Lady in the Water Reviews

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

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

Right before this movie started, I said to myself, "Let's get this over with." I knew it was going to be bad… but I didn't think this bad! This was damn near intolerable!
The plot is that Cleveland, an apartment complex handyman, finds a mysterious woman (named Story) in the pool, discovers that she's an entity from an old bedtime story, and has to use clues from the tale to help her get home.
First of all, the dialogue in this movie is hideously bad, especially from Story herself!
But it was Cleveland's asking around for information that constantly aggravated me. He's making himself sound insane, but no one ever questions him! And it's just ludicrous how the group of people he assembles just goes along with it, no questions asked! I swear, I was facepalming for more than half the movie!
Also, this movie is basically Shyamalan giving a big "fuck you" to critics. The character Shyamalan himself plays is a deeply inspirational writer. And there's a critic character who's described as arrogant and has no right to determine people's positions.
Overall, "awkward" is the best word to describe this movie. It's just really, really awkward.

My rating: 15%

Before watching this flick, I heard so many bad things about it, so I can't say I was really anxious to see it but still, I was curious. Oh boy! I wasn't disappointed... It is easily the worst movie directed by Shyamalan, it is even worse than ‘The Last Airbender’ in my opinion. I have to be honest, the directing and acting were not that bad in fact but the story was so amazingly... terrible! Try to picture this. You make up a bedtime story for your kids, of course, they love it but actually it is nothing great but your kids love it and that's the most important thing, right? No, wrong! You become a famous movie director and you waste 75 000 000 dollars (that's the actual budget) because you are full of yourself... The best thing is that, for once, at the end, there was no twist this time, which was actually a twist for a Shyamalan movie , when you think about it, I know it's getting a little bit confusing here... Anyway, you wait the whole thing hoping, thinking "he is going to throw his usual twist and the whole thing would be ...OK?!?" but no, at the end, there is nothing, except laughter from your side.... Anyway, it is pretty bad and I don't see why you should watch it.

Being a big fan of fairy tales, especially their relevance to our modern lives, I thought that the perfect film for me had come into existence.

At a rundown apartment complex a mundane, bored with life handy man stumbles across a water nymph trying to save humanity from its own ignorance.
After convincing him she is more than just a nut job he attempts to get her back home, which simultaneously would also save our world.

During what turns out to be a mammoth struggle, the rest of the complex also becomes engaged in the fight. Each finding they have a specific talent and gift to offer up for the cause. The characters end up saving each others lives both literally and in terms of future purpose, thus becoming all the better for it...

Unfortunately I think M. Night Shyamalan just tried to combine too many elements into this film. The comedy falls short at every point, the magic just never comes alive and the characters, which are purposely subscribed to the traditional fairy tale roles fail to come into their own, leaving me uninspired and compassionless.
What really makes me feel sad, is that you get such a sense of Shyamalan's ego. Thinking he has done a wonderous and origional piece of cinema. I mean, who charades as the Jesus-esque saviour in their very own film!

By the end of the film I felt like it would have been better if the housing complex had of been killed off by the mythological, nymph eating ‘Snark’ taking humanity with it, thus ending my misery and bitter disappointment of having to sit through the rest of the film.

This movie was pretty bad. It jumps right into the plot in the first 10 minutes, then lingers. It is very predictable, and all very "What are the chances?", which is ok for a bedtime story, but is still very annoying. There is only one, maybe two, parts of the film that make you jump, or are actually suspenseful. There was one suprising part, when you figure out the role of Reggie. Two funny parts, one at the beginning when he is smashing a spider, the other when he is trying to act like a kid.

Paul's acting is still terrific, nonetheless. I love when he is talking about his family.

no, unlike typical M. Night Shyamalan's films, this doesnt really have any 'twists'

yes, the story is far-fetched, and every part of the plot just falls exactly in place - as you'd expect in a bed-time story

yes, it mixes a real-life enviroment (an apartment complex in present-day) with mythical creatures and fantasy and legends - usually NOT a good mixture (example, if this plot was set in medieval times, it may have won over more people in the audience)

and despite it not really being a horror film, and gore is non-existant, Shyamalan does the 'suspense' aspect so perfectly, just like in 'Signs' and 'The Village'. To me, the perfect suspense film has 95% anticipation, 5% action, and this director is one of my faves because he does that.

another highlight of this film is Paul Giamatti. From his performances here, as well as in 'Sideways' and 'The Illusionist', this guy has quickly became one of my top actors, and I think a few Oscars are in his future. And the stunning Bryce Dallas Howard. She was absolutely mesmerizing to watch.

Overrall, I give it an 8/10, though admitelly the plot was sub-standard.

As quoted from the previous review: "This is my first M. Night Shyamalan disappointment." I guess a lot of pressure was on him for another classic.

It wasn't because there was no twist and turns throughout but just because the story was dull. It was A to B but had nothing enthralling about it. Looking back on it, it was over-complicating the narrative. The focus was on too many characters and it tried to make everyone seem more significant than they were.

I can't display my disappointment. I just wanted the film to be something more. Something to talk about without feeling ashamed.

After growing accustomed to the style of M. Night Shyamalan and his twisted endings, some may not appreciate the straightforward fantastical story presented in Lady in the Water. I was one of those people as the storyline was less than appealing and seemed to drag on with the ultimate resolve being very ordinary. It seems the magical run of M. Night Shyamalan and his stories have finally come back to earth.

Overall, I felt there was lots to like about LITW, less to dislike, and plenty to feel mediocre about. I was captivated at times, but felt the last 30 minutes stumbled, and ultimately I was left wanting something more. This is my first M. Night Shyamalan disappointment, loving ALL of his other pics. Enjoyable, and I can recommend, but with reservations.