The story is as simple as the previous works of director M. Night Shyamalan, but this time there is no "twisted bridge" of the past. Instead, the complete storyline has been disclosed in the middle of the film. The only test of intelligence in the film is guesswork. Who is the guardian, healer and other roles responsible for guarding the story of the water elves?
I believe many people don't like it.
The plot of the story is sloppy. Many places have started, but they have not been continued. They have only the backbone and no branches, and the characters are simple and plain. Many characters appear on the scene like a rotation, hurriedly handing in the roles they should give, so that the story can develop. That is, there is not much flesh and blood.
The only flesh and blood is the director's ironic critic-the only character in the film who was sacrificed under the monster's claws (or mouth of blood).
But I still quite like this film. Maybe it has something to do with my love of fairy tales and magical stories.
M. Night Shyamalan virtualized an "Oriental Legend" in the film, referring to the elves living in the "Blue World". They will be sent to the world and meet the selected "messengers", so that the "messengers" will be inspired. Achieve to lead mankind to develop on the right path.
In order to enrich this self-constructed "Bed story", he also added some evil characters and law enforcers to the "Legend", as well as a group of characters who guard the Story. The estate manager who originally thought it was the guardian, who knew it was not the guardian; thought it was the five stubborn guys of the guild (or four?), who knew it was wrong; thought it was a puzzle solver, but the real puzzle solver There are others; thought it was a healer, but in the end it was wrong.
Zhe also guessed wrong. At first he thought that serious critic would be a puzzle solver, but he ended up like this. I wonder if the director is particularly annoying to critics, especially his work has been criticized repeatedly? If this is the case, his heart would be...well, isn't it big enough!
But someone should die.
Like all horror films, there must be a victim. In this film, there are not enough victims, so Azhe will arbitrarily not classify him as a "horror film." ^^
But the film almost has all the old-fashioned story segments: there are unknown past administrators who help Story to uncover their scars and then get healed; each person lives in the snowy housing estate in front of the house. Guest, unite for the same mission; there are magical adventures of entering a different world and having to complete one's own mission to return home; there are the life and death incompatibility of beauty and beasts and be hunted down; there is the threat of unknown mysterious creatures The survival of human beings...
choose any one, it is the subject of a movie that is enough to make two hours.
There is no originality in this world. The critic in the film once said this line of dialogue.
So, I wondered whether what the film was talking about was a story of creation and reading? To be precise, is it a satire on the behavior of the so-called "creator" and "reader" (reader or audience)?
There are many characters in the film, and everyone lives in the same housing estate. However, we can find that there are so many people involved in creation. The density of a single housing estate is amazing, and they are all. Also facing the dilemma about creation.
The author of the book is Mrs. Barr. Her dilemma is that it was 20 years ago. There have been no new works in the past 20 years, and the old works have been out of print for a long time, and no new readers know her. She is like a forgotten old book.
One of the critics was the critic who wrote book reviews and film reviews for newspapers. His dilemma is that everything has been repetitive and repetitive. In a creative environment that has lost its "original", he can no longer write his reviews. article. But it is not just those novels or movies that lose originality. Doesn't the comment also need to have originality? His real dilemma is that he has no intention of originality.
College students are supposed to write essays, but the Korean female college students in the film do not have to face the problem of writing essays. She said that this year is all multiple choice questions.
There is also a young Indian writer who is played by the director himself, who has been writing for a long time and has not been able to complete the work; the idle "Gojo Tomo" also wants to create a classic slogan and wants to break his head.
The director gave up his masterful "Twisting Bridge" skill, he just created an oriental legend, and then honestly reproduced the legend. Is he tired of technical operation, and eager to improve the text creation? But traces of the director's "Twisting Bridge" are still there, and the guessing game about which person is and what identity also brings out a lot of fun. The critic character in the film said that there is no originality in this world, but the director responds. It is not easy to create. Should it be a response to the media's only criticism?
From the perspective of the audience, it is also found that the director is not only satirizing critics, but also satirizing ordinary audiences or readers. Many viewers always pursue "unpredictable" plots, and always love to criticize a movie "already guessed", and there is no shortage of such people around Ah Zhe. Of course, there is no intention to criticize such people. It's just that after watching "Bad Water", the more we realize that our appreciation of movies may have been reduced to a pursuit of technology, but the meaning of the text has been ignored.
When we criticize the old-fashioned layout of the storyline, many endings can already be guessed. Isn't it the same as the process of the administrator speculating who is the guardian and who is the guild member? We discovered that these people might all have some similar characteristics, but in the end we discovered that all our guesses were wrong.
Just like the last dialogue of the critics, in a movie, when an annoying character meets a monster, the plot should appear, but his guess is the opposite of the final ending-of course, this may also be true. The director's confession to many audiences who criticized him, or even a demonstration: don't think that you understand what the director is saying-I have a prejudice against the director? Why always think of him as a small-minded person?
But in any case, the director also made it clear that he should not arbitrarily draw conclusions about a film.
It's just that I really shouldn't guess the director's mind arbitrarily. Even if he ridiculed the critics so unreservedly, I still believe that what this film talks about is only the problems faced by the creation.
Perhaps, the director personally plays a young writer inspired by Story. Does it mean that his personal creation is also facing unclear thoughts, and a Nauf needs to appear to lead him to another level of creation?
View more about Lady in the Water reviews
