Page 1 of 2

The Happening

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:03 pm
by SonOfaRich

Anyone got any theories on this new M. Night Shymalan mystery?

Something to do with bees?

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:38 pm
by thirdeyeh
Just saw it and I LOVED IT! I can't say how much it impressed me. It's a very psychological film. If you are a fan of old films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Birds you'll enjoy the "horror" aspect to it. But what was truly moving about the film is that its about much more. To me this is a film about people and relationships. The events that happen take a very strong back seat, in my opinion, to the character story. I've read some reviews that poke at Mark Walhberg's performance without taking into account that it's suppose d to be goofy. The man's a science teacher not an action hero. I recommend it greatly. I know people get so divided on Night's movies, but as a general film, I found it moving and powerful. Also I say let the more political aspect of the film take a back seat on this one too. Night has said that his goal is to entertain with this film, not make a statement.

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:06 pm
by Michael Firman
Really? I might make some enemies by saying this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a really long time.

I just got back from the theatre. I just... I can't... wow. I don't know how to describe how much I hate it. Pretend that my hate is a gas and the movie is a balloon but my hate is being pumped at such an obscene rate the balloon instantly breaks and the Earth's atmosphere fills with it and is now 98% Ha3O (3 parts Hatred per Oxygen molecule). Soon all forms of life choke and wither, and the heavy new sky traps in excess heat which cooks the planet to the point of explosion. What was once Earth is now a perpetually detonating mass of eruptive loathing that has been launched off orbit and is careening towards the Sun at unfathomable speeds (but if it were to be measured, I'd say 5 jillion hates per second). When the two collide, a megablast of gamma rays and other freaky deaky cosmic shit will envelope the entire universe and eventually manifest as a gigantic boxing glove that punches God in the nuts.

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:42 pm
by thirdeyeh
Lol, that's hilarious. Actually I am probably the one who will get the bulk of the "are you serious" notes. I don't think the movie was perfect, but it worked for me. I don't expect that masses of others will agree with me though. That's fine. All that matters to me is I felt it was a time well spent. Because that's all I can control. I hope others will just relax and enjoy it, but I dunno.

To be honest I walked into this one with a bad feeling from the reviews, then I put that aside and said I'm just gonna join the ride. To me it was everything I love about Shyamalan. He juggles so many things at once. Which for me works to his advantage and to some is his down fall. He wants to entertain you, and somewhere along the way people have turned him into this man who has his head up his rear. I find so many of the reviews out there are just making really bold personal attacks on the man and it makes no sense to me. It's like beat up on Shyamalan as a person field day. Which is unfair. Deal with the material, not the person. There are some goo critical interviews out there though, so I don't mean that. I just happen to disagree with all of them. 8)

I thought Ebert's review of the film was right on. ... /545929629 He full on acknowledges he's gonna be in the minority on this one and gives it a favorable review of *** out of 4. But he gets the idea and why it worked and for me it did too. Though gotta say your review is pretty hilarious ( i don't mean that meanly at all, it just was genuinely funny lol). Sorry it was so unenjoyable to you.

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:36 am
by SonOfaRich
It's Not Happening. **MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

This film is conceptually bad, which affects the rest of the story and plotlines. I felt this film to be too simplistic, as if this is the kind of film Shymalan would make while on vacation in the country side. I still think his craftsmanship is great and he can tell a story, but I think it's time for him to let someone else write it. After all, he was able to make plants and trees look scary and it was almost believable when they were running away from the wind. So to reiterate, bad concept/story. Bad acting as well, except from the two boys and the old lady (who stole the show). I'm a bit conflicted with his use of the "R" rating. Some of it was disturbing and some of it was just like "C'mon! You must really think we're fools!"

I did not like this one. I'm going to have to agree with the majority of the critics on this one. Persistent is Shymalan, I must say. Hate is a word that I wouldn't use to describe my feelings for this film, but it would be a good word to use.

