Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 36 Critics What's this?

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 379 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 36
  2. Negative: 14 out of 36
  1. If the ultimate goal is entertainment, then Lady in the Water enthusiastically rises to the task. In a movie laden with enough symbolism, shamanism and mythic lore to make Joseph Campbell dance a tribal jig, Shyamalan never forgets to have fun.
  2. 58
    The man has gifts -- but acting and, it's increasingly clear, storytelling aren't among them.
  3. Lady in the Water boasts an eclectic cast - almost entirely squandered.
  4. 40
    Lady in the Water feels very much like something its author made up as he went along; and, if it weren't so damn weird, it would most certainly put you right to sleep.
  5. Reviewed by: Michael Phillips
    The film is a rogue hunk of hooey.
  6. 33
    If you're not a fan of M. Night Shyamalan's convoluted, teasing thrillers, you'll find that getting into this movie is like cracking a puzzle in which the constructor keeps breaking his own rules or grabbing new ones from ultra-thin air.
  7. This cloying piece of claptrap sets a high-water mark for pomposity, condescension, false profundity and true turgidity -- no small accomplishment for the man whose last two features were the deadly duo "Signs" and "The Village."

See all 36 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Negative: 50 out of 215
  1. JoS.
    Jul 26, 2006
    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. Expand
  2. Portmix
    Aug 13, 2006
    With ingenius, art and the best suspense since Signs, another good option for original tales seekers.
  3. ShereefE.
    May 8, 2007
    I believe the people reviewing this movie are too sick to understand the truthness of Night's movies. You all seem to judge Night's movies on the basis of them being Horror movies. BUT THEY ARE NOT HORROR MOVIES!! As some, who may sometimes be able to open their minds to new ideas, may have noticed, all of his films relate to a certain important topic on life: such as religion, self-hate, self-ignorance, society and it's corruption on people, and even politics. If one just looks at the trailer, thinking that Night takes on the Horror genre at full, and runs to watch a movie they hope will present headless ghouls, bloody beasts, gruesome monsters and all the like (IMO this type of horror film is disgusting, and it has evolved in the last 10 years devastatingly, perhaps to keep the people's minds off what is truly horrible in this world), it is only normal that they will be dissapointed. However, if one goes into the Theatre with a clear conscience on his mind, he will soon realise the pureness of the film. This review is not only for The VIllage, but also for all the other Night movies that I feel were undoubtedly underrated, such as The VIllage or Signs. Some people are unable to understand that Night does not undertake the Horror genre as his dominating genre, he simply uses it to spice up his film and make it slightly more enticing and eye-grabbing for the people. And again, one must always remember that the horror genre has moved to heights that were before unimaginable. So to compre Night's horror with these new horrors would be to compare something non-comparable. That is all I have to say. I hope you will take this review seriously, and remember that I am not writing this review in hate towards the mainstream reviews, but simply in anger towards how they rate such movies that do not comply to one genre alone. Peace to you all. Expand
  4. David
    Aug 4, 2006
    critics have been much to severe on this flick, its not "signs" or "sixth sense", but, it is a great fairy tale telling, with the odd characters we have to expect from this screenwriter. that a character playing a film/book critic is the only victim of a grizzly (off screen) death, likely motivated most of the red ink. well worth matinee money! Expand
  5. May 6, 2011
    Meh. This movie is a little too heavy-handed for its own good, but if you can forgive that, then it turns out to be a pretty good fairy tale horror-fantasy with some decent scares and laughs. Expand
  6. D.C.
    Aug 9, 2006
    I find it very interesting that Shyamalan has such a cult following by some and can be dismissed by others (especially critics at times). I think this film desrves all the comments here... it is good in some respects (atmosphere, cinematography, some of the acting) and pretty formulaic in many others. I think Shyamalan tries hard to establish himself as another Hitchcock and I think this is part of the problem. Every new generation of filmgoers wants an auteur to call their own (especially one with such a cool name) and that perhaps explains all the 9's and 10's people are giving it here. At the same time, the 1's are not fair either. But I do understand the low scores as Shyamalan is beginning to feel like another Tarantino as his films have a hard time living up to the high expectations and hype. The film is fairly decent but I would say rent it. Shyamalan stands out from the mostly crap that is coming out of Hollywood these days, but there are much more compeling and interesting films (independent and international) to see out there. Expand
  7. MarkC.
    Jul 21, 2006
    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. Expand

See all 215 User Reviews