Lady in the Water (2006) User Reviews

Not a great movie, but certainly not as bad as you've heard

[ghostofmrpalmer · 7/10 · 19 June 2008]

To start off with, I actually liked this movie, and at first I couldn't understand why some many people hated, but upon reflection i can see what some people reacted to so harshly.

One thing I liked about the film is the simple story, or more accurately, the atmosphere. M. Night has always been better at creating a mood than fleshing out a story, but the premise of Lady in the Water works for me: It about people reacting to a fairy tale happening in real life. This concept probably put a lot of people off, the fact of the matter is this concept hasn't been used a lot (but it has been done before, i.e. Peter Weir's "The Last Wave", a deeper and more philosophical film), and people aren't used to it. Like I said, I liked it, but most of my friends thought it was stupid.

The main thing that people hated was M. Night's own acting in the film, and on this I agree. He was without a doubt the worst thing in the film. It was a disgusting example of self-indulgence and self-importance, and more than that, he's just a terrible actor and he should stop.

The one thing that I really had a hard time stomaching was the extended sequences with the party band, Silvertide. They were so awful I wanted to walk out of the movie. Picture a blonde version of The Black Crows with even less talent ripping through and f*(^king up a version of Dylan's "Maggie's farm".

Those few things aside, the rest of the cast was great, I thought the story was simple and decent enough, the "film critic" part with Bob Balaban was funny, but M. Night was asking for it with that one, and the movie as a whole was entertaining.

M. Night started out as the new golden boy of Hollywood with "The Sixth Sense", but many have felt he's lost his touch. The truth is he hasn't lost his touch, he just hasn't grown as a director. With "The 6th Sense", "Unbreakable", "Signs", "The Village", and now "The Happening", he keep tilling the same field. it's getting old. "The 6th Sense" was great, mostly because it was fresh, "Unbreakable" was entertaining for me at least due to the comic book references, but "Signs", "The Happening", and especially "The Village" were just plain terrible. "Lady In The Water" was a nice diversion from his formula, but it's getting tired. Perhaps M. Night would benefit from directing a script written by someone else, and not built around some moronic "twist" at the end, and most definitely not acting in it.

It's all in the ending.

[CMUltra · 6/10 · 22 July 2006]

The ending is the crucial part of any movie. And, since M. Night Shyamalan has established the ending as the high point of his films, I was particularly watching the final moments here. Disappointingly, Shyamalan delivers a few very weak, very easy to spot "twists" tied up in a Hollywood Happy Ending™.

I've nothing against happy endings but, with Shyamalan, I expect the ending, whatever type it may be, to have quite a punch. The rest of the movie has the quality we've come to expect from Shyamalan. Tight direction, angles and shots that not only look good but also become part of the storytelling, and a layered script all add up to a fun and very interesting ride. Unfortunately the ride runs out of gas rather than coming to a final destination.

Shyamalan takes a good stab at the fantasy genre here and doesn't waste any time establishing belief amongst the characters. They all quickly accept and then begin to act upon the proposition that Story is a real life fairy-tale creature, come to benefit them and mankind as a whole. Their belief seems too abrupt but it's clear that Shyamalan wanted to dive right into the story. I would have liked just a little more cynicism from the humans though. If he had set the story in the past their immediate acceptance may have been more plausible. But in current day Philadelphia? I just don't see that many folks accepting a fantasy being at face value.

The writing is a good bit more humorous than his past scripts. There are a good many chuckles and even a few laugh out loud moments. Giamatti is in a role tailor made for him and he carries it with no problems. Howard shows a suitable sense of wonder and innocence as Story. The rest of the cast, a fairly large group of characters, are solid as well. Shyamalan writes himself into his largest role to date and does quite well.

Overall I can't say it's a bad movie. The Shyamalan quality alone puts this above most of the competition. However, he has set himself a pretty high standard with his earlier films and this one falls short.

Enjoyable fantasy with a great cast of actors

[mjSoFla · 7/10 · 22 August 2021]

If you enjoy fantasy movies with good acting and an imaginative storyline; you will enjoy this movie.

The entire movie occurs in one very large apartment building with very engaging characters played by well known actors.

One bizarre evening

[mstomaso · 2 August 2006]

I can't rate this film.

When I go to see a Shyamalan film, I expect to be entertained and stimulated, but I never know exactly how this will be accomplished. Shyamalan's films use ambiguity aesthetically and he draws his audience through the seduction of interpretive participation. Of all of his films, perhaps Lady in the Water does this most profoundly. Although I understood the entire film - the plot, the themes, the method - I walked away asking "what the hell did I just see?" It's easy enough to categorize the film. Lady in the Water is an absurdist comedy. But it makes you ask yourself why you are laughing. With Shyamalan's talent as it is, it is impossible for me to believe that any aspect of the humor of this film was unintentional. Yet the other side of LITW is dark fantasy, in the tradition of Michael Cohn's Snow White.

With a cast David Lynch would have been happy with, Shyamalan tells a fable from East Asia as it is experienced by a superintendent (Giamatti) at an apartment complex full of mundanely odd characters. A strange and beautiful young woman (Howard) has emerged from the complex's pool, apparently seeking contact with the surface world so she can find folkloric archetypes who can protect her from the evil creatures that hunt her and return her to her world beneath the waves.

