This is probably the best film based on a story that shouldn't have been made into a movie in the first place. Inspired by bedtime stories M. Night Shyamalan told his children, this film is visual enticing with a runaway plot. It is supposed to have a fairy tale feel but it is unlike any Brother's Grimm I have ever encountered. It is part Gandhi, part Snow White, with a little bit of 'It's a Wonderful Life' thrown in for good measure.
The movie has too much back-story. Bryce Dallas Howard, Ron's daughter, plays the 'lady' who is a sea nymph also called a 'narph' or something like that. These narphs/sea nymphs used to tell humans our future until humans no longer listened and pursued private property on land. Because of this, sea nymphs and humans parted ways. Now the narphs have returned to save humanity from itself by offering the occasional young narph occupancy in bodies of water such as apartment pools. Do you have that? Good, because there are creatures that hunt narphs that look like a cross between Astroturf and wolves which I will refer from now on as an 'astrowolf.' There are also monkeys that look like those trees from 'The Wizard of Oz'- the ones that talked and threw fruit at Dorothy and friends. Of course, there are rules that govern the behaviors of narphs, astrowolves, and wood/tree monkeys (which may or may not be evil) but what if the narph is a special narph? Gee, I hope I haven't spoiled the movie for anyone.
It isn't so much that the audience doesn't accept the sea nymph story, but would an apartment building full of eclectic individuals and families readily believe that the girl doing late night laps in their pool is a narph sent to inspire and save humanity? Even by Hollywood standards, would renters risk life and limb to help a narph they have just met escape the clutches of the astrowolf before she can fly home on a giant eagle (I kid not)? This part of the story seems to channel bad Speilberg movies from the 80's (the ones where all the children were adorable and all the old people downright precocious). The apartment complex is a United Nations of different folk who live in units that reflect their ethnicity like an exhibit at Epcot Center.
My favorite neighbor is the guy who is conducting a fitness experiment on his own body. He is building his right side up while leaving his left unchallenged so he resembles a lopsided Hulk. We are told he is harmless, but come on, is this someone who you would really feel safe around when alone with him in the laundry room?
Like a federal public school mandate, everyone at the complex has a special talent which is why they are preordained for this narph mission. They must fulfill assigned roles (even if they aren't aware they have been assigned roles in the drama) to save humanity. If all goes as planned humans will be better off and their personal pool narph can lead her ocean people…presumably after the giant eagle flies her home.
The acting is good. If anyone can play a sea nymph, it is Howard. She has a pale pallor that can easily pass for other-worldly or an arsenic eater. Paul Giamatti is believable as the overworked apartment manager/maintenance man who stutters and has a secret. Shyamalan casts himself, in his largest role yet, as a writer verged on writing a world-changing opus. Wishful thinking perhaps?
The script in 'Lady' is disjointed, there are some very clever scenes (the movie critic who is literally torn to pieces, a nod to his metaphorical power of tearing into movies) but there are too many scenes weighed down by the fine details of the story. Comparing it to the 'Harry Potter' films, which also include weird details, it is easier to accept terms like 'muggle' and 'quidditch' because the original source was a well-known novel. In many ways I wish Shyamalan had written this as a novel instead as a script because the tale would have worked much better in a longer version.
Visually the movie works. The idea of a sea nymph living in apartment pool is very cool. Although the astrowolf sounds dumb, it is scary. The thing has red eyes that stay with you as you drive home on a two lane highways that has little traffic. Personally, I wish more had been done with the morally ambivalent tree monkeys.
I think this movie would have benefited from more initial script editing. M. Knight Shymalan is one of my favorite directors because his stories always come from his unique perspective. He sets trends instead of following them. Even when I have guessed his signature twists I still find myself entertained. I understand he left Disney, the studio that backed all of his previous films, when they balked at this movie. This movie is an unfortunate example of an artist willing to risk much for a project that is not yet worth the effort. It is his weakest film thus far.
Still, a Shyamalan film is always better than most. Overall, I would say this movie is worth catching when it comes to cable, maybe even when released as a DVD, but isn't worth the eight to ten dollars for a theater viewing.


