Best movie of this year hands down!

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The start of the relentless downhill slope that is Shyamalan's career, this fantasy drama is murkier than polluted swamp water. What did I just witness? Seriously, I mean seriously! This isn't a film, it's a production that conveys his self-indulgence as he, not only writes, produces and directs this atrocity, but also plays a supporting role to which his character is a "visionary whose writing changes the world". That's not even the worst part! Right, so a superintendent of an apartment complex encounters a young girl in the swimming pool who he discovers to be a water nymph whose life is endangered by a beastly wolf creature. So, the residents assist in returning her to the "Blue World". How? Let me just clear my throat, get ready...! By seeking everyone's purpose in life so that the Symbolist can read cereal boxes to identify a Guild of seven sisters, discover the Healer and the true Guardian, so that a giant eagle can swoop in and ferry her back to the "Blue World" before she succumbs to the wounds from the Scrunt who avoids tree monkey peacekeepers known as the "Tartutic". What. The. Actual. Heck? I'm flabbergasted. Astonished. Shell shocked. Fantasy films are fantastic for evoking imagination and an underlying sense of creativity. But this is not the way to do it. It's not! Characterisation was weaker than diluted juice. The expositional narrative had fewer thrills than a tsunami. The acting, aside from Giamatti who just couldn't save the story from drowning, was more painful than accidentally getting shampoo in your eyes. Honestly, I was blinded by Shyamalan's acting. He actually thought he could act! The plot itself is nonsensical, not because it's an overwhelmingly fictitious story, but because it's undisputedly unfocused. It was as if Shyamalan was writing the story during the filming of the production. It's not metaphorical. It's not allegorical. It's a fractured fairytale that will leave anyone perplexed. Possibly one of the worst cinematic disasters I have witnessed. A damp fantasy flick that, when rinsed, drips drops of vapidity.

Apartment building superintendent Cleveland Heep rescues what he thinks is a young woman from the pool he maintains. When he discovers that she is actually a character from a bedtime story who is trying to make the journey back to her home, he works with his tenants to protect his new friend from the creatures that are determined to keep her in our world. Lady in the Water is one of those M. Night Shyamalan that showcase that he might have been a bit insane to begin with, first of all the movie is dull and boring, the acting kinda meh except Bryce Dallas Howard and those scenes with Bob Balaban and Freddy Rodriguez were laughably bad. Definitely even worse than 'The Village' (3/10)

You should know, and thoroughly accept, that this is a presentation of an original children's bedtime story, and a GREAT story it is. This is an example of story telling which involves many characters, each with a specific and cryptic role to fulfill, and the more you understand the background on each character, the more enjoyable it is. The story is unpredictable and keeps you guessing - and guessing wrong, while the characters each represent some nuance of society. I must mention, that Paul Giamatti (Cleveland Heep) plays, perhaps, the most believable character EVER. He is a broken-broken, lost, lonely, shell of a once happy man and I believe every second of his performance, and it's never over-acted. His performance is brilliant. Here are brief statements about how it "made me feel": I stayed captivated by the story and where it was leading (great original story telling). I was memorized by Cleveland Heep and his state of mind (his character is relatable to me). It made me laugh out loud at times, and made my heart race at others and sometimes it made me feel silly. I am sure I smiled and leaned forward for the entire movie. It made me hopeful and uplifted my spirit. After the movie, I knew I had been on a great adventure, through story telling - and that's the reason I watch movies. In my opinion, it's one of M. Night Shyamalan's best stories yet. Congratulations Sir, I get it... even if the populous criticized it too much.

I can honestly say that I've never seen a movie like this.And I mean that in a good way. Shyamalan has never made a movie that was really like any other movie. Because of this he gets a lot of flack from the critics and the people as a whole.It's a shame, he started making movies when Hollywood stopped making movies. He's not afraid to make something new, to add a twist that is unique, to not make a re-make and because of that...people hate him."Adorable" I think would be the word for Lady in the Water. I felt like a little kid when I was watching it. Like a bed time story for adults.At first it seems sort of strange, the characters, the weird people you would meet in a apartment complex that only Hollywood could create...but it quickly spirals into a deeper story, one that is certainly for adults but still maintains a beautiful innocence.You soon find out that the auxiliary characters are anything but....and in a middle finger to the critics, Shyamalan places himself in a role that is sure to grab their ire.As I've said many times before, I value new, I value original and Lady in the Water is nothing I have ever seen before, a brilliant example of why I love Mr. Shyamalan's work.