Lady in the Water

User Score
6.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 395 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. MichaelK.
    Jul 24, 2006
    1
    Erin D.- given that your response is the most rational of all, there should be no reason for you to question it. this movie just made me cringe more and more as it became hopelessly derailed. the dialogue was clumsy and entirely unrealistic, characterization was rote and forced, cinematography was nonexistent or at least very plain (except for the one shot at the very end which removed Erin D.- given that your response is the most rational of all, there should be no reason for you to question it. this movie just made me cringe more and more as it became hopelessly derailed. the dialogue was clumsy and entirely unrealistic, characterization was rote and forced, cinematography was nonexistent or at least very plain (except for the one shot at the very end which removed from context was pretty cool) and the story was overburdened to the point where it might as well have not been there. Best part of the film, the minute-long stick figure animated piece at the beginning which was the ONLY part free of pretension. The only salvation that night was following it up with Kevin Smith's Clerks II to wash out the horrendous aftertaste. Now I would actually look forward to one of Shamylan's contrived twists. Expand
  2. MattF.
    Jul 20, 2006
    1
    absolutely ghastly. A twisted, uninteresting pile of steaming dung.
  3. A.Blankenship
    Aug 1, 2006
    1
    This movie is on par with "Manos: The Hands of Fate." I was too offended to watch the scenes with Shyamalan's acting in them, preferring to watch the drapes on the walls of the theater instead. Alas, I could not escape the condescension in the tone of his voice, and I have not been more bitterly disappointed by a film in my entire life.
  4. JacksonE.
    Jul 21, 2006
    0
    It appears from other votes that you will either love this film or hate it. To quote Blaine and Antoine . . . Hated it!
  5. RathM.
    Jul 21, 2006
    1
    Someone please stop him before he makes another truly pathetic attempt at storytelling. "M" really needs to stuff his ego where the sun doesn't shine, fire the yes men around him and truly work on something that isn't utter tripe. First year film school students produce better films than this garbage. I saw this as a free pre-screening promotion and still want a refund and my time back!
  6. jaimeharrington
    Jul 22, 2006
    2
    Horrible film. What was he thinking? I liked his earlier films but hits is embarrassing bad. Giamatti did a good job in his role (thus the 2 rating).
  7. DavidB.
    Jul 23, 2006
    1
    Disaster. What an absolute mess. Would be a 0 if not for some unintended comedy from the narfs, tartutics, scrunts, and the great eatlon. Can't help but get a laugh when the tartutics jump out of the trees to attack the scrunt, which is a evil grass hyena. ;)
  8. DavidL.
    Jul 26, 2006
    2
    My friends and i were unable reach a consensus...was it embarrassingly bad, laughably bad, or tragically bad? however, we did all agree on contrived, pretentious, and stupefying. All of which is especially disappointing for me personally, as i thought, and still think, that "The Sixth Sense" is a masterpiece, and a far better picture than that year's Oscar winner "American Beauty" i My friends and i were unable reach a consensus...was it embarrassingly bad, laughably bad, or tragically bad? however, we did all agree on contrived, pretentious, and stupefying. All of which is especially disappointing for me personally, as i thought, and still think, that "The Sixth Sense" is a masterpiece, and a far better picture than that year's Oscar winner "American Beauty" i rate "Lady In The Water" a '2' rather than a' zero' for two reasons: a beautifully evocative and sometimes truly haunting atmosphere (the cinematography and score, both excellent); and an against-all-odds beautiful and haunting lead performance by Bryce Dallas Howard, who is compellingy otherworldly and somehow entirely convincing (in a critical, but very difficult-to-carry-off part), despite the inconsistent and idiotic (and shockingly predictable) script. Without her presence the film would have been all but unwatchable, but probably even a whole lot funnier...unintentionally, of course. So, ultimately, i guess, it's really tragically bad, given the director's obvious and previously established talent, and also his apparent lack of humilty and self-awareness as an artist; he needs to spend less time and energy manufacturing and proclaiming his own cultural significance, and more time doing what he has so effectively done in the past: just create entertainment. In the end it's about the AUDIENCE, Mr Shyamalan, not about YOU. Expand
  9. TeresaW.
    Aug 1, 2006
    3
    The film was weak throughout, cluttered beyond understanding and, most notably, uninteresting as a whole. Lady in the Water leaves its audience aching as the forced plot strains their attention span.
