The Movie Diorama The start of the relentless downhill slope that is Shyamalan's career, this fantasy drama is murkier than polluted swamp water. What did I just witness? Seriously, I mean seriously! This isn't a film, it's a production that conveys his self-indulgence as he, not only writes, produces and directs this atrocity, but also plays a supporting role to which his character is a "visionary whose writing changes the world". That's not even the worst part! Right, so a superintendent of an apartment complex encounters a young girl in the swimming pool who he discovers to be a water nymph whose life is endangered by a beastly wolf creature. So, the residents assist in returning her to the "Blue World". How? Let me just clear my throat, get ready...! By seeking everyone's purpose in life so that the Symbolist can read cereal boxes to identify a Guild of seven sisters, discover the Healer and the true Guardian, so that a giant eagle can swoop in and ferry her back to the "Blue World" before she succumbs to the wounds from the Scrunt who avoids tree monkey peacekeepers known as the "Tartutic". What. The. Actual. Heck? I'm flabbergasted. Astonished. Shell shocked. Fantasy films are fantastic for evoking imagination and an underlying sense of creativity. But this is not the way to do it. It's not! Characterisation was weaker than diluted juice. The expositional narrative had fewer thrills than a tsunami. The acting, aside from Giamatti who just couldn't save the story from drowning, was more painful than accidentally getting shampoo in your eyes. Honestly, I was blinded by Shyamalan's acting. He actually thought he could act! The plot itself is nonsensical, not because it's an overwhelmingly fictitious story, but because it's undisputedly unfocused. It was as if Shyamalan was writing the story during the filming of the production. It's not metaphorical. It's not allegorical. It's a fractured fairytale that will leave anyone perplexed. Possibly one of the worst cinematic disasters I have witnessed. A damp fantasy flick that, when rinsed, drips drops of vapidity.

jmillerjr-00983 I loved this movie. I thought the characters were fascinating, the plot line was captivating, and the mythology was remarkable. Blows my mind how so many hated this film. This one was more than a movie for me. I go back to it when I need to remind myself that there is more to life than surfacy stuff. Please watch it if you haven't.

maria nieves I'm rewatching all of M. Night's films in order- including his two unknown films before Sixth Sense, and have to say that Lady in the Water was the only disappointing one so far. The mainstream critics kinda turned on him after Unbreakable but it wasn't justified as they were all excellent films. Lady in the Water is his first bomb.I was okay with the premise: "make a realistic fairytale", although it seemed like M. Night was going to the same well again from Unbreakable's premise: "make a realistic comic book movie".What I wasn't okay with was the characters. Cleveland Heep is an awful protagonist. He reminds me of a poor man's Roy Neery from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but much more frustrating. He's a passive-aggressive martyr. And he's really ugly to tell you the truth.M. Night was going for a Hitchock or Woody Allen feel with a bunch of weird background characters in a community, but none were likable. I wanted to like Young-Soon Choi but she came off as unfunny comic relief.Story, the mermaid-nymph, gave us nothing to care about.Vick Ran (M. Night himself) came off as a pretentious and pervy role.Some reviewers here said it's a family film. Not really. There are too many cheesecake shots of Story and Young-Soon Choi.Others say people can't take slow pacing so automatically have this thumbs down. Nope, that wasn't the only reason (and yes, this is SLOW). The plot was all over the place, it wasn't realistic, and the characters sucked.

ferbs54 I recently watched my fourth M. Night Shyamalan movie, following "The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable" and "The Village." The film in question was "Lady in the Water," and it would seem that I have gone to the well once too often, as I did not care for this one nearly as much as those other very fine ones just mentioned. In this 2006 offering, Paul Giamatti stars as a building manager named Cleveland, who finds, in his building's swimming pool, a very odd young woman named Story (played by Bryce Dallas Howard, daughter of Ron, who had just starred in "The Village"). As it turns out, Story is a water nymph of sorts, a so-called "narf," who has come to us from her world to give advice to mankind. This advice takes the form of encouraging a budding young author in the building, played by producer/writer/director Shyamalan himself, regarding a book that he is writing that will someday inspire a future U.S. president. Or something like that. Story's mission is made more difficult by the hairy green wolflike creature that has been sent to eat her. Or something like that. Anyway, despite the fact that the film looks great, and despite the typically fine acting by the two leads and the fine supporting work by Bob Balaban and Mary Beth Hurt, this film is something of a mess, mainly because of the preposterous story line that just grows increasingly loopy as things proceed. Fortunately, much of the film is played for winking laffs, but the entire conceit, by the time that things wrap, just feels so slight and inconsequential that I really couldn't buy into it or much care. At one point, one of the kids in the building is reading the future by looking at cereal boxes and one of the other building residents is predicting events by doing his crossword puzzle, all leading to a "WTF?" reaction from the befuddled viewer. It would seem that Shyamalan created this film as a fairy tale of sorts for his kids at home, and I hope that they enjoyed this one more than I did. In all, not a bad picture, per se, but surely a misfire and a weaker effort from this interesting filmmaker. I hope for better things when I watch my next Shyamalan film, "The Visit," in a day or two....