so why is it so bad

I thought this movie was mostly forgettable with sprinkles of redeeming value. The thing that surprises me is that no one has mentioned the Stakes as a reason for this movie being bad. It was lightly hinted at maybe by the poster saying "WHO CARES?". That's a big part of why I think this movie fell short. Maybe I missed it but there never seemed to be anything great at stake. This girl lives or this girl dies, but why do we care? Her character feels like an afterthought. Where is her development, where is our desire for her to live? I think it was mentioned during the opening montage that these water people were supposed to be guides and/or inspire the humans. That was completely downplayed/lost in the rest of the film.

SPOILERS

She inspired Vick to what, publish something he had already mostly written? She inspired Cleveland to get over the death of his wife and kids? Is that it? She was completely helpless! The character might as well been a cute talking bunny. If she was helpless for a particular reason, like because Cleveland was confused and messed her up real bad in the beginning maybe there's a reason we should care about her well-being. I don't know. I enjoyed the self-referential nature of the role-players, ie. the Guardian, the Guild, the Healer, etc. but those mechanisms were not enhanced by the lack of anything compelling them to take on those roles. RAISE THE STAKES! or have any stakes at all for that matter. Make me care about what happens to the central character driving the plot! Being innocent and helpless (and able to see the future too I guess!) is not enough.

So why is it so bad? Great question -- what made that happen?

I think the root of the problem is that Shyamalan has stopped caring about the quality of the product he puts onscreen. He has mounds and mounds of money; he made over $10 million more from this horrible film even as the studio lost somewhere in the $50 million range with it.

Poor studio. Happy Shyamalan! Why would he ever try to put a good film onscreen ever again, when the market is rewarding him like it is?

WARNING!
Objects under T-shirt are larger than they appear!

One thing I've learnt from the critics is to ignore them.

I've seen plenty of films which have been panned by the critics and I've enjoyed them. Filmgoing is a very personal thing, much like reading - not all films or books appeal to everyone.

I have my suspicions that many critics just copy each other anyway, it's a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes, they're all afraid to stand out from the crowd and give their honest opinion so they follow whatever is said in the main film guides and magazines.

Lady in the Water, I thought, was an enjoyable film, a bit mumbly in places (I had to go back a few times and stick the subtitles on), but a fairly gentle story with a supernatural kick to it to keep us interested. I was surprised to see M Night in such a big role but I suppose he just wanted to have a go at acting and he did a fairly decent job of that.

Just as Stephen King likes to write stories and books which aren't always about monsters and freaks, I'm sure M Night likes to play around a bit with what he is writing - and why not, it keeps it interesting.

You summed up my feelings about this movie pretty much 100%. Modern audiences do lack imagination, at least, American ones.

"I think it's that a lot of modern audiences lack imagination. They can suspend disbelief, but only up to a point. If a film is really odd, implausible, etc. and therefore requires more suspension of disbelief and more imagination from the viewer than they have to give, then often they end up thinking their "intelligence has been insulted". They also tend to get indignant if they feel they're "being preached to". Gone are the days when a film with a moral message can be embraced by the masses. That quality in audiences has largely been replaced with indifference and callous disregard."

Why does it have to be as simply as that? I can name dozens of films about how we should be towards one another that audiences and film critics alike have embraced over the years. There is nothing wrong with our imagination or suspension of disbelief. Maybe, just maybe, this film didn't execute it's message well and that's what's making us hate it. No deep-seeded childhood issues from our end , just a bad attempt at making a good film on M. Night's end. Period.

Charlie Murphy!! *punch*

I liked it as well.

Not the best movie of all times, but still good enough to me.

I found myself laughing out loud at various parts in this movie - parts that weren't meant to be funny.

The part where Giamatti begins to cry about his family's deaeth while trying to heal the nymph was one of those scenes. So stupid. They tell him to concentrate and he begins to cry!?

[deleted]