Giamatti, Howard, and Shyamalan himself are all very entertaining. Howard - a very unusual looking and uniquely pretty woman - is shot so beautifully that it is very difficult to take your eyes off of her. M. Night's performance is so bizarre, it is hard to tell whether or not he is acting.

LITW is definitely the strangest film I have seen from Shyamalan. I have been up and down with him since the beginning of his career, enjoying his early films, very much disliking Signs, and being impressed with the Village. I believe that with the Village and LITW, M. Night is establishing a new and unique direction for himself. And if he keeps going this way, I will gladly follow.

Underrated

[safenoe · 7/10 · 1 April 2022]

Lady in the Water is underrated. I've seen The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs, so here we are with Lady in the Water.

I actually enjoyed reading Michael Bamberger's behind-the-scenes book, The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career on a Fairy Tale. The book uncovers much about the role of Christopher Doyle as cinematographer and the audition of Cindy Cheung.

Pedantic, contrived exercise in tedium and boredom

[strikefire83 · 1/10 · 24 July 2006]

As someone who loved The Sixth Sense and Signs, and who liked Unbreakable, I've got to say it's disappointing where Shyamalan seems to be taking his movies.

Lady in the Water has none of those attributes. For one thing, it's boring, something none of his other movies were. Here we have a sloppily unstructured mess of a film filled to the brim with incoherent bedtime story "mythology" that changes from one minute to the next, so even if you try and follow the world of the story your efforts will only be met with frustration. The film's flaws are many, and as others have and will point them out with much more dexterity than me, I'll simply list the films greatest foibles.

1) Shyamalan casts HIMSELF as a John the Baptist character who will inspire "a great leader who will change everything" from a hastily constructed presumable political treatise entitled, of all things, The Cookbook. Give me a break! As someone who styles himself as a modern day Hitchcock, M. Night should take a page from that man's book and continue to play cameo roles, not central ones.

2) His supporting characters are a mish-mash of ethnic and cultural stereotypes. The "Asian" student who attends university but cannot string together a coherent English sentence. Of course the otherworldly "mythology" is the remnant of some vaguely Eastern legend based on truth. The old Jewish woman is tackily dressed and her husband is always in the bathroom. Please.

3) The film/movie critic is one of the ONLY interesting and rounded characters, and Shyamalan kills him off as he rattles off trite contrivances. This character's appearance seems like a defensive self-conscious way to preempt the critical panning of this film. When a writer forces one of his characters to go on the defensive in dialogue, you know something has got to be wrong with a movie.

4) Shyamalan continues his now hackneyed convention of having a protagonist who's suffered tremendous loss in the form of familial death. Enough Already. Paul G is a great actor, the unnecessary back story about a dead family and a lost medical practice trite and out of place.

The list goes on and on, but suffice it to say this movie is a waste of celluloid, or hard drive space if you'd prefer. Avoid like plague.

Shyamalan's best in years

[Cube_TX · 6/10 · 18 July 2006]

I expected absolutely nothing from this movie after being bored to death by The Village. It seemed that Shyamalan was writing the ending twists to his movies first, then writing the story around it. I didn't really want to see Lady in the Water, but had free tickets to the local premiere. This movie, however, breaks from Shyamalan's regular scripts and has sense of originality about it. I was impressed by how outright funny this movie was at many times. I was very impressed by the writing because it showed a different side to M. Night Shyamalan's talent. Shyamalan plays a larger role in this movie and does a decent job.

The star of this film, and the outright reason that it was enjoyable, was Paul Giamatti. I have seen him in many films, but never in the leading role. He was funny, emotional and strong throughout the entire film. This film is a testament to his greatness as an actor. I would hope that this will result in another Academy Award nomination for him. Perhaps it was because of Giamatti's lead, but many other lesser known actors were also impressive as a result. Bryce Dallas Howard did a good job in her role, but it was probably better that Giamatti was given more camera time and lines.

True, the monsters look fake... but what does a "real" monster really look like? This movie, however, is NOT horror. Much like The Village, the trailers are misleading. Shyamalan should hire someone new to do his promotions. Anyone expecting a scary movie will be very disappointed. Unlike The Village, this movie was never boring. Believe it or not, it's safe to take the kids to this one. There is no gore or graphic violence.

Is this a fantastic movie? No, but you will be entertained and surprised by some of the great acting jobs. I would call this Shyamalan's best work since The Sixth Sense.

M. Night Shyamalan makes his "8 1/2"

[medalforbenny515 · 2/10 · 22 July 2006]

It's hard being M. Night Shyamalan. Year after year, his works of uncompromised genius are poorly received by theatergoers and film critics alike. Even Disney didn't want to make his latest film, Lady in the Water, fearing that it was poorly written, featured too large a role for the writer/director, and contained an embarrassingly self-indulgent attack at his detractors, the crrritics. And as much as I hate to agree with Disney, they were absolutely right.

The story, as convoluted as you've come to expect from the man, is not the main problem here. Sure, it's chock-full of narfs, tarturic, and poorly drawn stereotypes, but the larger issue for me was the cringe-inducing self-indulgence that runs rampant throughout the film. For instance, Shyamalan plays the role of an author, misunderstood in his time, who will one day influence a boy destined to become the president of the United States. Self-fulfilling prophecies, anyone? His acting is embarrassing and unintentionally hilarious in turns, and his reactions to pivotal plot points had me longing for the brief, campy cameos of years past.

