The Happening (2008)

[Betsy Speicher 0]

imdb.com listing for The Happening (2008).

Movie suggested for rating by Nicolaus Nemeth.

[Mercury 0]

I won't rate this movie because, it isn't meant to be rated. Really, it's one big joke by Shyamalan, and the butt of the joke is Hollywood.

Unfortunately, Shyamalan's contempt spills over onto his genuine fans, so, altogether, what he has done here is ill-advised even though understandable.

My better half saw this movie before I did, and she hated it absolutely. We had both seen The Incredible Hulk, which was a lot of fun, and expected some serious filmmaking from M Night. As she canned the movie, I wondered what Shyamalan could have done that could be so bad; after all, she had enjoyed Lady In The Water, which I thought was the very best film of 2006.

On Sunday night, beset by curiosity, I went to see The Happening. It began to rain very heavily as I parked the car, which, looking back now, must have been a sign from the gods.

About 15 minutes into the movie, I saw through the charade. Shyamalan was up to something, I thought. By the end of the first hour, I surmised that this was a sequel to his strike at the critics in Lady In The Water, a strike we had discussed here on THE FORUM. The movie is not just bad, it is Ed Wood bad. It is so strikingly bad, any real movie buff would know that Shyamalan must have done it on purpose.

It made sense: Here we have a thoroughly-brilliant, original moviemaker who creates thrillers in a style that is careful, considered, thorough, and human (dignified), yet the mainstream critics can his films while giving slime like Saw, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination, Adam Sandler movies, and countless other trashy films, a free pass. These are the same people who canned Unbreakable and Lady In The Water!?! Talk about injustice. Or some of them would give a Shyamalan film 3 or 4 stars, then give the same 3 or 4 stars to absolute trash. I won't even mention the studio heads who keep sponsoring the inane sequels for the slasher movies. Try to count how many banal, vulgar, blood-soaked movies have come out over the past ten years. They're virtually all bad, yet the studios keep churning them out.

This must have greatly annoyed MNS, and rather than channel his anger or contempt into his art - as Ayn Rand did in Ideal or he did in Lady - he made it explicit, risking losing his genuine fan base.

In any case, this was my thinking on Sunday night. I only needed to confirm these thoughts by hearing from Shyamalan himself. So, I scoured the internet on Sunday night till I found this article.

Just to see for yourself if, what is in my opinion, Shyamalan's contempt, is justified, check out the movie [at your own risk], then consider this excerpt from Wikipedia about the critical reaction to The Happening:

Critical reaction

The Happening has received generally negative reviews from film critics.[8] Rotten Tomatoes reported that 20% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based upon a sample of 115 reviews.[9] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 36, based on 34 reviews.[8] The film received an average score of 45.6% from 55 film critics, according to Movie Tab.[10]

Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter said the film lacked "cinematic intrigue and nail-biting tension" and that "the central menace ... does not pan out as any kind of Friday night entertainment.[1] Variety 's Justin Chang thought the story "... covers territory already over-tilled by countless disaster epics and zombie movies, offering little in the way of suspense, visceral kicks or narrative vitality to warrant the retread."[11] Mick LaSelle at San Francisco Chronicle felt the film was entertaining but not scary. He commented on Shyamalan's writing, saying "... instead of letting his idea breathe and develop and see where it might go, he jumps all over it and prematurely shapes it into a story."[12] Time's Richard Corliss saw the film as "dispiriting indication that writer-director M. Night Shyamalan has lost the touch" [13] Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips thought the film had workable premise, but found the characters "gasbags or

forgetful"[14] Joe Morgenstern of Wall Street Journal said the film was "woeful clunker of a paranoid thriller" and described it as "befuddling infelicities, insistent banalities, shambling pace and pervasive ineptitude". [15]

