Um...yeah...I do

Shyamalan's most appropriate comparison is probably Hitchcock, and so it makes sense that his films would be trashed, just as Hitch's were (for the most part). It also makes sense since this film is a close cousin to The Birds, which also dealt with a similar idea of nature attacking with little (or no) explanation, while a banal story played in the foreground. The Birds is still unappreciated today, despite it being one of Hitch's very best works, and I think it's the same for this film. It's not a perfect movie (it's too short, and its mechanisms could have been a bit more skillful and subtle), but it's a vastly underrated one, and I hope that, in time, its brilliance will be appreciated. Don't believe the anti-hype: go see it yourself.

can u pm it to me?

Hitchcock is a 5-time Oscar-nominne. That's 4 more than Shyamalan and it should remain this way too. So, I don't think they are too comparable.


I LOVED The Sixth Sense and liked Signs a lot, but after The Village and The Lady in the Water I completely lost any faith in him.

Hitchcock is a 5-time Oscar-nominne. That's 4 more than Shyamalan and it should remain this way too.

The Happening surely won't bring you're faith back. What a terrible terrible movie this was. And I was one of the few who LOVED The Village.

Ummm, to me too.

I don't think using Oscar nominations is an appropriate way to compare the two directors. A lot of Hitch's works were trashed too (most notably Vertigo, which is now one of the greatest films ever). I've loved every film Shyamalan has done since The Sixth Sense, and I don't think he is the type of director to let any aspect of the film be left to chance. Everything in his films is purposeful, intentional, and integral to the story. I think he's a phenomenal director.

Go see it yourself, Lecter. Read what I've written about it and go see it yourself, and try and see what I'm getting at. If you don't believe me, if you think I'm full of shit and the film is terrible, fine. But if you don't, then at least I've gotten somewhere. Don't believe the critics; they hate Shyamalan for making fun of them, and most of them have an agenda. But Ebert and Roeper both liked this film; that should tell you something.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with bradley on something, but he's absolutely right about this film. Don't believe the terrible reviews and WOM, and don't go in looking to grade it based on usual assumptions about film. It's something totally, totally different. And I, for one, loved it for that.

interesting theory about the acting, trixster

while I still feel it's the less perfect of the films he directed since The Sixth Sense, I think it's being unfairly trashed as usual, yeah.

HEAR HEAR

I finished reading the original script (thanks once more french man). It's pretty much the movie as it is with a little bit more scenes, and some changed scenes. What I did like was that it's much more serious, Elliot is the usual brainiac that figures it all, but the little bits and pieces (like that long conversation about the mood ring at the end of the movie) fall much better into place.

I still don't get the sense that the characters are dumbed down on intent as some of you claim. In this script it's pretty much explained (by Elliot) step by step why they survived and it has nothing to do with the "they act dumb and as such they're not dangerous to the nature" theory. Everything is still in the movie, but with those little parts of script being changed and the change of Elliot as a character it kinda gets lost.

Oh, and the ending is much better (although nothing groundbreaking), considering that The Happening is happening all around the world at the same time in this script.

Well, I was driving to get my car inspected, and I was thinking about this post, and I want to actually respectfully disagree on something here...I can't 100% agree Shyamalan is so masterful that no part of the film is left to chance, and that everything is integral, because Lady in the Water was shit, all-around.

I don't think using Oscar nominations is an appropriate way to compare the two directors. A lot of Hitch's works were trashed too (most notably Vertigo, which is now one of the greatest films ever). I've loved every film Shyamalan has done since The Sixth Sense, and I don't think he is the type of director to let any aspect of the film be left to chance. Everything in his films is purposeful, intentional, and integral to the story. I think he's a phenomenal director.

Go see it yourself, Lecter. Read what I've written about it and go see it yourself, and try and see what I'm getting at. If you don't believe me, if you think I'm full of shit and the film is terrible, fine. But if you don't, then at least I've gotten somewhere. Don't believe the critics; they hate Shyamalan for making fun of them, and most of them have an agenda. But Ebert and Roeper both liked this film; that should tell you something.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with bradley on something, but he's absolutely right about this film. Don't believe the terrible reviews and WOM, and don't go in looking to grade it based on usual assumptions about film. It's something totally, totally different. And I, for one, loved it for that.

just read the script. I can see why it was so popular as just writing. I felt it was very well written and the changes they made into the movie really hurt the film. I gave the film a B-, I'd give the script a solid B+/A-.

