Radio Lady Reviews: “Lady in the Water” (Beware! No lifeguard on duty!)

Radio_Lady

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-20-06 02:54 PM
Original message

Radio Lady Reviews: “Lady in the Water” (Beware! No lifeguard on duty!)

Edited on Thu Jul-20-06 03:25 PM by Radio_Lady

**This review contains spoilers**

A prayer: "Spirits of the watery deep, please protect us from this inane and inadequate aquatic indulgence."

Here’s the gospel according to yours truly. The movie “Lady in the Water” is just a big, soggy mess. If I were you, I wouldn’t spend any time or money on this summer wet dream from M. Night Shyamalan.

Perhaps you savored M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense” – and found some redeeming qualities in “Unbreakable” – “Signs” – and even “The Village.” I always try to give young directors a big break, and admit I had some questions about his previous work. So I lowered my expectations, hoping Shyamalan would get to a better place with this film. It still surprises me that his previous films have been quite successful financially. (See the data for yourself at www.boxofficemojo.com).

This week, I was one of many other preview patrons who were left scratching their heads in disbelief. I left the theater gasping for clarity about this fantasy, with important questions such as, “What did I just witness?” and “What is this – or that – supposed to mean?” Movies that ask questions, or beg the questions they ask and don’t answer them - or answer them with mumbo-jumbo – are not communicating properly. I don’t want to be swept away with philosophical conundrums. I believe LITW will bring out more heat than light, and maybe make more money because of the controversy.

Despite the superior casting and cinematography that writer and director M. Night Shyamalan has managed to cobble together in the film – including himself as a pleasant looking but fairly amateurish supporting actor – this movie has illogical “cement feet” that cause it to sink pretty quickly. It's just that the effort totally submerges itself in its own perfect pomposity and slippery self-indulgence. One might even argue that it borders on mental instability or acting-out behavior by M. Night Shyamalan. I swear this movie looks like his cinematic Rohrschach test, or perhaps a very long screen test. Is he really thinking he should pursue a third career – in acting in his own films? What's that all about? OK, so he’s better looking than Alfred Hitchcock – but will that satisfy Shyamalan?

Once again, the dreadful script with its dopey dialog is the culprit. It really is a “no brainer” that film scripts with imaginative and cohesive stories are the ones that usually succeed. This script? It’s stupid and sloppy. There are only a few shock cuts in this film – hardly qualifying it as a thriller. The audience actually laughed quite a bit at the screening I attended – but I wonder if these are uncomfortable cackles at dialog bloopers so ridiculous that they demand laughter. So, is this concoction a comedy-thriller-fantasy?

Shyamalan puts together a fantastic list of names of people, jobs, and animals that are purely invented. Well, that could be a good thing – the main character, called Story, is a “narf” or water nymph. She is found in the swimming pool of a seedy apartment building called The Cover (clever!). She comes from the “Blue” world somewhere under water. Cleveland Heep, the downtrodden manager with a difficult secret, supervises the mundane requests of the residents of the apartment complex. Cleveland notices -- something in the pool after hours. Soon Cleveland has an almost naked and pearly white woman (not a mermaid – no tail) on his hands and sitting in his lap. Heep deduces that he is supposed to follow a scriptload of unanticipated actions in order to keep her away from the evildoers. One is called a “scrunt” (I dare you to look that up in Google as it has quite a few randy meanings). The eventual result is to try to help Story get home which turns out to be no easy task. I’m not going to even bother to tell you what happens at the end of this film.

I find a few redeeming qualities in this movie. Paul Giamatti turns in a good performance, swimming upstream with the verbal babble he has been asked to memorize.

Bryce Dallas Howard is very ethereal, but she has less acting to do than I can even recall from “The Village” – believe it or not, she doesn’t even swim a lot in this picture! However, her hair color and hair style change with remarkable frequency. She even knows how to play Charades – or was it American sign language?

Bob Balaban is always interesting to watch – here he’s a critic who utters some of the oddest dialog I’ve ever heard on screen.

Reports say Disney executives tried to get Shyamalan to fix this script. Instead, he apparently broke his ties with Disney and took this project to Warner Brothers, where I’ve got to hand it to him. He must have done one hell of a sales job on their executives.

In my opinion, “Lady” is the work of a self-indulgent man who purports to be a skilled writer/director. Mr. Shyamalan must be continuously pumped up with his importance both in his own mind and perhaps by the people who immediately surround him. The other option is that he is really suffering from some mental distress that he would be well advised to discuss with a competent professional. This is not a put-down. Lots of people in the movie business have psychiatrists or psychologists who help them interpret their stories.

Due to time pressures in my personal life this week, I’m going to refer you to the many fascinating reviews now posted at www.rottentomatoes.com , www.imdb.com , and www.metacritic.com. No doubt, this film will have its own rooting section. The plotting and logistical problems in this film are so extensive that it would take hours to discuss them with you. But just a few pop into my mind:

Why would a sea nymph – trying to get back to her own “blue” world – have no gills, no fins, and no tail? Certainly, Darwin would laugh at this one – it’s not the “survival of the fittest” at all. Even the movie “Aquamarine” was more believable than this waterlogged fiasco. This beautiful water nymph better be able to do a fantastic Australian crawl stroke for a lifetime and add to that some big fat surface dives for days to insure her survival.

Why is the grass-covered hyena-type monster – not a water creature at all – chasing her? How did he find her in suburban Philadelphia with millions of people? And what about the three monkeys who are so mean they kill their parents on the day they are born? Wow! This was a children’s bedtime story? I wouldn’t want M. Night’s daughters to get those kinds of ideas in their heads.

What can you say about a backyard swimming pool that has a drain that leads not to the filtration system, but to a watery cave that contains items from the aquatic life of this nymph (but no other nymphs visible there). How does he find the particular mud that can heal the nymph’s wounds? Think that the pool installers might have had a code fight with the city on the specs of that pool?

Why would it require a big flying bird to take this water nymph back to her people? Why not a dolphin?

“Lady in the Water” is supposed to be adapted from a “bedtime story” M. Night Shyamalan told to his two young children. I strongly recommend you refrain from bringing your children to this film. If you do, nightmares are possible and they may not want to attend swimming lessons at your local pool, or even take a shower.

Regrettably, I must now add my voice to those who feel only a sinking feeling and a downward drift. I predict a watery grave for this movie monstrosity. I do hope that there is no terrifying tsunami – perhaps to wash the mind of Mr. Shyamalan further out to sea.

Nighty-night, Mr. Shyamalan. Better luck next time – if there IS a next time.

Rating: D
Cast: Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jeffrey Wright, Bob Balaban, Sarita Choudhury, Cindy Cheung, M. Night Shyamalan, Freddy Rodríguez, Bill Irwin, Mary Beth Hurt, Jared Harris and Tovah Feldshuh
Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan
Screenplay by: M. Night Shyamalan
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Runtime: 110 min
Rating: PG-13
Year: 2006