Add me to the group that quite liked it... maybe even loved it.

The word I would use for this, is stylized. Shamalyan clearly has a tone he's going for here, whether it's the B movie apocalypse thing or just in its own universe of whimsical absurdity, who knows, but for me, it all seemed like a clear decision. The dialogue, acting, and deaths it all fit together in that tone... and I dug it, I just had a great time watching this thing, it's glorious fun and I think it's intended to be. For the record I don't think the performances are that bad, once you take into account these people are intentionally playing it up and not being realistic, I thought they showed genuine character and emotion. I even thought the ending scene was pretty romantic and well done.

As for the plant thing, if you'd just learned plants were destroying everyone, what would you do? I liked the moment. I also thought the hot dog guy was perfect.

But again, I just think if you take its tone for what it is, it's a really well made and entertaining apocalypse film. The cinematography and general staging of the deaths and runs is excellent, and of course the score, however much borrowed from Hitchcock, is bril. I actually thought it was a much more skillfully directed and shot film than War of the Worlds, which was probably what I was reminded of most throughout. Next Spielberg? No thanks, I'll stick with M. Night!

Oh, and I thought the ending was absolutely perfect.

I quite like the direction Shamalyan's career is going. His first 4 films were all good to great, and always well plotted and paced, but despite the suspense master label, I don't think he was doing or trying anything interesting with his camera or as an auteur. At the end of the day they still felt like Hollywood mold films... there was just nothing new about them and in that sense as a director he would always be limited. Then after the Village it's almost like he blew up the bridge, and and started going in a new direction... Lady in the Water if nothing else was totally unique and ambitious, and while the product ended up being all over the place, I appreciate him at least for trying something that unique. The Happening on the other hand, I feel is much tighter and much more realized and confident than LitW. His skill shooting it is unmatched in any of his films, and making the decision with the deliberate whimsical tone, while the end result may be argued as succesful or not, I think deserves some credit for trying something different. I think it's his best directed and strongest overall film.

On the topic of LitW, even though it was his 5th film, to me it feels like what you'd get if you looked at the debut of a lot of the all time directors... a movie that goes for something and shows ambition and promise, but ultimately feels more worthy as a debut and piece of foreshadowing skill than as a real movie. Of course by the follow up films, they usually start learning from their mistakes finding more of a groove.

At the end of the day I like the Happening, because it goes for something different, and while not everything hits, M. Night is more throwing a lot of stuff on the screen out of fun than being in total control as directors of true masterpieces would, as a whole it was more than worthwhile to me.

4.5/5

Definitely one of the year's most wrongfully slammed films, it's watchable for the juicy camera work and beautiful score along. I'm losing more and more faith in the RT critics consensus these days.

You have officially joined the dark side Shack. Welcome.

THE HAPPENING - 7/10 (B-)

It was surprisingly solid, and I normally hate Shyamalan. Much better than expected from what I'd heard. It's certainly not as campy, and the acting isn't as bad. It's not great, but the only performance I found particularily bad was John Leguizamo's. I can see why others would find Deschanel and Wahlberg bad, but I didn't mind them. I give it a lot of credit for being something different. I loved the scene towards the end with two characters walking outside toward each other. I would have liked it to end with this though but with a darker, more unhappy ending for these characters, even though I did like them.

Anyway, this and THE VILLAGE are definitely Shyamalan's best.

Mike u disgust me. if u complain about joe again, i will beat u up with a stick.

On dvd Tuesday. Looking forward toot.

Why?

I also surprisingly enjoyed it. I accepted it in the manner that M Night was trying to do a throw back to the old B- "monster" movies, like The Blob and that stuff. It's a good ol fun chasey horror movie, from a silly vilian, with silly actions, with silly character and some truly well done deaths that is just good fun. Now take the message whichever way you may but outside of that, I found it enjoyable. Sure the Zoey & Mark are over acting, and imo, its purposely done like that but I found some enjoyment in this. B-

um.

bro, bro, I got it.

ultimately, i'm torn. it might be the first time i've really felt the old "so bad its good". reading this thread has been quite a ride. every other post I felt "yeah, yknow, you're right, this is terrible." but then the next one made me think "hey, maybe it really is some sort of misunderstood triumph." and i felt the same way while watching it. for now, I'm gonna simply write it off as "average" and put it in that ** or **1/2 range.

I skipped this in the theaters because listening to a review on the way to the cinema I decided the only way to watch what they were describing was baked outta my mind. I think that might be the best summation I can come up with, because i'd just about guarantee that this film would be perfect to sit back and enjoy with some chronic.

ps. I agree with those expressing desire to read some makeshift thoughts. My hunch is that he wouldnt be nearly as forgiving/accepting as trixster (I believe?) thought...but I'm definitely curious.

I don't think I was being forgiving. People might call me a "Shyamalan apologist", but I don't think he has anything to apologize for. I truly thought this film was misunderstood and masterful, and I'm sticking by that.

In any case, I, too, want to see what makeshift thinks. Unless he hates it, of course.

