User Score
6.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 384 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch 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
  1. HeidiH.
    Jul 26, 2006
    10
    Garfield 2 better than this amazing movie?, come on Critics!, sometimes you are so absurd!, this Night's movie has all that I want to see in the theaters: Art, why are you so afraid to recognize it, giving the same opinion that others ( critics ). Open your eyes,,, mmm! and your mind.
  2. MireC.
    Jul 26, 2006
    10
    Good, amazing, original, I love this kind of suspense and the tales made for the kid inside of me always looking for surprises.
  3. SG
    Jul 27, 2006
    8
    Critics are incredibly stupid to rate this movie, which is a fairy tale told in modern symbols, as having a lack of logic. They didn't get it!! It's not meant to be taken seriously or to be a magic to modern life type story---it's a bed time story for childreren, and nothing more. I think they just don't know how to advertise his movies properly. The characters are all Critics are incredibly stupid to rate this movie, which is a fairy tale told in modern symbols, as having a lack of logic. They didn't get it!! It's not meant to be taken seriously or to be a magic to modern life type story---it's a bed time story for childreren, and nothing more. I think they just don't know how to advertise his movies properly. The characters are all simple because they live inside of the director's "childeren' book" which apparantly he concocted for his own kids. The only one of his movies that should be examined under the logics of real life is 6th sense. The others, like this one, are just folk tales or fairy tales. Critics are a waste of space. This was not a bad movie, if you recognize that its a fairy tale for kids. He has some damn good atmpospher tricks that no other director has. nuff said. Expand
  4. MissL.
    Jul 27, 2006
    10
    Gosford park, lost in traslation, The new world are some of the critic's favorite movies, they gave them good reviews, they like boring stories with out feet niether heads, and I think they hate the Talented Mr. Night Shyamalan...but ok, The lady is a great movie that must be seen for all who believe in art, creativity...well I almost believe He is our Alfred Hitchcok. And could be better!!.
  5. AngelG.
    Jul 28, 2006
    10
    A very good option for this season not so commercial and more creative than others.
  6. 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
  7. JenniferP.
    Jul 29, 2006
    10
    It's a fairy tale. I went into the theatre aware that this movie was going to be a fairy tale, and it was everything I expected it to be. This sort of movie is for the kind of person that believed all those bedtime stories as a child, and still wants to to believe in them now. There are little nuances, touches of humanity and humour in the film that bring it to life and flesh out the It's a fairy tale. I went into the theatre aware that this movie was going to be a fairy tale, and it was everything I expected it to be. This sort of movie is for the kind of person that believed all those bedtime stories as a child, and still wants to to believe in them now. There are little nuances, touches of humanity and humour in the film that bring it to life and flesh out the characters. The professional, paid critics out there may have seen too many movies for this one to truly ring as it should. Who should watch it? The casual moviegoer, the dreamer, the person who is satisfied with a simple story. Expand
  8. BellaF.
    Jul 29, 2006
    10
    Beautiful story, I like it more than Pirates and Superman, this was made with a lot of heart.
  9. PhishL
    Jul 29, 2006
    8
    Either you love it or hate it. i think we should watch it with an open mind, keeping in mind its a fairy tale. also its something different, not like all the other formulaic crap that comes out of hollywood's bowels every single day!
  10. DanN.
    Jul 31, 2006
    7
    Contrary to most of the media critics on here I actually enjoyed the movie. Part of the problem is that in the previews it was billed as a scary movie which it certainly is not. It's more fantasy than anything and should be viewed as such. Just relax and watch a decent bedtime story.
  11. TimothyP.
    Aug 1, 2006
    9
    Best movie of 2006 so far...
  12. JerrodE.
    Aug 10, 2006
    10
    I really cannot believe that critics would bash this. I dont think it would be much of a stretch to imagine their real reasoning is his blatant stab at movie critics in the film. I personally give the man props for standing up for himself, as well as constructing one hell of a bedtime story. Shyamalan killed with this one and everyone knows it.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. TrinityX.
    Aug 18, 2006
    10
    Does not need a long review, is simple, don't hate art or original expressions, relax, the time is not over for a happy ending. Good.
  16. NickR.
    Aug 27, 2006
    9
    I think you have to be in the right mood to enjoy this movie. It's a fairy tail not hi-art. The critics should get over themselves. Totally enjoyed it.
  17. Belorekha
    Aug 5, 2006
    10
    At this decade for me Shyamalan is one of the best and amazing-talented young directors, all his films are so original, some seems have envy of this, see again Lady in the water fool critics, this require more appreciation!!
