July 18, 2006, 2:50 p.m. CST
by Ricky Henderson
July 18, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST
by Ricky Henderson
Pirates is still going to own this at the BO. Clerks 2 get my hard earned cash this weekend, not this self-indulgent tripe. Anything that makes Harold giggle I avoid like the plague.
July 18, 2006, 2:53 p.m. CST
July 18, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST
Your nephew? Is so, why is he half cyborg now?
July 18, 2006, 2:56 p.m. CST
I swear, Harry never ceases to amaze me with the things he comes up with.
July 18, 2006, 3 p.m. CST
by Ricky Henderson
...on your face while gnawing on centipedes? Can we actually discuss specific things from the movie that you liked or disliked? You know, like actual film critics do? Instead of just typing annoyingly abstract flights of fancy? Has love gone to your head Harry?
July 18, 2006, 3:01 p.m. CST
... not the exception. SIGNS and THE VILLAGE didn't make a lick of damn sense, was I supposed to have abandoned logic with those, too? Please. He's just a hack. Saying you'll enjoy the movie if you don't expect too much from it isn't high praise.
July 18, 2006, 3:03 p.m. CST
by Gwai Lo
Sometimes a glowing review from Harry is all the indication I need that a film will suck
July 18, 2006, 3:04 p.m. CST
by Mr Glass
I fucking love that movie! Bodes well for LADY IN THE WATER.
July 18, 2006, 3:08 p.m. CST
And yes, that is the shortest Harry review ever. F The Village.
July 18, 2006, 3:10 p.m. CST
Really Harry, fiancee, as in living breathing flesh woman? Well kudos than my little pork chop, its good to know regualr old fat guys can score chicks from time to time. Though I will start construction of my shelter now, for the birth of the child shall signal the commencement of the apocalypse.
July 18, 2006, 3:17 p.m. CST
Good movies do not require you to turn off your logic-using brain cells.
July 18, 2006, 3:19 p.m. CST
by Nice Marmot
What in the HELL are you talking about Harry? And I hate it when people put Hudsucker at the bottom of their Coen's list. I just LOVE that movie & put it in the top 4.
July 18, 2006, 3:21 p.m. CST
Mmm . . . Coen Brothers . . . those two words will get me to go see any goddamn thing, not that I wasn't already planning on checking this one out for myself. But I needed to take this opportunity to remember how much I love them Coen Brothers . . . "Y'know, for kids!"
July 18, 2006, 3:24 p.m. CST
by Ricky Henderson
Seriously, drop the giggles, pick up a pen, and write something intelligent Harry. You havent addressed one element of the movie yet. Don't tell us what the movie ISNT. Tell us what it IS. Don't tell us who the movie ISN'T FOR, tell us what won you over. Use your grown-up words Harold, you silly Faulknarian Man-Child
July 18, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST
by Tar Heel
Maybe I could forget that this is an M. Night movie if it weren't for the fact that he insists on shoving it in our faces by appearing in every one of his flicks. Manoj, stay behind the camera or take some acting lessons. Please.
July 18, 2006, 3:30 p.m. CST
But this looks nothing like either, there's no way I'm going anywhere near this piece of shit. It doesn't bode well that this "review" consists of nothing but vague ravings, the real reviews have been murdering this thing so far. Looks like another huge weekend for Pirates. So how the hell did a movie like the Villiage make money? Do people really go just because it's MNS? And what IS up with the naked girls in the shower comment? Is that an obscure movie reference, or should we be even more alarmed than usual?
July 18, 2006, 3:34 p.m. CST
Sorry M. Night, I see thru your little ruse. Even that American Express commercial was pompous and incoherent. The guy takes himself way too seriously.
July 18, 2006, 3:37 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...then I really don't want to know where it's been. Seriously, Harry, you can like shit movies. It's okay. But don't try to pretend they're something more than that. Like them...hell...even love them for the shit they are. Savor the smell. Marvel at the texture (kind of spongey, actually) and let your eye linger on each chunk of corn or undigested peanut that mars its otherwise simultaneously smooth-yet-lumpy surface. But don't try to tell me the shit is actually a diamond...or even that there's a diamond somewhere underneath if you're willing to eat some shit to find it. That's insulting to both of us.
July 18, 2006, 3:51 p.m. CST
thanks for your time
July 18, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
Was there even anything about the movie in there, got tired after trying to wade through the paragraps of BS about the kind of person I need to be to like it.
July 18, 2006, 3:53 p.m. CST
I love movies that have a logic all their own. The requirement is that the viewer let loose their pre-conceived notions of reality and allow the movie to transport them. "Belle et la Bette" and "Spirited Away" are those kinds of movie to me.
July 18, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST
July 18, 2006, 4 p.m. CST
This movie sucked but I like sucky movies. Most people don't like sucky movies so they won't like this movie because it sucks. Me? I like sucky movies so I write sucky reviews that won't lend any insight whatsoever! PS- I actually make a living doing this.
July 18, 2006, 4:03 p.m. CST
by Lando Griffin
spite all of us talkbackers who ridicule him for it - still doesn't make it right. *** Yes Harry has a fiancee, this was news about four or five months ago - where have the rest of you been? Have you not been reading his "reviews"? He has to mention her at least once every review. *** The fact that he "loved" this movie but it was one of his shortest "reviews" really equals the fact that he mildly disliked it but because of the whole interview with M Night and incestuous relationship he personally has with those in Hollywood now he can't give it a negative review - remember Nacho Libre? A warm hug and a lukewarm review is all they gets. deja vu all over again. If he truly "loved" this movie the review would've been 50 incoherent paragraphs long filled with boyhood memories. Although there was incoherency in there with all the "girls talking to each other in the shower" gibberish. Additionally if this movie is a big middle finger to critics - doesn't that include Harry? Even though you liked this movie you are still a critic right? There was no distinction between critics who love him, hate him or think he's alright. (Which reminds me of that Mitch Hedberg bit "You wither loved us or hated us or thought we were alright") With each passing review from this site you can tell that the mainstream critical reaction will more than likely be overwhemlingly negative.
July 18, 2006, 4:15 p.m. CST
To be a critic, you have to dislike a movie now and then. Y'know, be *critical*. This review has proven conclusively that Harry's opinion isn't relevant. He likes everything.
July 18, 2006, 4:15 p.m. CST
Frankly - my fingers were getting tired. As right before the review, I wrote WORLD TRADE CENTER - and 5 producer related emails that were lengthy - and then this one. --- I don't believe this film is a big middle finger to critics, but a type of critic that believes in "Absolute Opinions." You know, that there is a right way and a wrong way to think about film. Every review I write is absolutely right for how I feel about a film - but is not the be all end all about the film. There is no such review. Film criticism is a subjective form, and all opinions are correct - as they reflect how an individual or a sub-section of the populace may or may not feel. The whole reason I created this site was to let as many VOICES be heard as possible, as there are an infinite amount of ways to see films given one's personal experiences, the films they've seen, books they've read and moments they've lived. The type of critic that M Night is attacking is the type of critic that believes they "KNOW IT ALL" and "IS ALWAYS RIGHT." The key, I feel, is to know what you know and make room for that which you don't.
July 18, 2006, 4:18 p.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
equals bad storytelling. It's like 'meta-fiction'. Meta is interesting as an intellectual excercise...for the writer. For the reader/audience it is an excruciating experience.
July 18, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST
by white owl
now I'll go to CHUD and read a real review
July 18, 2006, 4:27 p.m. CST
What the hell did that even mean?!! Is it a reference to a scene in the movie? Wouldn't little girls frolicking through the sprinklers or playing with new Barbie's have been a more apt metaphor? Harry, as much as I hope you don't become the next Gary Glitter, if it happens then I guess the warning signs were there.
July 18, 2006, 4:27 p.m. CST
OK, I'm Vito Corleone and you're Johnny Fontaine: "Be a man"! I only wish I could slap you silly like in the movie.
July 18, 2006, 4:32 p.m. CST
Is spot on and fantastic. That is why I love the big guys reviews. Sorry folks, he is right on this one. You can read my review at this address: http://www.movietack.net/r923-lady-in-the-water-movie-review.html
July 18, 2006, 4:33 p.m. CST
by Mr Nice Gaius
http://tinyurl.com/h4hla -- Jethro Tull was a person.
July 18, 2006, 4:37 p.m. CST
by Amy Chasing
The other two, not so much. ;)
July 18, 2006, 4:41 p.m. CST
by Mr Nice Gaius
Sweet. Now go make me a turkey pot pie!
July 18, 2006, 4:43 p.m. CST
No offence Harry, but I'd like to read Moriarty's analyis of the film, as I knew you'd like it.
July 18, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST
...there's less insane hatred of Shyamalan in this thread than the other one. "I really want to see M:i:III, but Tom Cruise is in it and they make fun of him on Best Week Ever, so I can't."
July 18, 2006, 4:49 p.m. CST
July 18, 2006, 4:49 p.m. CST
That's easily the second best Coen Brothers film after Fargo. LONG LIVE THE HUD!
July 18, 2006, 5:12 p.m. CST
I will never, ever pay money to see Lady in the Water. Piece of fucking shit. I hope Shyamalan can get his head of his ass at some point in the future, because I truly think he is capable of genius. This isn't it.
July 18, 2006, 5:18 p.m. CST
"If you can see it you'll love it" Bah no. Some movies are just fucking bad. I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks Uwe Boll is visionary because they can let all of that shit he passes for filmaking slide. You're asking me to do this? Can I? Hell no. I'll wait for Stardust for a Truely Great bedtime story.
July 18, 2006, 5:20 p.m. CST
How could anyone like a movie about that red creepy motherly creature from Thundercats?
July 18, 2006, 5:25 p.m. CST
well, this sounds magnificently gay
July 18, 2006, 5:27 p.m. CST
Oh no, your fingers were getting tired, I guess it's because you have so much else to do in your other jobs..Oh wait..YOU HAVE NO OTHER JOB but to maintain this piece of shit site and type up the occassionally (but not lately) coherent review! Night will own all your monkey asses! I need a real reviewer here! When's Ebert getting back. (trots off) HEY ANYONE SEEN STROKEY??
July 18, 2006, 5:33 p.m. CST
dude, you're two steps away from out-gaying "the real peter pan".
July 18, 2006, 5:34 p.m. CST
a nice reverse psychology ad for the movie, by calling people out and saying crap LIKE 'if you can't handle fantasy and using your imagination and releasing your innerchild to pee on the carpet and play naked in the shower with herself blah-blah-blah.' - Harry, if every opinion about a movie is correct, then why did that review sound like such an apology? And... just a reminder, for calling you out, and differing with your opinion, how bout you not ban me for mine, cool?
July 18, 2006, 5:37 p.m. CST
July 18, 2006, 5:41 p.m. CST
by Nate Champion
For us adults in the world, we'll be seeing Miami Vice.
July 18, 2006, 5:48 p.m. CST
that little girl naked in the shower with her friend comment was just absolutely stunning. really amazing. in other news, harry also really liked jar jar binks.
July 18, 2006, 5:52 p.m. CST
For who? My fucken kids? cuz I can care less about some hokey shit fairy tale .
