Released: 09/01/06

Viewed: 7:10 pm 09/02/06

Starring: Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jeffery Write, Bob Balaban, Freddy Rodriguez, Sarita Choudhury

Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan

Warner Brothers Official Site of the Movie

About the Comic:

I was shocked to come back from my honeymoon the last week of July and find out just how little moviegoers cared about Lady in the Water. I knew the film in terms of storytelling and plot was a risk, and that compared with his other films Lady was somewhat of a departure, but I still expected die hard Shyamalan fans to flock to it. The young director has always had great success at the box office and to hear how Lady floundered in third place and then dropped more then 50% of it’s box office the following week, was quite the surprise.

This comic hit me instantly. I really enjoyed the idea that the movie had no twists, people expect twists, and that Shyamalan would fall for a twist himself. I really wish I had found the time to scrape together a review when the films failure was even somewhat relevant. Does the joke still hold up? Either way, the poster looks bad ass right?

This review is a big boy and I apologies to anyone that’s not really up for that. With most reviews I feel like I’ve got a good perspective on what to edit out and what not to even get into, but with something like this, a movie this old, why NOT analyze it to death? I got a lot to say about Lady in the Water and I figure there must be someone out there that will know what the hell I’m talking about. For those of you not interested, well I hope you at least enjoy the comic. So in the future – shorter. But for now – let’s just get into it!

The Review

Let me start off by saying that I’m pro fairy tale. I like being taken to another world and going on magical adventures that the bitter adult in me realistically knows could never happen, but the child inside refuses to let go of. There aren’t enough stories like this in modern film and the ones that we are given are rarely taken seriously or treated respectfully. It’s nice to see a mature look and the honest reactions of how real people would behave if they suddenly found themselves in the middle of a larger than life children’s fable.

Lady in the Water is a film about the way people think, take in information, and look at life. As a new look at an old subject, Lady glorifies the concepts of an over active imagination and promotes looking at the world through innocent eyes. If we can get past our preconceived notions then a new truth may be revealed.

There’s something to that. Most people want to believe in the unbelievable. Not necessarily fairies and water nymphs, but certainly spirits and angels. Something to look up to, something to believe in, an answer to the unanswerable. Lady in the Water doesn’t offer many answers, but it has enough fictitious mythology, solid acting, and shivering menace to make the film worth seeing. More so than most critics would have you believe.

Substandard ticket sales and dismal reviews practically shut down M. Night Syamalan’s latest film about a sea nymph’s journey to the surface to enlighten mankind. The movie struggled in theaters and was quickly dubbed an utter and complete disaster. Actually the brief description I just gave you sounds lame enough to scare off at least a third of the people reading this but, while Lady is bellow par for it’s crew, it’s not the letdown history has painted.

The great Paul Giamatti stars as Cleveland Heep, the superintendent of a large apartment complex outside Philadelphia. Cleveland is visited by a sea nymph named Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) who is looking for a specific individual to inspire. Her presence will instigate a passion in this man to write a book that will change the world. It then becomes Cleveland’s mission to find this person.

Thus begins the most satisfying portion of the film. The quest to find the author proves to be difficult as several different writers (in one form or another) are established in the opening sequence as Cleveland makes his rounds in the building. Giamatti becomes a stuttering detective crossing off potential leads and doing his best to subtly interrogate the most promising ones. When he eventually finds his target I was afraid the movie would lose its strongest driving force, but the mystery continues as a slew of new players are in need of finding for the ultimate finale.

These little mysteries were definitely the most appealing story device because unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally, I don’t want to sell the creators short on the audience reaction) as a viewer, you’re compelled to play along. Clues and personality traits are revealed to help us find seemingly normal people that the fable brandishes with nicknames like the guardian, the healer, and the group of protectors, among others. The natural impulse is to jump ahead and try to connect the pieces for yourself before Cleveland even has a chance to. I found myself cycling through the initial set-up of the movie’s characters in my head, to try and figure out which personality best matched the nymph’s description.