  18. MikelG.
    Aug 5, 2006
    10
    I think that the fact that they had a scene were they savagely tore apart and killed a movie critic might be the reason that the eggocentric critics wrote bad reviews... Shyalaman probably new that they were gonna write a bad review. I personally loved they movie and I give 100 thumbs up.
  19. Chacas
    Aug 6, 2006
    10
    Thank you stupid critics who say this movie is silly ?, you are calling us silly to all this 60 or 70 percent- part of the audience who really liked and enjoyed this amazing tale, after all Shyamalan is making his films for us, not for you!, for you are dedicated his character of movie critic who is killed!!, je, je... ok. you offend our way of think. But dont going to stop us of going to Thank you stupid critics who say this movie is silly ?, you are calling us silly to all this 60 or 70 percent- part of the audience who really liked and enjoyed this amazing tale, after all Shyamalan is making his films for us, not for you!, for you are dedicated his character of movie critic who is killed!!, je, je... ok. you offend our way of think. But dont going to stop us of going to the theaters to see it again. Expand
  20. 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
  21. ArthurH.
    Aug 8, 2006
    10
    This picture is maybe the best of this year until now. Bryce and Giamatti are brilliant!, others must learn " this is a good suspense ". Lady will be on my mind for a long time.
  22. SalA
    Aug 8, 2006
    10
    Beautifully crafted story. Shymalan is simply a master of storytelling, I have enjoyed all of his movies to date.
  23. DaisukeI
    Sep 8, 2006
    10
    An extraordinary good movie: original, fantastic, true, warmhearted. [***SPOILERS***] The encounter of an old myth and modern world is compelling. The roles were acted in a very natural way. Fun and drama were well balanced. The photography was wonderful and so was the musical score. The message that people have forgotten to the listen to their inner voices is compelling. They have to do An extraordinary good movie: original, fantastic, true, warmhearted. [***SPOILERS***] The encounter of an old myth and modern world is compelling. The roles were acted in a very natural way. Fun and drama were well balanced. The photography was wonderful and so was the musical score. The message that people have forgotten to the listen to their inner voices is compelling. They have to do so again in order to stop the self destruction of mankind. This important and widely ignored truth is told here as a modern fairy tale. This is one of the best films I ever saw. Expand
  24. Julien
    Jan 17, 2007
    6
    This is by far the less interesting Shyamalan movie. But still, the direction and the music are amazing, and the story, mere but fearsome, can make you cry at the end.
  25. GenR
    Jan 25, 2007
    7
    I really liked this movie. Much more than
  26. TrevorG
    Jan 26, 2007
    10
    Like Derek P. already said....you really have to have an imagination to enjoy this film. If you do open up your imagination though, and decide to let the movie take you in.....you'll be pleasantly surprised. In my opinion this is up there with Shyamalan's best work.
  27. PeterR
    Jan 28, 2007
    9
    This is a something you'll love or hate, but there's no way it will leave you indifferent. That should be reason enough to give it a chance, what you might discover is an incredibly beautiful movie.
  28. JazminA.
    Feb 20, 2007
    6
    Nice story although underdeveloped. Maybe Shymalan should concentrate on writing the next movie and get someone else to direct.
  29. MitchM.
    Feb 25, 2007
    4
    I went into this film with a GREAT attitude, really wanting to get lost in this supernatural world, and enjoyed it out of the box. But ... as each scene dragged on, with more layers of incomprehensibly convoluted and voluminous dialogue that supposedly dilineated this "other world" ... my eyes became droopy, and I became snoozy, and suddenly I didn't care what was in the pool, or I went into this film with a GREAT attitude, really wanting to get lost in this supernatural world, and enjoyed it out of the box. But ... as each scene dragged on, with more layers of incomprehensibly convoluted and voluminous dialogue that supposedly dilineated this "other world" ... my eyes became droopy, and I became snoozy, and suddenly I didn't care what was in the pool, or under the grass, or in the trees, or ... zzzzz. Expand
  30. 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.
  31. SimonP
    Aug 13, 2007
    1
    I
  32. Luisc
    Apr 13, 2008
    3
    Boring...no sense movie! If you have problems to sleep just see this movie.
  33. DanF.
    Jun 13, 2008
    1
    I enjoy fantasy films, and I like all of M. Night's other films, but this was downright terrible.
  34. BrandonT
    Jun 27, 2008
    6
    A weird movie but oddly entertaining and chilling. Shyamalan mixes some humor and horror in this powerful film. Not the strongest of his set though and certainly not a classic.
