So I just watched Lady in the Water.

The opening prologue went on really long, and it ended up being almost completely irrelevant. Then the movie was boring for about half an hour or more. I was wondering whether it was really worth my time to sit through the movie.

Then it got interesting. Then it got really interesting. Then it got silly. And it was cool, interesting, silly, interesting, and then silly again.

Plus, there's all this awkward meta stuff that I would love if it were done well. I mean, he names the narf Story, for crying out loud, but the commentary on narrative seems completely arbitrary and almost self-mocking.

While I didn't hate it, I appreciate the concept and wish it had been better. M. Night was trying to make a fairy tale for adults, but I'll take Pan's Labyrinth instead.

Laga! That blues bar is in my hometown! That's pretty much the only reason I might see that movie is to see Shreveport. Though I understand it's supposed to be set soemwhere else.

Also, wasn't Jilli supposed to see Sweeny tonight?

Also, wasn't Jilli supposed to see Sweeny tonight?

cackles delightedly

Yes! Oh, oh, oh. My GOD, that was pretty. I had immense fun, and (even tho' I knew how it ended) I really wanted those two wacky kids to make a go of it and end up in a little house by the sea. Yes, Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett are my new OTP. Predictably, I want every single outfit HBC wore. I already have the boots and the stockings, and a skirt that is very similar to her picnic skirt. I need the rest.

Pete ... had the opinion he has about most Tim Burton movies: he thinks Tim needs a stricter editor to trim the movie down by about 20 minutes. (Pete thinks Tim is too self-indulgent.)

In Cloverfield news, I apparently am not going to go see it. My PseudoSibling called today to let Pete know I shouldn't see it, because there's a section with giant spiders. WTF? People who have seen Cloverfield, is this true?

Jilli, it is untrue, but there are spider-like creatures. In that they have long, thin legs and can walk on walls. But they don't act like spiders at all.

Cloverfield made almost it's entire production budget back in one day. This weekend should cover the production budget, distribution and marketing. It's a major success.

So, whilst opinion is definitely divided (people are basically saying to me 'It was great fun!' or 'Worst. Movie. Ever!'), the marketing definitely worked. JJ the cash cow continues.

P-C, you liked Cloverfield a lot more than I did. I found it entertaining, but I just couldn't get over how stupid the characters were and that I wish the story hadn't been told from that one perspective the whole time.

Also, I hadn't realized the movie was PG-13, so I really wish it had been scarier. I don't think I jumped once when watching the movie.

Jilli, you don't want to see Cloverfield. The scene in question will make you never want to go into a dark enclosed space ever again for fear of, um, Jillifonted-type things doing things they shouldn't do. Ever. Frankly, I'm amazed (minor spoiler), I was able to get back on the subway afterwards. Nyaaaaaaaaaaagh.

I have some other issues with the movie. First, it was very clearly written and directed by dudes from LA. The subway scene I mentioned above? I was almost rolling my eyes too hard at the stupidness of the "OMG, the 6 train GOES UPTOWN??!!!???" conversation to be freaked out by the evil scary spider-things in the tunnel. Also, the 6 is a local train - it stops every 8-10 blocks. Meaning they would have passed through a lit station every 8-15 minutes, depending on how fast they were walking. Meaning the fact that they were surprised to end up at 59th St after just having seen 51st St a few minutes earlier makes these the 4 dumbest people on the planet, and totally deserving of becoming monster food.

Also, real New Yorkers would have walked along the 6 track to Bleeker St, crossed over to the downtown side of the track and walked on the F-line up to West 4th where they could switch to the B and go directly to Columbus Circle underground the whole way without having to get out at 59th/Lex and walk across town outside.

Which, yes, seems like nitpicking, but in a movie that bills itself as "found footage," details like that matter.

I also did not like the ending. Or, rather, the TWELVE endings. Again - found footage. It should not wrap around in a neat little narrative circle, the tape lasting just long enough for the two main characters to call back the first scenes of the film and declare their eternal two wuv just before the bombs hit. It should have ended after the helicopter crash.

And the editing was waaaaaaaay too convenient. There were too many jump cuts and not enough long gaps. There were cuts where it made no sense for Hud to have paused or turned off the camera. The timestamp and "PROPERTY OF US WATERMARK" should have been onscreen the whole time. The camera should have been in night-vision coming out of the tunnel, and then a long gap while he figured out how to turn it off. And the camera should have run out of batteries or tape NOT at a narratively satisfying conclusion, but randomly in the middle of someone talking. Maybe it could have run out of tape before the Nokia ad electronics store looting scene and they could have looted some MiniDV cassettes (off-camera, of course), which would explain how their 90 minute tape lasted for 8 hours. I really felt like the filmmakers needed to either fully commit to their premise or abandon it altogether.

I also felt like it could have been much more Godzilla-like. The original Godzilla was a commentary on the national mindset of Japan after the atomic bombs hit. This could have done the same for 9/11, if they'd put a little more thought into it, but it didn't go there. Which was disappointing to me, because they did use a lot of 9/11 imagery in the opening few scenes. I didn't find it exploitive, necessarily, but I would have liked much more follow-through.

I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it. It's not a fun disaster movie at all. It's more interesting than it is successful.

I really felt like the filmmakers needed to either fully commit to their premise or abandon it altogether.

This is an interesting point. I think they should have abandoned it. I think the story felt WAY too claustrophobic told from this narrow perspective. I needed more information and other characters. I also felt strange because as I understand what happened after Sept 11th, strangers talked to strangers and helped each other out of Manhattan. There wasn't nearly as much of that as I would have liked to see.

I love the Subway-nitpicking. I still haven't seen Cloverfield, though I'm sure I will.