| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 06/15/2008 : 11:15:16
The Happening
If only Shyamalan's film were as catchy as the 1967 Supremes hit. Or as occassionally intriguing as the kind of pre-Performance Art events so popular in the same era.
Instead we get an interesting premise which frankly just blows itself out. For a director who's already proven he knows how to create onscreen tension and suspense - albeit not always with enough plot or character to sustain a couple of hours - M. Night's latest fails to admit that the natural world is not a scary place in and of itself. So the premise of the film can't carry its ever-increasingly improbable tale.
You can impose a whole bunch of talky eco-logic about the planet sending out a warning, about plant-life being the vector of revenge against attack by humans. But you instantly lay out a whole range of unanswered questions - and besides this ain't a lecture, it's a movie! OK - just one major question - if this is the Earth warning us, how come the rest of the Animal Kingdom plays no part in procedings? I mean what's really more likely to scare the pants off you - some maple leaves blowing in the breeze or a herd of angry polar bears charging down from the Arctic into your face?
Yeah, yeah, I know those plants have supposedly miraculously evolved toxins which embody that wise saying by Euripedes: whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. But you'd have thought M. Night would have had much more fun with that.
He does post a quote that should make us think, though. It's posted on science teacher Mark Wahlberg's chalkboard: If all the bees disappeared the world would be able to surive for about four years. And though there may be more than a pollen-grain of truth, its attribution to Einstein is bogus.
But what's really bogus about the film is that nearly every single element feels arbitrary. You never believe these people would even know each other let alone have relationships which evolve as they do. The plot keeps trying to impose the demands of traditional narrative, even as it bogs itself down in the supra-logic of horror films, where nothing matters except the moments of fear delivered to your racing heartbeat by a series of fx.
In the end, all you can say to M. Night is - it ain't Happening!
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 10/10/2008 : 11:31:03
Just saw it on DVD. There are some unsettling moments in New York at the top, but when Zooey gave this vapid Stepford reading to a ludicrous line that her character would never say, something like "This could be the end of life on earth," at about :30, I gave up hope. Not even Betty Buckley could save it. Unlike the underrated THE VILLAGE, Night's reveal here was top-loaded. There was nowhere for the movie to go.
Congrats to him from a production standpoint, though: the monster's special visual effect required nothing more than a big fan.
I agree with my Brit friends who protest the cut. But take it from me, there was no net effect to the [fairly tame] bits of graphic violence; you would have walked out of the theater feeling exactly the same way about the picture. It's THE BIRDS, only ham-handedly executed. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 00:45:31
Yep, very good points. The people should just stop being risk-averse: there is no reason for e.g. the knitting needle suicide at the beginning. And the knock-on effect of all those festering bodies would be severe. The news should say "It's now been three months [or whatever] since the terrible sight of those enforced mass cremations..." |
| damalc |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 21:40:40
i love fourum discussions, except when they turn mean and personal.
you all have hit on almost everything i had planned to say about "The Happening."
let's see:
- seemed made-for-tv -- check.
- better ending: Marky Mark (i hear he hates that name now) and wife become infected and walk apart backwards -- check.
- Shyamalan now has ridiculous ego -- check.
- silly-looking Deschanel -- check.
a couple of other things i disliked.
they described the infection as causing people to lose their self-preservation instinct, but does that necessarily equal suicidal?
it seemed awful easy to evacuate Philadelphia, especially compared to evacuations of major cities in other films ("28 Days Later" "Independence Day").
at the end it was like nothing ever happened. wouldn't there have been a massive clean up? not that they had to show it, but the newscast was the only residual.
"Let's just stay ahead of the wind." WTF?
i was supposed to be on movie strike until the new Batman movie, but just had to go to the theater last night. i suppose that's what i get. 16 days. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/25/2008 : 14:14:49
I forgot to mention the stupidest thing about this film... Why does no one attempt to stop anyone from killing themselves, e.g. by tying each other down in advance?!  |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 06/20/2008 : 16:39:29
The lion scene does not improve when you watch it uncut. |
| demonic |
Posted - 06/20/2008 : 16:29:37
Actually if I open my window I can... I knew you'd feel the same way as me about this. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 06/20/2008 : 16:25:17
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I just found something that possibly annoys me even more than the waste of talent that this film represented... the UK theatrical version has been cut to ribbons, removing all of the explicitly violent scenes. This isn't actually the fault of the BBFC censors though, as I first suspected - they actually passed the film uncut as a 15. Turns out that Fox put it out for distribution in the UK in a heavily trimmed version, presumably to avoid an 18 certificate. How pathetic. I'm not saying it would have improved the film a great deal, but it would have been far more unsettling on the whole to have seen the following: the hair pin piercing the girl's neck in the opening sequence, the lions tearing the limbs off the zoo keeper, blood spraying from the lawnmover as it runs over the man, Justin bleeding in the road after cutting his wrists. A lot of those moments seemed fumbled, especially the pointless camera footage of the zoo, and now I know why. I find it insulting that we aren't allowed to see the same film that everyone else has seen because it contains a degree of blood-letting. Thoughts?