To my dismay it proved to be painfully obvious. The further I jumped ahead in my own mind the more furious I became at how perfectly the pieces fell into place. I felt deflated and disappointed. It made it all the more surprising when these obvious matches I had picked out for each role failed at their tasks and put the nymph in real danger. At this point, Cleveland beat me to the punch and revealed that what was so obvious to me and anyone with half a brain watching the thing… was wrong.

Brilliant job Shyamalan! You’ve done it again! Secondary characters reveal themselves and step into their intended roles of the fable. Some of these character revelations felt like an interesting twist, the kind where you thump your head and say “Of course! It was there all along. How did I not see it? Go to hell Tara Reid!� while a few were so hurried and underdone that it held no impact whatsoever and ended up, at least a little, hurting the finale. I realized after the film that I spent a good portion of it upset at its obviousness and the rest stunned by how unobvious it was, but that’s the thing. It’s obvious in that it’s not obvious. Follow your first instinct, reach a conclusion and throw it away. The answers should be clear from that point.

Still, analyzing the characters and making my own decisions based on what the movie presented was a lot of fun. And the fact that there are multiple choices for each role will more than likely spur an interesting debate within your mind.

As much as the film has to offer there is far more detracting from it. There’s just too much information. The story was completely dreamt up by Shyamalan, originally conceived as a bedtime story for his children. (I would have loved to make a joke about the movie being so boring that it would naturally put anyone to sleep, but honestly, it’s never really that slow.) I don’t want to go into the details of the fable but there’s layer upon layer of characters from giant eagles to moss covered monkeys, all with different purposes and responsibilities that link together. As one large story, I’m sure it’s a grand masterpiece, but as an outsider it was a blitzkrieg of information that was simply too much to take.

Granted, this isn’t an actual children’s story but the thing about most fables is that they’re told over and over, again and again. People know them not because their simple themes and relatable characters are easy to remember, but because they’ve heard them repeated a million times. Because of repetition, it can be as complicated as you like. As a new fable Shyamalan’s bedtime tale was too much to digest. Lady in the Water suffers the trap of obscurity.

The fable within the movie is grounded in its reality as a fictional Korean fable that is slowly revealed to Cleveland over the course of the first hour. The abundance of information is wisely broken into chunks so that the audience isn’t overwhelmed all at once, but I found myself frustrated with the way it was revealed. Every 20 minutes the messenger of information, the daughter of an old Korean Woman who remembers the story from her youth, would pop in and say “Oh, my mother told me the next part of the story!� “Of course she did! Why doesn’t she just tell you the whole damn thing?� There’s something to be said for good pacing and discloser and how it relates to good storytelling, but the way the fable within the film was handled felt like an afterthought.

Slowly you realize that all the information Cleveland is receiving isn’t really all that important. There are some major figures that have a purpose in the grand scheme of things, but are really just glorified distractions from what’s really going on. That would be fine except the filmmakers already went through so much trouble to explain who these non-essentials are. That’s pretty standard for the movie and at one point they get into explanation mode and every detail is gone over with a fine toothcomb. It was interesting on one level but more annoying than anything else.

At what point does it shift from required clarification to the insulting and underestimation of your audience’s intelligence? Give us a little credit! We can fill in the blanks. There’s something I remember the director of Constantine saying on the commentary track for that DVD. I’m paraphrasing, but he basically said, “You don’t need to explain every little detail. Audiences are savvy enough to realize that this is a magical environment and that the unexplainable can be explained.� Of Course Constantine might not be the best example to use in defense of this point, but in theory, his words are justified. Also, had they not at some point at least mentioned the crazy tree monkeys, it would have been that much weirder when they swing out of the trees and go crazy. So I’m grateful at least for that.

There’s some really strong work form Giammati and Howard in this film. Both are great character actors that shine in the spotlight and somehow make these unexpected heroes very believable.

The supporting cast was perhaps the most important element of the film because there are so many of them and they each represent a different point of view that has to be clear and believable. I think the best of the group is Bob Balaban who plays the logical thinking, jaded film critic. He’s unpleasant at cruel at every turn. He’s depicted as a close-minded figure that can’t see or understand anything outside the realm of rational thought. He even tries to justify his own survival of a wolf attack by reciting movie clichés about unlikable characters redeeming themselves. It doesn’t exactly pan out like he hopes.

