ROTTEN TOMATOES: A Few More Actors Dive Into Shyamalan's "Water"

A Few More Actors Dive Into Shyamalan's "Water"

by Scott Weinberg | August 11, 2005

Paul Giamatti ("Sideways") and Bryce Dallas Howard ("The Village") have been on board for a while now, but it looks like the cast of M. Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" is about to get a lot more crowded.

The psychological thriller about sea nymphs or mermaids or something is about to begin production just outside of Philadelphia, and its new cast members include names like Mary Beth Hurt ("The Family Man"), Jeffrey Wright ("Broken Flowers"), Bob Balaban ("Gosford Park"), Freddy Rodriguez ("Chasing Papi"), and Sarita Choudhury ("She Hate Me").

Related Items

Celeb:	Paul Giamatti
	Mary Beth Hurt
	Sarita Choudhury
	Bryce Dallas Howard
	Bob Balaban
	Jeffrey Wright
	M. Night Shyamalan
	Freddy Rodriguez
Movie:	She Hate Me
	The Family Man
	Chasing Papi
	The Village
	Broken Flowers
	Sideways
	Gosford Park

(1-20 of 26 posts) | Reply

Prosper761 writes:
on Aug 11 2005 09:23 AM

[b]Does Anyone Really Care?[/b]
M. Night Shamalamadingdong hasn't made a good movie since "The Sixth Sense" (which I am now convinced was purely by accident). "Unbreakable" was a ridiculous, pointless mess; "Signs" a poorly plotted religious picture disguised as science fiction with extra cheap CGI (though admittedly, it does feature one of Gibson's best, understated performances) and "The Village" was a rip-off of a series of children's books with quite possibly the lamest "twist" ending ever. I foolishly kept hoping Shyamalan had another good movie in him. Obviously, he doesn't, and I will not be tricked into wasting another 2 hours of my life on one of his pretentious films.

(Reply to this)

Yankees>RedSox writes:
on Aug 11 2005 10:43 AM

Jeeeeeeeeeeeez, Bitter

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Aug 11 2005 02:34 PM

[b]I care[/b]
At least he doesn't waste time doing unwanted remakes of other films.

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Aug 11 2005 03:04 PM

I personaly thought that The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs were all great films. I did think that The Village should have been a lot better though. But still he's a talented man and I shall always eagerly await his next film.

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Aug 11 2005 04:07 PM

As much as I loved The Village, I feel that Night does so much better when he just focuses the story on a small group of people (For instance, Signs only had about 6 or 7 characters TOTAL). The thought of a large cast makes me nervous but I'll see it anyway cause I love his movies.

(Reply to this)

GoblinStands writes:
on Aug 11 2005 04:56 PM

Personally, I think "The Sixth Sense" is the weakest of his thrillers, since the whole thing relies solely on the twist, while the films subsequent to that really don't. "Unbreakable" and "The Village" are near-perfect movies, in my opinion. And if you had actually read the book he supposedly "ripped off" for "The Village," Prosper761, you would realize that the two are not even CLOSE. They share a few similarities in the setting, but are about completely different things. The same can be said for hundreds of other movies, but I don't see anyone complaining about them.

I'm definitely anticipating this next one. I, too, am tired of all the remakes and comic book / tv show inspired movies that have been coming out lately. I haven't been to the theater in weeks.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Aug 11 2005 05:48 PM

[b]Prosper, get a clue.[/b]
Eh, Prosper761 (and live-long, I guess...): Shymalan's "Signs" was a much FINER and neatly-structured movie than Spielberg's "War of the Worlds", Ok? And "Signs" was done with probably the catering-budjet of Spielberg's wasted--(a movie he clearly did not put his heart into...---) "War of the Worlds" whatever that was. So, I guess it's still about other peoples likes and dislikes and all--- but still man, get a clue before saying riduculous stuff like Shymalan's only-best is "The Sixth Sense"... Geez!

(Reply to this)

Averystorm writes:
on Aug 11 2005 06:44 PM

Gee, I wonder if this will be one of those cheesy thrillers with a cheap twist at the end. Oh wait, thats all this guy ever makes. This horse has been long dead and decomposed, quit beating it already!!