Totally agree ... that's outrageous. This is whatcha get when bottom-liners make decisions. There's lots wrong with the film, as we've all noted, but to have it pre-edited by middle-persons ... bet you can hear my blood boiling all the way over there.
|
| demonic |
Posted - 06/20/2008 : 16:07:48
I just found something that possibly annoys me even more than the waste of talent that this film represented... the UK theatrical version has been cut to ribbons, removing all of the explicitly violent scenes. This isn't actually the fault of the BBFC censors though, as I first suspected - they actually passed the film uncut as a 15. Turns out that Fox put it out for distribution in the UK in a heavily trimmed version, presumably to avoid an 18 certificate. How pathetic. I'm not saying it would have improved the film a great deal, but it would have been far more unsettling on the whole to have seen the following: the hair pin piercing the girl's neck in the opening sequence, the lions tearing the limbs off the zoo keeper, blood spraying from the lawnmover as it runs over the man, Justin bleeding in the road after cutting his wrists. A lot of those moments seemed fumbled, especially the pointless camera footage of the zoo, and now I know why. I find it insulting that we aren't allowed to see the same film that everyone else has seen because it contains a degree of blood-letting. Thoughts? |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/20/2008 : 02:30:55
Please can a spoiler warning be added to the whole thread?
The Happening (Hint, hint -- it makes much more sense to post the F.W.F.R. link, since people can get straight from there to the I.M.D.B. one, and thus have easy access to both pages.)
My preferences are very similar to demonic's: The Village, Sixth Sense, Lady in the Water, Unbreakable, Signs. This one comes immediately above or below Signs.
Like demonic again, as soon as the old woman mentioned the speaking tube, I was just waiting for them to end up separated at either end. It also makes no sense that they suddenly abandon those locations: if they really have to be together (which they don't), Marky Mark should run across to the others.
I agree with almost all of the other criticisms. However, it's not true that the natural world cannot be inherently scary. Inbuilt fear of the woods is what made The Blair Witch Project successful (apart from the fact that the hype took the fear away; if viewed as an unknown film at night, it would be scary). I think even the rustling grass could have been made very threatening if the suspense had been built up properly.
Another stupid thing is that after plants have been cited as the source and the fact that the bigger the population the riskier it is has been mentioned ad nauseum, the crossroads group decides to run off into the fields and that they must stay together. What dumbasses!
And why we are supposed to care about Marky Mark's troubled relationship with his implausibly unhelpful wife I have no idea. |
| demonic |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 18:58:34
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G 0 1 f
This film is already near the top of my why-would-I-bother-to-see list!
As I understand it (SPOILER, but c'mon you already know the whole plot by now), the madness is caused by a neurotoxin randomly emitted by trees that decimates the population. At the end, the trees simply stop producing the poison and everyone goes on about how they will now be better guardians of the ecosystem.
Excuse me? If trees were really responsible for that many deaths, wouldn't there be a national deforestation program complete with firebombings, chainsaw mobilization and termite breeding programs? (One reviewer suggested that it would make the deforestation of the Amazon look like a banzai trimming.) I mean, after 9/11 was there a national consensus that we must be kinder to radical Islamics?
Shyamalan is an admitted comic geek, but too many of his "twists" are similar to the plots of pre-FF Marvel Comics sci-fi/monster stories of the late 50's/early 60's. Those worked fine in 6 page stories in Journey Into Mystery or Tales of Suspense. But you can't build an entire movie around killer trees, or water-soluble aliens, or humans in an alien ant farm.
Did you know The Happening is an anagram of Night Pen Heap?
I hope you're submitting that anagram as a review Rockgolf. 
I had a similar thought about the genuine reaction of the population following a green attack... bring on the napalm. Of course it wouldn't be impossible to consider some especially unintelligent film goers to now consider nature their enemy and think nothing of cutting down their trees and paving their lawn.
In the film though there is no "let's be responsible citizens of the planet" speech - quite the opposite. The strangely bonkers scientist on the television explaining what happened is scoffed at by the interviewer for suggesting it was a warning to the population of the planet rather than an isolated incident - hence the rubbish epilogue of "whoops, it's happening again all over the world..." |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 16:22:23
M. Night Shyamalan has called this his B-movie, and I think that's a fair assessment. Judged on the standards of a B-movie instead of on the standards of Oscar-nominated auteur M. Night Shyamalan, it's actually quite good, though not on the standards of, say, the Final Destination series. It occurred to me while watching that M. Night's early success spoiled him. I like his first three movies a lot -- yes, Signs doesn't follow a lot of logic (and his idiotic take on religious determinism infuriates me), but I don't think it can be denied that it's a very tense and economical thriller. But his success caused caused his ego to balloon to mammoth proportions, as evidenced by the monumentally awful Lady in the Water, an atrocity on the level of killing Jesus. Shyamalan has always believed the hype about him being the next Hitchcock. I'd like to see him try to be the next George Romero or Larry Cohen instead. |
| RockGolf |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 15:41:03
This film is already near the top of my why-would-I-bother-to-see list!