And even before the movie was trashed, it was made pretty clear any and all changes were suggested by Fox.

The cut scene in Boston in particular pissed me off. I think interspersing more scenes of carnage around the nation was an effective tool in the script not quite as utilized in the film.

:thumbsup: to your review, Trix. I felt the exact same way about the tone of the film. Like, the whole scene with the fake tree was SUPPOSE to be stupid, yet it seems like people are trying to make it sound like it was an unintentional funny. I've avoided The Village and Lady in the Water, but I think I need to reconsider that now.

God, I wish makeshift were to share his thoughts. Where is that guy?

So this is probably the most unfairly hated movie since, well, Lady in the Water.

I'm not really sure why the majority of critics have it out for Shyamalan, or why they feel compelled to shallowly rate his films without taking the time to read into its message or delve into its depths. I mean, it took my family all of fifteen minutes to discuss and examine and, ultimately, understand the film, and none of us do this for a living. Perhaps they just hate his techniques, perhaps they dislike his (admittedly large) ego, or perhaps they just don't get him. Really, I guess it doesn't matter. Audiences and critics alike have both taken a hating to him recently, and they're both wrong.

I guess I could see how one could hate this film, though. The acting is stark and obvious and, well, "bad", but it's entirely deliberate. The dialogue is banal and silly, but, again, completely intentional. This is not a Wicker Man scenario where the film is so bad it's hilarious. The film purposefully plays with disaster film archetypes and goes against what a film is 'supposed' to be like in order to make its point, and it does so masterfully. This is not a film for someone expecting a quick little horror. This is not a film for someone not willing to put a little thought into their viewing. This is, as bradley put it, a thinking man's horror - and it's brilliant.

Nearly everyone here has discounted the acting as terrible, and I suppose it could be seen that way, but I found it very measured and deliberate and, in fact, essential to the story. The leads are bland and stunted and (some would say) laughable, but their flat performances contrast perfectly with the grisly, vicious suicides portrayed in between. Furthermore, their almost-childishness serves to explain why they are able to survive the event - their dull, pedestrian conversations and innocent naivety means the plants do not view them as threatening, and thus do not attack them. It may be an overblown way of explaining the mystery, but it seems like most people missed it, anyway. Similarly, the apparent banality of the dialogue is at a vast disparity from the pure, elemental horror that functions as the backdrop, and the tension between these two extremes makes the terror that much more terrifying. The 'terrible' acting and screenplay is not only intentional, it's vital.

Of course, there's a lot more to this film than artful horror and misinterpreted intentions. This could be Shyamalan's most political film yet, with comments ranging from terrorism and global warming to gun culture in middle America. It's not always dealt with subtly (the death of the two kids is especially obvious), but there's a lot of stuff just underneath the surface that all helps to explain what's really going on. First, the increasingly creative ways in which the victims find to kill themselves. The two most vivid examples are, perhaps, the zoo scene and the lawnmower scene. Both are instances of man exerting his control over nature, and the suicides represent that control reverting to destroy us. Also, the very obvious zooms and pans and focuses to show man's slow destruction of nature, from the car reversing and driving over the plants to the dominating power plants in the background. It's not always done very skillfully, but it's still there, nonetheless.

Shyamalan's most appropriate comparison is probably Hitchcock, and so it makes sense that his films would be trashed, just as Hitch's were (for the most part). It also makes sense since this film is a close cousin to The Birds, which also dealt with a similar idea of nature attacking with little (or no) explanation, while a banal story played in the foreground. The Birds is still unappreciated today, despite it being one of Hitch's very best works, and I think it's the same for this film. It's not a perfect movie (it's too short, and its mechanisms could have been a bit more skillful and subtle), but it's a vastly underrated one, and I hope that, in time, its brilliance will be appreciated. Don't believe the anti-hype: go see it yourself.