Merrick here...

Folks have been talking a lot of trash about M. Night Shyamalan's LADY IN THE WATER (the absence of the word "THE" before "LADY" really bothers me in this title, by the way); I've been one of those people.

Truth be told, I went into this film ready to hate it...expecting to hate it...but I didn't "hate" it. I didn't really "like" it, either. Which, in a way, is worse -- the morsels of "goodness" to be found here serve as a constant and frustrating illustration of what could have been. But, in the end, LADY is handicapped by one of the most confused filmic identities ever on projected onto a theater screen.

It's impossible to discuss this film without a level of significant spoilage, so...

BEWARE SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT FORWARD!!!

First off, you should know that this movie is being woefully misadvertised.

It's being sold as something of a supernatural horror film with an oppressive atmosphere. It is none of these things. LADY is, first and foremost, a fantasy film...a character driven fantasy drama...with a surprising quantity of (intentionally) comedic elements, and some genuine tenderness. LADY's trailers and promotional material give you little sense of what this movie actually is - which is either complete genius, or a woeful disservice, depending on how one looks at it.

So, throw any "spooky horror" preconceptions out the window. Instead, think of this film in terms of BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED and COCOON. "Yeah, that's unlikely" you say? Well, if remember those films, consider this:

LADY IN THE WATER is about a chick from a magical, watery neverland who comes to our world on a mission. Her mission brings her to a massive apartment complex in Philadelphia, whose broadly-drawn characters must 1) figure out her purpose; 2) figure out how to return this visitor to her world; 3) defend her against the bushy monsters trying to stop her (killer Chia Pets), and 4) physically help her get back to her world. COCOON. BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED (which was also set in an apartment building, by the way). E.T.

What's her mission?

Somewhere in the apartment complex, an author is letting a book languish. Should it be published, this book will be the framework for a grand new enlightenment -- used by world leaders to shepherd in a new age for mankind. She's here to push that through. BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE.

Fate will exact a high price for this author's success. In other words...the author is a martyr being sacrificed on the altar of creativity. And this writer is played by...

M. NIGHT!!!

In effect, Shyamalan casts himself, in a major role, as something of a modern day Jesus -- someone whose work transcends politics, cultures, and national borders. Someone whose works live on forever, despite its detractors. A "fuck you" to critics or naysayers? Complete, total, self-aggrandizing madness? A little bit of both?

It's hard to say for sure, and herein lies the film's most major shortcoming. This is a bit like casting, say, Hitchcock as the principal villain in one of his own films. It's distracting, disingenuous. It pulls us out of the movie, and turns the story into...something else. And, in the case of LADY IN THE WATER, it's nearly impossbile to separate Night's on-screen character from the filmmaker's controversial personae.

As such, any heart, soul, or pathos the character may have conveyed is quickly drained away. The Lady's mission, thus the crux of the plot, is marginalzied. A character who may have served as a powerful icon for self-sacrifice...and could have shown that true strength can sometimes be found in the most unlikely places...essentially becomes an exercise in vanity. Or, at the very best, a whopping big, flashing neon question mark.

If Shyamalan persists on honing his image as a martyred creator, he should stop thinking of himself as a "brand" and focus more heavily on ensuring that his on-screen material actually pays off. Otherwise, he's merely proving his detractors right.

There's another startling example of conceptual awkwardness and creative double standard afoot: a character in the film...a movie critic...openly laments the derivative and stereotyped nature of current cinema. In an overtly, over-written way. But, LADY IN THE WATER is, itself, staggeringly derivative -- primarily in that it's a riff on the titles mentioned above. So, uhhhh.....???

This same critic also asks why so many films feature characters standing around in the rain -- LADY ends in a fierce rain storm. Shyamalan repeatedly nukes clichés, yet consistently relies on these same clichés to tell his story, which can't be seen as anything but a double standard -- no matter what "statement" he's trying to make.

It's entirely feasible that M. Night is, simply, having fun with us -- and possibly making fun of himself along the way. The problem is: it's never clear what tone we're supposed to go with here; that elusive balance between sincerity and smart satire (a la Verhoven) is never found. LADY feels like a film that's struggling to find its own identity, but it ends up being so internally conflicted that it finds no identity at all.

Flagrant logic gaps (when you see the movie, think about how much easier the whole "Who is the Lady?" scenario would have been if the lead, or anyone around him, had thought to use the damn Internet) abound. And, some viewers may find the film's racial stereotyping a tad disquieting: there is a large family of chubby, loud Mexicans...jabbering/screaming Asians play a big part, too. I think the movie is missing a fat, lazy black guy -- but perhaps he'll show up in a director's cut.

There are many more negatives that I haven't even touched on here; a few are actually quite embarrassing. So, it's fair to ask, "How did I end up not completely hating the movie?"

As misguided, inappropriate, and frustrating as the film often is - there's also a lot of charm on screen; subtle moments of character and sweetness that come about in unexpected ways, and are found in unexpected places.

With so much upheaval happening in our world (and our country) right now, it's uplifting...and even empowering...to be reminded that true strength, and true hope, lies not with governments or institutions, but within ourselves and the choices we make.

It's also refreshing to be left with a feeling that somehow, in some way, everything will be okay. Not just for the characters (well, everyone but M. Night...)...but for ourselves and our world.

It is in these moments, and through their nuance, that Shyamalan shines most brightly. There is true heart and soul to be found here, and when it works it works so well that I'd be quite interested in seeing the director tackle a straight-up character piece next. Returning to his roots, so to speak. Abandoning the sensational elements which seem to confound him, and bog him down.

When all is said and done, I suspect that LADY was never truly intended to be about storytelling -- that it's merely a vehicle through which Shyamalan hopes to get people talking. Not about the story, but about what HE did, and why HE did it. Whether or not this was actually what he set out to accomplish is a question that can only be answered by M. Night himself -- and, if he's smart, he won't answer that question. Because, in a way, it's far more intriguing to wonder what the hell he was doing and thinking...than to actually know. Which means (irritatingly): the same lack of clarity that makes the film an artistic disappointment may ultimately be the greatest ingredient in its longevity.

LADY IN THE WATER is a sloppy, gargantuan, often confounding mess. But it's an inconsistent mess, and it's an intriguing mess. Neither qualifier excuses the film's voluminous missteps...they don't even come close. But they do make the experience a bit more tolerable, if only for the sake of discussion.