Eye Candy #472 - "Lady in the Water"

Lady in the Water: As some of you know, I'm a huge mark for M. Night Shyamalan. I found his first three movies to be excellent (I own all three, too). "The Village" was okay, but didn't knock my socks off. I heard more about the hype surrounding "Lady in the Water", how he fought with movie studios to get it made because thought that it wasn't worth making into a film. And after having viewed the film, there is some truth to that claim. I also know that the film got savaged by the critics...but if you watch the movie, you know there is one character in particular (a movie critic) so blatantly over the top, it's obvious he was trying to piss them off and it made most of the reviewers look catty that lashed out at him for it.  Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) is a building superintendent for a Pennsylvania apartment complex. He discovers a naked woman in the swimming pool at the complex named Story (played by Bryce Dallas Howard). She is a narf, a water-dwelling creature sent to help mankind and then return to her world. However, because she is here, there is also a scrunt (think big, grassy wolf-dog) who kills narfs. Cleveland must find out how to save Story, with the help of other tenants of the apartment.  An attempt to create a modern-day fairytale, the film lacked for magic and wonder. The film has several problems - The film has several problems -

1. obvious issues with credibility - if magical creatures began to show up at your apartment complex, would you automatically jump on board and believe they are true? Well, you shouldn't live the Cove Apartments because apparently everyone else would

2. the acting - Giamatti has to carry this film by himself. Ms. Howard is given very little to do except sit in a shower wet and look pale and cold all the time. Some people bemoaned M. Night casting himself as a tenant of the complex, but I couldn't see what the big deal was, in light of some of the lackluster casting (and wasting actors like Geoffrey Wright in nothing-roles).. What can Story do? Not a whole helluva lot apparently. The scrunt is the only one that actually does anything remotely interesting. 

3. The sounds - the people talk in such low volumes that when you raise the volume to hear them, you get you eardrums blasted out by the scrunt. M. Night, the dialogue isn’t important is no one can hear it.

4. Oomph - the film just lacks “oomph”. It’s got no big reveal like all his other movies, the reveal which makes the rest of the film make sense, like Bruce Willis realizing he’s dead in “Sixth Sense” and “The Village” being built upon a lie. There is no such device in this film, thus dramatically, it’s got no ups and downs because of it. It’s flat as a board.

I tried really hard to like this movie. M Night just didn’t give me much reason too. So apparently, the study execs that thought this story wouldn’t carry a film...were right.  Woodchuck sez, “Only if you are an M Night completist”.