  10. KenG.
    Aug 15, 2006
    2
    [***SPOILERS***] It can be taken as an ego trip that Shyamalan cast himself as the character whose words will change the world, and it also might have helped if he was a better actor, but I won't bash him too much for that because I think he might be a better actor then he is a film-maker. It's time to admit that "The 6th sense" was some kind of freak accident, and that M. Night [***SPOILERS***] It can be taken as an ego trip that Shyamalan cast himself as the character whose words will change the world, and it also might have helped if he was a better actor, but I won't bash him too much for that because I think he might be a better actor then he is a film-maker. It's time to admit that "The 6th sense" was some kind of freak accident, and that M. Night Shyamalan has little talent as a film-maker. In fact, forget about just admitting it, it's time to shout it from the heavens, get the word out, warn people. His latest turkey (Lady in the water) is a muddled, at times incoherent mess which is so sloppy that at times he either forgets or ignores things he established ealier in film. The whole thing has an underdeveoped feel, as It feels like he is just haphazardly throwing together the various pieces of the story, before the story ever crystalized as a whole in his mind. And he really got carried away (big time) with the whole question of what role each character will play thing in the rescue, until it reaches the point where you just want to shout "Just make up your mind, and get on with the story! " Also if Shyamalan wants to bash movie critics in his movies, fine. As a group movie critics might be ripe for bashing. But it can't come off as if he's given a lot more though to how he will bash them, then he gave to the movie that he's bashing them in. Expand
  11. TimR.
    Jan 22, 2007
    0
    Crap. . . The Sixth Sense was ridiculous and predictable, but at least I watched the whole thing. Unfortunately, Shyamalan has turned to vinegar with age, and I fear his ego has gotten in the way of his talent and ability to judge when something of his creation is crap. Oh well, hopefully this fiasco of a film will wake the brat up a bit.
  12. Trevor
    Dec 27, 2006
    3
    In short this is truly clunky. A fairy tale with such a ridiculously convoluted storyline, it spends almost all of its time giving an exposition. The character with most of the relevant information spends a great deal of the movie saying 'oh wait, here's something else my mother didn't tell you before'. The director's attitude to both himself (messiah) and film In short this is truly clunky. A fairy tale with such a ridiculously convoluted storyline, it spends almost all of its time giving an exposition. The character with most of the relevant information spends a great deal of the movie saying 'oh wait, here's something else my mother didn't tell you before'. The director's attitude to both himself (messiah) and film critics (killable) is self-indulgent and distasteful. Nearly everything in this film seems leaden and forced. Many of the actors give good efforts, but the dialogue they're saddled with is just so bad (and embarrasingly earnest), this was never going to work. Expand
  13. DaveK.
    Jul 21, 2006
    1
    Misguidedly earnest, numbingly arbitrary. Even the long shots and layered framing is tired by now.
  14. GregM.
    Jul 22, 2006
    2
    The fact that this is a FAIRY TALE does not excuse it from being bad. Sorry to all of those who seem to think so. It is still bad, very bad, so pretentious (which does not make it smart or brilliant, just pretentious) in its earnestness that I cringed. The best fairy tales tell us something about ourselves, this fairy tale tells us about MSN, his ego, and his lack of coherence. For theThe fact that this is a FAIRY TALE does not excuse it from being bad. Sorry to all of those who seem to think so. It is still bad, very bad, so pretentious (which does not make it smart or brilliant, just pretentious) in its earnestness that I cringed. The best fairy tales tell us something about ourselves, this fairy tale tells us about MSN, his ego, and his lack of coherence. For the love of god and everything that is good in the world, could someone inform him that as a director he makes a pretty but pretty bad movie, but as an actor he is absolutely HORRID? Not to mention it shatters our suspension of disbelief, which, last I looked, is why I go to movies. Instead I sit there thinking: ah, hey, here's the director, making his dumb cameo for which there is no reason, and isn't he a windowlicker for it? Expand
  15. RobertM.
    Jul 23, 2006
    1
    BORING. Lame. weak plot line, wasted talet. Convenient story line (again). Ego-driven director needs a reality check. Yeah right he's next Steven Spielberg. Ha!