July 18, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST
Fact is, Harry knows talkbackers are usually a bunch of Monday Morning quarterbacks when it comes to film. He knows most of you guys look at film as either being BLACK OR WHITE, with little in between. I've ripped on Harry before, because with AICN he's created a monster. AICN and sites like it has ruined the cinematic experience. AICN has harbored talkbackers that just don't understand movies. If a movie didn't offer 100% of what they were looking for, talkbackers say it sucks. If a loved director tries something different, they crucify him or her. Basically, Harry knows all this. And Harry sees that you've turned against him... the man that gave you this site in the first place, for good or bad. So Harry was PROBABLY saying, "I liked it but knowing you guys you'll rip on me for liking it." Aren't you guys tired of seeing the same old shit? Even so called edgy films aren't edgy anymore because they try to be edgy. What's wrong with M. Night trying to do something that hasn't been done before? Even though VILLAGE may not have been as good as his others, at least he was trying to tell a different kind of story. Wake up you guys. Film is not Black and White.
July 18, 2006, 6:01 p.m. CST
"Can you play like a little girl talking to a best friend naked in the shower?" That's in a film review. That is an actual line from a film review! That's amazing. Like watching a huge bomb go off or a train jump the tracks. Wowie.
July 18, 2006, 6:04 p.m. CST
....personal phonecall interview one week before the movie is released. Instead of a subjective review, you get an apology and attack against the many people who will say this movie sucks. That was very cool of Shyamalan to talk to Harry, but have some integrity. If a movie blows me away, I admit it, I don't instantly try to defend it. This all sounds like the classic fable of the Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone is telling each other it's a brilliant movie while 90% of the public thinks it's trash. 14% at Rotten Tomatoes already. Doesn't look good. BTW, I love Sixth Sense, Signs, & especially Unbreakable. Thought Village was mediocre. I truly hope Harry is right and it's not another stinker because I love any director that loves Hitchcock.
July 18, 2006, 6:11 p.m. CST
I DO think Harry has somewhat sold himself out to the industry, and his reviews as an unbiased critic - an industry outsider - are no longer credible. It's a conflict of interest, journalistically speaking. Otherwise, I agree with your well-worded post.
July 18, 2006, 6:31 p.m. CST
That was Snarf, actually.
July 18, 2006, 6:36 p.m. CST
For me the problem with Harry's review is that it almost seems to argue that there are no bad films, only a set of viewer attitudes and psychological experiences that may or may not be bad fits for a particular film. And the problem here is that a certain type of viewer could tacitly persaude himself to like a film, instead of letting a movie naturally wash over him or her.
July 18, 2006, 6:36 p.m. CST
"...talking to a best friend naked in the shower?" Are you fucking serious, Harry? Has it come to that? You say you loved it, but you write a review that actually makes me NOT want to see the movie... good job!
July 18, 2006, 6:40 p.m. CST
thou dost protest too much... and whats that about naked girls playing in the shower? how the holy fuck did you get a fiancee??
July 18, 2006, 6:43 p.m. CST
It sucked. That is the shortest review.
July 18, 2006, 6:58 p.m. CST
What is it with you loving these shit movies?
July 18, 2006, 7 p.m. CST
by THE KNIGHT
You cunts... If it wasn't for harry, you wouldn't have a nice place like this to post.... 99% of u bitching will be seeing it this weekend anyway
July 18, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST
A bedtime story? This isn't a bedtime story for children...it's a bedtime story for dirty old men who all hope to find a nude Bryce Dallas Howard in their swimming pools!!! Cue the porn film music score!!! But enough of the true foundations of this film. My ultimate problem with M. Night, is that the guy's films are too slow. He doesn't know good pacing...and he really needs to try to do a fast paced action oriented film so he can really study pacing...I mean, some times you need to know when to edit a script, and even when to edit a film. That said, his films are also too damn long, and self important, for their, and or...my own good!!! Still...I saw him on Good Morning America...he looked happy, and he was really enthusiastic about this movie...and a children's book he based on the film. He doesn't seem like the over indulged spoiled film maker which he has been alledged to be, by the media. Even so, if indeed these reports are true...I hope, he gets rid of the yes men supposedly surrounding him...and starts branching out more and taking more chances as a film maker!!! One more thing...give us the sequel to Unbreakable...and show us Bruce Willis in full super hero mode...and Samuel L. Jackson in full villian mode...Let's see what these guys can do when they start really bumping heads together!!!
July 18, 2006, 7:12 p.m. CST
But since he has kids, there is no excuse for naming a character Narf when Pinky and the Brain reruns air all over the place. Its not chance or coincidence. Its a stupid tribute hack job--I dont care what the context is. And for the record, it sounds reeeaaallly stupid. "Are you thinking what I'm thinking, pinky?" "I think so, Brain, but how are we going to put the pants on the gorilla? Narf!!"
July 18, 2006, 7:19 p.m. CST
Methinks Knowles is tryin' to say that there are FACTS and there are OPINIONS - the realm of art is the realm of subjective reactions - and no matter how strongly one feels about his/her reaction to a film that he/she enjoys or dislikes, that still amounts to an OPINION. 'Water is made of Hydrogen and oxygen' is a fact. 'This movie sucked' is an opinion. On no planet is 'sucked' a statement of fact - for any film. It's okay to dislike something without trying to prove that everyone else should dislike it also, just have your opinion and respect others.
July 18, 2006, 7:37 p.m. CST
Nothing in M. Night's previous films can prepare you for the sheer inability to tell a story on screen as he has so overwhelmingly displayed with this film.
July 18, 2006, 7:38 p.m. CST
That was a cool movie. This movie? Looks like a big waste of time...I don't wanna see it but my wife wants to. Damn...
July 18, 2006, 7:48 p.m. CST
...if you "get it" and you're smart like me you'll enjoy it. If you're not a genius like me, capable of seeing the nuances, you'll hate it...because you're dumb. Nice.
July 18, 2006, 7:53 p.m. CST
probably end up seeing it. Also, he's been contacted for directing one of the last two harry potter movies, and he said he would love to do it CRAP
July 18, 2006, 7:58 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
Then it must suck.
July 18, 2006, 8:07 p.m. CST
I told the witch doctor I was in love with you. And then the witch doctor, he told me what to do. He said that: Ooo eee, ooo ah ah, ting tang, M Night Shyamalan. (I have no idea what this movie is about nor have any opinion on it)
July 18, 2006, 8:11 p.m. CST
You'd think that after running a website and writing reviews for 10 years, Harry's writing would be clearer. Yeesh... And just to join in on the fun, Hudsucker rocked, Intolerable Cruelty stunk.
July 18, 2006, 8:21 p.m. CST
"delicious" or "motorscooter perfect"? Know what? I read the reviews but I see the damn movies either way. You know who I am, dammit! LAUS DEO
July 18, 2006, 8:26 p.m. CST
Sorry - I had a good time with our SR discussion ... just thought I'd take a senseless shot at you on another Talkback. I can say I have any interest in seeing this film, no matter how much I absolutely LOVE Giamatti as an actor. Something about a film that (by all descriptions here) dares the audience to hate it then ridicules those critics for their rigid view on filmmaking just doesn't sound like a good time. Besides, I've managed to trip into the "M. Night's overrated" camp after finding Unbreakable unwatchable (even if I could appreciate what he was doing) and feeling totally burned and insulted by "Signs." "Sixth Sense" was kind of cute and well done ... but there's a reason the Twilight Zone "hour long episode" experiment only lasted a season before they went back to the half-hour format. That many gimmicks all in a row get annoying if it takes so many hours to get to the punchline. He obviously has a fan base, and I should probably give his films a second look without all the hype and expectation in tow, but they'll have to fight their way up my 200+ Netflix backlog.
July 18, 2006, 8:30 p.m. CST
by Colonel Kane
July 18, 2006, 8:40 p.m. CST
because both you Massawyrm didn't really review the movie but rather just focused on the nature of movie reviews and opinions. didn't hear much about the plot and acting just a review of the review for the movie and how some people will hate it and others love it.
July 18, 2006, 8:49 p.m. CST
Obviously, we have a plant on our hands. But, honestly, this movie is probably pretty awful. Worse than the village? Probably not. Probably not worth seeing either.
July 18, 2006, 8:53 p.m. CST
If Harry can compare this films mood to "A Company of Wolves", then I'm there.
July 18, 2006, 9 p.m. CST
by zikade zarathos
He puts himself in the damn film as a genius writer who is going to be killed for his brilliance, then his followers are going to lead the world into a new land. For God's sake, he cast himself as Jesus and you expect us to "forget who M Night is" during the duration? To top it off, he puts in a critic who gets brutally killed as a final Fuck You I'm Great. M Night's a egomaniacal, one-trick pony who doesn't know when to admit he's wrong. The LAST thing he wants is for you to remember this is an M Night film, and he'll drive a big honkin' nail through your brain to do it.
July 18, 2006, 9 p.m. CST
by Jack Burton
No logic, making it up as he goes, yeah, sounds like a great one. Good job.
July 18, 2006, 9:09 p.m. CST
I love movies like this. I can't wait to see it now. I feel bad for people who mistake movies for reality. They aren't real dumbasses. They are play. play. play. I remember when I played cards a while back with some people and joking around I did the Mel Gibson Maverick thing where I held my cards backwards so everyone could see what I had. And one tight ass nerd flipped out because I was breaking the rules and throwing off his game since he counted on having to read me to play. 1) he's right, i did it to throw everyone off 2) if was a goddamn motherfucking game. i was there to have a good time. i don't know who these people are who say that movies have to follow rules. they are supposed to be fun. you guys need to find something other than movies to try to feel smart about. cause being too wise and too smart about fun just ruins it.
July 18, 2006, 9:13 p.m. CST
has Harry liked almost everything lately? Besides X-men, which, though I hate the Rat, I liked better than Superman, Harry has given a great big hug to every movie out right now. I'm looking forward to seeing Lady and Clerks 2 but I'm learning I can't really take Harry's word for it. He's as easy to please as a fat kid at a buffet.
July 18, 2006, 9:37 p.m. CST
July 18, 2006, 9:45 p.m. CST
brilliant. Simply brilliant.
July 18, 2006, 9:53 p.m. CST
by 'Cholera's Ghost
Aw hell yeah. Tinkerbelle is a fuckin' babe.
July 18, 2006, 10:06 p.m. CST
by Sasha Nein
Psh, not me, I'm busy watching Pee Wee's Playhouse.
July 18, 2006, 10:13 p.m. CST
by Cheif Brody
YackBacker...Help me out here! The next thing you'll be telling me is The Sixth Sense wasn't a fluke!! All I know is Jethro Tull sucks ass and so will this movie. Harry, I'm glad you're not a food critic...your review would be: I dined with my beautiful fiance and another dude who couldn't get a date at Bern's Steak House. Now...many of you aren't steak lovers...but if you let the juices flow over you, you'll love this place. Many of you are vegetarians...and just won't get what the Bern's is cookin. But if you just believe really hard that meat doesn't come from cows, but rather from puffy white clouds...you'll be able to savor the fine cuts of beef being served up at Bern's. Of course, my sample review is faulty, as it's entirely too long and actually told you something about the steak house. Dude...Next time. Sleep on your review until your chubby fingers aren't so tired.
