La dama en el agua

It might sound like a joke, that the master of modern macabre, the man who wove such disturbingly morbid tales like "The Sixth Sense", would write a children's book. But he did. And that's the key to understanding and enjoying this movie.

Sometime after the births of his 3 daughters, Shyamalan found himself, as all parents do, ad-libbing a bedtime story to entertain his younguns. It began as a fairytale set in the family's back yard, weaving creative dimensions around common things like the swimming pool, the sprinklers, the tall grass, etc. Who knows how many such stories were rejected by his toughest critics (his daughters), but this one persisted and became a family favorite. Over time & retelling, he refined it, gave it more depth and got it to the point where he realized that this would make a great children's book like the ones he himself grew up on: "Where the Wild Things Are", "The Giving Tree" and such. Lo & behold, he did it.

Where YOUR story begins is that you're considering whether to watch this movie. "Lady in the Water" (the movie) was intended to accompany the book, not as a cinematic replacement but rather as a way to launch the book. As he says on the DVD interviews, this movie is like a "big brother" to the book, introducing it to the world and then allowing the book to flourish on its own in the years to come as, he hopes, a more enduring work of art.

Therefore, this film is NOT some adult story disguised as a fairytale, not like the darkly humorous "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" (1971) or the bitingly satirical "Edward Scissorhands" (1990) or the very complex & symbolic "Pan's Labyrinth" (2006). No, "Lady in the Water" is a simple, sweet children's story with perhaps a salty coating for adults, but inside it's a children's story nonetheless.

So you're sitting there thinking, "Ok then why is it rated PG-13 instead of G? And why does the trailer show a lot of dark, brooding and creepy shots like in Shyamalan's suspense flicks?" Well, I agree that it's a weird way to present a children's story, but I figure it's Shyamalan's way of reaching out to the adults who might end up reading the book to their kids. The movie does have spots of great acidic humor as only adults will understand. It has moments of violence and frightening visuals. There are some oblique references to pot smoking. And it has a chick who's basically naked through the entire movie (nothing is shown explicitly, but nudity is implied well enough). However, the core story remains very sweet and children's-booky. And that may disappoint many adults who are expecting something more complicated or challenging.

My advice to adults would be to focus not on the plot but instead on the characters. The characters are very well crafted, full of unspoken depth and some with a profound sorrow that's out of place in fairy tales. Paul Giamatti plays the lovable, dorky maintenance guy at the center of the story, but through his excellent performance in brief moments we see that his is deeply haunted by an unspeakable terror in his past. Similarly, Shyamalan himself makes a significant appearance as a secondary character who is haunted by an equally disturbing future. Another character, who only has about 2 lines in the movie, is seen glaring at the world with utter contempt & cynicism--perhaps someone who is haunted by the present. These subtle things are not essential to the fairytale, but they add tremendous characterization for those of us who aren't satisfied with a simple fairytale written for kids.

Oh, I forgot the absolute best character, Bob Balaban who plays a comically arrogant, jaded, cynical film critic who insists that there is no originality left, and all stories are predictable to a fault. He goes so far as to start predicting how his own role in "Lady in the Water" will play out, comically chipping away at the proverbial 4th wall which separates fictional characters from us, the audience. His big scene toward the end of the movie had me absolutely howling.

So there you have it. "Lady in the Water" will certainly not be everyone's cup of tea, but it presents something I've never seen before: a genuine fairytale, perhaps as seen through the eyes of an adult, but still unmistakably written for kids. It's sort of like attending a puppet show where, occasionally the sweaty puppeteer lifts up the curtain and asks someone to get him another beer. I can't think of any other way to describe it.

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-

I think the thing about this movie is that people may go in expecting it to be a weird horror/supernatural thriller. While it does have supernatural elements, its much more of, well, I guess a fairy tale. It's got some great scares but overall it will be enjoyed more if you know ahead of time your not going to be sitting on the edge of your seat.

The theme of "finding your purpose" definitely is poignant in this day and age, I love all the self reflexive humor as far as story structure goes too.

SFX were decent, not awe inspiring but good for what was required. The film is really about the characters though and their arcs. I'd say the film is much more for the introspective crowd than the hardcore comic kids who want plenty of screams.

Wow, people sure do hate this movie. I don't understand why it has engendered such hostility. I mean, I can see problems in the movie that people could object to, but people are calling this the worst movie in years and the like, and I find that completely out of proportion.