The oddest casting is of Shyamalan as the man that will one day write a book that will influence and change the world. A little self-indulgent? Sure, and it definitely takes away some of the clever winking he had in making a film critic the most disagreeable character in the film. But it’s his movie, it’s his choice. It’s not like he’s a bad actor. He comes off very naturally. If he wants to picture himself as the voice of reason in a world gone mad, so be it. I just hope he wasn’t surprised that no one showed up to see it.

So seriously, where were the crowds? Well even though Shyamalan has earned himself an audience, few of those fans would argue against the steady decline of his films over the years. The Sixth Sense was a remarkable debut (not technically his debut, but the first of his wide theatrical career) and is certainly hard to top. It established him as a premier up and coming writer/director with his own unique grasp on storytelling, pacing, and reveal. Even those who had the surprise ending spoiled for them can’t deny the power of the story and the excellence of the craftsmen behind that movie. Shyamalan’s follow up Unbreakable (The comic nerd in me considers it the best of the bunch) continued the theme of ending with a surprise twist. A fantastic movie for the individual film, but something that would eventually come back to bite him in the ass.

The decision would pigeonhole him as the man with the ultimate twists. Twist endings made a big comeback in film, flooding the industry and eventually turning some fans off to the concept. But everyone knew that if it was a Shyamalan film, there was going to be a twist! In the shadow of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable was certainly recognized as a quality film, but almost universally described as, “not as good as it’s predecessor.�

The third film, Signs, starring Mel Gibson as a farmer protecting his family during an alien invasion, forewent the twist and still managed to be the biggest success of Shyamalan’s career. If you look at it there’s no real twist but they take so long to get to a real confrontation with the aliens that it feels like a twist. Either way the story of a large-scale global event told form the perspective of the everyman was so well done that it deserved the big business. As big as Signs became it was still considered a pretender to the throne of Sense.

When The Village rolled around in the summer of 2004 it met mixed reviews and disappointed fans by large but still managed to rake in a pretty penny. I personally feel like it doesn’t live up to the same standard of the three that came before it, but that it is still a shockingly well-made film. The ending is a little obvious and I think some people were turned off by the “period� setting, but its subtle scares and attentive performances presented a compelling thriller. It didn’t meet the standard but it was still better than staying home and watching that damn episode of The Simpsons where the bullied kids ban together and throw water balloons at Nelson. I swear to you, if I see that episode one more time I’m going to kick someone in the elbow.

In interviews proceeding Lady’s release, Shyamalan downplayed the concept of a twist ending describing this new film as a straight story. And it certainly is. The film opens with an animated history of the relationship between man and sea nymphs, which is well done but reveals so much information that I found myself questioning it. Did they tell too much? Would this information be better revealed naturally in the story so that we learn the story along with the characters in the film? These are questions I’m sure Shyamalan asked himself throughout production, and in the end I think he made the right move. The movie is dense with information. What’s presented as the film opens is necessary background that helps build the expectancy of learning the rest of the story and how it all connects to this little community.

Lady’s lack of a twist doesn’t hurt the overall film in my eye. There’s still plenty of drama and tension to keep the story compelling, but there’s not enough of that or enough of a scantily clad Howard to make this film better than what came before. It’s different and comparisons are never fair, but that’s what we’re discussing. And Lady, while good on it’s own, is the slippery, sloppy disappointment of the Shyamalan catalog.

The steady decline of quality in Shyamalan’s films probably had more to do with expectation and anticipation, but it was still prevalent and didn’t help the bad buzz surrounding Lady in the Water. Negative buzz that even included the film’s departure from Disney, the company that had supported Shyamalan’s four previous efforts to a hefty payday. Even with the director’s phenomenal track record, Disney pulled out after having creative concerns with the script. I guess now that they have Pirates running the show they don’t have to throw a bone to the last cycle’s breadwinner. Typical behavior for a bunch of pirates.

It’s hard to say how much Disney’s departure affected the average moviegoers opinion on the film. I’m sure the majority weren’t even aware and could care less. But I think it’s safe to say that when one of the most successful companies in the history of film doesn’t have faith in a particular project, enough so to sever such a successful connection, then there might be something to their decision.