July 18, 2006, 10:26 p.m. CST
When someone like M. Night ends up looking like Richard Kelly.
July 18, 2006, 10:41 p.m. CST
... oh, arrogance, thy name is Knowles. X3, anyone? Can I get an Ay-men?
July 18, 2006, 10:41 p.m. CST
but a grown up Giamatti curled up and drinking milk like a child? Um... that's not any kind of fairy tale that I ever read. Shyamalan does have good techinique though... But I guess if Harry says 75-85% are going to hate it, I'll stick with the odds and save this until it comes out on DVD.
July 18, 2006, 10:44 p.m. CST
AICN just gave assholes a better way to meet other assholes.
July 18, 2006, 10:59 p.m. CST
by Darth Bauer
I'm paraphrasing what you said, Harry. Way to play it safe. And "Ladykillers" sucked.
July 18, 2006, 10:59 p.m. CST
by Darth Bauer
I'm paraphrasing what you said, Harry. Way to play it safe. And "Ladykillers" sucked.
July 18, 2006, 11:17 p.m. CST
..why dumbfucks come here to spout trash about Harry and his tastes. I'm sure that Harry made this site for those that feel the same about the kinds of movies he likes. If that's not you, why come here? I'm sure there are plenty of sites for elitist fucks out there that you could relate to that are just begging for a person who thinks they're funny or cool. Personally, I think of myself as a geek who likes many (maybe not all) of the same movies as Harry and Co. This is why I come here. I think that MNS is one of the kinds of moviemakers that fit the bill for this site. Kevin Kwapis (I had to IMDB that one) and his ilk maybe not so much. Excuse me now, for I'm going to see a "cool" movie, whether anyone else likes it or not.
July 18, 2006, 11:18 p.m. CST
M. Knight has always got one. Unbreakable is underrated.
July 18, 2006, 11:18 p.m. CST
Unbreakable was near "Unwatchable". Signs was great. And I'm in the minority of people that loved The Village. I've stayed away from anything that will spoil this flick, but so far, just from the trailers, I'm not getting a good feeling out of this one. Hopefully, my opinion will change this weekend.
go to CHUD and read a real review? PLEASE. It's worse than this.
July 18, 2006, 11:27 p.m. CST
Isn't it obvious to everyone that M. Night, whether he realizes it or not, is secretly in love with his leading lady...Bryce Dallas Howard? There is a long tradition of this in Hollywood, from Hitchcock and Grace Kelly...to Woody Allen and Mia Farrow...and any other desperate chick he could get ahold of, and promise a starring role (in a movie) to...And of course, his latest seeming conquest being...Scarlett Johansson!!! Then there is... Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman...Can't forget them...and next on the block to add to this alaways suspect tradition...M. Night and Bryce Dallas Howard. Now, I know he's married, and she just got married the other weekend to her boyfriend of 5 years...but when has that ever stopped anybody in Hollywood from a good old fashioned open marriage??? I don't know if this is just an affair of the heart, or if there is something more deep going on here...but, you can always tell how a director photographs a chick...if he's in love with her...and clearly, M. Night films Bryce Dallas Howard like he's making love to her with every little slow or fast pass of the camera!!! Now...that's the movie I wanna see...about a Hollywood director who is in love with his muse. I guess Woody Allen will be filming it next week, starring Scarlett Johansson...with himself cast as her director/lover on and off the screen...He should call it, "The Casting Couch"...It'll be huge!!!
July 18, 2006, 11:50 p.m. CST
for 99,000,000.95. RIGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!
July 19, 2006, 12:08 a.m. CST
by Roy Neary
this evening at a SP in San Diego. I've seen all the summer blockbusters so far this year and enjoyed most of them but this one truly stands alone. One of the most unique and original I've seen in a while. There is no twist and it is what it is from frame one. A bedtime/fairytale. I believe Harry was right: Most of you won't like it. By the way, the whole "naked best friends shower thing is a scene in the movie.
July 19, 2006, 12:34 a.m. CST
by I Dunno
a in the movie." Dammit, now I have to see this piece of crap.
July 19, 2006, 12:39 a.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
Wait, there maybe hope yet. Or are they seriously children? God, I hope this doesn't turn into a cult phedophilst film.
July 19, 2006, 12:52 a.m. CST
by Silver Shamrock
1) he has bad taste going after pasty broads. 2) her salary woulda been more than 150k. and props to harry for taking a stand on this, unlike some fence sitters.
July 19, 2006, 12:53 a.m. CST
maybe that's the twist... Lady in the water is really a story about a pedophilic filmmaker. I guarantee no one would say "oh i saw that coming" if it was.
July 19, 2006, 1 a.m. CST
July 19, 2006, 1:06 a.m. CST
by Gwai Lo
M Night Mananalfan; M Night Bananaplan; M Night Shamalien; M Night She-malien; M Night Bananaandallbran; M Night Lieutenant Dan; M Night Llama-man
July 19, 2006, 1:09 a.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
M. Night Shauthefukupitsnotfunieaniemor.
July 19, 2006, 1:11 a.m. CST
by andrew coleman
I read M. Night was up for the next Harry Potter movie, that will make these guys want to commit suicide. I don't understand the hate for M. Night he's at least trying to do something more original than most studio crap these days. Why call him a hack? Because he is much more accomplished then you? Every movie of his has done well at the box office, two of those extremely well. Just relax if the movie sucks oh well just goes on the list of like every movie this summer. X3 topping the list as the shittiest followed by Posiedon and dozens of others. But maybe just give the movie a chance before you bash it to hell
July 19, 2006, 1:40 a.m. CST
by Sasha Nein
If Shyamalan directs movie 7, you can bet that he'll cast himself as Voldemort and it will turn out that there really are no such things as wizards.. If only J.K. could bring back Gilderoy Lockhart for the last showdown, he could take Brannagh's part.
July 19, 2006, 2:24 a.m. CST
by Crash Crator
SNAKE EYES! I
July 19, 2006, 2:30 a.m. CST
but I'll see it anyway... because I'm a fucking consumer whore.
July 19, 2006, 2:50 a.m. CST
by Darth Hogan
Although I never understand any knowles review, at least this one wasn't long enough to send me into my usual epileptic fit. Reading any knowles review is like standing in a room filled with flouro lighting, having every single one on them flickering. When that isn't enough, someone then comes in with strobes and starts them up. I did notice in your reply big man, you said your fingers were tired from typing, give me a break, if there's one part of your body that is physically fit, it should be your hands and fingers.
July 19, 2006, 3:07 a.m. CST
by Fatal Discharge
When blinking becomes too strenuous then you're really in trouble. But why would anyone take a Harry review to be impartial or insightful...after previous travesties like the infamous Blade 2 review. Shyamalan was on The Daily Show and I cracked up when Jon Stewart asked him "what the twist in this one is" ....and he replied that this one doesn't have a "paradigm shift" just like Signs didn't. LOL. The movie clip looked bizarre...Giamati seemingly drunk/comically carrying the pale lady who was screaming into the house as they were chased by the Snarf or whatever it's called. Could be a contender for so awfully bad that it's fun. A fairy tale for adults can be well done - look at Neil Jordan's The Company Of Wolves....but that was based on superior stories by Angela Carter. This just seems indulgent/bizarre...
July 19, 2006, 3:17 a.m. CST
harry dont slack
July 19, 2006, 3:18 a.m. CST
by Fatal Discharge
I also love the screwball fast-patter of comedies from the 30's which it recalls. I haven't had the nerve yet to see the Coen's last several films but will eventually. Why remake a classic like The Ladykillers is beyond reason...but then that's what Hollywood suits want now.
July 19, 2006, 5:03 a.m. CST
M. Night was on Howard Stern detailing the problems he had making Lady In The Water due to extreme studio (Disney) interference...which led Night to take the picture to another film studio. Stern is a big fan of M. Night...In fact, he has been for years...It makes you wonder why Night hasn't written a film for Stern to star in. Howard has always wanted to play a comic book villian...and loves fantasy and science fiction films...so it would seem that he'd be a perfect fit as some dark weird character in a M. Night film. Perhaps Stern could play a creepy accused serial killer, or a roaming weirdo of another kind! I would really love to see something like that. Howard Stern is a living, breathing special effect all his own!!!
July 19, 2006, 5:25 a.m. CST
It is a vast improvement on book 5 and there are genuinely great scenes of pure horror. Towards the end of the book. If you havent read the half blood prince then I went give anything away. here is a clue. there is a black lake and it is full of dead people. potter and his mentor have to retrieve something and whilst doing this that the great horror scenes to place. They are doozies.
July 19, 2006, 5:43 a.m. CST
Man That's some funny shit from Darth Hogan and Fatal discharge above! I am crying now! good stuff. Anyway I can't believe that review! I think the big guys regressing in everything from his grasp of the English language to his taste in movies, or maybee that's it! English Is Harry's second language to gobbledegook. What does shit like 'goofily marching forward with chocolate syrup on your face while gnawing on centipedes' actually refer to? and 'Can you play like a little girl talking to a best friend naked in the shower?' is just plain wrong and something Harry needs to have no thoughts on let alone broadcasting it! and aparently there's a character with one gigantic muscled side of his body who tells everyone that he likes being scientific' ???
July 19, 2006, 5:43 a.m. CST
July 19, 2006, 5:54 a.m. CST
Actually, I think Harry is the one who looks at a film as either being "black or white". He tends to fall in love with all the movies he likes...which I - a talkbacker! - don't.
July 19, 2006, 5:58 a.m. CST
What? M. Night is no Kevin Smith you say? For that matter, considering all of the false hype surrounding Kevin Smith (the new Ed Wood) and all the bad movies he's made, Kevin Smith is no Kevin Smith!!! Kevin Smith just rides on "White Boy Welfare"...The Good 'Ol Boys Club...where you don't have to be good...you just have to show up to the party and collect a free pay check...and Rosario Dawson for your troubles!!!
July 19, 2006, 6:16 a.m. CST
she's not a lady!
July 19, 2006, 6:30 a.m. CST
by Sgt. Black
After Pinky's tourettes(sp?) exclamation, and since when did Harry get engaged? I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU TO POST A PIC OF HER, KNOWLES!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Congratulations, btw.
July 19, 2006, 6:31 a.m. CST
Good review, though, Harry. Keep up the shorter reviews, they read much better and I'm actually able to get through them (i.e., I don't have 20 minutes in my day to read one review).
July 19, 2006, 6:47 a.m. CST
As I'm attmepting SpoilerFree-ness. But sweet merciful crap, Harry is GIGGLING again!?!?!? This is getting out of hand. Was the movie DELICIOUS?
July 19, 2006, 7:03 a.m. CST
It's 'Tinkerbell', not 'Tinkerbelle'. Know your literature. Now let the gay accusations begin....
July 19, 2006, 7:56 a.m. CST
That M Night pops up at the end of the film with a big smile on his face and a copy of his script. He then pulls down his pants in front of the characters, rubs his butt all over it and then points at the camera and says: "Gotcha again suckas!" Minutes later, he's joined on screen by Bruce Willis' ghost and several aliens from SIGNS drinking glasses of water who perform a big song and dance routine.