  35. AngelaH
    Aug 15, 2009
    10
    I am continually drawn to this work every time I stumble upon it on cable -- and no matter what I was doing or should be doing -- am drawn back into it without fail, like a moth -- or 'butterfly' -- to the flame. And I don't for the life of me understand the critics' near-universal negative response to this movie. It makes me think they perhaps deserve the I am continually drawn to this work every time I stumble upon it on cable -- and no matter what I was doing or should be doing -- am drawn back into it without fail, like a moth -- or 'butterfly' -- to the flame. And I don't for the life of me understand the critics' near-universal negative response to this movie. It makes me think they perhaps deserve the just-desserts fate of the critic in the movie. I thought critics were usually enamored with originality, multi-layered narratives, and meditations on film and storytelling. That this movie is all of these is undeniable. That is also beautiful and magical in the extreme is also without doubt. Perhaps it is these two more 'feminine' attributes that are lacking in today's critics -- notably, still mostly male -- and that is why the near universal defiling of this work of a true original master. Expand
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. johnc
    Dec 11, 2006
    2
    Unspeakable, unbearable, unwatchable, un... believable, but the narf's legs are gorgeous.
  39. 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!
  40. LouP
    Dec 22, 2006
    9
    This is a well-made, well-acted and fun movie. I don't know much about Shymalan, but its obvious that the critics have some preconceived dislike for the man and are not taking the movie on its own entertainment merits. It appears to me that it is the critics and not Shyamalan who are taking themselves way too seriously. Just like the critic in the movie.
  41. 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.
  42. EdRM
    Jul 21, 2006
    10
    Marvelous. SImply marvelous, if you open your head to a movie which is not mainstream by any movies. It is a piece of art and, as such, you have to comprehend it.
  43. 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.
  44. NickT.
    Jul 21, 2006
    5
    A fairy tale with more rules than chess. A plodding, contrived and ultimately silly story. But still the picture is studded with moments of directorial genius and saved from banality by Paul Giamatti's formidible but understated portrayal. MSN, like Jim Cameron, is too gifted a director to be permitted to contiue to do all his own writing. As for his "acting"...MSN please take a tip A fairy tale with more rules than chess. A plodding, contrived and ultimately silly story. But still the picture is studded with moments of directorial genius and saved from banality by Paul Giamatti's formidible but understated portrayal. MSN, like Jim Cameron, is too gifted a director to be permitted to contiue to do all his own writing. As for his "acting"...MSN please take a tip from Hitchock and stick with the nonspeaking walkby. Expand
  45. SamiN.
    Jul 21, 2006
    10
    An incredible film, a poetic challenge to the audience. Better than 99% of Hollywood rubbish!
  46. JamesH.
    Jul 21, 2006
    5
    I am a big fan of M's work but this movie seems to have its feet in everywhere. the plot is convoluted but strung out. M always brings a great story but to be honest-the movie is mesmerizingly confusing and ridiculous. I thought PAUL GIAMATTI was excellent along with BRYCE DALLAS HOWARD. The movie touches many emotional levels for several characters and is heartfelt. REDEMPTION, I am a big fan of M's work but this movie seems to have its feet in everywhere. the plot is convoluted but strung out. M always brings a great story but to be honest-the movie is mesmerizingly confusing and ridiculous. I thought PAUL GIAMATTI was excellent along with BRYCE DALLAS HOWARD. The movie touches many emotional levels for several characters and is heartfelt. REDEMPTION, ONE'S FUTURE and HEALING. I really think this movie has too much of a good thing, which hinders the overall impact. you could say that simplifying the plot would get less confusion but more clarity. overall?, I liked it-but I expected more-or should I say less?--really only 2.5 stars Expand
  47. KimberlyG.
    Jul 21, 2006
    10
    This is not about a lady in the water, grass wolves or flying monkeys. It is simply about how a group of culturally diverse people come together to make something great happen!! It shows us that we as neighbors, no matter how young, how emotionally broken or mentally ill can ban together to make a difference.
  48. RobertB.
    Jul 21, 2006
    9
    Suprisingly funny, tasteful, modern fairytale. The critics can go to hell on this one.
  49. RickyQ.
    Jul 21, 2006
    5
    A very weird movie, but it is quite entertaining. A fairy tale is what it is, so don't go in taking the movie too seriously.