While I can understand M. Night's desire to respond to the unenlightened critics that failed to see the staggering brilliance of his previous works, one has to question the response itself. Shyamalan is multitasking here, attempting to transport his audience through the magical realism of his self-proclaimed "bedtime story" while simultaneously denouncing his critics for trashing the gospel of M. Night. In the end, we're left with a fairy tale too aware of itself to fully envelop us and a pseudo-manifesto too delusional and self-important to inspire us in any way. In the end, Shyamalan made a film that can really only be enjoyed by himself. It's just a shame that the likes of Paul Giamatti, Bob Balaban, and Freddy Rodriguez have to go down with the Good Ship Shyamalan.

I know I am in the minority here, but I enjoyed it

[the_scandal_cha · 8/10 · 22 July 2006]

First off, I can see why this film is going to be a box-office flop and why critics and audiences alike will not like it. I, who usually disagrees with most audiences, at least, thoroughly enjoyed this film. The storyline itself is rather ridiculous, I must say. Some girl shows up in a pool? She's a what-a narf? I went into the movie thinking I would hate it, but I came out knowing that I had seen a work of art. That's right. It was art.

First of all, it's a good family film, with enough tense moments to keep you watching, and enough laugh-out-loud moments to calm you down. It was refreshing for once to see a film with good, clean humour. The dialogue was not necessarily hilarious, but the actors, especially Paul Giamatti (Cleveland) delivered the lines extremely well.

The acting was tremendously well done also. Paul Giamatti is always fantastic, and while Bryce Dallas Howard seemed to act in the same manner as she did in The Village, she was still convincing. The ensemble cast worked well together. Some might bash M. Night for casting himself in a not-so-cameo role, but he proved that he can actually act! No, his performance will not win him an Oscar, nor should it, but I think there is definite talent there. I hope to see him in bigger roles, in films not his own.

The plot had many twists, maybe too many, but no matter. I kept trying to guess what was going to happen, but it I was always wrong. It was quite interesting.

What most made this film a work of art was the directing. M. Night has a rare talent that will go completely under the radar for this film because no one will see it. The camera angles were inventive-that's right, inventive. I may be one of the few who actually cares about camera angles and how a scene looks, but it looked great. The final product was polished.

I truly believe this film is M. Night's best work. He made the story up himself, wrote a screenplay that made us laugh, smile, cringe, and jump just a little, and directed a great ensemble cast including himself. Quite a feat.

So before everyone starts ranting about how stupid the storyline is or how "so-not-scary" the film is, just appreciate the uniqueness of the film, and remember what makes this film good. Forget the crazy story. It's everything else!

Not perfect, but it's unique, sweet, and beautifully crafted.

[samhendersonthemovieman · 7/10 · 29 August 2020]

Let me start by saying that M. Night Shyamalan is one of my favorite filmmakers, even though The Last Airbender is horrible, but I pretty much like most of his other movies like The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village. I know Lady in the Water isn't one of his best according to most people, but I actually quite enjoyed this one. The acting from both the lead actors were wonderful. Paul Giamatti was really well done. Bryce Dallas Howard, who was also in The Village, was so beautiful and sweet. What surprised me in the movie is that, unlike his other movies, M. Night Shyamalan had a role in it instead of a cameo because he usually had cameos in his movies. The movie had a pretty interesting and unique concept about a bedtime story becoming real. In case nobody knows, The movie is based on a bedtime story Shyamalan told to his children, which did made me curious. The musical score by James Newton Howard was very pretty and well done. Like Shyamalan's other movies, The movie is not too scary, but it's suspenseful. Another thing that surprised me was that it had some funny moments, especially the bug squash scene at the beginning, which was quite hilarious. For me, I don't think it wasn't as bad as a lot of people say it is. Lady in the Water is not The Sixth Sense, but it's not The Last Airbender either. It's not a perfect movie, but it's enjoyable and beautifully crafted.

The audacity of the man

[wozza10 · 1/10 · 26 August 2006]

M Night Shyamalaan is an excellent film-maker. OK, the twist in The Village was obvious after minutes, but it was a film that did not deserve some of the lashings it received. But 'Lady In The Water' is a different story. It is a film that fails in everything it's trying to be.

Primarily it's trying to be a family, fantasy adventure movie and I cannot imagine what kind of child (the primary audience for this genre) is not going to be bored out of their mind from the off. The reason it fails is Night and Night alone. Again he has made a slow burning dialogue heavy movie set completely in "reality". Where this film should be bright, lively, fun, exciting, magical it is instead dull (this is the worst work Chris Doyle's done), lifeless, turgid, bland and, dare I say, boring. The world of the movie is inappropriate for the genre it's living in.

The reason that this style doesn't work is that the whole point of the movie is that's it's a fantastical bedtime story, yet it's devoid of anything fantastical. This film should be set in a world like ours, but not ours. Night - not everything in your imagination can happen in Philadelphia! This movie also feels like it's only ever gone thru two drafts. First draft was a straight up bedtime story which Night has read back and realised "man, this doesn't work... at all. It's terrible" so he's written in a whole layer of character (allegedly... horrifically inaccurate caricature's more accurate) and dialogue who are there solely to justify how bad some things are. sadly he doesn't seem to have read draft 2 to realise that the layers justifying how rubbish everything is are even worsely executed meaning the script is two layers of $h1t on top of each other.