As I understand it (SPOILER, but c'mon you already know the whole plot by now), the madness is caused by a neurotoxin randomly emitted by trees that decimates the population. At the end, the trees simply stop producing the poison and everyone goes on about how they will now be better guardians of the ecosystem.
Excuse me? If trees were really responsible for that many deaths, wouldn't there be a national deforestation program complete with firebombings, chainsaw mobilization and termite breeding programs? (One reviewer suggested that it would make the deforestation of the Amazon look like a banzai trimming.) I mean, after 9/11 was there a national consensus that we must be kinder to radical Islamics?
Shyamalan is an admitted comic geek, but too many of his "twists" are similar to the plots of pre-FF Marvel Comics sci-fi/monster stories of the late 50's/early 60's. Those worked fine in 6 page stories in Journey Into Mystery or Tales of Suspense. But you can't build an entire movie around killer trees, or water-soluble aliens, or humans in an alien ant farm.
Did you know The Happening is an anagram of Night Pen Heap? |
| demonic |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 14:52:34
Well I've had mixed feelings about Mr Night's films on the whole, and not always fitting in with standard view. I rate The Village very highly for example, and didn't hate Lady in the Water as much as most people - I took it for what he intended it to be; a children's story, and found a lot to admire in Howard and Giamatti's performances. It's massively flawed but I still find it involving and moving somehow. I thought Signs was dreadful though, with similar problems to The Happening that I mention below, and was appalled at the ending of Unbreakable. Ranks as one of the worst last moment mis-steps I can think of.
As for The Happening the things that could have saved it were entirely missing, and for me that is credible performances, a tight script and a decent score. It's a half decent idea - world attacks man in self defence, but he didn't think it through very carefully and the story he hangs on his concept is the dampest of squibs. Like Baffy said the sight of wind blowing through fields and trees is inherently not frightening.
Firstly: Wahlberg and Deschanel were just... awful. She seemed to think she was in in some kooky rom-com half the time pulling stupid faces totally at odds with the tone of the scene. The attempts at comedy moments were unwelcome and seemed like a second thought and placatory to an audience turned off by the dark tones and suicides. Wahlberg was insipid to the point of dullness. There was absolutely no chemistry at all, not even connection between them as actors; everyone was in their own movie. There's no excuse for that.
The script was easily the weakest Shyamalan has offered so far - things were only mentioned so they could become plot points a few scenes ahead which is just insulting to an adult audience. "Did I tell you I'm a maths teacher... oh, I didn't... well...". "Hey, I happen to be a plant farmer... and I've got this quirky theory..."
Take the mad old lady randomly telling the protagonists about her clever speaking tube system in the outhouse. Why exactly would that be a topic of conversation unless it was of imminent use. It was so feeble it made me grind my teeth in disbelief.
The characters were also forced into situations by the shabby writing that made them seem even more stupid and less real than they should have; a case in point - when the two boys are shot on the porch Wahlberg crouches for quite a while looking gormlessly at the second kid's obliterated head. What kind of person would be so unaware of their own safety as to put their back to exactly where someone has just been shot? Deschanel meanwhile comes to stand next to him and witters on at his elbow about them having to protect the little girl - the very little girl she has just left on her own in the line of fire. Incidentally it's impossible to care about the fate of either kid as they've only been introduced ten minutes before and aren't even granted two dimensions of character.
Finally James Newton Howard's score, unlike his superb work on The Village and Lady in the Water was instantly forgettable, and incresingly derivative of his other work.
All in all, a sorry state of affairs from a film-maker who can do a hell of a lot better. I think he needs to either get contributions on his screenplays or stop writing them altogether. I'm not sure what would have been a better ending to be honest; I'd lost the will to live by that point, but definitely would have skipped the Paris epilogue. Utter fromage. |
| bife |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 05:00:27
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Here's how I would have ended it. With Wahlberg and Deschanel running towards each other in the field, embracing, and then letting their arms slowly drop to their sides.
Almost my ending.
I'd have had only Zooey dropping her arms to her sides halfway to Wahlberg, Wahlberg somehow immune and having to watch as she as she imaples herself on a big pointy stick, and dear old marky mark killing himself without the benefit of vetetable toxins when he realises his reckless abandon had killed his girl. Or maybe marky mark surviving the whole thing, and having to live with having killed her.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 03:05:31
About as good as the overrated/underrated Signs. Not yet a return to greatness, but almost certainly a step up after the Nazi war crime that was Lady in the Water.
Here's how I would have ended it. With Wahlberg and Deschanel running towards each other in the field, embracing, and then letting their arms slowly drop to their sides. |
|
|
