I saw it, I liked it. A lot.
Now, there's an issue at play that I see as alarmingly prevalent when it comes to Shyamalan's work. His first major release, The Sixth Sense, was so highly lauded (six Oscar nominations) and so widely publicized and pored over by critics and the public that topping it was effectively impossible. Despite that seemingly apparent reality, we still tend to compare everything he does to that first amazing triumph. His own fault, I suppose. Being that he writes as well as directs all of his major projects, a heightened level of onus is put on him (as I see it) by those same critics and moviegoers, and he is thusly blamed/credited for what works and does not work in his films more than most directors. Moreover, his work is often so weighty and dramatic that most people end up completely polarized on whether they like or dislike the movie in question. A movie like Lady in the Water for instance, while flip, punchy and very funny at times, still relies heavily on a plot chock full of symbolism and thick human drama. If you're the type of person who can't handle the juxtaposition, then there really is no hope for you and this film living happily ever after.
I imagine it's a very rare thing that someone comes out of a Shyamalan movie offhandedly saying, "Eh. It was alright." That's not how he appears to operate. I think he knows how much of an 'all-or-nothing' proposition his brand of cinema tends to be, and I don't think he cares much. The overriding theme with most movies that are successful beyond the mainstream critics and the box office numbers is that if it's any good at all, there are going to be lots of people that really don't like it. Were it me in his position, I would actually take a considerable amount of solace in the fact that there were droves of people who weren't 'digging it'. Also, the fact that so many people trust and admire him as a filmmaker is a huge reason why there are so many equally enthusiastic detractors. I know all about contrarians, because I frequently am one myself.
But that's not really what I'm getting at (if anyone is still listening). I enjoyed Lady in the Water a great deal because it practically dares you to be cynical. I found myself at several points saying, "Gee, that's kind of unrealistic." But as soon as I began drifting away, it would sort of pull me back in, smack me upside the head and remind me to not take everything so seriously and enjoy the story. And it is a very fun story, I think. The movie itself is totally surreal at times--to be truthful, it's really not a horror at all, but a fantasy. If you approach it as such, I think it's a very easily enjoyable movie. The cast is really quite good, the writing is crisp, and despite people saying that it's slow in the early minutes...I don't know. I didn't really see that.
What I really don't understand are comments saying that it was "one of the worst movies I have ever saw." Grammarian gripes notwithstanding, this is one of those tendencies that some people have that drives me right up the fucking wall. If this really is one of the worst movies you "ever saw," then the breadth of your film knowledge is frighteningly narrow. Narrow enough, frankly, that you should probably just keep those sort of absurdly hyperbolic comments inside that head of yours. The simple truth of the matter - and I can say this completely free of bias - is that this movie, while not necessarly built to please or to aid in the widespread consumption of overpriced popcorn, can not be among the worst ever made. The production quality and the cast alone elevate it out of the realm of the Batman and Robins of the world. Saying something like, "I personally did not care for this movie," would be reasonable. "Worst movie I ever saw," ... not so much. Although I did find it telling (and, at this point, I think we all know to which post I'm referring) that part of this particular critic's issue was that they "laughed through the whole movie," as though they believe that wasn't Shyamalan's intention. I laughed a ton during this movie. I also found Giamatti's character development extremely moving, despite having been so brief, and the mystic nature of the primary storyline, well...I thought it was very satisfying.
Okay, that's enough. I should probably thin all of that out considerably, but I'm much too lazy. Key point, for anyone interested, is that this film is decidedly not a horror. There are thriller elements, but it is probably 1% thriller, 9% mystery, and 90% fantasy. It's a fine excuse to (as the characters are eventually forced to do) crank the skepticism down, the suspension of disbelief up, and pretend that you're just watching a movie.
sure some of it was cheesy but who cares... not as good as Clerks but better than Jersey Girl :tongue2: 