And then you have the complete audacity of the man in casting himself as the man who will (essentially) write the second bible. This would be ego gone insane if he was actually any good, but his performance is the one in the movie that really isn't anywhere near what it needs to be. There's a moment when the character finds out what his fate will be, a scene which an actor of quality would have been able to wrench your heart with, but a moment where Night actually looks like he's realised the film he's made could destroy his career (although I hope not)! Man, I could go on and on from the backstory being explained to you chunk at a time for no reason other than to flesh out the idea beyond what it ever deserved in such a way that it feels like Night's rewriting the rules of his own film as he goes because he's never had any solid idea of what the rules are at the start to the film critic who's only film criticism is "it sucked" which instantly destroys the attempt to set him up as an arrogant highbrow critic (he also gets possibly the worst cinematic death ever) to how blatantly obvious the red herrings are.

I genuinely cannot see what anyone can see positively about this movie (as a whole), unless they are so sure Night's a genius they cannot see beyond the name to the film that's actually there.

I don't care what anyone else says, I like this a lot

[cherold · 8/10 · 3 July 2007]

Wow, people sure do hate this movie. I don't understand why it has engendered such hostility. I mean, I can see problems in the movie that people could object to, but people are calling this the worst movie in years and the like, and I find that completely out of proportion.

So here's what I think: Direction Shyamalan has made movies before featuring ostensible everyman types, but this time he has moved away from Hollywood-everyman to a genuine everyman by casting Paul Giamatti as a sad sack building super. Giamatti is likable and quite funny, and the movie starts off with a breezy humor that instantly made me like it.

There are problems when the plot kicks in with the appearance of a young woman named Story. It turns out she might be a creature called a narf from a Chinese fairytale, so the first problem is, narf isn't remotely Chinese-sounding.

Still, I liked the way the movie builds, as Giamatti tries to help her and discovers neighborliness and credulity aren't dead. I enjoy the movie's optimism about people even if I don't share in it, and I like the way he spreads his typical revelations throughout instead of sticking them all at the end.

While people have claimed the story is slow, I thought it was well paced. And while I can admit to many of the criticized plot holes, I just don't care; it had the feel of a little fairy tale of the modern age, which I found quite charming. And the movie is frequently amusing, which counts for a lot with me.

My main criticism is that Lady in the Water would be a much better film with two minutes taken out. Shyamalan decided to savage movie critics, apparently stung by the deserved panning of The Village (which inexplicably received more positive criticism than this film). That's fine in itself, but in one scene Shyamalan simply steps outside of the movie to make fun of the critic. In itself it's a rather amusing scene, but you don't carefully create an atmosphere and encourage a suspension of disbelief and then just shock the audience into the real world in a petty act of vengeance. Shyamalan ignores one of the fundamental rules of film making; if any scene, even if it's the best scene in the film, takes away from the whole, you cut it. I'm very disappointed in Shamalyan for allowing his bitterness to trump his common sense.

It's a small thing, and I won't say it ruined the movie, but it was jarring. And perhaps that's part of why the reviews are so bad, because that scene made people drifting along on the movie's logic snap awake and start thinking about everything that was wrong. Although that's just a theory. Anyway, cut out that two minutes and it would be a considerable improvement.

As for people complaining the movie isn't that scary, well, I don't think it was trying to be that scary. I do think the director's intent is more important than what he's done in other movies. Just because he usually tries to scare us doesn't mean he is this time; I think he was just going for some mild suspense.

Anyway, while others are saying Shyamalan has lost it, but for me he's been consistent; one good movie, one bad one. Sixth Sense (great), Unbreakable (tedious, but interesting ending), Signs (good movie, tremendous ending), The Village (wretched) and Lady in the Water (funny and charming).

So I don't have high hopes for the next one, but this one was quite enjoyable.

Moving magical tale at an apartment complex in Philadelphia

[Wuchakk · 6/10 · 11 August 2021]

A superintendent at an apartment building in a suburb of Philadelphia (Paul Giamatti) discovers an innocent redhead in the pool (Bryce Dallas Howard) who needs the assistance of several tenants to escape the creatures that threaten her and her mission.

"Lady in the Water" (2006) is a drama/fantasy based on a bedtime story that writer/director M. Night Shyamalan told his kids. Like most Shyamalan pictures there's a moving reverent ambiance amidst the amusing and sometimes horrific dramatics. It's very original, coming across as a Shyamalan flick mixed with elements of fantasy movies, like "The Wizard of Oz" (1939). Think about it, "The Wizard of Oz" meshed a family drama with a dreamlike fantasy involving wonder, humor and slight horror along with a profound message, and so does this film (which isn't to say it's as effective as "Wizard").

The set of the apartment complex and the cinematography thereof combined with James Newton Howard's score are all superb. Plus there are some amusing moments, like with the dour film critic (Bob Balaban). Similar to "Signs" (2002), there's a good theme about coming to grips with tragedy and moving on with a newfound sense of purpose. Moreover, Bryce is very appealing as the naïve fantasy creature and the movie leaves you with a warm feeling.

On the negative side, the somewhat convoluted fable will be less than compelling for certain viewers and some critics understandably complained that it was a mistake for Shyamalan to cast himself as the writer whose words are the seeds to changing the world, although it didn't bother me; I think he's perfect for the role. Still, M. Night casting himself as the savior of the freakin' planet is a tad pretentious.