Comments: 28
I love your review, Lisa -- a little hard to tell if you enjoyed it as the director intended his audience to enjoy it, but that's his fault for making a movie that, from what you say, wasn't quite ready for release. Should have thrown this one back and let it mature.
I just don't think I can dislike it so much if it got you to write such a fun review.
I thought Bryce Howard was really good in the movie 'The Village.' She doesn't have much of a role here except to look delicate and brave. I warn you, if you do catch this flick on cable, she does look a lot like her father.
My problem is, I am no fan of Shymalan. I am skeptical that he feels the need to put himself into each of his films -- to me, it sort of says something like, in case you don't like my screenplay, how about my acting??
Thanks for the review.
Barbara, thank you for the compliments. If you aren't' a Shyamalan fan you are not going to even remotely like this film. Like you, I have noticed he is giving himself bigger roles. I hope he isn't seriously thinking anyone would like his acting over his directing/screen writing because...(insert cliché here).
Thanks for posting your review's URL on my review...you have an interesting perspective on the film...I think you just missed out on the humor, it seems, which is why you may feel too many scenes were weighed down with details (a lot of those scenes I just thought were very funny, not necessarily laugh out loud humor...some of it was subtle, but funny nonetheless).
This just seems like a film whether you either love it or hate it.
Here's my review for anyone who missed it:
Lady in the Water - LOVED IT!
To me, it reeked too much of arrogance and self importance.
It was like Shyamalan was making this film more for himself than the general public and as much as I like to think and analyze, I still need to be entertained and thats one thing the film did not accomplish for me.
P.S. you spelled narf wrong.
review was greatly informative, get real or actually WATCH THE MOVIE!I mean come on Lisa is not always right! Lisa you sound like the one writer in the movie who thought he knew everything about plots and ended up getting torn apart do to that, hope it doesn't happen to you.
Wow Carly, I don't know what to say. I take it you didn't like the review. As far as spelling 'narf' I have seen it spelled 'narph' and my spelling 'narf' in magazines. I described the movie as I saw it, and quite honestly by box office receipts, I dare say my view of the movie was pretty much on par with what other audience members saw...unless you want to assume that my little review of the film had a huge affect on driving people away from the theater of which I can only humbly add damn.
For the record, I was clear about what the story was about, I just thought it was a waste of talent (in many ways I was kind in my review because I do like M. Night Shyamalan's work, 'Signs', 'The Village', 'The Sixth Sign' are all movies I loved watching on a big screen). Part of my article was written in fun. Come on, astrowolves? Further, there were too many elements literally borrowed from really bad Speilberg films from the 80's - elements that should never have reared their cinematic heads again.
The thing about writing reviews as a lay person is that I am a paying member of the audience and thus judge a movie by if I think it is worth the X amount of dollars it took to get into the theater. Part of the experience also includes the annoying trend of multi-plexes that show numerous commercials before the previews. I tend to also include occasions where I think certain movies will be enjoyed, a lazy afternoon shopping with friends versus a date movie versus a serious piece of film making that might not leave the audience happy, but more informed or enlightened. In the end some movies, especially character driven pieces, might be better viewed at home where as movies with special effects might be more appreciated on the screen even if the story is weak and the characters dull.
As far as being the writer who knew everything about plot, suffice to say I am not that jaded. I think part of your issue with the review was that I didn't like a movie that is obviously close to your heart. I reviewed it from my perspective and if readers feel the same way about films as I do then the review is valid to them. Remember, you are always free to write your own review.
I watched the movie on a very recent flight. Lisa described this movie exactly... and why on earth would someone NOT write a review if they found a movie confusing or done in a stupid way? That is exactly when a person should write a damn review. You are a freakin idiot.
Lisa.. loved the review. I happened to enjoy this movie a bit more than you, but I still enjoyed your take on it and can see where you are coming from. 10.
On the same page, I just saw 'Night at the Museum' last night and although I thought it was a fun movie, something you could take the kids too but still enjoy as an adult, I don't know if it would be better at home with all of the special effects. In fact, if I saw it at home I might not have enjoyed it at all, but watching it on the big screen and laughing with a full theater crowd I would recommend seeing it in the theaters.