July 19, 2006, 7:57 a.m. CST
Learn them, use them.
July 19, 2006, 8:03 a.m. CST
little girls talking naked in the shower??? What the fuck is going on??!??!
July 19, 2006, 8:12 a.m. CST
by Ricky Henderson
I demmand to know!
July 19, 2006, 8:14 a.m. CST
..Some of you act like this guy has done something bad against you personally. If you hate him and his films so much, don't wait to pounce on a film review, just ignore it. Jeez.
July 19, 2006, 8:51 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...a review instead of an excuse for a film even Harry couldn't find anything nice to say about (the man who gushed about both Godzilla and the truly tepid Superman Returns) and a challenge/accusation to anyone that they should expand their minds enough to not hate it, we wouldn't be pouncing on it or on Night. I want Shyamalan to be good again. I'd like him to go back in time and break his fingers before he wrote Signs and the Village, because the subsequent Twilight-Zone-esque time travel story he'd sutrely have cranked out would have been infinitely more watchable, despite its predictability (he'd wake and it'd all be a dream) than either of those sad excuses for stories. I wanted Lady in the Water to redeem the writer half of Shammy's writer/director title and to deliver ont he promise (flawed though it may have been) that he showed with The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. JUdging by both Harry's and Massa's non-reviews, speculating about Shyamalan's intent (as in "why would he have written this confounding crap?) is far more interesting than talking about either the story or the characters on their own merits.
July 19, 2006, 9:12 a.m. CST
Not some kind of bullshit ironic substitute "great" but The Real Thing. Ok, it's flawed but it's still filled to the brim with imagination and wit and STYLE. The Hula Hoop montage alone kicks the living SHIT out of the entirety of Intolerable Cruelty AND The Ladykillers. Bah. It pisses me off when people hate on the Hud.
July 19, 2006, 9:22 a.m. CST
They shot Ladykillers because their friend Barry Sonnenfield coudln't fit it into his schedule and would have been in hot water with the studio had they not. They rewrote Intolerable Cruelty and shot it because they wanted to work with Clooney again. And Hudsucker Proxy was a commercial failure not a critical failure. Shyamalan wrote 13 drafts of this film, Disney lost interest somewhere in the middle. He cares deeply for this film and believes it is a complex, rich, message about how we can confront our global reality by utterly avoiding it. Don't confuse him with the Coens. They make a film about nothing and it is wildly entertaining and masterfully executed, whereas Shyamalan is fast running out of viable, audience-enticing ideas, which is sad because Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs are a refreshing trilogy of films.
July 19, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST
"You know, for kids!" Classic.
July 19, 2006, 9:37 a.m. CST
For the record.
July 19, 2006, 9:38 a.m. CST
by Mr Nice Gaius
...you were soooo close to getting a typed lashing. ;^)
July 19, 2006, 9:55 a.m. CST
....is like almost everything else M. Night has done, this makes no fucking sense either. Pass.
July 19, 2006, 10:25 a.m. CST
July 19, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST
He's been trolling around for one, saying he'd love to do it, he'd be true to the book etc. And he claims he was offered the first and turned it down because he was busy with Unbreakable (way overrated by the way). But he simply hasn't been offered anything on the last two movies, and I doubt he will be. Especially when this movie is panned and bombs at the box office. On the potter front, sadly it looks like Steves Kloves will be back for the sixth script. Bummer, he's been by far the worst part of what has otherwise been a very solid series of movies.
July 19, 2006, 10:36 a.m. CST
You can believe that fact or not, but that still doesn't make it anything but fact. And I do believe that opinions can't really be right or wrong. But they can be completely out of touch with normal people's opinions, which I suspect will be the case of this movie.
July 19, 2006, 11:02 a.m. CST
by Jon Zuckerman
You can now go back to your worthless and meaningless lives....
July 19, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST
July 19, 2006, 12:09 p.m. CST
Cool, if so. But I'll pass if it's 2-hours of Night jacking himself off. Sorry for the brevity of this post. I wrote in another TB then wrote 5 MAJOR CONTRACTS for the company before posting this.
July 19, 2006, 12:35 p.m. CST
Anytime Harry tells us first how we should approach watching a film means that it will suck. If he says, "you should approach it like a child" or "watch this movie as nostalgia" then you know it will suck. But if he says to just sit in your seat and enjoy it it will be good. That means this movie will suck.
July 19, 2006, 12:58 p.m. CST
Maybe that's your problem, Harry. Gnawing on 'em as a kid.
July 19, 2006, 2:23 p.m. CST
"I used to think you were a swell guy. Well, to be honest, I thought you were an imbecile, but then I figured out you WERE a swell guy... A little slow, maybe, but a swell guy. Well, maybe you're not so slow, but you're not so swell either. And it looks like you're an imbecile after all!" Take notes, M. Night.
July 19, 2006, 2:42 p.m. CST
by Chet Hudson
Spot on. Why should anyone mentally prepare themselves for a movie watching experience? Unless it's a porno and they have ED.
July 19, 2006, 2:45 p.m. CST
...Harry has a fiance. Now that is a bedtime story you have to give yourself over too. Congrats, Geekzilla.
July 19, 2006, 3:06 p.m. CST
The Ladykillers sucked. Plain and simple. At one time, the Coens could do no wrong. Nowadays? They suck. They have done nothing since Lebowski.
July 19, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST
And if you Google it, you discover its quite a vulgar term not really appropriate for a kiddie fairy tale. Is this just a coincidence?
July 19, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST
Awesome. Harry and Yoko!
July 19, 2006, 3:55 p.m. CST
by Gwai Lo
How unfortunate for that not bad looking female about to be swallowed by a Narwhal in a Leprechaun suit
July 19, 2006, 3:57 p.m. CST
And there was some funny stuff in Intolerable Cruelty.
July 19, 2006, 4:14 p.m. CST
Get married and maybe have a kid or two or three. He will simply not be able to spend enough doing this site, being a film producer, holding down a regular job and being a parent. Something will have to give. I see Harry taking a back seat role and letting mori take over the reviews and stuff and others running the site for him. It is about time that this site had an overhaul anyways.
July 19, 2006, 4:36 p.m. CST
July 19, 2006, 5:26 p.m. CST
I never understood why that one got a bad rap. I guess you can only like it if you are a Turner Classic Movies sort of person. What "Kill Bill" is to kung fu movies, Hudsucker is to 30's and 40's movies.
July 19, 2006, 5:29 p.m. CST
by Chet Hudson
dude your head is twice the size of hers. N00dz please!?!?!
July 19, 2006, 6:06 p.m. CST
Aren't bedtime stories supposed to be fairly logical, even if they're silly and whimsical? THE PRINCESS BRIDE is a bedtime story. It's goofy, broken up with meta-comments, and overwrought at times, but it's also just a flat-out good movie. And it would be a good movie without the "bedtime story" caveat. I don't think that applies to this one.
July 19, 2006, 6:47 p.m. CST
Harry is bascially saying that it sucks, but that he feels like he must give it a review for some reason. Maybe he is trying to friends with Shamylan or something. Anyway, that was basically a review saying that he enjoyed a bad movie.
July 19, 2006, 7:42 p.m. CST
re: superherohype. i laughed pretty hard.
July 19, 2006, 8:11 p.m. CST
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? Pinky: I think so, Brain, but how are we going to make pencils that taste like bacon? Or maybe we should make bacon that tastes like pencils. Narf.
July 19, 2006, 8:43 p.m. CST
I've been looking forward to this movie coming out for a while now. Not because I have any intention of seeing it, but because I've been very curious as to how Harry would find a way to give it a good review. Turns out he went with the "yeah it sucks, but if you're willing to look past that, it's awesome!" method. Good stuff. Nothing like a little "if you pretend that you're a 3 year old girl, then squint at just the right moment, then forgive the director for nearly every flaw and tell yourself that it's better that way, and then drop six tabs of acid timed perfectly so you'll be peaking exactly 47 minutes into the movie, then maybe, just maybe, you'll believe that this is the fucking movie of the century!" On a side note, anyone want to start a little side bet where we all guess which movie Harry will actually give a negative review to next. We'll all put in like fifty bucks or something and the winner takes all. My pick is Wolverine III (summer 2012), right after McG takes over the franchise.
July 19, 2006, 11:18 p.m. CST
....if I squint my eyes really hard, tilt my head at exactly 42 degrees to the left while hopping on my right foot and singing "Henry the 8th" in E-Flat?
July 19, 2006, 11:53 p.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
Kloves is a very good screenwriter. He's managed to condense Rowling's series of 400 page well written fantasy novels into the HP movies which range from fair (the first 2) to excellent (Azkaban) to pretty good (Goblet).
July 20, 2006, 12:17 a.m. CST
As you probably know, the movie you ranked the highest had the biggest plot holes in the entire series (and set up a few later plot holes). Ok, so it's a minor detail how Sirius escaped from Azkaban, but it is never explained once how Sirius figured out that Wormtail was hiding out at Hogwarts and that he was posing as Ron's pet. Also, even though "Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" are mentioned, no connection is made to who they are (this leads non-book readers to wonder why Peter is called Wormtail in Goblet of Fire). Then there are the incomplete special effects that somehow slipped by (especially the blank painting). I could go on, but I think the ball was dropped with Azkaban. The entire movie played out more like the Stargate sequence of 2001 than it did anything else. (And don't get me going about the stupid talking head. LOL. I love Lenny Henry, but that was his most obnoxious role to date) ;) Oh well. Doesn't matter, I guess. Rowling still banked on it.
July 20, 2006, 3:32 a.m. CST
Can I just say that, and forgive me if this point has already been made, the notion of supporting "oddball" films in order to encourage Hollywood producers to churn out less crap is the most nonsensical suggestion I have ever heard. Does anybody here really believe that big shot producers are actually stupid people? To get a job that big and that powerful requires a certain degree of intellectual savvy. Hollywood will ALWAYS churn out crap because guess what? It's no risk. And when you are gambling with HUNDREDS if not thousands of millions of dollars do you think it would be a good idea to say: "you know what guys, lets not make Pirates 6 or Superman the musical, lets give 'em what they really want, ART!" I am not trying to suggest that we should abandon creatively daring films, but we should DEFINATELY abandon them if they are useless vanity projects that annoy us when we watch. Hollywood is big business and as such it understands the concept of calculated risk. The money men go:"Right, we have a billion dollars. Lets put 900 million into no risk cashcows and with the remaining 100 we can put out some risky stuff that might just take off" Thats how it has worked in the past, thats how it works now and that is how it will ALWAYS work. Don't fight the system, learn to love it. It's simple economics.
July 20, 2006, 3:45 a.m. CST
July 20, 2006, 3:55 a.m. CST
There's hope...well come to think of it. Knowles kinda looks like an overweight Eric Stoltz. Not to shabby...Hold on my Narf needs feeding. Down Narf! down! my leg! Those damn Narfs sure like humping legs. Now it's playing with my narf football, get it? yeah bad joke.
July 20, 2006, 3:56 a.m. CST
Harry I can't tell you how much I hate scrolling through 10 pages of bullshit about the 5 hours of your day that LEAD UP to you finally reviewing a goddamn movie.