Roger Ebert, of Chicago Sun-Times, was the leading critic to praise the film. Giving the movie 3 out 4 stars, Ebert found it oddly touching and commented that "It is no doubt too thoughtful for the summer action season, but I appreciate the quietly realistic way Shyamalan finds to tell a story about the possible death of man"[16] New York Times's Manohla Dargis praised Mark Wahlberg's lead performance and said " [the film] turns out to be a divertingly goofy thriller with an animistic bent, moments of shivery and twitchy suspense".[17] Philipa Hawker of The Age gave it 3.5 out of 5 stars, commenting on "the mood of the film: a tantalising, sometimes frustrating parable about the menaces that human beings might face from unexpected quarters" and highlighted "sinister recurring moments is the sound of the breeze and the sight of it ruffling the trees or blowing across the grass - an image of tension that calls to mind Antonioni's Blowup."[18]

[darren 0]

I saw the movie, and thought it was incredibly horrible. Bad plot, boring movie, and some pretty bad ideas.

I am no movie buff, so I can't say for sure if Shyamalan did this on purpose. I'm inclined not to think so, just because I can't imagine that he'd waste his time and ours like that. Who cares what critics say? Who cares if most movie makers make horrible sequel movies? Based on his previous work I'd say that he doesn't, so I don't see why he'd try to make a point by making the worst movie of the year.

[Ed from OC 0]

I don't think it is "Ed Wood bad" -- that implies a complete lack of cinematic skill. But, the movie has real problems -- no plot, a really really dumb would-be twist, and next to no suspense. It's like he phoned in the story.

However, his characters do feel real, and some of the dialogue is decent. I also really like the pacing, in contrast to a slam-bang action film.

I hope he gets better with his next film.

[bborg 0]

In any case, this was my thinking on Sunday night. I only needed to confirm these thoughts by hearing from Shyamalan himself. So, I scoured the internet on Sunday night till I found this article.

This reminds me of the scene in The Fountainhead when Wynand demands Roark build in classical styles, and Roark offers him a sketch mangling one of his buildings. Shyamalan's comment that "this is the best B movie you will ever see" is a slap in the face, essentially saying, "is this really what you want from me?"

I can't say that I'm fan of his, but I appreciate the originality of his work and I sympathize with this reaction.

[Mercury 0]

I don't think it is "Ed Wood bad" -- that implies a complete lack of cinematic skill. But, the movie has real problems -- no plot, a really really dumb would-be twist, and next to no suspense. It's like he phoned in the story.

However, his characters do feel real, and some of the dialogue is decent. I also really like the pacing, in contrast to a slam-bang action film.

For a director of Shyamalan's calibre, this is Ed Wood bad. Whatever was decent in the movie owed to the irrepressible aspects of his psycho-epistemology.

The dialogue and acting were ridiculous, and the characters were banal. Wahlberg's character and his wife were probably the most unconvincing portrayal of a couple in marital trouble I have ever seen -- at least, by a director of note.

I hope he gets better with his next film.

With all due respect, this is an outrageous comment, and I hold it in contempt. Better than what????

A man has made two of the very best movies of the last 30 years, and then makes this atrocious film, and then you "hope he gets better"? So, you mean this is not a regression and that Shyamalan needs to improve? Not that he should pursue his masterpiece, but that he should "get better"?? Get better than The Happening?

Outrageous!

[PhilO 0]

A man has made two of the very best movies of the last 30 years, [...]

Unbreakable was good, primarily because of a good story. Signs was one of the dumbest SF movies I've ever seen. Aliens making crop circles and engaging in definite B movie terror by unsuccessfully rattling wood cellar doors? (Never mind that they would have to possess interstellar travel which puts them far beyond current human technology.) Shyamalan's quality is very uneven, and personally I don't understand his following. From one interview I read, he simply wanted, with The Happening, to make a modern environmentalist scare movie, which indeed is the plot.

The Edge and Bicentennial Man are two movies that come to mind made within the past 30 years that are much better than anything he's made, in my assessment.

[Mercury 0]

A man has made two of the very best movies of the last 30 years, [...]

Unbreakable was good, primarily because of a good story. Signs was one of the dumbest SF movies I've ever seen. Aliens making crop circles and engaging in definite B movie terror by unsuccessfully rattling wood cellar doors? (Never mind that they would have to possess interstellar travel which puts them far beyond current human technology.) Shyamalan's quality is very uneven, and personally I don't understand his following. From one interview I read, he simply wanted, with The Happening, to make a modern environmentalist scare movie, which indeed is the plot.

