A Truly DRIPPY "Thriller" ? ?

Of course!  

I just rewatched this film yesterday and I cried. This is my 4th favorite MNS film and I place it above Unbreakable. I made a recent post about this film and I would like to post it here to have a discussion of why this was truly "bad":

Most of the hate comes from the fact that MNS is playing a character whose work will inspire one to change the world and people associate that with him being egotistical, pretentious, etc. This argument doesn't hold much water considering if a person other than MNS played the character, would the movie have been automatically good? That seems to be the case. People are also unfairly trying to blend the lines between fiction and reality of MNS's character. He is simply playing a character. In no way, shape, or form is he trying to make a statement of how Messiah-like he is. It's a really crappy way to say a film is bad. That's like saying Clint Eastwood is a racist because of his character in Gran Torino. He's simply playing a character who happens to be racist. That doesn't mean he's racist in real life!

Another thing that I found to be a common complaint is that the characters in the film just happen to go along with the whole story without questioning its truthfulness. MNS could have easily solved this problem with using flashy special effects to show that Story was a narf and not some naked girl in someone's shower. For example, in Race to Witch Mountain, the two alien kids had a hard time trying to convince this one character that they are, in fact, aliens. So one of the aliens decided to use telekinesis to move a laptop without touching it, thus convincing the character that they are mystical  beings from outer space. But guess what, Lady in the Water is not a film that showcases CGI and effects and implying that the film would have been much more convincing with the use of special effects just shows how little imagination movie audiences have these days. Also, complaining about how people just went along with the idea to save Story is stupid because it was obvious she had an effect on people when they first laid their eyes on her. This was perhaps a substitute for showing special effects to wow the audience.

Other than that, if people stop trying to make a mountain over these two small molehills, I will have no doubt that people would enjoy the film a lot more. Sure, it's a flawed film. Some of the dialogue is a bit clunky and there could have been more of a threat than one "evil" dog preventing Story to go back to her home, but it's a magical film with a beautiful message and a terrific performance by Paul Giamatti. "Every being have a purpose." How can you guys seriously hate this film with such an uplifting message?

My lord, you people won't let this movie go!

Originally posted by moviewizguy Umm...maybe it was just a coincidence that you saw the commerical a week after you saw the film. Ever think of that? Also, you're not a critic so why would you be pissed off by the fact that he killed off the critic? He needed a character that needed to act snobby and act like they know everything. Other than a film geek, which would anger the entire film community, he stuck with the most relevant choice: A film critic. What could have been a better choice than a know-it-all critic? Honestly, that was the perfect choice. Even Ratatouille portrayed the critic in the worst possible way until the third act.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn Wow, you will just pull excuses out of thin air, won't you. There were also many interviews by MNS about how proud he was about making original movies, and sure enough, the film critic character said almost the same thing about there not being many original movies out there. READ BETWEEN THE LINES! That character was just MNS saying "f*** you" to any critics that bad mouthed "The Village", and if you can't see that, well, you're blind, because EVERYONE else saw right through that smoke screen.

You're just putting things together like a 9/11 conspiracy. It doesn't hold much water. If the critic character was there to just say something about critics, why does he have a huge part in the story? He mislead the characters into thinking one thing because it's supposed to be cliched and follow the rules.

But it's a huge logic flaw. I mean, if a naked woman just showed up in your shower one morning and she goes into this rant about how she is from another world and is here to save ours without any solid proof, are you just going to go along with it, or are you going to call the police for her being a possible drug addict, and breaking and entering your home?

It's a FANTASY film. As stated earlier, she had an effect on people. I'm sure if Jesus was in your room and you saw him, he would have an effect on you. If you're affected by something miraculous, you cannot use logic to explain it.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn But if a writer has his characters talking for him, then they are not really characters, just someone for MNS to express his opinions through. Again, that is why the critic character is so flawed, he is just there for MNS to lash out at critics with, going far as killing him off (after the dumb and illogical "if this was a movie" speech). And yet another clue that MNS was just patting himself on the back by having the character he played be the most important.

That's different,because I also hated ONCE.But I loved MALKOVICH.

Originally posted by moviewizguy Being John Malkovich is a terrific film. Do you know how Charlie Kaufman's work? Putting logic into his films should never be allowed.

Yeah, so I have noticed. His writing style is throw together whatever crazy idea first comes to mind, logic be damned!