  16. TinaB.
    Jul 23, 2006
    0
    The most magical thing about this movie is the spell that Shyamalan's fans seem to be under. Somehow it suspends not only their disbelief, but their intelligence, discernment, good taste, and need for logic, coherence and plausability.
  17. J.K.
    Jul 23, 2006
    1
    Wow! Embarrasingly bad. What was MSN thinking?
  18. LuisG.
    Jul 23, 2006
    2
    Well then DISNEY execs were actually correct in trying to convince the writer and director to go somewhere else because this is by far the worst film ive seen so far ....the village was playing it safe i enjoyed the thrill of the creature but here we dont even ge to see anything or experience anything but questions " wheres the twist, wheres the story,wheres the monster" the monster wasWell then DISNEY execs were actually correct in trying to convince the writer and director to go somewhere else because this is by far the worst film ive seen so far ....the village was playing it safe i enjoyed the thrill of the creature but here we dont even ge to see anything or experience anything but questions " wheres the twist, wheres the story,wheres the monster" the monster was actaully the director himself really what an awful film....it wouldnt even play well when i was reading those goosebumps books in elemetary school....what a waste of talent ..dallas was perhaps the only particular character and thats a stretch. Expand
  19. Phil
    Jul 23, 2006
    1
    Easily his worst movie. What made it so bad was that it had the potential to be interesting, immersive, and unique. Lady actually ended up exasperatingly stupid, with 'narfs' and 'scrunts' and 'tootie-fruities' or whatever those grass ape things were. The monologues with more and more incoherent combinations of all the made-up words served as the greatest Easily his worst movie. What made it so bad was that it had the potential to be interesting, immersive, and unique. Lady actually ended up exasperatingly stupid, with 'narfs' and 'scrunts' and 'tootie-fruities' or whatever those grass ape things were. The monologues with more and more incoherent combinations of all the made-up words served as the greatest unintentional comedy I've seen at a movie theater. Aside from that, it was a boring slog featuring a slew of forgettable performances and as a whole fell far short of what the trailers would lead you to believe. I wish I could sue Shyamalan for the $9.50 that I spent seeing this movie. Had I flushed my money down the toilet instead, at least I could have spent two more enjoyable hours with a plunger trying to get it back. Expand
  20. MikeA
    Jul 23, 2006
    3
    This wasn't as strong a strory as "The Village". It didn't have a story that really drew us in. Plus the kid reading spiritual things off of the cereal boxes. Come on this movie "jumped the shark" from that point on.
  21. MattH.
    Jul 24, 2006
    3
    A very self-serving movie -- really a vehicle for Mr. Shylaman to attack the critics he so reviles. Who casts themself in a high profile part in their own movie anyway? And for someone who strives so intently to bring together a diverse cast, his depictions of some groups -- for instance, the Korean characters in the movie -- are extremely stereotypical. This movie is a really poor effort A very self-serving movie -- really a vehicle for Mr. Shylaman to attack the critics he so reviles. Who casts themself in a high profile part in their own movie anyway? And for someone who strives so intently to bring together a diverse cast, his depictions of some groups -- for instance, the Korean characters in the movie -- are extremely stereotypical. This movie is a really poor effort all the way round. The final effect is dull and boring. I do still have a huge crush on Sarita Choudoury though...she's gorgeous!! Expand
  22. Spongeee
    Jul 25, 2006
    1
    I guess it's pretty easy to write a script as you go along...I mean what's something like logic have to do with anything. This director sucks, he's way overated, and needs to stop trying to be "deep." Only thing deep was the freakin pool. But Giamatti's stuttering was good acting, so I had something to laugh at...M Night Shamamamama sucks ding dong!
