Break out the Natalie Imbruglia records. It seems critics are slightly ”Torn” when it comes to reviewing M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water. (EW’s own Lisa Schwarzbaum gives it a C.) It’s not that most of them like the movie (they don’t, especially not San Jose Mercury News’s cheeky Bruce Newman), but it’s worth noting that even some of the harshest reviews had something kind to say about the fairy tale-chiller about a superintendent (Paul Giamatti) who finds a creature named Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) in the swimming pool. So how do they really feel about the Lady? Read on to find out, and be sure to post your own thoughts if you catch the flick this weekend.
Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times:"In a multiplex world teeming with remakes, recycled TV shows, sequelsand superheroes, M. Night Shyamalan makes giant art-house movies. Lady in the Wateris a bedtime fairy tale making a very bumpy transition to a mainstreamthriller, but even when it’s almost howlingly bad, it’s an interestingride."
Terry Lawson, Detroit Free Press: "If [it] all sounds a little too programmed and precious, that’s because it is. And anyone who has read Joseph Campbell’s The Power of Myth or The Hero With a Thousand Faces — or even spent too much time with Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings — may find this Ladynot just overly familiar but juvenile. Yet it is also beautifullycomposed and elemental, not to mention funny, a great relief followingthe resolutely straight-faced The Village."
Jack Matthews, Daily News: "Lady,like all of Shyamalan’s movies, is a slick production with consistentlyinteresting visuals. And the scrunt, a wolf-size beast with a bristlygrass coat, will give kids a good fright. But the story is soconvoluted and ultimately preposterous that you’re almost embarrassedby the earnestness of the actors trying to carry it off."
Geoff Pevere, Toronto Star:"A rare being who believes fervently in originality, style, metaphysicsand artistry — and all in the context of pop art — [Shyamalan] isalso the best boardroom argument against the future nurturing of suchbeings. If loopy, obfuscating self-indulgence is the most feared resultof the pampered, young, studio-subsidized ego, Shyamalan is the posterboy for committee-made blockbusters, and Lady in the Water will become an abject lesson in what happens when genius gets the keys to the kingdom."
Mike Clark, USA Today:"I suppose one can’t complain that today’s Hollywood is too homogenizedand then get mega-snotty when someone hands us a mold-breaker. The NewYork Times’ A.O. Scott wrote a great article last year about howtoday’s micromanaged film production philosophies no longer allow forhigh-profile howlers (or follies, or whatever you want to call them) ofyore. Guess what, gang? ‘Yore’ is back."
Desson Thomson, Washington Post:"It’s easy to see why Disney, Shyamalan’s backer for his previous fourmovies, withdrew from the project after reading the script. Lady in the Water,now a Warner Bros. film, is more complex — and just plain weird –than anything he has attempted before… But Disney’s withdrawal is again for viewers who value fanciful storytelling that’s not afraid tofollow its most eccentric impulses. Shyamalan has never shied fromhigh-wire risk, and the very unevenness of his work, ranging from thesublime Sixth Sense to the disastrous The Village, istestament to that courageous sensibility. Should commercialconsideration always be the sine qua non, the lodestar of Americanfilmmaking? Hopefully not. If the ultimate goal is entertainment, then Lady in the Water enthusiastically rises to the task."
Manohla Dargis, New York Times: "There are moments of charm in Lady in the Water,along with funny bits, some intentional, others not, and a satisfyinglybig ‘boo!’ It’s always pleasant to spend time with Mr. Giamatti, whodoes most of the heavy lifting as a battered soul in need of healing,though Cleveland’s haunted eyes suggest it isn’t emotional succor he’sdesperately in need of. Unfortunately, while Ms. Howard’s character,the regrettably named Story, spends a lot of the film wet, she’s one ofthose juiceless virginal fantasies who inspire pure thoughts, nobledeeds and stifled yawns. Disney’s Little Mermaid comes off like a trampby comparison."
Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: "Although not technically a horror film, Lady in the Watercontains a number of well-orchestrated jolts (Shyamalan is a master atunsettling his audience), but there are not nearly enough of them tosatisfy the scary-movie crowd. And despite the childlike nature of thestory, Lady in the Water will prove too confusing for mostkids, which is a shame, since they’re also the ones most like to greetthat giant-eagle business with something other than a derisive laugh."
Comments (1-21) of 21 Add your comment
Screw the critics. In this era of remakes and remakes of remakes, M. Night Shyamalan’s films are a breath of fresh air. Hitchcock he is not. But if there is one contemporary director that may one day be able to fill his enormous shoes, it is M. Night.
I will see LADY IN THE WATER this weekend. Although I do not think it will be a giant blockbuster, I think it will do just as well as THE VILLAGE (which wasn’t a bomb because it grossed twice as much as it cost to make).
Plus any movie with Paul Giamatti, I’m so there. Of course there was that BIG MOMMA’S HOUSE fiasco… (crickets chirpping)
I am torn too – I have enoyed all of Shamalama’s films for most of the reasons the reviewers stated above – but I’ve heard him in a few interviews this week, and MAN that guy is an egotistical jerk! He rambled on about how all critics just want him to make meaningless popcorn fluff and want to stamp out films that are “art” – huh? and went on to declare that preview audiences were so moved because his movie changed their lives, because it’s so much MORE than a movie. Gimme a break. Now I don’t want to see it, just because this guys is such a knucklehead.
