4 Reasons Why Lady In The Water Is Secretly M. Night Shyamalan's Hidden Gem

Maybe I just have bad taste (Don’t agree with me!) but I like a lot of the M. Night Shyamalan movies that most people hate.

Not too long ago, I defended the much maligned, After Earth , and even though I know most people consider The Last Airbender to be his worst movie (We even said as such when we ranked all of M. Night Shyamalan's films ), I actually don’t think it’s that bad …and this is coming from a massive fan of the source material.

So, it should come as no surprise that I actually really dig Shyamalan’s seventh movie, Lady in the Water . In fact, I like it so much that I think it might just be his hidden gem, and it deserves a re-evaluation. Here’s why.

The Film Is Truly Unlike Any Other Shyamalan Picture

There’s no ifs, ands, or buts about it. My favorite Shyamalan movie is Unbreakable (Yes, even more than The Sixth Sense ) . It just has everything going for it. The mysterious characters, the creepy atmosphere, the twist ending. In every sense of the word, Unbreakable is a Shyamalan movie, par excellence.

For me, it perfectly encapsulates everything that I love about his style, and I judge every other movie of his against it.

But, you know what? Lady in the Water feels nothing like it. It’s weird to say this, since Shyamalan has dealt with everything from ghosts, to aliens, to even trees (!), but most of his movies feel pretty grounded for the most part.

Now, they’re grounded in a reality that is certainly Shyamalan-specific, but they still feel like they’re based in a sort of recognizable reality. Yes, even After Earth , and The Last Airbender (Much to the latter’s detriment) .

And, Lady in the Water does, too…until it doesn’t. The backdrop is his tried and true Philadelphia in this movie, but the world of this story turns into so much of a fantasy escapade that it distinctly feels unique in the director's oeuvre.

The story concerns an apartment complex superintendent named Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) who discovers a water nymph (or Narf, which just reminds me of Pinky and the Brain , if I’m being completely honest), who must be protected from these scary dog-like creatures called Scrunts.

Along the way, we learn that the Narf, who is named Story and played by Bryce Dallas Howard, is in grave danger, and must locate The Writer (played indulgently by Shyamalan himself) who will one day change the world with his storytelling abilities.

Along the way, we learn that some of the people inside the apartment complex have specific roles that need to be uncovered, such as a Symbolist, a Guardian, a Guild, and a Healer. In a lot of ways, it almost feels like a D&D campaign, where characters have different classes, like in Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves .

There are also these monkey-like creatures that are protectors of Story, called The Tartutic. There’s just so much lore in this relatively simple story, and it feels wholly unique in Shyamalan’s filmography.

I mean, the story itself isn’t the best in the world, but the overall mood and tone of the film makes up for a lot of the storytelling flubs that bring it down. Honestly, I think it’s much better than you remember it being, and you should definitely give it a rewatch.

There Really Isn't A Twist Ending, Which Is Actually Quite Appreciated

Okay, so here’s the thing. Prior to The Sixth Sense , Shyamalan wasn’t known as “the twist guy.” I mean, honestly, he wasn’t really known at all when he made Praying with Anger , or Wide Awake . No, it was only when he made The Sixth Sense , which is one of the few horror movies nominated for Best Picture , that he became “the twist guy.”

The only issue, though, is that when you’re known for your twist endings, people start trying to guess them ahead of time. Like, I’ll never forget when I went to see The Village with my friends, and my buddy leaned over to me and whispered within five minutes of the movie, “I bet this is all taking place in modern day times,” and of course I said, “No way!” only to have to say, “You were right,” by the end of the movie.

So, it was expected that Lady in the Water would also have a twist ending…but it doesn’t. Now, I know some might say that perhaps this movie would have been better if it had something else going for it at the end. But, I was so wrapped up in the story of, er, Story, that I was impressed when all of the characters came together at the end and helped get her to the eagle, which brought her up into the sky.

It’s an ending that fits the narrative that came before it, and I’m glad it didn’t have some weird twist ending just because it was expected out of Shyamalan by this point in his career.

The Acting Is Also Quite Good

One common sentiment I often hear when people don’t like a movie is that the acting was “wasted” in it. Now, I don’t personally conform to this idea. In fact, I personally think that a great performance in a “bad” movie can elevate it to being a good movie. And, such is the case for Lady in the Water , which I don’t think is bad, but I think is definitely made better by its performances.

There’s, of course, Paul Giamatti, who is almost always good. ( Let’s just ignore The Amazing Spider-Man 2 , okay?) He plays a grieving man after his family was murdered, and spends a great deal of the movie trying to find purpose in life again. I find his story arc to be genuinely beautiful.

Then, you have Bryce Dallas Howard as the titular Lady in the Water. She plays it like a fish out of water at the beginning, but then gradually becomes more and more human toward the end of the tale.

The rest of the cast dutifully blends in with the narrative, making this semi-ridiculous story feel important. Jeffrey Wright, Sarita Choudhury, Jared Harris, and many others (but not Shyamalan, who I’ll get into next) really liven up this relatively dark story, and make a good film great in my eyes. This is, of course, despite all the Golden Raspberry nominations, and “wins” that it received.

Yes, Shyamalan's Character Is Self-Indulgent, But He Has A Point

Lastly, if there’s any glaring weakness to this film, it’s that Shyamalan placed himself in it, and in a significant role, no less. He is the man who will eventually change the world with his writing. And, not only that, but there’s an obnoxious film critic in the story as well, played thanklessly by Bob Balaban, who messes everything up and even dies a grisly death.

Now, yes, Shyamalan never should have put himself in this movie, and definitely should have picked an actor with more gravitas for the character. But, I do think he has a point with the critic character, as some critics do seem to get more joy out of putting down a movie rather than saying anything constructive.

That said, I think he may have inadvertently made an even more pressing point about all writers in general when he constructed his character. Yes, writers often feel insecure, or may even have severe imposter syndrome, but we also sometimes think we’re the center of the universe with unlimited power, as we can save or kill whomever we want in a story.

By creating such a pompous metaphor for storytelling with this movie (I mean, the nymph is even named Story!) Shyamalan is kind of making the point that all storytellers think they can change the world at some point…even if it's just a world that they created themselves.

Do you also love Lady in the Water like I do? For more news on all things Shyamalan-related (including the upcoming movie Trap ), be sure to swing by here often.