I thought Unbreakable was great, not just because of an original story, but stylistically (notice the use of colors and costuming [Willis' 'cape' and Jackson's blown-out hair] to illustrate the hero v. the villain). The idea is that Samuel Jackson's Mr. Glass was a child so torn by physical pain that he relentlessly sought a reason to live - a purpose in life. Isolation in youth kept him in the world of the comic-book superheroes and villains who became his reason for living. He held these values so strongly, so passionately, he eventually became one of them! He became a supervillain in order to find a superhero (Bruce Willis). If that's not a BIG Romantic story about the pursuit of values, I don't know what is.

I didn't like Signs much, especially because of the logical holes, but it still comes off quite well compared to many of the movies out there. The aliens were only a backdrop for Shyamalan's larger point: in life, we each have a purpose and the difficulty is finding out what this purpose is. The hero in a man (Joaquim Phoenix) is sometimes revealed when he least expects it. Granted, the story wasn't the most powerful vehicle for this message [not to imply that art should always have a message]. But, a young filmmaker with one lesser film among three or four pearls can do much, much worse, as we have seen with many of the compromisers out there.

I hated the sense of life of The Village, but the story's level of abstraction is outstanding. The production is also of very high quality. Lady In The Water is a thoroughly new conception. There's nothing like it out there. Come to think of it, there's nothing like The Village either. I can further explain what I saw in those, if you wish.

The Edge and Bicentennial Man are two movies that come to mind made within the past 30 years that are much better than anything he's made, in my assessment.

As much as I agree with the philosophy of The Edge, and some of its stylistic touches -- like the light-soaked shots of Anthony Hopkins' character on cliff edges -- it doesn't stand out in my mind as a great film. But I did buy the soundtrack. I even consider Meet Joe Black a greater film than The Edge. Perhaps I should see Edge again.

I haven't seen Bicentennial Man. I'll make a point to see it.

[Free Capitalist 0]

He became a supervillain in order to find a superhero (Bruce Willis). If that's not a BIG Romantic story about the pursuit of values, I don't know what is.

Maybe it's a High Romantic concept, but I don't think it was delivered on the level that would've been appropriate. The whole movie is entirely understated. You expect, suppose, a movie about superheroes, and you get basically a bunch of regular folks trying to get some issues off their chest. Maybe this is one of those big examples of an unfulfilled expectation, which can ruin even the best movies, but I went away unsatisfied here.

I hated the sense of life of The Village, but the story's level of abstraction is outstanding. The production is also of very high quality.

I agree completely. Sense of life -- so so, but in terms of concept, and delivery, it was outstanding. Here you think you've stumbled into almost a horror movie, but... well I won't spoil anything but it's nothing so bad. And the message really is outstanding as well.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Sixth Sense, which I (along with the populace at large) found amazing.

But yet, I don't think M Night is of stature that he (and the media) sometimes make him out to be. He's artsy and original, but more conventional directors can quite predictably output more emotionally fulfilling and heroic movies, so he needs to work on being less artsy, and more fulfilling.

[Ed from OC 0]

I don't think it is "Ed Wood bad" -- that implies a complete lack of cinematic skill. But, the movie has real problems -- no plot, a really really dumb would-be twist, and next to no suspense. It's like he phoned in the story.

However, his characters do feel real, and some of the dialogue is decent. I also really like the pacing, in contrast to a slam-bang action film.

For a director of Shyamalan's calibre, this is Ed Wood bad.

That comment shows my point. The analogy doesn't work because Ed Wood never had skill at making movies. So, because Shyamalan has skill, he can't be compared to Wood, period.

This is a bad movie, but the comparison is undeserved.

As for the rest of your post, it isn't worth a response.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Here we have a thoroughly-brilliant, original moviemaker who creates thrillers in a style that is careful, considered, thorough, and human (dignified), yet the mainstream critics can his films while giving slime like [...] countless other trashy films, a free pass. These are the same people who canned Unbreakable and Lady In The Water!?! Talk about injustice. Or some of them would give a Shyamalan film 3 or 4 stars, then give the same 3 or 4 stars to absolute trash.

