Honestly, it is still hard to talk about Lady in the Water without someone rolling their eyes. It’s been twenty years since it hit theaters in 2006, and the sting of those reviews hasn't quite faded for the people who felt burned by it. You probably remember the vibe back then. M. Night Shyamalan was the "Twist King," the guy who gave us The Sixth Sense and Signs. Then he dropped a movie about a narf—basically a water nymph—living in a Philadelphia apartment complex swimming pool. Critics didn't just dislike it; they seemed personally offended by it.
The movie follows Cleveland Heep, played by Paul Giamatti with a stutter and a deep sense of grief, who discovers a woman named Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) in the pool of the Cove apartments. She’s a "Narf" from the "Blue World," and she’s being hunted by a "Scrunt," which is a grass-covered wolf thing. To get her home, Cleveland has to find a group of tenants who fulfill specific archetypal roles: the Guardian, the Symbolist, the Guild, and the Healer.
It sounds like a bedtime story. Because it was.
Shyamalan literally wrote this based on a story he told his own kids. But when you put that kind of whimsy into a live-action film with a $70 million budget and ask people to take a grass-wolf seriously, things get weird. The film currently sits at a pretty brutal 25% on Rotten Tomatoes. Yet, if you watch it today, away from the hype of the mid-2000s, it’s a much more interesting failure than people give it credit for.
Why Lady in the Water Broke the Relationship Between Shyamalan and His Fans
Most people don't realize that Lady in the Water was the movie that caused a massive public breakup between Shyamalan and Disney. Disney executive Nina Jacobson apparently had major concerns about the script. Instead of tweaking it, Shyamalan took his ball and went to Warner Bros. He even wrote a book about the experience called The Man Who Heard Voices, which, let’s be real, didn't help the "ego" allegations.
The biggest gripe critics had—and still have—is the meta-commentary. Shyamalan cast himself as Vick Ran, a writer whose future book is prophesied to change the world and eventually lead to the salvation of humanity. Then, he cast Bob Balaban as Harry Farber, a cynical film critic who gets brutally eaten by the Scrunt.
🔗 Read more: Love Island UK Who Is Still Together: The Reality of Romance After the Villa
It felt like a middle finger to the industry.
When a director tells a story about how writers are world-saving prophets and critics are lunch, it’s going to ruffle some feathers. It felt self-indulgent. People weren't looking for a manifesto on the importance of storytelling; they were looking for another The Village. Instead, they got a movie where a guy (Jeffrey Wright) finds secret messages on the back of cereal boxes.
The Technical Brilliance We All Ignored
If you can get past the "narf" and "scrunt" terminology, which, yeah, is objectively goofy, the movie is stunning. Christopher Doyle was the cinematographer. If that name sounds familiar, it's because he shot In the Mood for Love and Chungking Express. He’s a legend.
The way the camera moves around the Cove apartments is fluid and almost claustrophobic. The lighting is warm and amber, making the pool look like something out of a dream rather than a dirty apartment complex in Philly. James Newton Howard’s score is also, frankly, one of the best of that entire decade. The track "The Great Eat" is haunting. Even the most die-hard Shyamalan haters usually admit the music is top-tier.
- The film uses a lot of "long takes" where the camera follows characters through hallways.
- The color palette shifts from muted grays to vibrant blues whenever Story is on screen.
- Paul Giamatti’s performance is actually devastatingly good, despite the silliness of the plot.
Giamatti is the anchor. He’s playing a man who lost his family to a violent crime and has basically checked out of life. His interaction with Story isn't romantic; it's a broken man trying to find a reason to believe in something again. When he breaks down near the end of the film, it’s a "human-quality" moment in a movie that is otherwise populated by monsters and prophecies.
💡 You might also like: Gwendoline Butler Dead in a Row: Why This 1957 Mystery Still Packs a Punch
Sorting Through the Mythology: Narfs, Scrunts, and Tartutics
One thing Lady in the Water gets wrong—or at least, where it loses the audience—is the info-dumping. We spend a lot of time listening to Cleveland talk to a Chinese immigrant mother and daughter (played by June Kyoko Lu and Sarita Choudhury) who slowly reveal the legend.
Basically, the "Blue World" used to be connected to our world. Humans and water-people were buddies. Then humans got greedy and moved inland, forgetting the connection. Story is an "Eye Eater" (another weird name) sent to inspire a specific person—the writer.
But the rules are dense.
The Scrunt can hide by lying flat in the grass.
The Tartutic are three monkey-like creatures that act as the police of the Blue World.
The Eat-Ten (the Guild) is actually a group of guys who always hang out together.
It’s a lot to keep track of. The movie tries to be a "real-world" fairy tale, but it lacks the internal logic that made Signs or Unbreakable work. In those movies, the supernatural elements felt grounded. Here, they feel like they were made up on the fly during a car ride to school.
The Legacy of a "Career-Killer"
For a long time, this was cited as the movie that ended Shyamalan’s "Golden Era." It led into The Happening and The Last Airbender, which were... rough. But look at what happened later. Shyamalan eventually went indie, self-funded The Visit and Split, and had a massive comeback.
📖 Related: Why ASAP Rocky F kin Problems Still Runs the Club Over a Decade Later
In hindsight, Lady in the Water looks like a necessary growing pain. It was a director pushing back against the "Twist King" label. He wanted to make something sincere and weird. He failed at the box office ($72 million worldwide on a $70 million budget is a disaster when you factor in marketing), but he succeeded in making something that people are still analyzing twenty years later.
You don't see many $70 million "art films" about cereal-box prophecies anymore. Studios are too scared. Whether you love it or hate it, the movie is a singular vision. It doesn't feel like it was written by a committee or an algorithm. It feels like it was written by a guy who really, really loves his kids and really, really dislikes film critics.
How to Watch It Today Without Cringing
If you’re going to revisit this, or watch it for the first time, don't look for a horror movie. It’s not one. It’s a fable.
Focus on Giamatti. Look at the way Doyle uses shadows in the laundry room. Listen to the way the score builds during the final ceremony. If you stop worrying about how "silly" the names are, you might find a pretty touching story about a group of lonely people finding a sense of community through a shared, impossible goal.
The movie argues that every person has a purpose, even if they don't know it yet. The guy who only exercises one arm? He has a role. The guy who reads cereal boxes? He has a role. In a world that feels increasingly fragmented, that’s actually a pretty nice message.
Actionable Steps for the Curious Viewer
- Skip the Trailer: The original marketing made it look like a scary mermaid movie. It isn't. Go in expecting a slow-burn fantasy drama.
- Listen to the Score First: Find James Newton Howard’s "The Great Eat" on Spotify. If that music moves you, the movie’s atmosphere will probably work for you.
- Watch for the Lighting: Notice how the film uses water reflections. It’s a masterclass in visual storytelling, even when the verbal storytelling gets clunky.
- Read the Backstory: If you’re a film nerd, look up the book The Man Who Heard Voices by Michael Bamberger. It gives a wild "fly on the wall" account of how this movie was made and why it became such a flashpoint in Hollywood history.