July 20, 2006, 4:05 a.m. CST
yeah harry's famous reviews. first i woke up and put on my socks. i went downstairs to drink my coffee. then i saw the time and woke up father geek. then we talked about the movie we saw last night. then i had to take a crap. then i did this and that and this and it led to this and that and i saw and!... get to the fucking review!!!
July 20, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST
U wasn't going to chime in on this particular TB but when i read your post I felt like adding my two cents. First of all I'm a Christian and calling "Signs", "nutso christian propoganda" and The Left Behind Series, "Crapfest" is an insult. Yeah dare those two examples try and instill Faith in a rapidly Faithless world. You can slam M.Night if you want but please don't drag something that's precious to a lot of us through the mud.
July 20, 2006, 9:46 a.m. CST
U should be I at the beginning...thanks.
July 20, 2006, 10:22 a.m. CST
Harry is secretly the aforementioned "Lady" in the supposed "Water." It's really "big guy" in "7-11 burrito aisle." Harry has a fiance? Wow. Talk about your unexpected twists.
July 20, 2006, 10:46 a.m. CST
Harry, I have always loved this site, been visiting since '99. That being said, your reviews have just changed so much. Reading between the lines of it, I will definitely not even rent this flick.
July 20, 2006, 11:25 a.m. CST
July 20, 2006, 12:39 p.m. CST
The last film Harry disliked was X3, which he announced a good six months before he saw it that he would be giving it a bad review (probably so none of us would die of shock). Before that, well...I don't think there has been another one. Anyone know of another negative review Harry has written?
July 20, 2006, 1:23 p.m. CST
I mean... Harry either tends to love a lot of movies, or he tends to not write a lot about the movies he hates. I don't get why that makes some people so angry (the occasional biases towards and against movies, on the other hand, I get). It just means you don't trust him as a critic (if anyone truly consults critics before going to the theater anyway), it doesn't mean you start flinging your poop at him and making fun of his appearance. And I've heard all the excuse/explanations before: about how this site belongs to the users, about some imagined responsibility for him to act like a "professional" "journalist." Even if I thought those explanations didn't smell like bullshit, that doesn't explain the consistently furious response.
July 20, 2006, 5:17 p.m. CST
Thank you. This is the third time I've asked the TBers to come up with another negative Harry review, but you're the first one to actually come through. As for the Rollerball review, it was five years ago, it was a review of a print two months before the movie would be released, Harry somehow found a way to say a few nice things about Rollerball, and it too was a movie that Harry pretty much announced that he would be bashing way in advance. I don't know if you were referring to me, but just for the record, I've never made fun of the man's appearance. Those people are dumb. I do, however, get a little upset with Harry's "reviews". You say it's an "imagined responsibility" for Harry to act like a professional journalist. I've seen plenty of blurbs from AICN pop up in ad campaigns. If he's not a professional journalist, then he's the internet's most famous whore. He's worse than that guy from Wireless Magazine, whatever that is. He's ten times more ridiculous than Peter Travers. Harry gets showered with gifts and perks from producers, directors, actors and studios. They do this because they know how easily he is bought and how scared he is to piss off anyone in Hollywood. Why does all this upset me? Because Harry has found himself in a position that almost all of us would kill to be in. He had an army of geeks and the ears of Hollywood big wigs. He had access to sets, scripts and stars, and possibly had a little influence over them. He could have spent his life as a force in Hollywood, truly representing us geeks, rather than squander it all away because some studio let him meet Orlando Bloom, or Shyamalan flew him out to LA or some such crap. He calls himself the "Head Geek", but what kind of Head Geek would praise the Phantom Menace, rather than demand Lucas gets his head out of his ass before he begins shooting the next one? I just want Harry to grow a backbone, and I want to stop seeing TBers say "Yes! I thought this was going to be bad, but Harry liked it!" He likes everything! That's what he's paid for. This could have been an amazing site.
July 20, 2006, 5:19 p.m. CST
Sure, he certainly could have done worse. And I'll admit that his job wasn't an easy one. But he made MANY boneheaded mistakes, screwed up many things that were fine in the original book. Sure, he had to make cuts. I'm fine with that. But while he cut many absolutely crucial parts of the backstory, he left in many bits that were completely unnecessary fluff, and worse, added his own self indulgent bits that weren't in the books and added nothing to the story. His worst bits were his additions of attempts at humor that were far less funny than the JKR bits they were replacing. The bit in Goblet where Ron does the whole "so and so told so and so to tell you..." thing? Horrible, and pointless. Besides the unfunny bits and the backstory cuts, he often rewrote dialogue that was well written and memorable in the books, replacing it with his versions of the same ideas, usually not even any shorter. Look at the devil's snare in the first movie - changed from fire to light for no reason and added a stupid poem that made no sense. Why not just keep that the same as the book? Look at dumbledore's speech after Cedric dies, why completely rewrite it (and even change the sentiment) instead of just making it shorter? Sure, the movies turned out pretty good in spite of Kloves, but there are still MANY instances where his work knocked the movies down a notch from the quality of the books.
July 20, 2006, 7:33 p.m. CST
is absolutely ridiculous, Harry. That film is a majestic, extraordinarily well-crafted film that went against the grain whereas LADYKLILLERS and INTOLERABLE CRUELTY were made solely to rake in cash...
July 20, 2006, 8:42 p.m. CST
by C Legion
"Can you play like a little girl talking to a best friend naked in the shower?" What the fuck? That is one of the weirdest, most staggeringly bizarre questions I've ever read. I'm not one to shit on people on the Internet for kicks, but damn! That review was embarrassing. The contrast between this and Moriarty's excellent review is shocking.
July 20, 2006, 9:06 p.m. CST
The same night that I saw WORLD TRADE CENTER--a film so harsh and cold and real, you
July 20, 2006, 10:21 p.m. CST
...That I'm probably going to have one of those painful "porcupine dumps" in a day or two as unprocessed bits of it turn up in my stool. Honestly, watch the hell out for people who groove on infantile flights of fancy...my life was almost ruined once by a woman who adored "Hook".
July 20, 2006, 10:30 p.m. CST
Trust me, Harry is NOT worse than Earl Dittman from "Wireless Magazine." Earl Dittman is the sketchiest of the sketchy (hint: Wireless Magazine doesn't even have a movie review section). Do a Google search on the dude and prepare to be repulsed.
July 20, 2006, 11:05 p.m. CST
I wouldn't mind if he hated critics for an original reason, but his reasoning is so lame... everyone knows movie criticism is highly subjective, and that movies are a form of highly subjective art and creative expression. Night needs to pull his head out of his ass and realize that we all know this. To throw it in his movie that critics suck cause they believe in absolutes is not a breath taking epiphony ... it makes him look like even more of a douche, a god damn esoteric, pseudo intellectualizing, egocentric DOUCHE! DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCHE DOUCH!!! NIGHT IS A DOUCHE!
July 21, 2006, 12:30 a.m. CST
but extremely less creative. I will probably go see it, because I kind of like to puzzle through this guys films. But I think he is bordering on annoying even his fans.
July 21, 2006, 12:32 a.m. CST
Only a very superficial person would think otherwise.
July 21, 2006, 2:54 a.m. CST
I wonder if Harry will be doing any guest hosting with Richard Roeper? Hmm, Harry? Personally, I wish Roeper would have Michael Medved as co-host. They could chat about how "The Market" is the best critic.
July 21, 2006, 5:03 a.m. CST
...how subjective film is - if they did, nobody would be arguing the worth of anyone's films...(of course, crew members could discuss the directors' personalities from experience, as they share war stories)... But moviegoers would just make their own conclusions when they saw the film, period - and nobody would worry about any filmmaker's douchehood...
July 21, 2006, 10:46 a.m. CST
Seriously. It's getting a little like Joel Siegel over here.
July 21, 2006, 6:34 p.m. CST
Harry wets himself over monster house. Harry wrestles with nacho libre and likes it. Harry clicks on click and finds it to be a clicktastic time. Harry speeds along with fast & the furious, tokyo drift. Harry tells Superman to bend over and likes it. Harry walks the plank with pirates 2 and says it's a splashing good time, yar! Harry breast feeds Little man with his man breast and says he likes it. Harry says Ishtar not so dry.
July 21, 2006, 7:57 p.m. CST
I agree with every word of Harry's review. That's never happened before. As I walked out of the theater I was thinking that you'd have to be a hard-hearted miserable bastard indeed to not enjoy this film on some level. But I've come back to my senses -- different strokes and all that, ya know. But there really are a lot of heard-hearted miserable bastards around these days. Maybe that was part of the point of the film...
July 21, 2006, 8:52 p.m. CST
Thank God we have Cereal Box Seers and Monkey People to save the day. SIGH...
July 21, 2006, 9:03 p.m. CST
... would've been better if you'd gone with, "Harry says, 'Ishtar ish tar-iffic!"
July 21, 2006, 9:06 p.m. CST
Hard to come across as witty when one makes a stupid blunder like that. Oh well. No one was confusing me for witty, anyway.
July 21, 2006, 9:22 p.m. CST
Hehe. Funny. You have an admirably keen sense of the ridiculous. Sadly, it seems is the best use of it you've come up with is to post spoilers for a just opened film, just to make some kind of point. Kinda proves *my* original point.
July 21, 2006, 9:26 p.m. CST
No, you were right. It would have been better. I need to work on my witty banter. :-)
July 21, 2006, 10:40 p.m. CST
I think my bouncing ball had started it all. A whirlpool of fun down the drain. It's like butterfingers slipped and fell into tunnels of filth and black rain and through my brain this creature of comfort bubbled away all my fears. So yeah, welcome to my land of pure imagination. welcome to the land where we only live to play.
July 22, 2006, 12:03 a.m. CST
by Darth Evil Dead
I dont have any facts that my statement above is correct. But I will tell you this. M. Night. Shaaaalaaa is a fucking Hack !! He struck gold once...and we have been watching his turds since. This fucker thinks he is Hitch Cock for christ sakes !!! Fuck this bitch. A Bedtime story? They only Bedtime story I want to think about is me in a hot tub with 3 strippers. I open the paper today and what do I see? The review of this movie. And what did it get? ONE FUCKING STAR !!!! Ha hah aha ha!!! M. Night shahahahhahah!!! Your movie The Village...sucked..everyone with half a brain figured out the twist in the plot 20 min in. Signs??..Aliens with super tech and space ships take over a planet that is filled with 90% of their main weekness....MOTHERFUCKING H2O !!! Good job in writing that one Shit Brick!!! Your so brillient M. Night Shamahlitgh... Oh I bow down to your directing. Your acting is also so amazing !! How do you do it? Im watching your movies.. I see a bunch of white people on screen..Then all of a sudden this motherfucking Indian Hindu comes on the screen!! What the fuck is that? It just takes you out of the movie. This fucking Hindu Indian that cant Act is on the screen, and no one knows what the fuck is going on. FUCK YOU M NIGHT !! If any of you pussy cunts go see this movie instead of Clerks or Monster House..I hope a massive Cock hits you in your head and knocks you the fuck out !! Do not support this M. Night shaklklajkodfoaskjnfkasnvokansfnas's fucking Ego anymore. Let this shit hole of a bedtime story that is not scary..FUCKING FAIL!! So we can see less of this bitches movies !! Thanks for your time..Go see Clerks 2... http://www.youtube.com/user/DarthEvilDead
July 22, 2006, 3:14 a.m. CST
I'm afraid that in my weakened condition, I could take a nasty spill down the stairs and subject myself to further school absences. You can reach my parents at their places of business. Thank you for stopping by. I appreciate your concern for my well-being. Have a nice day.