  50. JohnS.
    Jul 21, 2006
    9
    Don't listen to the critics. Most of them have totally overlooked the fact that this has no intention to tie itself to everyday life. It's a fairy tale, and the characters complicating of everything is just what you and I would do if we had to figure out a fairy tale for ourselves. Shyamalan is brilliant with monsters, and it's a relief that there isn't a twist ending Don't listen to the critics. Most of them have totally overlooked the fact that this has no intention to tie itself to everyday life. It's a fairy tale, and the characters complicating of everything is just what you and I would do if we had to figure out a fairy tale for ourselves. Shyamalan is brilliant with monsters, and it's a relief that there isn't a twist ending for its own sake. The story has no holes, but the meaning of what goes on is up for debate. Do NOT confuse that with a misshapen plot. Expand
  51. AmandaP
    Jul 22, 2006
    10
    My favorite of M's so far. One critic wrote that this movie wasn't believable. Isn't that what movies are all about? Was Signs supposed to be believable? If you watch the movie as a bedtime story, like it should be watched then you'll love it. Terrific job by all the actors, including M himself.
  52. 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.
  53. NatS.
    Jul 22, 2006
    7
    Not bad, though not great. Cool story, but just a little too weird and absurd to compare it to The Sixth Sense
  54. JustinL.
    Jul 22, 2006
    8
    Every Shyamalan movie is different, requiring an open mind to consider yourself a fan of his work. Though unique, all have merit. Lady in the Water is a rare original fairy tale, and the most humor-rich of his films. I found a lot of it overly convenient to be believable, but the overall experience was a positive one. Shymalan weaves a wonderful web, also knowing that everything Every Shyamalan movie is different, requiring an open mind to consider yourself a fan of his work. Though unique, all have merit. Lady in the Water is a rare original fairy tale, and the most humor-rich of his films. I found a lot of it overly convenient to be believable, but the overall experience was a positive one. Shymalan weaves a wonderful web, also knowing that everything doesn't need to be shown on the screen. Giamatti was great, Howard was mysteriously less-is-more, and the ensemble cast was cleverly entertaining. Glad I saw it in theaters before reading any reviews or watching trailers. I imagine our home will own the DVD, too -- just like The Village. Expand
  55. PaulD.
    Jul 22, 2006
    8
    Loved the movie. MNS's best so far. He uses cinema elements in a very effective way. often you have scenes where more than one character are involved but the framing is such that you only see one character and in some way are connected to their thoughts and feelings while aware of the other characters presence. This forces your imagination to fill in the blanks. Well done Loved the movie. MNS's best so far. He uses cinema elements in a very effective way. often you have scenes where more than one character are involved but the framing is such that you only see one character and in some way are connected to their thoughts and feelings while aware of the other characters presence. This forces your imagination to fill in the blanks. Well done cinematography. Shyamalan also uses speed ramping in a very effective way, and allows the viewer to understand the pace of the film and continue the suspense properly. While the plot meanders, the plot devices seem a little canned but are none the less compelling. the acting is superb and the blend of Mythology and real life is interesting and engaging. A beautiful film that tells a story using all of the tools a good filmmaker should: cinematography, sound, editing, and mise en scene. Wish it wasn't getting such poor reviews, because it's such an intelligent film. Great work Shyamalan! Expand
  56. Jake
    Jul 22, 2006
    9
    Great film, great acting, and great story. critics...they dont know anything.
  57. Galanshys
    Jul 23, 2006
    10
    This is the kind of storiy I Can enjoy, and very original, others are remakes and sequels, this guy always take risks doing his own creatitvity.
  58. BobD.
    Jul 23, 2006
    10
    This is the reason cinema exists. so what if shyamalan pats himself on the back on this one, portraying a writer who's book will change the world ? he deservs it ! note that not many people can stay indifferent to this movie after they have seen it- either they walked out, or they couldn't talk 2 hours after it. this is the trademark of a piece that comes from one's mind andThis is the reason cinema exists. so what if shyamalan pats himself on the back on this one, portraying a writer who's book will change the world ? he deservs it ! note that not many people can stay indifferent to this movie after they have seen it- either they walked out, or they couldn't talk 2 hours after it. this is the trademark of a piece that comes from one's mind and heart, without box office considirations. it seems like shyamalan is saying :"ok, I made my money, now it's time to make a movie for myself, no matter what they'll say". it'e personal, it shows, and I love it. amazing acting as usual in shyamalan's movies. Expand
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. Michasi
    Jul 23, 2006
    8
    Usually, personal films like this tend to marginalize audiences, but it
  62. KatherineW.
    Jul 23, 2006
    9
    Don't let the critics fool you. Lady In The Water is a beautiful film, filled with subtle symbolism and hidden meanings. If you leave the film without having caught the Christ figure, the anti-war leanings, or the director's statement about his own work, then you didn't look hard enough. This movie is a fairytale, a story that represents greater things that the characters Don't let the critics fool you. Lady In The Water is a beautiful film, filled with subtle symbolism and hidden meanings. If you leave the film without having caught the Christ figure, the anti-war leanings, or the director's statement about his own work, then you didn't look hard enough. This movie is a fairytale, a story that represents greater things that the characters themselves. It is, ultimitely, a story of hope in a grey world, and I am amazed that so few people can see beneath the surface of this wonderful film. Expand
  63. 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.