I wasn't saying you were being forgiven. Just that someone (I think it was you) said something about expecting makeshift to be positive on it and I'm not sure I agree. Forgiving might have been a poor word choice, but since almost everyone hates it, I figured it worked.

Um, yikes.

Sorry guys, but was this movie for real? Like really?

It felt like one of those made for Sci-Fi TV movies that you catch on a lazy, boring Saturday afternoon, except it took itself super seriously.

I think I LOLed more times during this than I did Semi-Pro. I can't remember the last time I've heard dialogue so forcefully expositive and clunky. Every time Shyamalan tries to go for something profound or emotionally riveting (whether it's with his camera or screenplay), it just hits the floor with a giant thud.

And this is coming from someone who generally loves his work.

Yikes, yikes, yikes.

BTW, I think this movie sets the all-time record for number of times the title is said in regular conversation.

"Could this be happening?

"Is this really happening?"

"What's happening?"

"I think it already happened."

"Am I happening?"

I was asking myself these same questions throughout the movie.

Well, I think the seperation here is clear... for the people who interpret M. Night as taking the movie seriously, it's absolutely a turd, while if you treat it as M. Night having fun and intentionally playing up the B movie ridiculousness, it's a blast. I still think he was in on the joke. The hot dog guy and the cough syrup story...

Meh, I stand by my opinion. I still think Night knew exactly what he was doing. Whether you buy into that or not is the distinction, I think.

I might be inclined to think that too if the rest of Shyamalan's oeuvre wasn't so self-serious, ponderous, and pretentious. I think the one thing we can determine about him as a filmmaker (for better or worse) is that he always takes himself seriously.

This isn't a case of DePalma-like meta comedy.

From what I understand, the script itself is VERY serious in its tone, which for people that have read it seems to shoot down the idea that it wasn't taking itself seriously. There was also an interview where M. Night was comparing it to Rosemary's Baby and other classic horrors or some BS.

And yet, still, I went into the film totally expecting something totally unintentionally goofy...and got something that pushes itself so far beyond the point of believability that I almost thought I could see the actors winking through their performances (I still think Betty Buckley is all kinds of goofy-crazy-awesomeness in this).

If anything, it remains the most perplexfully fascinating film this year by a mile for me.

It probably helps for me that I hadn't seen an M. Night Shyamalan film since Signs nearly five years prior. I still need to see The Village and Lady in the Water.

@ Jon: And in any case, whether or not it was done on purpose doesn't change the movie, to me and trix it at feels like it was done on purpose. If M. Night really did just MASSIVELY fuck up (which I don't believe, for one thing he always directed good performances, I don't see how he'd fuck up *this* bad with his actors here), like you I still thought it was a ton of fun. I'm in the camp of art being judged seperately and on its own and being left to the viewer once it's made however, though I know not everyone is.

@ makeshift's comment, I would normally agree, but I do think that Lady in the Water was in such a different universe of WTF and in a sense creativity and uniqueness than the four movies before it (and The Happening feels even less like those first four as a good film or shitty one), that it's hard to really judge him on those films at this point... he seems to have blown up the boat and gone in a new direction, for better or worse depending how you see it.

This is a great apocalypse movie. Not quite up with Mad Max 2 but in the Testament or Whoops Apocalypse range and thats good in my view.

Um, I dunno, I tell you what folks:

I saw the making-of features for this and Shyamalan DID mean it seriously. Really.



Actually he kinda drew comparisons to The Exorcist and The Godfather as far as pushing the boundaries is concerned. This was no joke.



So you can spend a lot of time convincing yourself it was a joke, but it wasn't.

Oh and I also watched the deleted scenes. One of them was an extended argument between Elliot and Alma that was originally supposed to open the film.

The acting there "tops" even everything you see in the movie. Really.

I have to say I don't necessarily agree with Jon and Shack that the film was meant to be a joke. I thought it took itself seriously. I thought the acting was very intentional. Indeed, I found everything in the film to be very much a product of Shyamalan's directing.

He may be a narcissistic twit, but he knows what he's doing.

http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/06/12/m-ni ... n-b-movie/



http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html



http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles ... tory.jhtml

I'm not saying he meant the movie to be a total joke, but in terms of playing up the B movie acting and style and intending the movie as a fun entertainment more than anything else, which was my original reasoning for its worth (I probably shouldn't dropped the words "in on the joke", I think that was taken the wrong way), it's in writing and it's on the screen.

Again though... it doesn't really matter. Doesn't make the movie any less fun either way

I didn't enjoy it.

I did like some of the creepy moments though. The scene where they are driving and stop to realize there are bodies in the road up ahead, but on the way back to the fork in the road find out each road leads to an area that was already hit. Another scene that was creepy, but I liked, was when the little girl's dad was with the group of people in the jeep going into Princeton, the workers who hanged themselves from the trees. I thought that whole scene was good.

But overall... it just felt really strange. I haven't read this thread, but some of the acting was.... odd. And some moments were... funny. I dunno if that was meant to be or not, but many scenes felt out of place or something. Difficult to explain my opinon on this. It was like, everytime I was really getting interested in the movie, some scene happened that totally changed my mood.

D+/C-