Lady in the Water inspired an IMDb message board thread titled "List your bottom 5 movies of all time." Critics lamented the film's mediocre magic, blasted its muddled plot, and chastised its self-indulgent director.

Maybe they’re right. The film is flawed, scattered and plagued by creatures with hokey names. Its story can sound a little silly, but ultimately it strikes me as a decent bedtime tale that makes a moderately enjoyable film: A narf named Story travels to an apartment complex in Philadelphia via a swimming pool, and must be seen by a specific person so that he will be inspired to write something that will change the world. Grass-backed, dog-like creatures named scrunts hide in the yards nearby waiting to attack, but are allegedly kept at bay by fear of the huge monkey-like Tartutic. Rules govern the scrunts' actions, but they break them and go after Story anyway. People in the apartment complex – specifically those with special powers, a Guardian, a Symbolist, a Guild, and perhaps a Healer – have to help keep her safe so that a giant eagle, the Great Eatlon, can take her safely back to the Blue World.

Yes, the Blue World. Where the narfs live.

For me, vocabulary was the film’s most glaring flaw. I appreciated the ability of most of the actors to utter words like “narf” and “scrunt” as if they weren’t saying silly things that remain just as silly the 50th time you hear them.

Looking critically at the film, I can recognize other flaws too. Maybe it is pretentious for Shyamalan to play the writer who will change the world with his incredible, challenging ideas. Yes, it’s a giant stretch to blame the “book and film critic” when apartment manager Cleveland Heep chooses the wrong people as the Guardian, Symbolist, and Guild (when all the critic did was describe each person's roles and activities accurately). Yes, Jeffrey Wright’s lines were stilted by wooden phrasing that seemed unnatural, even for a person who “adores” words.