Review of Lady in the Water (2006) by Ryan M — 26 Jul 2010

3.7/10.

?Lady in the Water? is a cataclysm of a film. A nearly unforgivable mess. I have enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan?s films in the past, but ?Lady in the Water? takes itself way too seriously to the point where it is silly, fake, and all and all pretty lame. If this is the bedtime story that Shyamalan told to his children, then I assume that they were bored out of their minds. But then again, a child would be the only one to appreciate a story such as this. I respect Shyamalan as a director, however. I think he means well. He?s just a man who has visions but doesn?t know anything about proper execution. With ?The Sixth Sense?, he played with our fear. With ?Unbreakable?, he played with general morality. And with ?Signs?, Shyamalan took an idea and expanded it to promising horizons and beyond. With ?Lady in the Water?, Shyamalan does what he essentially did in ?The Village?, but slightly worse. Sure, the film?s premise is not as good as that of ?The Village?, but Shyamalan ruins what could have been an entertaining tale by destroying the fantasy within itself. His twists are unnecessary, his visuals are so-so, and the story he tells is typically ludacris. ?Lady in the Water? is pretty stupid, and anyone who can?t stand the stupidity of some of Shyamalan?s latest films should avoid ?Lady? at all costs. It?s not an awful film, but it?s not nearly a good or decent one either. I wanted to like the film. I wanted to like it a lot, but I don?t take a liking to pure stupidity. And you probably know where it goes from there.

Shyamalan needs to stop writing. He simply needs to hire someone who has the potential to tell a good story. His bed-time story is probably one of the worst excuses for one that I?ve ever seen, and I can?t imagine that his children would like it (if it weren?t for the fact that they are Shyamalan?s own children, they would probably dislike it in the future). He creates characters that have no sense of likability or ?character?, and the plot has a particular structure that feels very, very lost. ?Lady in the Water? is the story of an apartment complex handyman named Cleveland Heep who becomes involved in the fate of a ?Narf? by the name of Story. One night, he finds Story swimming in the pool, but he too falls in. He awakes to find that she has rescued him, although she expects him to protect her from some sort of force. This force is soon revealed, and it is none other than other beasts who roam outside waiting to capture Story as their prey. It is said that only the Guardian can stop the beast from attacking and save the girl?s life. It is at first believed that Cleveland is the Guardian, although in time we learn that he may have some things to learn. Either that or he?s not even the Guardian at all. Shyamalan?s story tries to be a magical, symbolic journey. But once again, Shyamalan?s writing skills ruin any chances for fun, genuine entertainment, or goodness. And much like ?The Village?, Shyamalan?s twist ending is terrible and predictable from the moment he hints it.

Shyamalan again takes a long break from Bruce Willis and instead chooses Paul Giamatti as his leading man. Surprisingly, Giamatti isn?t all that bad. It?s not his best performance yet, nor is it particularly powerful, but he didn?t seem as if he gave in completely to the silliness of the film. As for Bryce Dallas Howard, well she?s essentially as bad as she was in ?The Village?. Her character?s dialogue is just silly, and she takes herself too seriously. God, she?s nearly emotionless at times. M. Night Shyamalan himself makes a couple appearances throughout the film. This may be his biggest appearance (from The Sixth Sense on) in one of his films yet. And I thought ?Signs? gave him enough screen-time as it was. As with most of Shyamalan?s films, the supporting actors feel extremely awkward alongside the particularly decent leading man (or woman, if it would ever be the case). The supporting cast adds on to the silliness for sure, and the dialogue is completely awful. Maybe Shyamalan needs to think stuff over. A lot of stuff.

?Lady in the Water? is M. Night Shyamalan?s attempted ?visual wonderland?. It is intended to be a showcase of what is in Shyamalan?s mind, visually. As you can probably expect, it?s not particularly fascinating, but nor does it look terribly ugly. ?Lady in the Water? can look pretty at times. It doesn?t have the potential to look beautiful, but it isn?t the visual disaster that ?The Happening? was. The CGI wasn?t bad, but when your film nearly relies on that to be ?good?, then something is clearly wrong. As always, the design of Shyamalan?s fairy tale creatures disappoints. Perhaps they are not the ugly, disastrous beings that are the aliens of ?Signs?, but Shyamalan?s plant monkeys and plant wolf creatures are far from intriguing. They are mostly uninspired, but that does indeed make them fit in quite well with the story, now doesn?t it? As with most of his pictures, Shyamalan?s ?Lady? features pretty good cinematography. The lighting makes ?Lady in the Water? look particularly good for the most part. It?s only murky in the last scene, but it is forgivable. Otherwise, the angles are typically good and all, but it?s nothing special. As for production design, this film is (somewhat) impressive. Again, it?s nothing particularly impressive, but it?s not the design of a terribly horrific filmmaker either. James Newton Howard nearly saves the day with his beautiful little score. It is indeed beautiful, and might just be the only ?magical? thing about ?Lady in the Water?. I will but it eventually, because Howard nearly saves the hell out of every Shyamalan film, even if he fails to do so half of the time (I still love his music none the less).

?Lady in the Water? could have been a magical, colorful adventure abundant with fun and goodness, but it?s too muddled to be likable. It?s alright for a one time watch, but otherwise it nearly turned me off instantly. While lame, the film never felt particularly boring. Well, visually decent movies are usually never boring, but I suppose you get the point. So if you do it at all, do it for the music and the pleasure of seeing Paul Giamatti not suck ass in a film from a filmmaker who indeed does suck ass (as it is). I can?t say that ?Lady in the Water? is worth your while, because it probably isn?t. If you think Shyamalan?s twist ending will impress, then think again, because it is as lame as lame can be. So since it starts out pretty damn good but then becomes this ugly, convoluted mess, avoid ?Lady in the Water? for a good amount of time. Watch it if you?re pretty bored. Maybe you?ll get a laugh or two out of it, who knows? Or perhaps it?s too lame for that as well?..