When it comes to MNS I just don’t get the hype. I liked The Sixth Sense but HATED (and that’s putting it mildly) Unbreakable and haven’t seen a film of his since and have no intentions of starting now. I am all for a healthy ego, but he just seems to go beyond that and for some reason I can’t seperate his films from his obnoxious personality.
I did however enjoy his American Express ad – I thought it was kind of fun.
I don’t pay attention to critics as a prelude to deciding whether to see a movie – I just like reading their critiques (sometimes). I see what I want to see.
And I fully ditto djm – Night lost his compass, possibly because absolute power corrupts. It seems that instead of having a necessary sophomore slump/fearles moral inventory, he bronzed his own PR and developed a Narcissus-like fascination for it.
Artists and creators are a quirky lot, and they do deserve to be nurtured, as kinglouie says. But today’s Hollywood isn’t the place for that nurturing. It’s sad that an original voice got eaten alive by its own ego, because The Sixth Sense was deeply fab.
But the rest? Feh.
woot woot for the San Jose Mercury News!!! I love when my home town paper gets mentioned!!
MNS needs an intervention. His ego is going to be the end of his career. This film is laughably bad.
I’ll eventually watch it on DVD but I don’t want to waste 10.75 on glub, glub, glub.
With all the unnessary movie remakes, tv-to-movie remakes, sequels, prequels, and reimaginings, at least MNS tries to come up with something original. Granted the trick endings to his films don’t always work, but at least he’s trying.
I am one of the few who loved The Vilage, but I won’t be seeing this. It just looks dumb. And after Signs(one of the worst movies I have seen, ever) I will not just see something because of M Night anymore.
I am not a big MNS fan (I’ve called him M. Night Shyama-lama-ding-dong and am not pround of it) but I think people want “Lady in the Water” to be bad. There is a possibility that the extremely egotistical not-incredibly-creative writer/director has actually made a good movie…
The problem lies in hype. People want every movie he makes to be “The Sixth Sense” and that’s impossible. He can only follow his creative vision (a vision that does include narfs but a vision nonetheless) and hope it will be good… If people like it, great. If people don’t like his vision, then we need to stop talking about him because the more attention he gets, the more movie studios greenlight his movies that people think are bad… Night, we can’t miss you if you don’t go away…
I cannot read the word “narf” without thinking of Pinky & the Brain. “Narf!”
I see empty theaters……
May I remind you the critics hated Pirates of the Caribbean 2 weeks ago, and that made a killing in the box office.
HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE MOVIE. dont waste youre life or money. ridiculous. and may I remind you that pirates may have done well, but that is due to the over hype and selling out of the movie. and Pirates was horrible, stupid ending that forces the viewer to watch the movie without choice, just to find an ending.
Here’s my nice thing to say – it was funny. Not all of the humor was on purpose, but it was very funny. I think Shyamalan would be a sucessful comedy writer. He was not, however, succesful with this flick.
I loved “Lady in the Water.” It was a fairy tale, pure and simple. Those expecting a twist ending or horror movie-like scares won’t like it. But it’s a simple, beautifuly made tale of magic and ordinary people being able to do extraordinary things. Parts of it were very funny and also very suspenseful. People have no problem accepting stories like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars which are pure fantasy, and that’s how I saw this movie. Make fun of terms like “narf” and “scrunt” all you want, but are they any less weird than “orks,” “Klingons,” or “jedi?”
Well, there go his chances at directing the next “Harry Potter” for Warners…THANK GOD.
I loved “Unbreakable,” but he seems to think he’s a combination of Kubrick and Spielberg these days…and he isn’t even close.
I’m not so surprised to hear it flopped, but I don’t think it’s entirely about MNS. Lady in the Water had no bankable stars headlining it. Howard and Giamatti are great actors, but not the sort I’d go to a movie just to see.
Rev up the DVD players… No more M. Night in cinemas for me after the travesty that was ‘The Village.’
See you at home M. Night.
I had no desire to see this movie, but went with a friend…late, to the movies Saturday night. It happened to be the only movie not sold out left to see. I must admit, I was very surprised I liked it as much as I did. I agree with the posting by maggie, it was simply a fairy tale, nothing more. It was a beautifully told story without violence, questionable language or super villans. Was it the best movie I’ve ever seen? Not even close…but was it an enjoyable movie that made me feel good after seeing it? ABSOLUTLY. Don’t take it too seriously and you might enjoy it too.
Aarrgh! I’m mad. I did not have a chance to see this movie this weekend (although with the final numbers, it looks like that would not have made much difference). I’m still planning to see it in theatres.
I agree with the post below that the “no bankable star” factor hurt the movie. Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson catapulted SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS to blockbuster numbers. Maybe if MNS had casted Johnny Depp as the “narf” they movie would have made $100 million in its first weekend.
I did however took my nephew to see MONSTER HOUSE (ok, more like dragged my nephew) and thought it was very enjoyable. Highly recommend it.