(Reply to this)

kenporules writes:
on Aug 11 2005 07:16 PM

Let's guess the twist!!

Seriously, there is a chance Shyamalan has learned his lesson and will actually try not to ruin this one. Unbreakable, regardless of what many say, is an excellent film, and although his others are okay but not particularly great (excusing the lousy Village) he is a guy who has the ability to create a good movie. Maybe he'll use it.

(Reply to this)

Prosper761 writes:
on Aug 11 2005 08:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#825031)
[b]I have lots of clues, jeanpaul...[/b]
The first is that you wouldn't know a good movie of it bit you in the... no - won't go there. The second is that you have never bothered to read Shakespeare, or you would know my screen name has nothing to do with "Star Trek." The third is I should know better than to get into a battle of wits against an unarmed person (and no, I won't take credit for that joke). I never compared "Signs" with "War of the Worlds" (or any other movie). I certainly enjoyed the underplayed performances of his cast. But like every movie Shyamalan has made (including "The Sixth Sense"), I saw the ending coming at least 20 minutes before it came. And neatly structured? Aliens, who can be killed by water, choose to invade a planet that is 2/3 water? And they can travel millions of lightyears through space and create elaborate maps in crop circles, but can't figure out how to work a doorknob? Please. If you like his work, by all means, enjoy it. I'm just tired of him trying to be (and failing miserably) the O. Henry of film. Oh, wait - you probably don't know who O. Henry is, either. Never mind.

(Reply to this)

GandalfTheWhite writes:
on Aug 11 2005 08:45 PM

[b]Thumbs Up[/b]
I think its promising, though the new cast is a bit of a new name.

SPOILERS

I thought The Village was actually his best work. It abandons the obligation of his previous films that for something to be scary, that people must have a real reason to fear it. I think the fact that we had nothing to fear begin with was perhaps the scariest things of all. Not to mention it resonoated striking feels towards a current administration for a perceptive audience that noticed the strategic use of colors.

In addition to his Bryce Dallas Howard and Paul Giamatti being great talents, Christopher Doyle, perhaps the greatest cinematographer of our time, is going to be working with Shyamalan. I except to see good things out of Shyamalan as usual.

(Reply to this)

Madman writes:
on Aug 11 2005 09:25 PM

[b]I'm looking forward to it...[/b]
I'm a fan of his other works for sure. There's something to be said about a director who puts so much focus on his characters in this day and age of movies. All of his movies are essentailly what would it be like for an ordinary person to experience an extrodinary event (ie an alien invasion). There is a real truth that resonates in his films and I enjoy them as a result.

Madman

P.S. Just to add my 2 cents...

#1 Signs
#2 Unbreakable
#3 Sith Sense
#4 The Village

(Reply to this)

jason.quiggle writes:
on Aug 11 2005 11:11 PM

In reply to this comment (#825025)
[b]ummm.sure[/b]
yeah i've heard that shamalamadingdong joke before, it was funnier when it wasn't you. anywho, Unbreakable is not only his best film, it's far from a mess, if by mess you mean uncohesive, confusing? It certainly had a "point". Did you not like the "point" of it or was the script truly that confounding for you. You see it's about a guy going through a separation who discovers that...oh never mind, I've probably already confused you with my pointless and convoluted synopsis. I dont know, you tell me. Sixth sense was good because of it's script which is a rip off of a far better script that was never filmed. Signs also was a fine film but suffered from hype and veiwer expectations, not only is it a great Gibson performance the film creates tension in a way reminiscent of a good Twilight Zone episode. The special effects were fine, it all looked real to me. Maybe there weren't enough special effects or the overall design disappointed you, I don't know because you did not explain yourself you just made a bunch of angry, broad declarations. Personally I think shyamalan suffers from the expectations of the studio and the veiwing public to deliver a twist ending, this hobbled the village which was advertised as a horror movie when in fact it was more of an art house flick. Say what you will about his films, but he isnt making remake after remake after remake. When was the last time Tim Burton had an original idea? Anyone? Anyone? Well, maybe the Dukes of Hazard is more your style, thats cool. I'll take an original, thought provoking failure over that tripe anyday.

