I Realy Enjoyed this movie, When i first saw it was on a Saturday night when nothing was showing in my country, it was one of the first pictures i saw from the hands of M night shamalyan. The Movie isn great on Effects, or acting, the characters are just basic run of the mill type of people which is good and it works for the story, The story is more of a basic buildup with climatic last 15 mins, and figuring out wat there dealing with. In tru m Night shamalyan style. he tells this like as a modern fairy tale with an array of Arch type of characters (The Thinker, The fighter, The Healer) that sort of stuff.

Also the lore about the narf an the scrunt was nice component to the story telling, it left me as viewer of this movie thinking and wondering about its origins.

M night who tributes this to his time telling story's to his children before he sleeps. would also write a book to coincide with this movie. it detailed more about the scrunt, Narf eathon roles and mythology.

Definatly not a blockbuster movie, But damm i wouldn't mind seeing it again :-) it truly enjoyed it for what it is.

A strange effort that aims to capture the innocence and vibrancy of children's fairy tales in a more adult setting. It's intensely repetitive, with a plot that's only advanced via a series of chats with a superstitious old woman, and outright refuses to decide between serious or lighthearted material; both emotions tug at the narrative in a few bizarre, important scenes that just don't work.

M. Night Shyamalan has always had a slightly aloof nature to his films that's never felt completely at home with its surroundings, but in the past he's been able to lean back on the immense ambience of his premise and some great cinematography to compensate. Here, with neither of those skills showing their best, his odd idiosyncrasies are lain bare.

Casting Bryce Dallas Howard as the titular lady was a smart choice, with her nymphian, otherworldly appearance giving the role a certain validity, but Paul Giamatti is merely okay as the weirdly comical stuttering maintenance man at the root of all the drama. The only other cast member worth mentioning is Shyamalan himself, who climbs into the role of the nonplussed creative genius, destined to indirectly shape and inspire a happy future. Take that for what you will. Lady in the Water has the echoes of a few good ideas reverberating through it, but they're never adequately reined in or solidified. Let's call it below average, and I think that's being pretty generous.

A funny thing here is that I actually saw this in the cinema. To be honest I was busy doing other things at that time, and I always had the impression that this movie was passable. Now, 11 years later, I wanted to watch it again since I didn't remember anything from it at all.

And wow. What can I say? It's unbelievable that this abomination ever got sent to cinemas! When the movie ended I was literally questioning how that could have been possible. To say the least, it's one of the worst movies ever made, and to some extent it seemed to had been almost created intentionally awful. How else do you explain the acting from Paul Giamatti, which is by leaps and bounds one of the worst acting performances I have ever seen. Many of the support cast is bad too, but nothing compares to the lead role here. And the plot, I don't even know where to begin, it is simply atrocious. And boring. And completely nonsensical. And the directing is a trainwreck - it really seemed as if many shots are done awfully on purpose here too because how else would you explain it? But why would anyone do such a thing to his own movie? For some laughs maybe? Let me tell you, this movie is so bad that it's not even laughable, and I am not kidding. Nothing is funny here and it even started to get on my nerves towards the end.

It's also a complete joke how the movie does some of the most pathetic attempts I have ever seen at being clever. Like having a character talking about how people usually die in a horror movie and how cliche this and that is, and then the movie actually breaks the pattern, and if that wasn't pathetic enough, the way it does so is by the most PG friendly way I have ever seen, making the joke fall so flat that I am at a loss for words.

And I guess the ending is supposed to be a joke? Right? Like the rest of the movie then? I have no idea honestly, but it misfires with such a huge margin that it doesn't matter anyway. I have no idea what Shyamalan was doing here but he should be ashamed over each and every aspect of this movie. There are many movies that I don't like, but this and "Lights Out" are the only 2 movies I have ever wondered how they could be passed to cinemas. It's just so many levels down from what anyone could call a passable movie for any audience whatsoever. If you haven't got the hint yet, you shouldn't see this movie.

So, you watch Lady in the Water and you're like, "Really? Really. At least the can't get much worse than this." OK. M. Night. I appreciate that you tried to tell an unconventional story but you're still messed it up. And it's not like you can't tell an unconventional story and make a good movie at the same time, I mean, Burn After Reading is a good example. And if you really want to break the rules of conventional film making, you could make something like the Holy Mountain. I've got a good idea for unconventional story: how about at the end, it turns out that the lady was just crazy, and that everything they were doing was complete false. One of the characters is a critic, who we're all supposed to hate, because apparently criticism is bad, But the biggest problem with this movie is that it's honestly just a cluster. The only things we're supposed to care about, are things that we're told to care about. It's just nonsense. It's just an absolute mess. And if vilifying the critic in the movie wasn't bad enough, M. Night casts himself as the chosen one; a writer whose works will change the world, even though it is not yet understood in his present time. Does this mean he's trolling? Does this mean that he's been, like, trolling since The Sixth Sense, and he just decided, "You know what? I'm gonna go downhill." Maybe he'll pull a Jean-Claude Van Damme effect, where he'll make a buncha bad movies in a row and then something that not that bad, and then people will go crazy. Anyway, M. Night kills off the critic, because he doesn't like critics. Overall rating: why?

_**Moving magical tale at an apartment complex in Philadelphia**_

A superintendent at an apartment building in a suburb of Philadelphia (Paul Giamatti) discovers an innocent redhead in the pool (Bryce Dallas Howard) who needs the assistance of several tenants to escape the creatures that threaten her and her mission.

"Lady in the Water" (2006) is a drama/fantasy based on a bedtime story that writer/director M. Night Shyamalan told his kids. Like most Shyamalan pictures there’s a moving reverent ambiance amidst the amusing and sometimes horrific dramatics. It’s very original, coming across as a Shyamalan flick mixed with elements of fantasy movies, like “The Wizard of Oz” (1939). Think about it, “The Wizard of Oz” meshed a family drama with a dreamlike fantasy involving wonder, humor and slight horror along with a profound message, and so does this film (which isn’t to say it’s as effective as “Wizard”).

The set of the apartment complex and the cinematography thereof combined with James Newton Howard’s score are all superb. Plus there are some amusing moments, like with the dour film critic (Bob Balaban). Similar to “Signs” (2002), there’s a good theme about coming to grips with tragedy and moving on with a newfound sense of purpose. Moreover, Bryce is very appealing as the naïve fantasy creature and the movie leaves you with a warm feeling.

On the negative side, the somewhat convoluted fable will be less than compelling for certain viewers and some critics understandably complained that it was a mistake for Shyamalan to cast himself as the writer whose words are the seeds to changing the world, although it didn’t bother me; I think he’s perfect for the role. Still, M. Night casting himself as the savior of the freakin’ planet is a tad pretentious.

The film runs 1 hour, 49 minutes, and was shot in Levittown, Pennsylvania, a suburb northeast of Philadelphia.

GRADE: B-