The film runs 1 hour, 49 minutes, and was shot in Levittown, Pennsylvania, a suburb northeast of Philadelphia.

GRADE: B-

horrible

[blashco · 1/10 · 22 July 2006]

Hey, I just saw the movie titled in the subject, here is my review.

The SIxth Sense marked the debut of M. Night's fame and popularity. The atmosphere and vibe that he created, along with a clever plot and a twist ending made movie-goers everywhere realize the importance of Shyamalan. He, to some extent, created a cult following.

Now, four movies later, many of his fans are wondering when he will reveal a movie as amazing as The Sixth Sense. With the OK-at-best movie Unbreakable, people were wondering if he was just a one-hit-wonder director. Then, with Signs, there was some hope that he would make a comeback.

But, then he released The Village. After he lost thousands of fans due to that horrendous movie, he attempts at making another good movie. He most certainly fails.

The movie places a stuttering man who lost his entire family in an Apartment complex. He, as the super, notices someone swimming late at night. This is the Lady from the title.

You see, M. Night created an entire "Bed Time Story" about how land people used to coexist with the people of the "Blue World" (the ocean). These people speak English. But Land people got greedy and started fighting. But the Blue World people stayed pure, like water, as the Super points out.

To help out the greedy people, huge birds that no land person has ever seen flies them to the land, and they must confront a "Chosen One" (no really, that is how the put it) and show them the way. The way the chosen one is directed will end up helping the land people as a whole.

The Chosen One is, of course, M. Night himself. He can write, direct, produce and now act. He must be the chosen one.

Anyways, there are wolves that aren't wolves, but are Scants or something. Their fur is grass and they are green. So that is why no person has seen them. These Scants attack people from the Blue World, but not the land. But there are rules.

The night that the Snarf (lady of the blue world, The main Lady) returns to the blue world, the cannot attack them. If they do, these monkeys that aren't monkeys will kill them. There are three. And they are also made out of grass.

But normal Scants wont attack Snarfs unless they are Rogue Scants. And those usually wont do it either, unless the Snarf is a Madame Snarf. And she is.

So now the protagonist, Cleveland must find people to help him.

You see, there are some normal people that help the Snarfs. Among the people are the Healer, the Guardian, the Guild and the Interpreter. These people are the only people who can see the Snarf leave. No one else can... or else it wont work or something.

And the moral is that no one knows who they are. I'm serious.

Anyways, the main bulk of the movie is Cleveland looking for people who can help, and being wrong a lot. And then he keeps stuttering. And it is annoying.

This is definitely M. Night's worst directed movie. Many of the shots are out of focus and hurt your eyes. And then there were the random shots, like when it showed the sign of The Cove while people were dying. And there were a lot of unnecessary close ups.

The writing is by far the worst in any movie. The Interpreter figures out what to do by looking at cereal boxes. I am not kidding. It hurt me inside when it happened.

The acting was decent by many, but some of the people should not be actors. M. Night was pretty good, but his lines were kept at a minimum.

Despite the absurdity of the Bed Time Story, every single person Cleveland told it to believed it immediately. And that is about 15 people. Just imagine someone telling you that a human that looks like everyone else... that doesn't even have gills, lives in the water. Nope, not happening.

The only good thing I could find was the music... and only the last song. A few of the other songs were out of place and unnecessary. But the song during the climax was very well composed.

M. Night should, in my opinion, stop directing and maybe pick up a different hobby. Like not directing. Or writing.

Overview: This movie is in my top 5 worst movies I have ever seen. I laughed at how absurd the story was, but never laughed at the so-called 'funny parts.' Do not see this movie unless you like pain.

Final grade: 3/1000

M. Night Shyamalan writes a children's book

[rooprect · 4 November 2014]

It might sound like a joke, that the master of modern macabre, the man who wove such disturbingly morbid tales like "The Sixth Sense", would write a children's book. But he did. And that's the key to understanding and enjoying this movie.

Sometime after the births of his 3 daughters, Shyamalan found himself, as all parents do, ad-libbing a bedtime story to entertain his younguns. It began as a fairytale set in the family's back yard, weaving creative dimensions around common things like the swimming pool, the sprinklers, the tall grass, etc. Who knows how many such stories were rejected by his toughest critics (his daughters), but this one persisted and became a family favorite. Over time & retelling, he refined it, gave it more depth and got it to the point where he realized that this would make a great children's book like the ones he himself grew up on: "Where the Wild Things Are", "The Giving Tree" and such. Lo & behold, he did it.

Where YOUR story begins is that you're considering whether to watch this movie. "Lady in the Water" (the movie) was intended to accompany the book, not as a cinematic replacement but rather as a way to launch the book. As he says on the DVD interviews, this movie is like a "big brother" to the book, introducing it to the world and then allowing the book to flourish on its own in the years to come as, he hopes, a more enduring work of art.

Therefore, this film is NOT some adult story disguised as a fairytale, not like the darkly humorous "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" (1971) or the bitingly satirical "Edward Scissorhands" (1990) or the very complex & symbolic "Pan's Labyrinth" (2006). No, "Lady in the Water" is a simple, sweet children's story with perhaps a salty coating for adults, but inside it's a children's story nonetheless.