I hate to say it, but they lost me with the original teaser trailer. It featured images of Giamatti sulking and investigating strange noises in the pool, all set to the backdrop of a classical opera tune. There was something so smug and pretentious about it that it instantly turned me off to the project. I still planned to see it because I trust Shyamalan’s capabilities as a filmmaker, but I wonder how many potential patrons were lost by the boisterous haughtiness of this ad campaign. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it.

Did the unlikable film critic in Lady in the Water negatively influence the reviews of the film? Doubtfully. Writing is as much art as filmmaking and I think most creative people have to have a sense of humor about this sort of thing. Still, it can’t always be easy for the critic to take criticism.

Part of me thinks Lady’s failure is a good thing. Shyamalan was doing well. Almost TOO well. While his films were consistently successful they were always eclipsed by his breakout debut. Critically and commercially he’s hit a low and there’s only one way to go from here. If his next film can connect even in the slightest way with an audience then it will be perceived as his “big comeback!� Personally I believe the quality of Lady isn’t faulty enough to label this a complete failure. There’s enough substance for me to recommend Lady in the Water and to say that no comeback is necessary. He hasn’t gone anywhere. But I’ve been reading Entertainment Weekly long enough to know that money talks and a “comeback� is what the master of the twist ending has in his future.

Lady in the Water is more than a unique conceptualization on a familiar subject. It’s also a story about perception and perspective. It challenges us to view the world without judgment and expectation, to see the world as a child and to be open to the unexpected. If we are willing, the possibilities are magnificent. If we aren’t then… I don’t know, a giant grass dog will try and eat us? I kind of got lost in there somewhere.

Rating: 6 out of 10

This poor movie was bashed to hell but it’s not nearly as bad as it has been made out to be. It won’t blow your mind or scare you to death like the rest of Shyamalan’s library of quality, but if you’re willing to drop your expectations and view it from a less suspicious point of view, it just might make a connection

DVD Worthy?:

You know what… I’m not ruling it out. The only Shyamalan film I own on DVD is Unbreakable because I feel it’s one of the most well crafted hero stories of cinematic history. I appreciate the other films for what they are, but was never compelled to lay out money to relive the experience. Lady in the water, of all the other films would probably be the easiest to rewatch. The real question is, “Would I actually want to spend time rewatching it.� I’m undecided, but something is telling me that this film has more to offer then what’s just on the surface.

Recommendation - If You Like this Movie Check Out: Labyrinth

You know Labyrinth. It’s the movie starring Academy Award winner Jennifer Connolly, David Bowie, and a bunch of Muppets. It was practically standard rental material for anyone in my age range when we were all growing up. Labyrinth was so magical and inventive in its storytelling and visuals that it instantly connected with its audience, solidifying itself as a childhood classic to millions.

Every little girl wanted to be the babysitting princess lost in the mystical world, and every little boy wanted to be the all-powerful, ball juggling, super suave Goblin King. Minus the tight pants and ridiculous hair. Even in the late 80’s that over teased mess was still a mistake of epic proportions.

Labyrinth relates to Lady in that it appeals to the child in all of us. Both force you to reach into the innocence of your imagination and come out and play. Labyrinth has its frightening moments, but it never gets as scary as red-eyed scrug that stalks the poolside apartments in Lady. But Labyrinth is so much more then being scary.

While Labyrinth uses fright to enhance the over all story, Lady in the Water clings to it like a frightened child to his mother’s knee. Something tells me that without the hovering threat of danger, Lady in the water would have very little to offer beyond half naked nymphs and a poolside view.

Non Movie Related Stuff.

Holy crap! Did you notice!? Tell me you noticed. Ok so you didn’t notice, but scroll back up to above the comic and take a look. Yesterday afternoon Phil finished up the programming on a new drop down menu of all the JLCM strips listed by name and alphabetically. Now you can find your favorite JLCM strips by title alone! There are a couple of bugs I still have to work out, like “George vs. Joe part 2� being first on the list, but otherwise it’s working perfectly. Head on up and give it a whirl.