  64. SusanM.
    Jul 24, 2006
    9
    I thought this movie had a great story, and excellent acting by Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard and the supporting cast. Even Shyamalan was pretty good! There is a lot of beauty and hope in this film, and it is my favourite of his films to date. I really felt touched when I left the theatre, which was such a nice feeling. I am actually very shocked by all the terrible things that are I thought this movie had a great story, and excellent acting by Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard and the supporting cast. Even Shyamalan was pretty good! There is a lot of beauty and hope in this film, and it is my favourite of his films to date. I really felt touched when I left the theatre, which was such a nice feeling. I am actually very shocked by all the terrible things that are being said about it...I guess you have to have an open mind going into it, don't expect it to be like the last 10 films you saw because it isn't. It's just special. Expand
  65. PattyR.
    Jul 24, 2006
    10
    Excelent actings into a very original tale, a cool reason to go to the movies!.
  66. AmberR.
    Jul 24, 2006
    10
    Best movie of the summer---beating Pirates & Superman anyday. Endearing, charming, gentle, funny, scary, and imaginative.
  67. 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
  68. VanneG.
    Jul 24, 2006
    10
    Special and unique!!, there are many things that critics does not want to see, but I wanna see it again and again.
  69. LucasR.
    Jul 24, 2006
    8
    We live in an age where we no longer celebrate originality. in fact we celebrate the lack of it. in a world of crap movies we have a movie like "Lady in The Water" it may not be perfect, or M.Night Shamalayns best work, but it tells a story. It has humor, its focused, and your supposed to latch on to something here. You're supposed to hold on to the idea that no matter what We live in an age where we no longer celebrate originality. in fact we celebrate the lack of it. in a world of crap movies we have a movie like "Lady in The Water" it may not be perfect, or M.Night Shamalayns best work, but it tells a story. It has humor, its focused, and your supposed to latch on to something here. You're supposed to hold on to the idea that no matter what circumstance you are in, no matter where your life has taken you, you can have an awakening. You can wake up one day and realize that you are not alone, you can believe in something, and others will believe in you when you do that. Its about hope. In an age of war, terrorism, and celebration of our moral decay. You have one guy who wants to tell a story, and he did. I swear M.Night Shalayan is way ahead of his time. His ability to create a world within a world and be able to relate to his audience is his most valuable gift. "think outside of the box". Too many critics follow a sort of rule/path in which they can compare and "intelligently" critique a movie. Art is art and at the end of the day, I walked out of that theatre feeling good about myself, and thats all that really mattered to me. Expand
  70. AlbitaMc.
    Jul 24, 2006
    10
    Full of surprises for me. My critique is short because T.L.I.W. Is another Night phenomenon. Excelent!.
  71. JordanB.
    Jul 24, 2006
    10
    This movie was fantastic. No it wasn't like The Sixth Sense with a huge surprise at the end and I don't believe it was meant to be. It was a fun story full of characters that are likeable and in the case of the narf and giamatti's character loveable. I consider this Giamatti's best work, and I sure hope that Shyamalan keeps turning out great films. also the critics can This movie was fantastic. No it wasn't like The Sixth Sense with a huge surprise at the end and I don't believe it was meant to be. It was a fun story full of characters that are likeable and in the case of the narf and giamatti's character loveable. I consider this Giamatti's best work, and I sure hope that Shyamalan keeps turning out great films. also the critics can suck it. They thought New World was good and that was the biggest pile of self inflated bs (and more boring than alexander) I have ever seen. Expand