So you're sitting there thinking, "Ok then why is it rated PG-13 instead of G? And why does the trailer show a lot of dark, brooding and creepy shots like in Shyamalan's suspense flicks?" Well, I agree that it's a weird way to present a children's story, but I figure it's Shyamalan's way of reaching out to the adults who might end up reading the book to their kids. The movie does have spots of great acidic humor as only adults will understand. It has moments of violence and frightening visuals. There are some oblique references to pot smoking. And it has a chick who's basically naked through the entire movie (nothing is shown explicitly, but nudity is implied well enough). However, the core story remains very sweet and children's-booky. And that may disappoint many adults who are expecting something more complicated or challenging.

My advice to adults would be to focus not on the plot but instead on the characters. The characters are very well crafted, full of unspoken depth and some with a profound sorrow that's out of place in fairy tales. Paul Giamatti plays the lovable, dorky maintenance guy at the center of the story, but through his excellent performance in brief moments we see that his is deeply haunted by an unspeakable terror in his past. Similarly, Shyamalan himself makes a significant appearance as a secondary character who is haunted by an equally disturbing future. Another character, who only has about 2 lines in the movie, is seen glaring at the world with utter contempt & cynicism--perhaps someone who is haunted by the present. These subtle things are not essential to the fairytale, but they add tremendous characterization for those of us who aren't satisfied with a simple fairytale written for kids.

Oh, I forgot the absolute best character, Bob Balaban who plays a comically arrogant, jaded, cynical film critic who insists that there is no originality left, and all stories are predictable to a fault. He goes so far as to start predicting how his own role in "Lady in the Water" will play out, comically chipping away at the proverbial 4th wall which separates fictional characters from us, the audience. His big scene toward the end of the movie had me absolutely howling.

So there you have it. "Lady in the Water" will certainly not be everyone's cup of tea, but it presents something I've never seen before: a genuine fairytale, perhaps as seen through the eyes of an adult, but still unmistakably written for kids. It's sort of like attending a puppet show where, occasionally the sweaty puppeteer lifts up the curtain and asks someone to get him another beer. I can't think of any other way to describe it.

Good Fairy Tale for the Family

[illbbax · 7/10 · 21 July 2006]

Not the best movie of the year; but it's actually quite enjoyable. The film is good for the entire family; it plays like a fairy tale meets a "Who Done It?" Don't go in expecting too much and you'll leave very satisfied. Disney lost out on this deal. The professional critics are complaining about M. Night's extended cameo -- there's nothing wrong with acting in your own movies, especially if you can pull it off, and I thought he did -- and the lady I was with thought he was very easy on the eyes. There is a very humorous scene where the actor "breaks the plane" of suspension that the adults enjoyed immensely, and there is another good subplot of redemption. Take your family to the matinée and you will have a good time together.

Dear Mr. M. Knight, stick to the Amex commercials...

[spaektor · 1/10 · 23 July 2006]

he should be put in director jail and the key thrown away for many reasons, not the least of which is how much screen time he gave himself. directors giving themselves bit parts is a fun game, great for trivia and whatnot, but please, don't go The Way of Quentin.

i'm of Korean heritage, and the supposed myth upon which this plot is based comes entirely from the memories of a Korean-American woman, and translated by her Americanized daughter with a bad, bad accent. i suppose m. knight thought giving her wild hairstyles would be enough to counter the "good Asian girl" stereotype. i wondered where the decision to use the Korean culture came from. maybe he just figured he needed some mysticism, and dipped into whatever culture was handy at the moment. hey, m. knight -- words like "scrunt" and "narf" don't translate phonetically into English; they'd each have three syllables. being a minority yourself, i thought you'd be more sensitive to details like this.

bad stereotypes aside, the premise of a ghostly, Oppie-like Waterworld reject living in the community pool trying to save mankind is retarded. and hey, if she can see the future, what the hell is she crying about? what's weirder than that though, is how readily the building tenants accept all this nonsense, and how much they try to help instead of calling the Loony Police on Giamatti and Howard's characters. having characters that don't question reality alienates the audience, those of us that pay egregious sums of money for good entertainment. that's why Toni Collette's character was awesome in The Sixth Sense: she was freaked out that her son might be insane. so when Paul Giamatti wakes up in his bed and finds what appears to be a pre-pubescent, half-naked teen staring at him, he should freak out and say, "What the f*** are you doing here and who the f*** are you??!", not "Okay, you can stay a while and why aren't I stuttering?" unbelievable characters, boring and unlikely dialogue, highly questionable mythologies of supposedly Asian origin, and the Standard M. Knight Whirlwind of Act Three Revelations To Wrap Up This Cockamamie Plot, are all reasons why you should not see this movie.

so M., please, go directly to Director Jail and turn yourself in. say hello to Antoine Fuqua and Justin Lin for me. maybe if you don't shiv anyone they'll let you do another Amex spot.

A bedtime fable worth seeing

[WJArvay · 7/10 · 13 March 2007]

Not everyone will like this film. I happened to think it is a small gem, and that it will grow in popularity and esteem as more people come to know it. However, it seems to have been marketed as a scary, horror thriller, which does it an injustice. I almost missed it because of the hype, and my teenage daughter skipped watching the DVD with me, because she does not like "scary movies." She was clearly misled.

It's hard to categorize Lady in the Water. Suffice it to say that the author himself calls it a bedtime story.