July 22, 2006, 3:50 a.m. CST
Anything I can do to help. Do you like candy? I have some Gummi Bears. They've been in my pocket so they're real warm and soft.
July 22, 2006, 10:43 a.m. CST
It's YOU'RE. Y-O-U-'-R-E. As in: You're an illiterate prick.
July 22, 2006, 11:37 a.m. CST
I have been coming to the site for about three years now and it has just dawned on me.. Harry likes movies!! That is why he gives a positive review to every shitty movie that comes out. He can justify it.. because he likes movies...Lady In the Water.."you have to see it through the eyes of a child"...Garfield "it was my favorite book as a child, because I had red hair and ate pans of pasta"...anything foriegn "The Cinametic styles of chu-lu-screw-yum-yum-onmytumtum are breathtaking..." What I am looking for is something that Harry actually dislikes... Like exercising and sunlight.. just kidding you lovable big bastard!!
July 22, 2006, 11:41 a.m. CST
We loved the movie too. We took our 6 and 10 year old girls to see it. Now they want the DVD. The Wizard of Oz was scarier. How can adult critics not get this movie and little kids can? Our favorite part was when the scrunt eats the critic. My husband thinks that the reviews are so bad because the movie attacks one of their own. How high school. I say feed the scrunt more critics!
July 22, 2006, 8:37 p.m. CST
Superninja mentioned The Sandman above...Neil Gaiman's story, "The Cuckoo" was about a grown woman having to surrender the fantasy world she created in her youth because of the detrimental effects it was having on her as an adult. This movie seems to advocate exactly the opposite. Fantasies and bedtime stories are scaffolding erected to help a young mind cope with the confusing world they'll eventually inhabit...evidently, Shyamalan (or at least Harry) thinks that carving out a pitiful existence in that construction site is a blessing...
July 22, 2006, 9:14 p.m. CST
So what are you trying to say then exactly, BurnHollywood? Don't create fairytales, and make sure you say something is bullshit before reading it or seeing it?
July 23, 2006, 6:35 a.m. CST
by vagrant's choice
Plain and simple this movie is a big
July 23, 2006, 5:34 p.m. CST
FamousApes.com claims Night plagiarized every movie he's ever written. Man, what a scumbag!
July 23, 2006, 5:40 p.m. CST
It's got to be the ballsiest movie I've seen in awhile, but I actually really enjoyed it. It was, dare I say it, fun (though I don't fully get what he was going for.) It was A LOT more tolerable than The Village.
July 23, 2006, 6:12 p.m. CST
To the haters and bad critcs. M. Night thnaks you. Lady in the water beat out the fanboys Clerks II and My Super ex-girlfriend. Oh, yeah and it was good.
July 23, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST
I highly doubt he plagerized Unbreakable or anything else. Why would he dare to ruin his career by doing such a dumb thing? If Famousapes was correct then why isn't all over the internet, the news and everywhere else? Because he didn't.
July 23, 2006, 8:47 p.m. CST
Hmm, the Village opened to $50 million and finally earned $114 million. The Lady, however, captured $18.2 million. I don't see much legs for this flick--an uphill struggle to squeeze more gullibility from the public's pockets. Thar she blows.
July 23, 2006, 10:14 p.m. CST
Woah, easy there DarthEvilDick, I mean Dead. A few words of wisdom for an obviously struggling critic. One, refrain from publishing a review of a film you haven't seen yet. This should be a no-brainer but alot of people seem to have a problem with this simple rule. Two, nobody will ever take your ideas seriously if you can't spell correctly. Another no-brainer. Three, just because you use words like fuck, shit, cunt, ass, dick, damn, or any combination of explitives doesn't make you witty, funny, or insightful, much less a critic. It makes you look like a prick. I haven't read one real or good review where the filmmaker is called a cunt. And I also detected a bit of racism in there too. Tsk tsk. Again, you invalidate yourself even more. But that's ok, just because you have a space on YouTube (ooo, how original. I have a Yahoo email so that makes me legit) doesn't make you a critic. Please do the world a favor and refrain from posting anything again. Ever. Your opinions are just plain ugly. Heck, why am I even wasting time responding to a lonely teenager's vitrolic rantings? Talk about having too much time on one's hands... If anyone really cares and wants to read a post that has something to do with a movie, I will say that Lady is actually alright. Not great, not awesome, but alright. Not near as bad as some would believe. I went into it expecing utter shite and I actually enjoyed the film. A little long in the tooth and leaving a bit to be desired, but alright nonetheless. It's better than some other M. N. movies. And to everyone who rips a film before they've seen it, please, for your sake, hold your temper until you've actually viewed it. You might end up shooting yourself in the foot or denying yourself what could potentially be a good experience. And when you do, try to judge the product, not the artist. Most great artists were and are real self-absorbed pricks. Judge the material, not the executor of said material. StayPuft out.
July 23, 2006, 11:16 p.m. CST
by Silver Shamrock
Harry's review at the bottom of the page.... AICN really wants to get the stink of this movie off of them asap. now he wont make a sequel...
July 23, 2006, 11:22 p.m. CST
That's actually an interesting take on the film. I initially had mixed feelings about it, but I did sense a sort of thinking of 'well, what is the nature of bedtime stories,' and that self-consciousness is conveyed through Giamati's character trying to explain everything. Perhaps there is more to the film than the seemingly out-of-hand story structure.
July 24, 2006, 12:19 a.m. CST
Seems to me that the reason this didn't initially meet the so-called expectations of others at the box office was down to the universal panning this movie was by the critics. However. I thought this was a great movie and it just needs word of mouth to spread before the box office picks up. And even if it doesn't, who cares? Shyamalan certainly doesn't! This was a quality movie with a great cast, great performances and with an important message. If some people don't get that then that's there problem. At least he's putting original stories out there and not sitting back going for the easy bucks with sequels or remakes. What annoys me is that it seems that most studios and critics would rather he dumbed down the message in his movies rather than upping the quality of the trash they seem to regurgitate time and time again. There are only so many friggin' pirate movies and slacker comedies that we should have to take!
July 24, 2006, 1:18 a.m. CST
is gonna be on DVD inside of 2 months. That's how big this POS flopped. I noticed everyones reviews for this fucker dissappeared as well.
July 24, 2006, 11:27 a.m. CST
Terrible opening, and I bet it still has a huge drop next weekend. This has nothing to do with critics, Shammy is pretty citic proof. It's all because people hated the village so much and didn't want to get burned again. The village opened pretty big, but it set a record for the lowest grossing film opening above 50M. That's terrible word of mouth. The funniest part of this is the MNS apologists claiming that he's just misunderstood and ahead of his time, too smart/sophisticated/whatever for both audiences and critics. Way to drink the kool-aid guys, nothing says "sycophant" like parroting the director's talking points verbatim.
July 24, 2006, 11:28 a.m. CST
Haven't seen a number yet, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if WB wants to keep it quiet or lie on the low side.
July 24, 2006, 12:44 p.m. CST
I have to say I HATED Lady in The Water. I can't imagine what most people who hated The Village will say about this film. It's horrible.
July 24, 2006, 1 p.m. CST
According to Box Office Mojo, the production budget was 55 million...
July 24, 2006, 1:15 p.m. CST
I tell my kids bedtime stories every night. Most of them I make up on my own. It is a real shame that our society is so filled with the likes of those in this forum that find it easy to trash a movie, without seeing the deeper meanings or even just the fun. M. Night is a master story teller. That is what he is. He tells stories and commits them to film for others to enjoy (and to make some money). If you found no enjoyment in the story, fine, but does the hubris of your nasty response give more or less meaning to your life or the universe? Grow up people, it is a movie, a story, not the quintesential literary work of our time. It has no more meaning or value than what you find in it.
July 24, 2006, 3:30 p.m. CST
Still better then 98% of the crap hollywood spews out today. I can see all the hard core Yanks hating this movie. Obviously M.Night is a man of peace who dislikes the sad direction Americans and America are taking.
July 24, 2006, 4:12 p.m. CST
That's funny, I thought people were entitled to an opinion, even if it's a negative one. Don't take things so seriously, calling a turd a turd isn't "hubris", any more than your defending it is.
July 24, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST
The whole movie felt like it was re-using the same ideas as the "Darmok" and "Masks" episodes of Trek:TNG. The plot revolves around each character figuring out how they fit into a mythological framework. If there is ever an MST3K on this, someone will have to blurt out "Darmok and Jilad at Tanagra!" at some appropriately "dramatic" moment.
July 24, 2006, 7:22 p.m. CST
when the unwashed masses realize that "The Village" was M.N.S'. indightment of the Bush administration, a la The Crucible. The Rolling Stone reviewer picked up on this, but hardly any other reviewer did. Break down the movie scene for scene and you can see how scathing the critique really is. If only M.N.S. talked more about that at the time, then old Bushy might have never been re-elected (sigh.).
July 24, 2006, 7:26 p.m. CST
open your minds people. It's all about us humans ignoring the signs all around us about our paths in life, and how we have strayed (see the bushy supporters for proof). M.N.S. chose as his messenger a water creature, while others may say they are spirits, or souls without bodies crying out to us to change our ways.
July 24, 2006, 8:39 p.m. CST
I like M Night, but after 'The Village' this was just all wrong. He is starting to lapse into some of those overly esoteric film plots from filmmakers in India that don't make a bit of sense. Take the disappointment of 'The Village' and multiply it by 4 and you have 'Lady In The Water'. Take the box-office of 'The Village' and divide by 4 and you have the total gross of 'Lady In The Water'. The only thing M. Night can do to get me to a theater to see another one of his movies would be an Unbreakable sequel. After 'The Village', I don't think he realized how much he had riding on 'Lady In The Water' and I have to agree with the execs at Disney on this one (I can't believe I just said that). The folks over at the WB did all they could to change 'Water's marketing at the 11th Hour to no avail. No doubt about it, M. Night is done. fin.
July 24, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST
by evil weavil
Who gives a shit if you're first...really, whats the big deal?...cock-holes.
July 24, 2006, 10:07 p.m. CST
or satirizing the posts defending these movies.
July 24, 2006, 11:49 p.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
the same magazine that put M. Night on its cover and called him 'the next Spielberg' has a new small caption piece on M. Night in this week's issue calling for a "career intervention". It quotes several studio executives and agents how they would go about rehabilitating Night's image and career. One agent compares Night's insularity to Kubrick's self-imposed isolation in his later years.
July 25, 2006, 1:04 a.m. CST
Just felt like saying that. I'm so glad he went and did his craziest movie ever, right after a movie that alot of people hated. So many full of shit people saying so many bad things about him after The Village, and he comes out and does something riskier then alot have filmmakers have ever done. Balls. What an unbelievably amazing movie. I'm so fucking happy it exists in this world.