  23. Rev.Rikard
    Jul 29, 2006
    3
    The trailers led us to believe we could expect an experience in horror or suspense. Instead we were treated to a fairytale. Even the fairytale wasn't that original; even the "monsters" were similar to the "grassy" red beasts in "The Village." The difference between the advertising campaign and the actual story borders on dishonesty. Shyamalan admitted this movie arose from a nightime The trailers led us to believe we could expect an experience in horror or suspense. Instead we were treated to a fairytale. Even the fairytale wasn't that original; even the "monsters" were similar to the "grassy" red beasts in "The Village." The difference between the advertising campaign and the actual story borders on dishonesty. Shyamalan admitted this movie arose from a nightime story told to his children that developed over time. It should have stayed there. Expand
  24. Mr.Keeg
    Aug 16, 2006
    1
    After seeing so many merely mediocre movies recently, it was refreshing in Lady and the Water to watch one that was mind-bendingly awful. [***SPOILERS***] The plot revolves around a ginger girl (a "maiden narf" no less) found in a swimming pool who is in danger from a beast that looks like a labrador. Loads of people try to help her get back to the Blue World, including M. Night himself, After seeing so many merely mediocre movies recently, it was refreshing in Lady and the Water to watch one that was mind-bendingly awful. [***SPOILERS***] The plot revolves around a ginger girl (a "maiden narf" no less) found in a swimming pool who is in danger from a beast that looks like a labrador. Loads of people try to help her get back to the Blue World, including M. Night himself, who (modest man that he is) plays a writer who's work will go on to influence the future saviour of mankind. Pretentious nonsense. Expand
  25. Patrick
    Aug 18, 2006
    2
    The plot made absolutely no sense, and the parts that were meant to be scary the whole audience laughed at. It dragged on for too long as well.
  26. Staubin
    Aug 7, 2006
    2
    this movie was complete drivel and i totally disagree with anyone who would give it a "10." in giving this movie a "10," you are basically saying that you would mention it in the same breath as Citizen Kane, or Goodfellas. if you gave this movie a "10," you should probably go give Little Man a 10 as well. i think the critics actually liked that better. the plot was more like m. night this movie was complete drivel and i totally disagree with anyone who would give it a "10." in giving this movie a "10," you are basically saying that you would mention it in the same breath as Citizen Kane, or Goodfellas. if you gave this movie a "10," you should probably go give Little Man a 10 as well. i think the critics actually liked that better. the plot was more like m. night reaching into a hat of assorted ideas, characters, and names and then throwing them like Jackson Pollack onto a script. this is not good filmmaking at all, shame on you. Expand
  27. BrianD.
    Mar 26, 2007
    0
    After watching this movie, me and my 2 friends looked at each other and asked, "what the hell did we just watch?" The "twists" were predictable, the acting was terrible, and the story was non-existent.
  28. SimonP
    Aug 13, 2007
    1
    I
  29. Luisc
    Apr 13, 2008
    3
    Boring...no sense movie! If you have problems to sleep just see this movie.
  30. DanF.
    Jun 13, 2008
    1
    I enjoy fantasy films, and I like all of M. Night's other films, but this was downright terrible.
  31. CarlM.
    Nov 19, 2006
    2
    Interesting concept, but poorly executed. It just didn't go overboard enough to support the oddball story line. Sort of like a cross between "Splash" and "Cujo", it's not nearly as good as either.