  72. WayneP.
    Jul 25, 2006
    7
    Considering the films that usually make tons of money ~ the Hollywood sequels of sequels of forgotten TV shows, and the predictably predictable romantic sit-coms crowded with the latest, hotest "STARS" ~ it's hardly surprising that Shyamalan's films are generally unappreciated. Admittedly Shyamalan is an something of an acquired taste, but for anyone who is simply too tired of Considering the films that usually make tons of money ~ the Hollywood sequels of sequels of forgotten TV shows, and the predictably predictable romantic sit-coms crowded with the latest, hotest "STARS" ~ it's hardly surprising that Shyamalan's films are generally unappreciated. Admittedly Shyamalan is an something of an acquired taste, but for anyone who is simply too tired of the fast-food films that crowd the multi-plexs to even moan anymore, Lady in the Water, like all of Shyamalan's films, is deliciously different and unselfconscious fantasy. Expand
  73. EliasK.
    Jul 26, 2006
    5
    Giamatti was brilliant as usual. Without him I shutter to think what the film would have been. Will I go see it again in the theaters like I did Signs and The Village - no. Will I rent or buy the DVD when it comes out - not likely.
  74. FrankM.
    Jul 26, 2006
    10
    Giamatti was brilliant as usual. Will I go see it again in the theaters like I did Signs and The Village? -yes. Will I rent or buy the DVD when it comes ou?t -yes of Couse!!. For me the creativy is the best.
  75. TavoS.
    Jul 26, 2006
    10
    I like it a lot !!, some critics can go hell. The relevant for me is what people say.
  76. JoS.
    Jul 26, 2006
    10
    This movie was such a unique and beautiful breath of fresh air after sequals, triquals, and remakes of the past four years. The story of every humans' unique purpose in the mundane world of reality, and urge to believe is poignently told through a imaginative myth, and is remarkably and beautifully acted.
  77. KevinS.
    Jul 26, 2006
    6
    This movie is not nearly as bad as the critics are saying - they clearly don't get it. Lady in the Water isn't Shyamalan's best either. Giamatti does a brilliant job - and some of the special effects are great.
  78. ChadM.
    Jul 26, 2006
    7
    Is Lady in the Water a great film? Certainly not. But a 36? No, no, no, no, no. The incredibly harsh reviews Lady has received must be the byproduct of the current anti-Shyamalan movement apparently sweeping through Hollywood and critic circles. The film suffers through a few inexcusable plot holes and some shamefully self-serving moments that are clearly Shyamalan's chosen method, Is Lady in the Water a great film? Certainly not. But a 36? No, no, no, no, no. The incredibly harsh reviews Lady has received must be the byproduct of the current anti-Shyamalan movement apparently sweeping through Hollywood and critic circles. The film suffers through a few inexcusable plot holes and some shamefully self-serving moments that are clearly Shyamalan's chosen method, albeit an immature one, of dealing with criticism. The majority of the film, however, is an interesting, original and beautifully filmed tale. Like him or not, Shyamalan is very skilled at creating mystery and fear for his audience, and that fact that he manages both again in light of the often absurd script only reinforces the idea that this guy does have some talent after all. He just needs someone to stand by him and smack him every time he comes up with a great idea like casting himself as a prolific writer or using some silly plot device such as a bedtime story told in inexplicably sporadic chunks to further the plot. Expand
  79. AlexR.
    Jul 27, 2006
    10
    Good movie & a surprise for this summer.
  80. LaoW.
    Jul 27, 2006
    10
    A brilliant contemporary adult fantasy with a certain amount of gleeful tweeking of film and film critics. Fantasy films of this type (Roan Innish, Cocteau's Belle et Bete etc) are rarely blockbusters, but this is a small delight with a bigger box office than its audience oddly enough.
  81. 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.
  82. 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
  83. GaryM.
    Jul 28, 2006
    8
    Let me tell you why I gave this film an "8." This movie deserves to be seen. It deals with what should be true humanity and what being good is all about. Nowadays, being good is severely underrated. Empathy is only but a hazy dream. How do we strive to become better? Survive life's ordeals? With love, unity, selflesness? It's true this movie has noticeable flaws, but overall it Let me tell you why I gave this film an "8." This movie deserves to be seen. It deals with what should be true humanity and what being good is all about. Nowadays, being good is severely underrated. Empathy is only but a hazy dream. How do we strive to become better? Survive life's ordeals? With love, unity, selflesness? It's true this movie has noticeable flaws, but overall it is the message, the complete product, which is truly overwhelming. This is this summer's nicest, feel good movie yet. But, hey, ... that is just my opinion. Expand
  84. MichaelO.
    Jul 28, 2006
    8
    The movie was excellent. It wasnt the same sort of twist as is usual for M. Nights movies, however the acting and little bits of flavor added throught were wonderful. The human element in this movie is unmissable.