In connection with this point, which I think is a very valid criticism of the film industry, here's something somewhat tangential but relevant: actress Katherine Heigl, being nominated for the Emmies this year (and winning last year) for her role in the really average Grey's Anatomy show, said:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_en_...N2bnt9hdrEE1vAI

"I did not feel that I was given the material this season to warrant an Emmy nomination and in an effort to maintain the integrity of the academy organization" decided against competing, Heigl said in a written statement provided by her publicist, Melissa Kates, who was contacted by the AP.

In other words, the Academy has lost practically all standards; is shameless. Therefore the actress has to take matters into her own hands, and remove herself from standing because her conscientiousness wouldn't let her stand to win. That's class.

[Mercury 0]

In any case, this was my thinking on Sunday night. I only needed to confirm these thoughts by hearing from Shyamalan himself. So, I scoured the internet on Sunday night till I found this article.

This reminds me of the scene in The Fountainhead when Wynand demands Roark build in classical styles, and Roark offers him a sketch mangling one of his buildings. Shyamalan's comment that "this is the best B movie you will ever see" is a slap in the face, essentially saying, "is this really what you want from me?"

I can't say that I'm fan of his, but I appreciate the originality of his work and I sympathize with this reaction.

This New York Times article (reg. req'd) on Shyamalan, which I found here seems to support my belief that Shyamalan made The Happening to spite Hollywood executives. An excerpt:

M. Night Shyamalan says he knows exactly when his relationship with Hollywood started to sour.

In 2000, he was on a conference call with executives from Walt Disney Studios discussing "Unbreakable," the follow-up to his phenomenally successful movie "The Sixth Sense." He wanted to market "Unbreakable" as a comic-book movie - the tale of an unlikely superhero - but Disney executives insisted on portraying it as a spooky thriller, like "The Sixth Sense."

"I remember the moment that it happened, exactly where I was sitting at the table, the speakerphone," he recalled in an interview from his office in a converted farmhouse near Philadelphia. "That moment may have been the biggest mistake that I have to undo over 10 years so the little old lady doesn’t go, ‘Oh, he’s the guy who makes the scary movies with a twist.’ "

Eight years later, movie audiences still know Mr. Shyamalan as the guy who makes scary movies with a twist.

[Nicolaus Nemeth 0]

Warning: There are spoilers about this movie in this post.

I’m a regular attendee of M. Night Shamalan’s films. I love his generally well atmosphered films that seem to always have a plot twist at the end. The plot twist that comes at the end of The Village was so well done that it is the only time that I have been stunned by the direction a movie’s plot went. I did not see it coming. Naturally, I went to go see his latest offering, The Happening, only to be let-down with its horrible plot, atrocious sense of life, and lack of the classic MNS characteristics I’ve grown to love.

The story only has enough conflict to keep it moving forward. There’s a failing marriage that nobody really wants to save, killer plants, and… well, that’s it. The characters lack any sort of motivation except to run away from the big bad plants. The only passionate character in the whole movie is the main character’s brother Julian who dies early in the film. However, the plot is almost tolerable compared to its treatment of people.

There’s one theme throughout the film; people are horrible. In almost every scene there’s a bad person who, apparently, deserves to be killed by the trees. From random, unprovoked shootings, to unexplainably crazy old ladies and people who won’t give a ride to “those in need” the message is clear; people are horrible. Let us not forget the Viro rant by the “scientist” at the end of the film! Yet, the one thing that stands out in my mind as inconceivable is that absolutely nobody who figures out that it’s the plants fights back! Where are the matches to burn down the forests!? Instead, everybody is scared and just runs around waiting to die. To make things worse, there wasn’t even a plot twist.

I was upset to learn the big “twist” of the plot (the plants are killing everybody) early in the film. It wasn’t even that much of a twist. I had already figured it out when I realized that the “attacks” start in parks combined with Elliot’s weird rant in the beginning about bees disappearing.

All together I was severely disappointed with M. Night’s newest film, The Happening. It let me down not only with a lack of a twist, but with a horrible sense of life and bad story. I’d give it one out of five stars.