  32. MarkB.
    Oct 16, 2006
    2
    Q: Who had a worse summer, M. Night Shyamalan or Mel Gibson? A: Shyamalan, because at least Disney will still release Gibson's next pic! Seriously, though, I've been a fan of Shyamalan through most of his career as a pop culture fixture (a mild one of his box office smashes The Sixth Sense and Signs, a very enthusiastic one of his less universally well-liked gems Unbreakable and Q: Who had a worse summer, M. Night Shyamalan or Mel Gibson? A: Shyamalan, because at least Disney will still release Gibson's next pic! Seriously, though, I've been a fan of Shyamalan through most of his career as a pop culture fixture (a mild one of his box office smashes The Sixth Sense and Signs, a very enthusiastic one of his less universally well-liked gems Unbreakable and The Village) but this already-legendary train wreck about a mermaid...er, merperson...oh, all right, "narf" is a textbook example of exactly the kind of arrogance, self-indulgence and megalomania that derailed the careers of such equally, unquestionably talented filmmakers as Peter Bogdanovich with At Long Last Love and Michael Cimino with Heaven's Gate. (At least, unlike the latter, Lady was crippling but not fatal to its studio; thank God Night didn't utterly destroy Warner Bros. with it!) Let's play William Petersen or Gary Sinise for a moment and perform a brief autopsy: to start with, you DON'T base a movie on the bedtime stories you tell your kids, and if you must, you DON'T apparently make it all up as you go along! (This from a filmmaker who became justifiably famous for his meticulous construction and completely rational surprise endings!) You DON'T cast the great Paul Giamatti as the lead in the first film he stars in that guarantees that his not receiving an Oscar nomination for it won't arouse the tiniest peep of protest. (He's not bad, but that stutter is TERRIBLE.) You DON'T feature Bryce Dallas Howard after you get a genuinely touching and impressive performance in The Village in a role that can be played by any attractive woman who looks good in a man's shirt (and nothing else) and can tread water. You DON'T abuse such fine character players as Mary Beth Hurt and Tovah Feldshuh by casting them as painfully stereotyped apartment complex residents (the ethnic "balancing" in this movie is so contrived and forced that I'm surprised that Shyamalan left out a Maori warrior and a Navajo shaman). You DON'T make your movie so stultifyingly self-important, pretentious and lacking in humor that Cindy Cheung, playing an overbearing Chinese student, comes across as giving the best performance by default, if only because it resembles some type of ersatz comic relief. You DON'T play with the camera in ways that echo the worst excesses of 1960s navel-gazing by shooting so much stuff in extreme soft focus that people in my audience thought something was wrong with the print and alerted the management, or by filming an entire expository scene through poor Cheung's armpit! You DON'T make a movie that preaches that what the world needs now is love sweet love and then in the middle of it express such vindictive, self-serving hatred toward critics that it would be hard to blame Roger Ebert's hospital guards if Shyamalan was the one director they DIDN'T allow to visit him! And for God's sake, M, you DON'T cast YOURSELF as a Thoreau/ Lenin/ Thomas Paine-type writer whose ramblings hold the key to saving the world as we know it, if we all just listen. There's no doubt that Shyamalan still has much to offer, and that he'll make better (or at least mildly watchable) films again, but in the meantime maybe the time is ripe for him to take a nice long rest (just as disappointed Lady patrons will surely want to take a rest from him). Perhaps when he returns, a possible project for him--and one that's as far removed from the supernatural-suspense genre as possible--would be a remake of Sullivan's Travels, the Preston Sturges classic in which Joel McCrea played a director who travels countrywide for material and inspiration to make a film that expresses The Great American Social Statement, only to find that often the best thing a filmmaker can do for people is simply to entertain them. Now THERE'S a role that Shyamalan would be a perfect fit to cast himself as! Expand
  33. johnc
    Dec 11, 2006
    2
    Unspeakable, unbearable, unwatchable, un... believable, but the narf's legs are gorgeous.
  34. Mike
    Dec 19, 2006
    0
    Ouch! I couldnt believe how bad this movies was! Shyamalan movies are getting worse and worse. To the point when this movie is just unwatchable! Avoid at all costs!
  35. MarkC.
    Jul 21, 2006
    0
    What a bunch of hooey! MNS has gone totally over the edge if he thinks this is at all 1) interesting, 2) intriguing, 3) scary, 4)other worldly. In fact, it's none of the above. It's just plain stupid and a complete waste of celluloid! MNS, it's time to try a new genre.
  36. JCF
    Jul 21, 2006
    0
    I still don't know why anyone ever liked any of "M" movies they are ALL BADDDD, starting with the 6th sense with its mediocre acting, bad visuals and the CHEESY kid...lol..."i see dead people" as cliché as M.Night, the director himself. He might aspires to be like Hitchcock, M.Night does not have what it takes, hopefully this will be the end of him and his large EGO.