July 25, 2006, 10 a.m. CST
Many people hated the villiage. Those people said it was a bad movie. How exactly are they full of shit? Sorry, I'll take "good" over a "risky" bad movie any day. Sure, making a movie like this takes balls. But so does intentionally shooting yourself in the foot. That doesn't make it a good thing.
July 25, 2006, 10:58 a.m. CST
Maybe the critic-mauling scene provoked some of the more acidic attacks? The whole critics-don't-matter thing has been circulating since DaVinci didn't flop, so maybe Night picked a bad time to take a poke. Regardless, never go to war with those who buy ink by the barrel - or with ergonomic keyboards.
July 25, 2006, 12:33 p.m. CST
Now I'm no huge fan of Shyamalan but having just seen Lady I have to say that it's a truely original and thought-provoking film. It beggars belief that most of these so-called 'professional' critics gave this movie an F, whilst giving movies like Fast and the Furious 3 a C+ (or higher in some cases)! Are these guys insane?!? In what ways are movies like FATF 3 better than LITW? Direction? Acting? Suspense? Shyamalan did take a few potshots at them in the movie but if they can't review it objectively then they've got no credibility. How can anyone now take their reviews seriously? And these jokers actually get paid to watch movies! Screw them! Watch the movie with an open-mind and you'll have to admit that it's a quality movie.
July 25, 2006, 4:18 p.m. CST
I almost skipped seeing this in the theatre because of negative reviews. I just got back from a matinee this moment, and I loved it. It's one of the best movies of the year. Absolutely magical. I don't understand the hate for this movie at all. Even if one didn't like it, you'd have to admit that it's anchored by a fantastic performance by Paul Giamatti.
July 25, 2006, 4:20 p.m. CST
Oh, my bad. I was talking about some people that I work with. The full of shit part was more personal because I know them, and they were full of shit before they saw the movie. Didn't mean to offend you bro. Also did someone who hates this movie just take the time to write a pretty big paragraph that basically said what hundreds have people have already said over and over, like he was pulling some maverick thought out of his own mind or something? That's rad. You rule man. Also, how is that if someone just says that they like a movie, it's defending it? If I say a movie is amazing, am I defending it? Just tell me how to act and I'll do it all you smart people. I wish I was smart too, then I could know what movies are good. I wish there were more people in this world that were as smart as alot you are. Then we would live in a better world maybe.
July 25, 2006, 4:59 p.m. CST
So you like all his movies right? Then he makes one you don't like and you hate him? Got it. Ok, well I'm off to see Lady in the Water again. I'm glad it was made.
July 25, 2006, 5:42 p.m. CST
Firstly, sorry to get into this sarcasm bullshit. It's annoying. I just want people to like this movie because I think it's great and it sucks to see it get shit on so bad. Secondly, what about a movie like Braveheart. Gibson directed and cast himself as the hero of the movie and his country. And his character seems to do it all himself. All M Nights character does is write something that "influences" one person. He doesn't actually do the change himself. Did Gibson take alot of crap for playing that role? I mean, he won best picture for that right?
July 25, 2006, 5:50 p.m. CST
on your shoulder? And braveheart is about a guy who fights battles. It's not like Gibson cast himself as a guy who saves the world by acting and directing really well.
July 25, 2006, 6:02 p.m. CST
The writer doesn't save the world. Someone else is influenced by him, and that person causes change in the world, but it never says he saves it. And Gibson's crew could be described as people who only fight battles. But gibson goes and gives speeches and leads people and seems to win battles single handedly while getting it on with 2 hot girls. I don't know how you can say that like that.
July 25, 2006, 7:23 p.m. CST
It was better than the village, anyway, more satisfying. I think my biggest problem with the film was that, for a film about magic, it wasn't particularly magical. There were so many points where we could have gotten fantastic imagery and amazing visuals and it just ended up being somewhat run of the mill. Still, I loved the underwater shot of the Eatlon snatching her up. I thought that was fantastic... If only the film had more "wow" moments like that. Still, I liked it, just felt like there were so many missed opportunities for greatness.
July 25, 2006, 7:28 p.m. CST
example of how this movie has split people. He thought the cereal box sequence was stupid, but I thought it was kind of funny, and so did the others I saw it with. That's how you'll know if you'll like this movie right there. If you're the type of person who's ok with a kid seeing a magical message in a shelf of cereal boxes, then you're going to enjoy yourself. If you think that's stupid, there's nothing for you here.
July 25, 2006, 10:03 p.m. CST
And even if the writer just inspires the next great leader to change the world, that's still the writer casting himself as "Amazing Influential Writer".
July 25, 2006, 11 p.m. CST
I saw Lady in the Water this afternoon and it is another great film by M. Night. I was worried by all the bad reviews and braced myself for what might be a major let down. What a suprise, another great film by a great writer, director. I look forward to his next film and I will never trust a critic who dumps on one of his films again.
July 26, 2006, 8:10 a.m. CST
I don't get why the critics are absolutely tearing Night apart for casting himself in a major role in his own movie. Like he's the only one who's ever done it. Do you think that they criticise people like Eastwood for doing the same? Like hell they do!
July 26, 2006, 6:45 p.m. CST
by Gwai Lo
with directors who act. Different ballpark.
July 27, 2006, 10:40 a.m. CST
by R.H. Alexander
...and I'm actually pissed off at myself for saying this, but I *gasp* liked it. Hell, I loved it. I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. I've been slamming Shyamalan since his cop-out ending in "Signs." "The Village" was, to me, unwatchable. I wanted to leave about 20 minutes in, but stayed just to see where he was going with it. Once he got there, I vowed I would never see one of his movies again. But a friend of mine works at the theatre, and she wanted someone to watch it with. I'm always up for a free date. (Yeah, I'm cheap. That's what years of high-maintenance girlfriends will do to you.) So we watched it. And it was good. I laughed. I jumped. I was thoroughly entertained. And I'm pissed because of it.
July 27, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST
MSNBC just received unconfirmed reports that Night's lincoln towncar was struck head on by a newstruck in Bergerac, France where he was vacationing killing the director and injuring his wife Bhavna. The network said to stay tuned as they are in the process of confirming their sources. OMG! This is horrible!
July 27, 2006, 6:26 p.m. CST
Yeah and in other news, my girlfriend suddenly has the urge to let me cum in her hair right after she washes it.
July 28, 2006, 12:30 a.m. CST
July 28, 2006, 12:56 a.m. CST
b/c it's another typical Shymalan movie and by that I mean it's not about what it appears to be on the surface. I had a moment of revelation watching this just like his other films. It became clear to me. Story doesn't just come to one person, she comes to everyone at The Cove. It's not about them helping her but about her helping them (the intro at the beginning basically says as much). For example, Cleveland is revealed to be the healer, but he's the one who really needs healing (which he winds up getting). All the characters get something from their encounter with Story. So ask yourself TBers, what story can bring you healing, knowledge, faith, hope and purpose in this world filled with sadness, disbelief, discouragement, war and violence? Why that'd have to be the greatest story ever told..... The critic in the film does represent critics (not film critics but rather critics of life) as those who don't/ won't believe the story. They have no faith or hope or means of healing or purpose. But these ideas are just me looking through my rose colored glasses and how I see the world through them. LAUS DEO
July 28, 2006, 7 p.m. CST
by Lord Kinbote
My liking it is a big "fuck you" to haters everywhere. I also loved The Village. I don't give a shit if I'm the only one who did, and I don't give a shit if I'm the only one sitting in the theater for the next Shyamalan movie: I'll be there opening night. I've also already made room in my collection for the DVD of Lady. Harry's review was spot on - many won't like it, but I couldn't care less. It's a ballsy, great flick.
July 29, 2006, 11:42 a.m. CST
About as bad as the Villiage. Friday numbers are in, and it dropped 68% from last Friday. This thing is dead, Shammy's first movie to not even break even.
July 30, 2006, 5:27 a.m. CST
by Lord Kinbote
Who cares? Most people are morons, and so why I care what their moronic word of mouth is?
July 30, 2006, noon CST
I will probably see it now. It sounds similar to The Villiage situation. Managed to get a lot out of that movie, so I'm now curious to see Lady!
July 30, 2006, noon CST
I will probably see it now. It sounds similar to The Villiage situation. Managed to get a lot out of that movie, so I'm now curious to see Lady!
July 30, 2006, 12:04 p.m. CST
But you will if it means no studio is willing to give him money to make more films.
July 30, 2006, 12:04 p.m. CST
Anywho, reading some of these late reviews is really surprising me. And I loved The Village!
July 30, 2006, 12:06 p.m. CST
Oh, wait, no you don't. I'm not judging Lady on the possibility of the director's future work, dude.
July 30, 2006, 1:38 p.m. CST
In its second weekend, the Lady drops to seventh place. Its paltry weekend gross is $7 million, while its anemic total is $32 million. The studio is rolling its eyes.
July 30, 2006, 3:44 p.m. CST
Disney is laughing all the way to the bank...having severed ties with Shymalan...life is good...
July 31, 2006, 10:13 a.m. CST
Just saying it looks like Shammy will have a tough time getting funding for his next flick, especially if he refuses to give up any creative control. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If he's going to go the indulgent "auteur" route, it wouldn't kill him to reign in his bloated budgets. And it probably wouldn't kill him to have someone else produce...or even direct somebody else's script. At this point I think his directing is stronger than his writing.
July 31, 2006, 11:08 a.m. CST
In response to the above post I have disagree. This is a guy made over a billion dollars for Disney with his last four films. Even his apparent failures still make money when you factor in international box-office and DVD sales. To suggest that he's going to have difficulty in getting funding for his next movie is just plain wrong. Despite the apparent lacklustre performance of Lady at the box-office there are still plenty of studios (including Warner Bros) that want to have him on board. I do agree though that he may have to make a few compromises along the way (and I would love him to direct another property - e.g Harry Potter) but there's no way that the studios will say no to funding his next flick. You cannot argue that he is one of the few filmakers in Hollywood who produces genuinely original stories. The studios know this and despite how his movies do, they still respect him for it. Hell, even Disney who didn't understand the script for Lady at all were still willing to hand over the cash. He's going to be just fine.
July 31, 2006, 2:20 p.m. CST
If they were willing, why did they take a pass and let Warner's to it? His unwillingness to compromise is what will make it difficult to get funding. If he'd agree to make a movie without complete creative control, if the studio had final cut, he'd definitely get the cash. But I doubt he's willing to do that. I think what is likely is studios offering him cash with strings attached, and him taking a pass. If he holds out, someone will probably finance him, but they'll cut the budget WAY back. He'll make more movies. But they either won't cost so much, or he'll have less control. Or both.
July 31, 2006, 2:38 p.m. CST
Disney didn't pass. Although they didn't 'get' the script, they offered him to $60 million to do the movie. It was Shyamalan's choice to take it to Warner, not because Disney passed but because he felt he couldn't make the flick for them if they didn't believe in what he was doing. And who the hell wants the studio to have final control? When that happens you get movies like Blade 3.
July 31, 2006, 3:19 p.m. CST
Maybe they would have if he agreed to their suggested changes, but that never happened. Where did you read that they greenlit it but he walked anyway? And I don't think the studio having control is best in most cases...just when the director/writer gets self-absorbed and out of control.