I predict that you will enjoy this film if you have enjoyed: - The Princess Bride - Paul Giamatti's characters - Rod Serling's Twilight Zone - Stephen King's "It"

Like the Princess Bride, Lady in the Water is a romantic fable about love, but not about romantic love. The love in this film is love of neighbor, a good Samaritan kind of love.

Paul Giamatti is the core and fiber of this film. No other character is developed as much as his character. He plays a Jimmy Stewart for our generation, a bumbling everyman with a core of integrity and humble good will.

To me this movie resembles the best of Rod Serling's Twilight Zone. It's an eerie morality play, where the audience gladly suspends their disbelief in order to enter the author's realm.

It also strongly reminds me of Stephen King's "It" (read the book, rather than watch the mini-series)in that it follows a band of outcasts whose characters grow enormously as they discover their own latent talents in a foreign world that exists just beyond the perceived reality.

And for the record, I thought M. Night Shyamalan's acting turn in his own movie was rather good.

Lady in the Water is not a perfect film, not even a masterpiece, but it does not deserve the scorn that has been heaped upon it. If you harbor a soft spot for fables and fantasies, do-gooders and **SPOILER ALERT** happy endings (LOTR anyone?) then take a chance on this lovely little film.

Not Shyamalan's worst, but his strangest...

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 11 January 2012]

Just for the record, I am not a Shyamalan detractor, nor am I a fan. I loved The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, and there were good things about Signs and The Village, even if the films were deeply flawed. It's just that to me after The Village, the rest of Shyamalan's resume ranged to strange to dire. Whether I loved his first couple of films and didn't care/hate the rest has nothing to do with racism, contrary to some of the threads I've come across on his message board.

It's just that it is sad that such a promising director, who showed that he could tell a story effectively had either become sloppy or had tried to do many things at once and consequently the respective film buckled(which was the case with The Village). Lady in the Water is not Shyamalan's worst, for me that's The Happening with The Last Airbender not far off, but having seen all his films I do think it is his strangest.

Lady in the Water does have its good things though. The score is suitably haunting, Paul Giamatti is a wonderful actor and while deserving of a stronger character and less contrived script he does give his all into the performance and it shows. But the best thing about Lady in the Water was the beautifully done animated prologue.

However, that is all the praise I can give. The rest of the acting is either unimpressive or awful. Bryce Dallas Howard was fantastic in The Village and she is good as an actress, but while like Giamatti she tries her best her character is nowhere near as poignant or as interesting as that of hers in The Village. Jeffrey Wright and Bob Babalan are wasted, and Shyamalan himself makes an appearance that feels very thrown in and at the end of the day is just a form of annoyance.

Scripting-wise Lady in the Water all feels very contrived and overly-silly, the pacing becomes increasingly sluggish in the second half which further suffers from trying to do too much and the characters consist of either stereotypes(the film critic tenant, the kid who could decipher codes from cereal packets and the philosopher of future importance) or fantasy "mythological" clichés with grass-haired werewolves for scrunts and twig monkeys for the tarturic that have no depth to them. The scenery and lighting are okay if not exactly dynamic but the camera angles look slip-shod and lazy, with over-use of half-face shots and focusing on nothing.

But it is the story that sinks Lady in the Water. The premise was actually interesting, but the execution feels very muddled. I didn't find anything interesting about the nymph's story, it suffers from trying to cram too much and the mythological characters are rather daft. After watching the film, I was saddened at how the director of a thought-provoking and atmospheric movie like The Sixth Sense could've gone to a artificial and self-indulgent movie like this one. By all means, Shyamalan has done worse, but this is definitely not his finest hour. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Refreshing original...

[ciubotaruoa · 10/10 · 15 January 2019]

This is a highly missunderstood masterpiece. One of a kind movie among Night.s creation. One that requires patience and full attention. Unique(still in 2019) script, unique development of the story, well penciled and motivated charaters. Allow it to get under your skin. One a of kind fantasy story.

Not much besides Giamatti

[jb_campo · 6/10 · 11 October 2015]

Besides Paul Giamatti, not much to get excited about in Lady in the Water.

Giamatti plays the manager of this apartment complex. He has had something happen in his past that brought him to this place in life. He knows all the various players who live in his complex. He knows all their foibles and faults and good qualities. He's insightful.

One night this girl comes out of the pool, Bryce Dallas Howard. This was a disappointing performance, compared to The Village where she was great. She plays this nymph who is going to do something for the planet. Giamatti guards her. All she does is look sad and cower and sometimes smile, and speaks in a soft voice. No much of a role for her, or a performance.

This Korean woman and her mother play key roles because the mother seems to know something about a story about a nymph. Giamatti pulls it all together and thinks he knows how to save the day, but does he?

There's also a supernatural bad guy who is trying to stop everything. But the tension, well, it's not much IMHO. At the end, a bit of a twist, but not like The Sixth Sense type. Shyalaman loves to get the twists in though.

I liked this movie, but it's just OK, so 6/10 covers it. It is what it is, a simple story that was told. Giamatti was great, but otherwise, nothing you will remember.