  37. LarryM.
    Jul 22, 2006
    1
    Shyamalan has the biggest ego in movies since Orson Well's, and this movie is an example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The dialog is humerous in its lack of direction.
  38. MizzleD.
    Jul 23, 2006
    1
    This is really the worst movie I have seen in a long time. M. Night has fallen off the deep end. Here are a few reasons why: 1-Basically the entire story is explained through exposition. The mystical lady is not allowed to talk about her world so we have to hear it from a very stereotypical asian woman whose voice is incredibly annoying and slightly offensive. As a minority filmmaker you This is really the worst movie I have seen in a long time. M. Night has fallen off the deep end. Here are a few reasons why: 1-Basically the entire story is explained through exposition. The mystical lady is not allowed to talk about her world so we have to hear it from a very stereotypical asian woman whose voice is incredibly annoying and slightly offensive. As a minority filmmaker you would think that Night might try to give some good roles to other minorities but no, he gives those roles to himself and white actors. 2-no one in the whole story is slightly skeptical about the water lady. When the situation is explained they all just go along no questions asked. 3-Night cast himself in the [spoiler omitted] role which is so pretentious I don't know where to begin. 4-The undelying theme here is about the movie industy. The lady's name is STORY and they are all trying to save her. The FILM CRITIC character is unlikeable and [spoiler omitted]. VERY SUBTLE! 5- I can't go on...I am too annoyed. Seriously, only go see this if you are into torture or if you are half-retarded. Expand
  39. JamesG.
    Jul 23, 2006
    2
    This movie started out slowly, in order to introduce the characters. It then shifted gears to boring with ridiculous, plodding "plot twists" (I use that term generously) and then ended up by downshifting to a plain waste of time and money. You end the movie with no love for the emotionless lead actress, nor do you care for the plight of any of the hapless characters. Do everyone a favor This movie started out slowly, in order to introduce the characters. It then shifted gears to boring with ridiculous, plodding "plot twists" (I use that term generously) and then ended up by downshifting to a plain waste of time and money. You end the movie with no love for the emotionless lead actress, nor do you care for the plight of any of the hapless characters. Do everyone a favor and avoid this movie so we can send a monetary incentive to Mr. M. Night...no more pulp please! I don't know what you did with the man who wrote and directed "The Sixth Sense", but your evil must stop!" Expand
  40. ErinD.
    Jul 23, 2006
    1
    I've been reading blogs and posts to see if i missed something. So far, nobody's been able to convince me why this movie ever made it into theaters, nonetheless past someone's crazy thoughts. i refuse to walk out of movies, always the optimist. if there were one, this would be it.
  41. HalB.
    Jul 24, 2006
    3
    I was really hoping that the (vast) majority of legitimate critics out there were wrong; but alas, most of them are spot-on correct: this is egocentric, pretentious New Age hooey at its worst. Fine cinematography, arresting visuals and earnest performances simply cannot make up for the silly story and self-absorbed symbolism. Nothing terribly new here -- very predicable and very I was really hoping that the (vast) majority of legitimate critics out there were wrong; but alas, most of them are spot-on correct: this is egocentric, pretentious New Age hooey at its worst. Fine cinematography, arresting visuals and earnest performances simply cannot make up for the silly story and self-absorbed symbolism. Nothing terribly new here -- very predicable and very disappointing. It's really quite a shame, because Shyamalan has proved himself to be a real talent in most of his past work. He attempts to be Spielberg, and falls flat on his face. Of course, this is just my opinion... If you like pretentious New Age drivel, this one may be to your liking. Expand
  42. LomaxH.
    Jul 27, 2006
    0
    It is a depressing social signal that M. Night Shyamalan can, through the goodwill built up from one decent movie (made in 1999 mind you), be able to produce stinker after stinker. Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, and now Lady in the Water. What a pathetic resume.