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:19 am
by jcaffoe
I think I'm gonna wait until the hype dies down and it's in the bargain bin at best buy. Pretty sure that's the only way I'll enjoy it.

Shyamalan is really hit-or-miss for me. Signs was pretty underwhelming, The Sixth Sense felt like a parody of itself by the time I saw it, and The Village was dull and plodding with a 'so what?' ending.

Unbreakable, however, is one of my all-time favorite films.

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:06 pm
by William Ward
I always get in trouble for having Lady in the Water as my favorite of his.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:02 am
by thirdeyeh
I get weird looks when I say that The Sixth Sense is my least favorite of his. It's a great movie, but it's basically an hour and a half twist ending. I just don't feel there's as much depth there as with some of his other films. It resonated becuase of ending, not the characters. Though it is super sweet still.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:15 am
by dark77778
I generally hate anything he comes out with, but I've wanted to see Lady in the Water just because it looks visually apealing if anything. He generally comes out with a great idea for something, then just makes it stupid, silly or obvious. It's pretty sad too because I know that I could take like...Hitchcock for example, to take one of his concepts and make it into a masterpeice every single time. I've really sort of given up on his movies being anything good in the next half a decade and maybe he'll pull a reverse George Lucas and suddenly become fantastic mid-career.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:31 pm
by thirdeyeh
Lol, Man I've never felt so alone.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:53 pm
by dark77778
:roll: Hey, if you can find merrit in his stuff than perhaps you're just a better man than I. If the movie was good and inspired you, and you can honestly say that you enjoyed it, then you enjoyed it and the hell with what we say. I mean, the movie that's in my picture over there (Once Upon a Forest) is terrible to the critical eye, but it's so cute and awesome to me that I dno't care how many people laugh at how corny it is.

How about you make a comic then about how the movie was to your eyes and maybe it'll convince us of otherwise. :idea:

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:05 am
by neil
I got the feeling while watching this that it is confidently supposed to be a B movie, and that most critics seem to be missing this. I mean come on, that scene with the lion! Even the James Newton Howard score seems arranged to scream "B movie!" And in that vein, it mostly works, but it falters in its attempts to transcend the genre--the characters' emotional arc, which is interesting at first, turns out to be almost totally coincidental to the threat surrounding them. I did like Wahlberg and Daschenel's performances; it's nice how they subvert action hero stereotypes (like thirdeyeh pointed out above), and defuse the hammy quality of many of their lines with a dopey, affable delivery.

Also, what's with Tak Fujimoto's cinematography? I wanted to see some eerie or menacing landscapes, but the movie as a whole looks pretty washed out and bland. And the extreme close-ups are a little indulgent and unnecessary.

I'm still very interested in what Mr. Shyamalan does next with his personal projects.

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:38 am
by thirdeyeh
Actually that's exactly the point Neil. The movie supposed to a hi-B movie. Night has said in every interview I've read that its supposed to feel that way. So I took it for what it was and enjoyed it.

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:20 pm
by cecil
jcaffoe wrote:I think I'm gonna wait until the hype dies down and it's in the bargain bin at best buy. Pretty sure that's the only way I'll enjoy it.

Shyamalan is really hit-or-miss for me. Signs was pretty underwhelming, The Sixth Sense felt like a parody of itself by the time I saw it, and The Village was dull and plodding with a 'so what?' ending.

Unbreakable, however, is one of my all-time favorite films.
Unbreakable was my favorite movie by him.

i saw the happening, and i think that if you wade through the horrible acting then there is a substantial amount of good movie there. a huge number of shots in that movie really moved me. most especially when the people in the wrangler first get into princeton; the scene with the ladders. i absolutely loved that shot.

that shot has an amazing sense of horror and really conveys the abject situation in the movie. plus one doesn't find, too often, a shot like that working in the day time. but they pulled it off.

if you can get passed the ridiculous acting, and probably not pay attention to the sub plots, then you will find the movie is pretty good.

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:22 pm
by cecil
also, the grainy film effect when the man uses the lawn mower, outside the model home. i enjoyed that.