July 31, 2006, 7:21 p.m. CST
This movie was horrible, laughable and a complete waste of time. I unfortunately stayed the entire running time of the film though I was tempted to leave again and again. But I stayed in hopes that something might redeem this film and because it was close to 100 degrees outside in New York. Maybe, MAYBE there might be some redeeming M. Night twist - like the ending reveals that whole thing was written by a third grader when asked to possibly write the worst possible story that he or she could think of. But no. Nothing alas but a great steaming pile of shit. In my defense I did throw my empty cup of soda at the screen and loudly booed to which a few audience memebers joined. The movie might not have even been SO horrible had Shymalan's blatent self-righteous masturbatory voice not been so blatantly apparent in this film - hell look who he played. what a jerk-off. This movie SUCKED!
July 31, 2006, 11:10 p.m. CST
Why the hell wasn't this marketed like a dark kid's movie? The critics wouldn't have eaten it alive. Seriously, this should have been sold as something like Dark Crystal or Neverending Story, something to make kids pee themselves (out of fear and delight). Man, my childhood was wack.
Aug. 2, 2006, 5:43 a.m. CST
You are a tosser. Everyone should support this film. At least its original, and not just another fucking video-game adaptation! I think if someone makes a film about a personal idea they have had, it should be encouraged, regardless of how good the resulting movie is. Wouldn't it be nice if all filmmakers did this? We might get a few more Terry Gilliams, and Richard Kellys, Dario Argentos, Tim Burtons, Lucile Hadzihalilovics.... you know, people who make interesting films! Keep it up Shymalan, you are a breath of fresh air my friend.
Aug. 2, 2006, 6:26 p.m. CST
stop complaining. It wasn't so bad.
Aug. 3, 2006, 12:10 a.m. CST
I just saw Lady and loved it. and I didn't read Harry's review until just now. Frankly I would say that Harry didn't really need to say another word. The movie #@$%ing rocked. It made me feel like I felt when I first watched E.T. And whoever said the comment about not switching off their logic when watching a movie must have had a very boring childhood.
Aug. 11, 2006, 8:27 a.m. CST
...about a personal idea they have had, it should be encouraged, regardless of how good the resulting movie is." Wow. Go see movies even if they suck? Can I go for a unicorn ride with you?
Aug. 11, 2006, 5:54 p.m. CST
The movie blew my mind. It's too bad that 70% of America (aka the dumbasses) wanted to see another 2-hour twilight zone instead of a truly unique, ambitious, and rousing film that actually makes you think after you've left the theater. There are plot points in this movie that the majority of viewers will completely miss, even when they're given HUGE clues early on to pay attention to characters or concepts that appear earlier in the story. This is one of the best movies to come out this year next to Little Miss Sunshine, Superman Returns, and Shadowboxer, and I WILL be at the opening to his next ten movies. The man is a genius, and like The Thing or The Princess Bride, Lady in the Water will become a cult classic after all the retards wake up from their anal comas. M. Night Syamalan is a true genius filmmaker.
Aug. 12, 2006, 8:08 a.m. CST
by newland archer
see the film
Aug. 13, 2006, 4:28 a.m. CST
by Lt. John Boles
Sorry Mr. Archer but that, to me, seems like a silly little post to make. Which of course is fine, I just thought I'd mention it since I am rather bored right now and feel like placing a silly little post myself.
Aug. 13, 2006, 10:46 a.m. CST
by Moniker Jones
As usual, Harry has found some moronic way of justifying his horrendous taste. This movie was abominable, not unlike the snowman attempting to defend and rationalize it on this site. If it's truly supposed to be looked at from the POV of a child hearing a bedtime story, why all the faux-intellectual mumbo jumbo that no child (or sane adult) could hope to understand and enjoy? The ridiculous, poorly executed jab at critics was over-indulgent, especially considering that this has to be one of the worst major films released in years. I can't even continue isolating examples of Shyamalan's idiotic psychobabble, because the script is pure hogwash. For the record, I've never hated the man. On the contrary, I've always been a staunch advocate for the underrated Unbreakable. But the guy should have stopped after Signs...or at least taken some time off. He's going to have to work overtime (and probably seek an outside script) to pull himself out of this enormous cinematic hole.
Aug. 13, 2006, 1:35 p.m. CST
Spoiler: The lady lives in the water to keep safe from invading alien security guards. [eyeroll] .......... My impression is that this movie is a rather clumsily parsed fable about spirituality (the "Narf" embodying magical possibility) depicted as under attack by secular skepticism (unflatteringly characterized by the cynical critic and the ravenous, shadowed "Scrunts") even while spiritual messages of hope become all the more necessary (according to the film's top-heavy preaching) in a world filled with horrors like war. .......... In this light, the gruesome comeuppance of Farber's character should not be considered a straightforward retaliatory strike against critics (as Roger Ebert has suggested) but is instead meant as a commentary about (in Night's view) skepticism's indiscriminate and cannibalizing antagonism: Farber represents the jaded extremist who would offer snarky analysis even of his own lynching. He's not a mere caricature of film critics but serves as the movie's vocal paragon of disbelief: cynacism is his *raison d'etre*, and the questionable story of Story (rife with messianic connotations) is the prime target of his doubt. .......... The swimming pool is our obligatory portal to the realm of magic
Aug. 14, 2006, 6:09 a.m. CST
It's also an absolute train wreck if you can see it.
Aug. 14, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST
Here's more of my deciphering, though it doesn't speak well of the film's own presentation that a belabored playbook should be required to make sense of anything. ...But be forewarned that all of this is only my best guess, not official Shabbadoo "Cliff Notes". .......... "Narf" = angel, muse. // "Story" = Christ figure, bringing inspiration at risk of persecution and offering spiritual hope for mankind; more abstractly, she may be intended as the bearer of (the gospel) Excalibur (Ex calce liberatus, "to liberate from the stone"), promising salvation for the Kingdom... (of man)... because "Swords are words as often as not" (to borrow a line from Orson Scott Card). // Scrunts = Skeptic cunts! // Farber = skeptic cock! // Tartutic = um...? Questionably, they're Shabbadoo's implied agents for "God's wrath", striking with decisive fury whenever them uppity skeptics get too uppity. (...Because those are "the rules", dammit!) // Eagle = McGuffin of Resurrection, simultaneously marking Heep's (conflicted man's) spiritual redemption. // "Blue World" = heaven (blue sky). // Lawn sprinklers = "If you water it, they will come." // Evaporating Narf droplets = spirit disseminating, seeking a place in the world, or perhaps imperilled if falling too far from the source. (...Because without *belief*, Story loses its power and dies.) It's expressed in the film that water represents purity or new beginnings. // Swimming pool = heart (and related token symbolism); ie., spirituality arriving through men's hearts. (*lub-dub.*) (There's a better pool pic at IMDB: http://tinyurl.com/qr4aw ) // The Cove & tenants = the individual (or world) & deliberating aspects of psyche, weighing secular logic against unfettered hope (/childish naivety, as per "young soon"); Shabbadoo appears to be in awe of childrens' willingness to believe all manner of crazy shizznit, and with this movie wonders why adults can't be as innocently, openly embracing of "magical possibilities" (ie., spirituality). // "Cookbook" = the Bible (etc.), a book to change the world. ~ Consult your Ancient Scrolls(TM)! / "Vick" = M Night Shabbadoo, self-cast archetype of the inspired (prophetic) Storyteller. // "Neferum Morem" = a seeming bastardization of Poe's "Nevermore," poor Lenore. ~ see WikiGoogle literary analysis of raven poem for the intended empowering significance of that phrase. // Insidious labelling of "Fairy tale" = This flick is religious claptrap in disguise; "You have to believe that this all makes sense somehow!" ...Pop-culture proselytzing
Aug. 16, 2006, 7:11 a.m. CST
by Moniker Jones
I'm sure one can have fun trying to analyze Lady in the Water, but why bother? A film like Mulholland Drive is worth decoding because it's actually well-done, entertaining to watch regardless of comprehension, and more importantly because it feels cohesive. You can get a very clear idea of what MD is really about without necessarily being able to understand the logic (or illogic) of every scene in the film. LitW, however, is just boring to watch. Rarely do I end up paying for a film that turns out to be this painful to sit through, but I did so only because I'm a local film critic and feel that every film should be seen through to its conclusion if you ever plan on discussing it publicly. Anyway, I have to go to work now. This film sucks diseased Narfcock.
Aug. 16, 2006, 10:21 a.m. CST
Most of this only occurred to me in after-the-fact shoehorning rather than nodding along as I was watching it, and as noted with my disclaimer, I may be projecting too much with some of it
Aug. 16, 2006, 4:38 p.m. CST
this movie sucked because night cheated the audience. the movie had the standard "shyamalan twist". it was the fact that they got everything wrong. they spent all that time figuring out what everybody's role was, then OOPS! we got it wrong. lets take 10 minutes and figure out who's actually what. this is the stuff of murder mysteries, not fairy tales. and i really was liking the movie up until that point. but you can't cheat the audience like that. if you showed this movie to a kid, i bet you they'd hate it, cause kids don't accept bullshit in stories. fantasy, yes. bullshit, no. and this movie was loaded with bullshit storytelling.
Aug. 18, 2006, 4 p.m. CST
Regardless of one's opinion of the movie, how could you possibly compare this to Miyazaki? BTW, the green lawn dudes really reminded me of Chaka from Land of the Lost.
Aug. 18, 2006, 4:06 p.m. CST
"It's too bad that 70% of America (aka the dumbasses) wanted to see another 2-hour twilight zone instead of a truly unique, ambitious, and rousing film that actually makes you think after you've left the theater." No, see I really did want to see a unique, ambitious, and rousing film, as do many other movie-goers (if still less intelligent as your exalted one.) They just didn't think this was it. (this response was so ridiculously over-the-top that may actually be cleverly veiled sarcasm, but anyways.)
Aug. 23, 2006, 11:25 a.m. CST
The comic scenes are good in the film, it makes you laught, and that's what they're meant to do. The problem is, the moving scenes or the scary ones also made my ass laugh! Sooooo terrible. God,I laughed so much I almost fart in the theater. Actually, I did. It stinked, just like the movie.
Aug. 28, 2006, 7 p.m. CST
Aug. 30, 2006, 7:14 a.m. CST
Maybe next time he wanted to shoot a movie Mr. Shyamalan'll try to cast Van Damme as the hero... in another cerebral FAQ's movie... no just kidding !! But i'm happy 'cause now each time one of his movie released in theater, i have just to look on the trailer to see the entire idea... meaning always the same since Sign... it's not that kind of film that i want to see, boring and leading nowhere with the same movement of camera and the same art direction. I think this guy is quite a burdon ! Even producers'll give him the next Naked Gun, he'll turn it into a squizophrenic stuff !!!
Oct. 4, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST
I dearly wanted the "those we don't speak of" creatures from The Village(who looked a lot like something from The Dark Crystal when I first saw them) to be real in the context of the movie. Sounds like in this movie, there are critters like that who are "real". exciting
Oct. 17, 2006, 10:59 p.m. CST
No bullshit, no hyperbole. It made "Batman and Robin" look like "The Magnificent Ambersons".