So here's what I think: Direction Shyamalan has made movies before featuring ostensible everyman types, but this time he has moved away from Hollywood-everyman to a genuine everyman by casting Paul Giamatti as a sad sack building super. Giamatti is likable and quite funny, and the movie starts off with a breezy humor that instantly made me like it.

There are problems when the plot kicks in with the appearance of a young woman named Story. It turns out she might be a creature called a narf from a Chinese fairytale, so the first problem is, narf isn't remotely Chinese-sounding.

Still, I liked the way the movie builds, as Giamatti tries to help her and discovers neighborliness and credulity aren't dead. I enjoy the movie's optimism about people even if I don't share in it, and I like the way he spreads his typical revelations throughout instead of sticking them all at the end.

While people have claimed the story is slow, I thought it was well paced. And while I can admit to many of the criticized plot holes, I just don't care; it had the feel of a little fairy tale of the modern age, which I found quite charming. And the movie is frequently amusing, which counts for a lot with me.

My main criticism is that Lady in the Water would be a much better film with two minutes taken out. Shyamalan decided to savage movie critics, apparently stung by the deserved panning of The Village (which inexplicably received more positive criticism than this film). That's fine in itself, but in one scene Shyamalan simply steps outside of the movie to make fun of the critic. In itself it's a rather amusing scene, but you don't carefully create an atmosphere and encourage a suspension of disbelief and then just shock the audience into the real world in a petty act of vengeance. Shyamalan ignores one of the fundamental rules of film making; if any scene, even if it's the best scene in the film, takes away from the whole, you cut it. I'm very disappointed in Shamalyan for allowing his bitterness to trump his common sense.

It's a small thing, and I won't say it ruined the movie, but it was jarring. And perhaps that's part of why the reviews are so bad, because that scene made people drifting along on the movie's logic snap awake and start thinking about everything that was wrong. Although that's just a theory. Anyway, cut out that two minutes and it would be a considerable improvement.

As for people complaining the movie isn't that scary, well, I don't think it was trying to be that scary. I do think the director's intent is more important than what he's done in other movies. Just because he usually tries to scare us doesn't mean he is this time; I think he was just going for some mild suspense.

Anyway, while others are saying Shyamalan has lost it, but for me he's been consistent; one good movie, one bad one. Sixth Sense (great), Unbreakable (tedious, but interesting ending), Signs (good movie, tremendous ending), The Village (wretched) and Lady in the Water (funny and charming).

So I don't have high hopes for the next one, but this one was quite enjoyable.

First off, I can see why this film is going to be a box-office flop and why critics and audiences alike will not like it. I, who usually disagrees with most audiences, at least, thoroughly enjoyed this film. The storyline itself is rather ridiculous, I must say. Some girl shows up in a pool? She's a what-a narf? I went into the movie thinking I would hate it, but I came out knowing that I had seen a work of art. That's right. It was art.

First of all, it's a good family film, with enough tense moments to keep you watching, and enough laugh-out-loud moments to calm you down. It was refreshing for once to see a film with good, clean humour. The dialogue was not necessarily hilarious, but the actors, especially Paul Giamatti (Cleveland) delivered the lines extremely well.

The acting was tremendously well done also. Paul Giamatti is always fantastic, and while Bryce Dallas Howard seemed to act in the same manner as she did in The Village, she was still convincing. The ensemble cast worked well together. Some might bash M. Night for casting himself in a not-so-cameo role, but he proved that he can actually act! No, his performance will not win him an Oscar, nor should it, but I think there is definite talent there. I hope to see him in bigger roles, in films not his own.

The plot had many twists, maybe too many, but no matter. I kept trying to guess what was going to happen, but it I was always wrong. It was quite interesting.

What most made this film a work of art was the directing. M. Night has a rare talent that will go completely under the radar for this film because no one will see it. The camera angles were inventive-that's right, inventive. I may be one of the few who actually cares about camera angles and how a scene looks, but it looked great. The final product was polished.

I truly believe this film is M. Night's best work. He made the story up himself, wrote a screenplay that made us laugh, smile, cringe, and jump just a little, and directed a great ensemble cast including himself. Quite a feat.

So before everyone starts ranting about how stupid the storyline is or how "so-not-scary" the film is, just appreciate the uniqueness of the film, and remember what makes this film good. Forget the crazy story. It's everything else!