  85. Guilleres
    Jul 29, 2006
    10
    A jewel out of time, Alfred Hitchcok is back with good tales. Excelent!.
  86. DavidP.
    Jul 29, 2006
    10
    Muggles dont understand this amazing film, they want movies about sex and wars to give good reviews, dont let our children lose the power of imagination or surprise, this tale is about love , come on!, is not an horror film, Nights Style is suspense ( can see the difference? ).
  87. ChadS.
    Jul 29, 2006
    7
    "The Lady in the Water" plays like a wet dream for people who indulge in role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. How all the tenants readily accept their roles without even a shred of initial skepticism just doesn't work because the filmmaker failed to establish the right tone, a platform in which the fantastical could negotiate itself within its realistic setting. But if "The Lady in the Water" plays like a wet dream for people who indulge in role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. How all the tenants readily accept their roles without even a shred of initial skepticism just doesn't work because the filmmaker failed to establish the right tone, a platform in which the fantastical could negotiate itself within its realistic setting. But if you're adamantly against the way big-budgeted major studio films are written, in most cases, more than one writer, you'll probably enjoy the quirks, warts and all. In melding the fantastical with the everyday, even the artwork for Helium's "The Magic City" is more successful. "The Lady in the Water"(who should be mute, or learned to speak English like Daryl Hannah in "Splash") has a naive charm; there's an unawareness of how loopy this whole cinematic ordeal really is. Expand
  88. JustinS.
    Jul 29, 2006
    6
    I did enjoy this movie. Surely it wasn't my favorite M. Night Shyamalan film; I daresay my least favorite. Still, I think the horrid reviews it has received have gone overboard. I do think a lot of the negative critiques are valid. There's a LOT of holes in it. While there is an outstanding cast in "Lady", there are many unneeded characters. I found it especially odd that the I did enjoy this movie. Surely it wasn't my favorite M. Night Shyamalan film; I daresay my least favorite. Still, I think the horrid reviews it has received have gone overboard. I do think a lot of the negative critiques are valid. There's a LOT of holes in it. While there is an outstanding cast in "Lady", there are many unneeded characters. I found it especially odd that the tenants in "The Cove" who were least helpful to the Lady's cause were given the most screentime, and as a result came off as more heroic than the actual suppossed heroes. And, to finish with my own negative critiques, I had difficulty seeing what the overall message was that the animals wanted the human vessels to hear. The majority of critiques I've read of the film pay particular attention to the arrogance of Shyamalan shown through the film. While I have read a number of articles that point to a definite ego and insularity the filmmaker is unfortunately guilty of, I think many of the critics comments are unwarranted. First off (and I'd say most importantly to note), Shyamalan didn't depict himself as a "hero whose writing would change the world in the future." Yes, his character is promised this fate in the film. But the character is a social/political commentary. He's not making movies. He's actually cast off as quite humble, though a bit of a smart ass to his sister. He doesn't seem to take himself to seriously at first, but rather just wants to get down in writing a few ideas of what he sees as wrong in America. Shyamalan, unless I'm REALLY missing something, has (aside from the Village, perhaps my favorite of his films) never had political commentaries in his films. I don't even know what his political beliefs are. "Lady in the Water" never reveals the particular characters beliefs, thus saving it from being overly partisan. I also do not think the films depiction of "critics" should be taken THAT seriously...though the critics I've read thus fart, particularly Roger Ebert (my personal favorite) show an enormity of sympathy for Mr. Farber (played hilariously by Bob Balaban). Yes, Mr. Farber is an isolated, antisocial literary and film prick who thinks he has the concept of story mastered. And yes, Shyamalan probably was trying to send a sort of pre-emptive strike against the films inevitable cultured despisers. Still, Mr. Farber's main flaw wasn't the very fact that he was a critic, or even that he was arrogant about it. In his own odd way he was quite helpful to the quest and the Lady. Rather, his fault was the isolated life he chose to live. He shows no interest at all in his neighbors, is grumpy, and is totally unapproachable. Worst of all, he has no love for stories any longer. His approach to critiquing them and his social behavior destroys any passion he may have once had for the stories that connect people together. I think this is a sin many critics are often guilty of, and I'm glad to see it in a movie. The films biggest fault in its depiction of him (and criticism in general) is the disturbing way his death is shown, and the untactfull comic relief incorporated in it. Yes, Lady in the Water was pretty silly. But it was, I must admit, very fun to watch. It was refreshing to be brought back to to the world of fairy tales, albeit imperfectly. And even if the film doesn't change the world (and I'm pretty sure it won't), it at least brought us back a certain "childlike spirit" in reviving good ol' fashion "Big Bad Wolf" stories that many of us miss . Expand
  89. AaronA.
    Jul 29, 2006
    10
    Tremendous film. The critics missed the point entirely.