A turkey

[NHe · 1/10 · 31 July 2006]

I saw this at a screening among people who work in the film industry. Many audience members were laughing at the muddled self-indulgent mess on the screen. And no wonder. Myself, I was mostly moaning, wishing I had sat closer to an aisle or an exit. And I actually went into this film expecting to like it......The script is incomprehensible and illogical. I realize this is "meant" to be a fable, but it's mostly the director --- who mugs his way through a key role in his own film, getting his own good side most of the time --- who's really out to lecture us. In passing, we get a middle class housing project in "Philadelphia" which seems to be situated with suburbs on one side and a national wildlife preserve on the other. We meet a mythical beast which looks like a crocadoggy, which appears at a building wide party but no one notices. Paul Giammati, who wears glasses in the film, manages what seems to be a hyper-athletic underwater dive without glasses or goggles that would have taxed an experience scuba diver. A film critic gets torn apart by the monster in a building corridor but no one notices (is M-Night suggesting something here?) and there is a really nasty racial sterotype of an Asian girl, a "college student," who speaks we-all-sound-same funny-rice-girl English. Uh, why funny accent for Asian girl, Mr. Filmmaker, when Indian-American film director-actor talk so good? Funny accent no essential to plot, so why include, hey? And, Yo, Shammy, that Eagle at the end? A Philadelphia Eagle? I don't see Dead People here, but I'm starting to see a writer/director who has shot his creative wad.

A Nutshell Review: Lady in the Water

[DICK STEEL · 10/10 · 28 July 2006]

I love it. And in the spirit of all movies Shyamalan, I'll keep mum about the plot.

I loved the pace, the control, and the development of how the plot unfolded. It had a whodunnit feel of a mystery that is carefully revealed layer by layer. The ensemble cast and characters were fantastic, with each character possessing usefulness to the story and to peer characters, and their eccentricities make them a joy to watch. You have the Korean mother and daughter, the Vietnam Vet, a father and son, a new neighbour, a group of cock-talkers, a guy who works out only his right side, and so on. Although most of them are one- dimensional, they are no less than endearing in their own way, like those in Cocoon or Batteries Not Included.

I love the superb acting by the main leads of Paul Giamatti, who's fast becoming one of my favourite character actors, and in here, provided his character Cleveland Heep with much emotional baggage, pain and that almost natural stammer when nervous, and Bryce Dallas Howard, her Lady in the Water, name Story, is so beautiful, yet so enchantingly vulnerable. Both anchor this movie well and brought about believable character development, or in the case of Story, that oracle air of wisdom, wit and fear of the unknown.

I love the special effects, done no less by Industrial Light and Magic. They're a pretty sight, even though some scenes were dark, literally and figuratively. Cinematography was done by Christopher Doyle, so those in Asia should already well be aware what he's capable of.

There's a major departure from his previous films, which I think is probably good to keep things refreshing for the moment. Some points and scenes in the movie are so deceptively simple that you will almost guess the outcome before the next scene transition. The movie ended the way it should, instead of relying on the "next big gimmick". And probably bad news of those who loathe directors cameo-ing in the own movies, well, this time round, Shyamalan has quite a significant role for himself.

And I know why many critics out there didn't give this movie the rating it deserves. They are surprised at Shyamalan's audacity in taking a huge swipe at critics in general, since they have been highly critical of almost all his past works. It's an obvious no-holds-barred jibe at their anal characters of being high and mighty and of imposing their thoughts and opinions on others, when little do they know that their opinions mean squat most of the time. There's another cheeky reference too at romances in the rain, which I thought perhaps cinematographer Doyle would have found it amusing given his work on Wong Kar-wai's In the Mood for Love and 2046 (citing these 2 as I've recently watched the former).

But those aside, thank you M Night, for sharing with us a wonderful bedtime story, which I think will be repeated at bedtime to many children around the world. It's beautiful, simple, easy to grasp, and allows for good shuteye fantasy.

A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Hubris

[surreyhill · 6/10 · 9 August 2006]

Tolkien spent decades creating his mythical world of Middle Earth, and populating it with fell beasts, otherworldly races, and magical talismans. M. Night seems to have doodled his up on a cocktail napkin near the end of a really effed-up party.

There's a lot of truth to the notion that a great mythic story gives ordinary peoples' lives a sense of purpose.

This isn't that story, or even anything close, but it held my attention and I didn't find it unwatchable.

I give it 2 1/2 stars for overall plot, score, and Paul Giametti, and another 1/2 star for the fact that my friend Maggie and I were surprised how hot Night looked in that cream-colored long sleeved sweater, doing laundry.

We totally did not see that coming.

There's your twist.

Are you kidding me????????

[oroscos2003 · 1/10 · 22 July 2006]

Did everyone see the same movie I did????? I even had FREE passes and I'm so ticked about wasting them on this movie.

Maybe it was anywhere from the wolf dog made out of grass to the person who is the "writer" or "vessel" who's story titled the Cookbook is going to make a difference in mankind after meeting a lady (the sea nymph) who apparently got plopped into a apartment complex's swimming pool and now has to wait for an eagle to pick her up. But wait! She needs help from the maintenance guy and a 11 yr old boy who can guide her by finding the other crazy tenants she needs by reading boxes of cereal such as Fruity Pebbles. Let's especially not forget the guy who lifts weights only to buff out one arm. He too is special! I'm sorry but I'm just missing the "Oscar" material feeling from this movie. UGH! I knew I should have went to go see Monster House....Or really I could have even watched paint dry and I would have got more out of that. UGH!!!!!!!