(Reply to this)

Segkee writes:
on Aug 12 2005 12:24 AM

[b]On second viewing Night rewards...[/b]
Signs kicked ass on second viewing. Yes it's a religious pic, but it's also smart and moderately original. The Village was his best work until he hit the fifty-minute marker and blew a straight up scary movie for some shit twist ending.

Water nymphs are intriguing and I love Paul G. Whatever Night is, he has a unique voice and I might not always like what it has to say, but at least it is his voice. A lot of filmmakers loose their vision because they can't hear themselves think over others who call themselves creative. We need more singular voices with singular visions and then we'll have passion (Mel Gibson's or otherwise) pumped back into film.

Another filmmaker with vision is Michael Moore and 9/11 is actually a mainstream film made for leftist thinkers (in other words a targeted audience). I like Michael Moore, but he insulted my intelligence and brought no new or interesting info to the table. George Bush is an idiot, I get it, now tell me something new.

(Reply to this)

brave.sir.rob writes:
on Aug 12 2005 08:37 AM

[b]Bleh[/b]
Propser is right: M. Night is way overrated. People, "Signs" was a mess, "The Village" isn't even worth discussing, and I'm sorry but only pretentious film snobs would say otherwise. I will give the guy a lot of credit for being original, though, and that's more than enough reason for me to at least see his movies once or twice.

I also think it's funny how strongly debated his movies are. That's another reason to see them: get some concrete reasons for explaining why they suck in the RT forums.

Oh, and Michael Moore can just f**k right off. I have spoken.

(Reply to this)

kubrickfan writes:
on Aug 12 2005 09:40 AM

^ I agree with the michael moore comment!!! I thought unbreakable was an excellent. It had a very fresh take on the comic book/super hero genre. And bruce willis and sam jackson were perfect as the hero/villian. I also loved the how the character of the villian was as clearly developed as the hero. Yes, it did has a twist ending, but it was still an original take. Everyone was expected another sixth sense, and what he delivered as a whole was completely unexpected, and I think that a lot of the sixth sense mainstream was turned off by a "real life" super hero movie. I had originally heard that it was meant to be a trilogy, and have been looking forward to the remaining chapters. Even though a lot of people didn't like it, it still made like 150 million at the us box office. Which is more than say, fantastic four, which also cost more to make (and will probably get a sequel). So what are they waiting for???

(Reply to this)

speelbergo writes:
on Aug 12 2005 12:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#825025)
[b]are death threats legal???[/b]
because if they are, you just got one. (and by death threat, i mean this nasty comment.) You wouldn't know good cinema if it crawled out of your ass. What the hell do you like; Bruckheimer?

(Reply to this)

jsmccune writes:
on Aug 12 2005 03:40 PM

[b]Where's Rodney King when you need him?[/b]
So we all know what we're getting when we go into an MNS movie -- don't we know that with every other director as well?

IMO, The Sixth Sense was the best, not necessarily for plot/credibility, but b/c it was the 1st movie in awhile that had a twisted ending (that wasn't a B-rate horror movie). Then the progression downhill started. Unbreakable was enjoyable enough. Signs seemed sorta silly (that whole baseball bat thing -GAFB) and The Village had a nice enough premise, but had two major flaws: 1.) Large plot holes 2.) Watching paint crack might have been more enjoyable.

Nonetheless, half the fun in these movies is trying to figure out what the TWIST will be and deciding how lame it truly is.

(Reply to this)

Prosper761 writes:
on Aug 12 2005 08:26 PM

[b]Well...[/b]
Seems I opened up quite a can of worms, didn't I? It's nice to see there are still places where people can have open debates, though. I stand by my assesment of MNS - his films are pretentious, often downright stupid and usually filled with plot holes large enough to drive a truck through (and yes, I ended with a preposition - gasp!). Again, if you happen to enjoy his work, by all means, go see his movies. I, for one, have no intention of getting suckered again. 'Nuff said.

(Reply to this)

skletonkee writes:
on Aug 13 2005 09:52 AM

[b]mood...[/b]
shymalan is a master at creating mood...sure The Village's last part was a let down but I personally really enjoyed his film...

and whats to debate? we are all simply expressing our "opinion" about films..aint no one person's view more "right" or more "important" then another..

some folks need to get off their head trip.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com