  90. MarkD.
    Jul 31, 2006
    6
    Better than reviews! Snobby movie critic probably made most critics angry and snipey.
  91. JohnC.
    Jul 31, 2006
    10
    A very good film. Ive read many reviews by closedminded people who apparently did not see the film for what it is. Paul Giamatti is definitly in the running for Best Actor with a stellar performance. The reason I believe some critic are giving film lower marks is because it is made by Shamalan, and it did not live up to what they expected. It could have had a few things dont differently A very good film. Ive read many reviews by closedminded people who apparently did not see the film for what it is. Paul Giamatti is definitly in the running for Best Actor with a stellar performance. The reason I believe some critic are giving film lower marks is because it is made by Shamalan, and it did not live up to what they expected. It could have had a few things dont differently but all and all it is a pretty solid film. The bottotm line is go see the film, but do not go in expecting anything. And take the film as its giving, and hopefully you will see it the way I did and enjoy it. Expand
  92. ShaunM.
    Aug 11, 2006
    9
    I love how people are so dumb and unperceptive. This is an excellent movie. Of course the critics didn't like this movie... the movie bashes critics outright! Whatever. Go see this and look forward to a DIFFERENT experience instead of all the mindless drivel that seems to pollute the screens nowadays.
  93. EleazarJ.
    Aug 12, 2006
    5
    This movie has too much characters to boot which can easily confuse casual viewers. Also too much mumbo-jumbo words referring to the creatures and the resident's role in fulfilling their part. A sheer dissapointment when compared to 'The Village'. I want more unexpected endings!
  94. thatguy
    Aug 13, 2006
    9
    i have NO IDEA why the critics dissed this film so bad! thi smovie was much better than the though-low-rated-still-overrated the village. this movie, though it lacked scenes of horror, was a very incredible and beautiful.
  95. Portmix
    Aug 13, 2006
    10
    With ingenius, art and the best suspense since Signs, another good option for original tales seekers.
  96. 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.
  97. AceM.
    Aug 29, 2006
    10
    Bottom Line: Critics trashed this movie only because Shyamalan has the critic character die! I am glad the critic died...NO ONE likes movie critics adn NO ONE listens to them! They complain about nothing original coming out of Hellywood (yes, Hellywood) and then when something VERY original comes out, they trash it! They're idiots! M. Night Shyamalan is one of the great storytellers Bottom Line: Critics trashed this movie only because Shyamalan has the critic character die! I am glad the critic died...NO ONE likes movie critics adn NO ONE listens to them! They complain about nothing original coming out of Hellywood (yes, Hellywood) and then when something VERY original comes out, they trash it! They're idiots! M. Night Shyamalan is one of the great storytellers of our time! A nice, very well done, very clean fantasy. I'm sure the fact that this movie is very clean of sex and profanity, that is another reason the idiot critics trashed it. Expand
  98. RachelC
    Nov 8, 2007
    10
    Unfortunately, promoters continue to advertise Night's movies as horrors because he once made a horror movie that people absolutely love. People go into these movies expecting to be terrified and therefore they lose the story because for some reason they become enraged at the fact that they weren't sickled by blood and gore every 5 minutes. This is a fantasy, The Village was a Unfortunately, promoters continue to advertise Night's movies as horrors because he once made a horror movie that people absolutely love. People go into these movies expecting to be terrified and therefore they lose the story because for some reason they become enraged at the fact that they weren't sickled by blood and gore every 5 minutes. This is a fantasy, The Village was a love story. All of Night's movies are amazing if you just sit down and watch them! This movie is beautiful, the scenes are gripping.. Cut the hatred of Night because people are using him to sell tickets to the horror obsessed. Would you really rather watch Saw 10?? Expand
  99. JamesL.
    Jan 26, 2007
    10
    I loved the movie. I thought it had a lot of heart and a message that is sadly missed in the world today.
  100. DavidR
    Jan 28, 2007
    10
    A masterpiece. Shyamalan proves he is a superb actor. I can only imagine how much better The Sixth Sense and Signs would have been if Shyamalan would have starred instead. I'm interested in seeing where he goes from here. His work is clearly far ahead of it's time and the critics simple-minded opinions.
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. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    50
    What's odd about Lady in the Water is that for all Shyamalan's histrionics, he's overcontrolled.