highly respected rock bands, and thbe album by a r&b diva formerly in a larger group now making her debut, all of which will remain nameless to avoid controversy.
the bands, whose records were generally well regarded in the text of the review, was given 3 stars (out of 5). the diva, whose album was pretty well disregarded as pop tripe in the text, was given 3 1/2 stars.
we dont always rate things on a level field. i am quite certain that the reviewers considered the albums by the bands to be superior to the pop diva, yet, possibly because mmore was expected of them, they scored lower.
this isnt unique to music. it is possibly nmore common in movies. how many times has a spielberg film gotten trashed, and some amateurish indie film gotten a rave, simply because of the different level of expectations. a case in point...there is a film called "go fish." it is a cleverly written film, and one of the first to tell a story frtom a lesbian POV w/o being a piece of objectification or some male fantasy.
it is also so completely amateurish as to be unwatchable. they director, o whoever is responsible for the visuals style, is so clueless that, at one point, they place two actors in a space too small to get both the actors and thne camera inside, and ather than cutting between them, or moving outside the space into the street, or, geez, going somewhere else, it chooses to sit right betwen them, in fact showing nothing but the ends of the actresses noses for the bulk of the scene.
later, the same problem occurs. this time, the reult is a sloooooow pan between the two, resulting in about 10 seconds of an out of focus background the whole of the shot.
why did is just spend tywo paragraphs on a 12 year old lesbian film w/nothing to do w/suspense or horror or anythng else that mr west is known for?
because that film, with its home movie quality careaowrk, has a 73% rating on rotten tomatoes. this is higher, or even with, such films as the fog, monster house, the terminal, jurassic park 2 &3, empire of the sun, unbreakable, killer's kiss (an early kubrick feature), solaris, kingdom of heaven, legend, alien 3, jeepers creepers 2 & 3, both versions of the grudge (japan and us), and the ring...are you seriously going to tell me that go fish is a better cin ematic achievement than any one olf these films? or hell, lets not be snobs...is it, by far, the most dull of everyone of these films listed above? while that is a very subjective question, most people reading this, it being on a web page for a horror qriter, will be inclined to agree with me. the ;playing field is not level. if it were, the good intentions of a film like 'go fish'...and lets face it, that is the major strength theere...would not stand a chance against the sheer technical, well, averageness of these other films wuld be enough to persuade most viewers.
the field is not level for m. night shyamalan. in a way, this is good, things are expected of him that are not expected of most filmmakers...he was the next big hope. the guy who was going to give us the new aliens/poltergeist/et/the thing, all wrapped up in one guy. in many ways, it wasmnt fair. it took steven spielberg four huge blockbusters, and Almost a decade, before he got baclashed as badly as spielberg did after ET.
most of shyamalan's 'heat' came from sixth sense, which would have put him in the same place, career wise, as spielberg after jaws...yet, look at the difference between the hype on unbreakable and spielberg's follow up, close encounters....shyamalan gets plastered on tne cover of USA today, and good moprning america, the whole nine. if you can believe it, the follow up to the biggest blockbuster if all time, and the film that actually changed the way movies were made, was overshadowed, and relegated to also ran status...by a little film called star wars.
still, spielberg had ce3k and raiders of the lost ark before he built up the perfect storm for the summer of 82...when he blew up even larger than it seemed possible, not onl;y with ET, the SECOND time spielberg made the biggest blockbuster of all time (he has done it 3X so far)but poltergeist as well...not a bad way to take on expectations.
shyamalan, after his jaws, was under rhe microscope. unbreakable wasnt the world beater we all expected, but, looking back, it is actually a pretty fine picture. the thing is, it fits hos ouevre perfectly. he has a darker world view, a cynical streak, that seems to play against the typical bright, sunny hollywood worldview. it c ertajnly makes the films a little more bitter to take. unbreakable, dark, shattered masterwork that it is, is no CE3K, and its really ouir fautl for expecting that of shyamalan.
the word now on m. night is that he is a disappointment...cant be trusted. fanboys harp on signs as full of holes (Imostly about the whole water thing, which i actually think can be defended logically and scientifically) about the way the village as a complete 'ripoff', and the early word on lady in the water is 'total disaster'...
well, you know, i happened to catch the village on cable a few months back, and guess what...its really not that bad. wuld it have been better w/o the big 'twist'? i think so, but you know, maybe the reason it was such a disappointment is b/c the setup was so compelling to begin with. once you get over that, and just let yourself watch some of the cinematography, dialogue, and some of the really bravura acting in the film, its actually a nice little film, flawed as it is.
SPOILER POSSIBILITIES....(ALTHOUGH I'LL TRY TO BE VAGUE)
which brings s up to lady in he water. reviews go on and and on about the whole fairytale thing, and how it is just "too much" to try and get into a 2 hour movie. the fact is that the film is really about seeing this story unfold before the audience. you either buy into t or not...granted, the unfolding of the story does take p the bulk of the narrative, and in that way, it should have been longer. i would honestly like to have seen about another 1/2 hr to 45 minutes with those characters, esp in the climactic scene.
as for the specifics, giamatti is great, as he always is. he does have a gimmick, stutterung, which seems forced a couple times. other actors, fine ones, do great work, but have little to do. jared (son of richard) harris is fine as a pothead weirdo. jeffery 'basquiat' wright is similarly solid in a small role. surprisingly, m. night himself is good in a more substantial role. conveying intelligence and quiet concern. and as most reviews have indicated, bob balaba steals the ebntire film. hes worth the price of adissikon himself, giving one olf his typically quiet, distrted performances. he alone elevates the film a livele abovve wherre it would be otherwise. all these name actors with little to do lead me to believe that maybe there is more lady in the water sitting in a cuttin g room floor somewhere. i personally would love to see it...if only out of curiosity. esp if theres more balaban somewhere. he really is priceless...
still, it washes over you, and if you let it, you can find yourself enjoying the film as the little gem shyamalan no doubt has in hiis head. so, if you care what i say at all, go see it. i mean, lets be honest,...on a level playing field, you KNOW this film would have to be better than click, little man, or clerks II...shyamalan, as writer/director, is guaranteed to be better than those other guys as director (and yes, kevin smith is not tyhat good...sorry.write me, we'll argue...and ill probably get around to blogging on him at some point...)
anyway, maybe we should lower our expectations for shyamalan, and just try to take him for what he is worth...sixth sense was not an aberration, but it ws not the indication of what we were expecting. let him blaze his path andi think when we are down the path with him for a while, and stop trying to make him into the 'spielberg for the n ew millenium', we'll most likely have some interesting stuff...