  43. ScottB.
    Jul 27, 2006
    0
    This is among the worst studio pictures I have ever seen. I have never gone online before to offer my opinion of a film, but this one was so annoying to me, I wanted to at least make an effort to do a good deed by perhaps convincing someone to avoid wasting their time and money on this movie. Gave me the feeling that the whole story was made up in fifteen minutes at an improv drama class. This is among the worst studio pictures I have ever seen. I have never gone online before to offer my opinion of a film, but this one was so annoying to me, I wanted to at least make an effort to do a good deed by perhaps convincing someone to avoid wasting their time and money on this movie. Gave me the feeling that the whole story was made up in fifteen minutes at an improv drama class. My eyes were sore from rolling them throughout the film. Very annoying for M. Night to put himself in such a prominent role as well as use his film as a soapbox for his critics (with Bob Balaban's character). Why would Paul Giamatti agree to be in such a tookie film? Kept waiting at least for the signature Shalaman twist at the end to redeem something, but it never came. Terrible waste of time. Expand
  44. RMoon
    Aug 22, 2006
    1
    Shoddy film making (the boom microphone kept dropping into the picture) plus a ridiculous story--you get the idea. A night spent staring at your cereal boxes would be more entertaining.
  45. ChrisM.
    Jun 27, 2009
    1
    Shyamalan's faithful audience has been supporting him since the Sixth Sense's wonderful surprise but this is no such movie!He overloaded the film with numerous character's,confusing ideas,mythic creatures and stupid anti-critic allegories as if he is trying to prove how imaginative he can be,turning it into a chaotic mess with no substance or purpose,It's to immature Shyamalan's faithful audience has been supporting him since the Sixth Sense's wonderful surprise but this is no such movie!He overloaded the film with numerous character's,confusing ideas,mythic creatures and stupid anti-critic allegories as if he is trying to prove how imaginative he can be,turning it into a chaotic mess with no substance or purpose,It's to immature even for a child to watch and the attempt of making a bedtime story is no excuse.The worst thing is that he tries to even lure humoristic moments out of it.An undeniable mind-f*ck! Expand
  46. ChristopherW.
    Dec 26, 2006
    1
    If this turkey doesn't win the top Razzie award this year, then there is no justice in the world. I once respected Shyamalan and looked forward to his next project, but 'The Village' and this embarrassment will surely, OK, hopefully, force him to reconsider a new profession. What a shame!
  47. Aug 17, 2012
    0
    I've said my personal opinion of M. Night Shyamalan's movies. The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs are personally my favorite's from him. But his movies started to get to bland, boring, and silly. This film....is unbelievably boring. The plot is boring, the characters are boring, the dialogue is boring, THIS MOVIE IS BORING!!! I can't remember one thing about this movie with falling asleep.
  48. Mar 3, 2012
    1
    Another step in the rapid implosion of Shyamalan's career. After Unbreakable, Signs (not bad but only so-so), The Village, The Happening, this awful mess, The Last Airbender and Devil (even if it's just his name slapped on it, he's gotta take some credit for it), I don't expect to be hearing much more of this one-hit-wonder again.
  49. Mar 9, 2013
    0
    This film should be retitled "Forgetting M. Night Shyamalan."
  50. Apr 19, 2014
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I consider it a minor miracle I actually stayed awake for the entirety of this movie. Questions arise within the viewer that M. Night never seemed to consider: Why does the eagle-creature not come earlier in the story? Do these Scrunts prey upon its kind? Wherefore the negligible character development? Why and how does the kid engage in divination with **** cereal boxes? And of course, why did M. Night cast himself as the indirect savior of humanity? I’ll come clean: I had never actually seen any of his other movies before this one, so I’m rating all his other films more cautiously as a rule.

    The correct adjective for this would be SOPORIFIC.

    I would give this movie 1/10 only, but it does get an extra point for predicting America’s future president as being a Midwestern orator, and two years and change after this movie was released, guess who…
    Expand
Metascore
36

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 36
  2. Negative: 14 out of 36
  1. Shyamalan does project genuine menace and suspense into this mundane location, especially in nighttime scenes. But the magic that would transport you from reality into fantasy is missing.
  2. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    40
    A ponderous, self-indulgent bedtime tale. Awkwardly positioned, this gloomy gothic fantasy falls well short of horror.
  3. What's odd about Lady in the Water is that for all Shyamalan's histrionics, he's overcontrolled.