miless wrote:
Did no-one catch the ludicrous water plot-hole from signs? (i.e. there's water in the atmosphere that would have killed the aliens) it would have been an effective film had the plot centered around something else.
Yeah it doesn't make sense, but the film is well-made enough that it doesn't bother me that much. It remains a diabolical thriller, and an affecting drama. The movie maybe could have done without the flashbacks to his wife dying; the thing that really resonated with me was the deep sense of innate emptiness in the Gibson character and his family life. Shyamalan usually isn't much for subtlety, but he managed to depict the deep chasm left by the death of a family member without having to remind us of it in every scene. There was something about the way Gibson interacted with his children and brother, something unspoken but still powerful. As for the thriller side of things, I could at least kind of understand why some people want to say Shyamalan is the next Hitchock. The tension is modulated beautifully.
Belmondo wrote:
(spoilers for THE VILLAGE) ... the big surprise was cool for only a moment until we got preposterous exposition, including the ability to coerce air traffic controllers to forbid aircraft from ever flying over the area - air traffic control has little to do with those civil aviation Cessnas, which can and do fly pretty much anywhere they want outside of large airports and cities.
I kind of like the twist in The Village in theory. The problem is that it's very hard to create a supernatural thriller and use an ending like that without alienating the audience. It was a valiant effort, but Shyamalan isn't versatile enough a filmmaker to make it a complete success. And, as you said, it strains credibility. Ironically, you could almost say that
Lady in the Water strains credibility the least of his films, since it takes place almost exclusively in a fantasy reality that doesn't obey the rules of the real world.