The Happening

[Bourne101]

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/the_happening/thehappening_galleryposter.jpg

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

Written by M. Night Shyamalan

Genre: Thriller

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/the_happening/_group_photos/mark_walhberg6.jpg

Plot Outline: A family is on the run from an inexplicable and unstoppable event that threatens not only humankind--but the most basic human instinct of them all: survival.

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo, and Spencer Breslin

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/the_happening/thehappening_cop.jpg

Rated R for violent and disturbing images.

Runtime: 91 minutes

Looking forward to this very much.

[MadsenOMC]

If this doesn't totally suck ass I'll be stunned.

[Lazy Boy]

I'm looking forward to seeing this one, even if it bombs at the box office. I've stuck with M. Night this far, will be curious to see where the reception of this takes him. Sill one of my favorite directors, despite Lady.

[Moviefan1234]

THE HAPPENING looks outstanding, I can't wait to see it.

[Bourne101]

.

[Lazy Boy]

Where did you read/hear that?

[MadsenOMC]

That doesn't change the negative script reviews or the fact that it is not being screened for critics. Plus, the red band trailer reeks of desperation.

[Lazy Boy]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/04/fox-to-hold-happening-press-screenings-after-all-m-night-afraid-of-blogs/

For a couple weeks now it was rumored that 20th Century Fox had made the decision to not screen M Night Shyamalan’s The Happening to press after a bad review leaked onto the internet last month. And as you probably know, when studios decide not to screen a movie for the press, it’s usually for good reason.

But as it turns out, Fox has decided to screen the movie for press after all. Studios usually hold WOM screenings (or Word of Mouth Screenings) for the popcorn movies before release. It is typical for movie critics to see the film at these type of screenings. I think the general thinking is that a theater packed with the exact target demographic usually leads to a better theater experience (ie a comedy audience laughs more at more jokes, a horror audience jumps more at scares…etc), which in turn might be likely to influence the invited press also in attendance.

Instead, my local screening of The Happening is being held in a small private screening room, which is very odd for this type of film. Also, I’m not allowed to even bring a guest (another change from standard operating procedure). And I’ve heard the same from friends in other territories, so it appears to be a direct order for Fox themselves. Clarification: The reason I mention this is not that I’m bitter that I can’t bring a guest… 95% of the time I don’t even exercise the option. If I were to read between the lines, I would say that Fox wants invited members of the press, and ONLY invited members of press to screen the film early. Not allowing press to bring a friend or family member means one potentially less negative review on the web the next day.

Even New York Post’s Lou Lumenick notes an unusual addendum to the invite which warns against blogging: “Please keep in mind that reviews cannot post (online blogs included) or run until opening day, June 13th.” Is M Night really afraid of blogs? Is that why no one other than invited press is allowed to screen the film?

It should be noted that even though we are technically a blog, we always hold our reviews of a film until opening day (unless otherwise approved by a national publicist). The note above that Lou mentions is not directed at sites like us, per say (as we follow embargo rules), it is directed at movie critics with personal blogs.

-----

For whatever that's worth.

[MadsenOMC]

I know for a fact it is not screening everywhere. A friend is the movie critic at a daily paper and he said it is not being screened for him or anyone else where he lives.

[Mr.HyDe807]

As bad as the stuff i've heard about is, i'm still intrigued. I'll take one for the team and check it out!

[MidnightAngel]

Smells like a bomb!:p

[freakandgeek]

i am really looking forward to this movie! but,one thing, why are all the commercials focused on this being m night shyamalans first RATED R movie?! is that really a big deal?!

i dunno. i am looking forward to it, and i just hope it doesn't suck!

[AndrewDB]

i dunno. i am looking forward to it, and i just hope it doesn't suck!


Don't get your hopes up..

[Bourne101]

Smells like a bomb!:p

I wouldn't be so sure. The marketing towards mainstream audiences has been excellent, and hasn't given away very much. These are the kind of movies that mainstream audiences are digging nowadays, and I wouldn't be surprised if The Happening opened to $30 million.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I just don't care anymore , the they said , they said ramblings before a movie's release concerning it's merits and box office potential , it's all nonsense . Sure , it's fun to pontificate , but i'm burnt on it now .

Who gives a fekk about some a hole who said they didn't like the script or about how the studio is handling the pre release press coverage . It looks good from what iv'e seen , so i'll be seeing Hulk and Happening .


Damn man , all this pontification can really ruin a film , that is before the thing is even released and or anyone has seen it .

I don't see how a redband trailer reeks of desperation , what's wrong with honest marketing , the movie is r rated , so why shouldn't they show an r rated trailer .

[JohnLocke2342]

I understand where people are coming from with the rated R desperation thing.. it seems like they did it that way. They handled it a bit poorly to the fact that it blatantly screams "If you weren't thinking about seeing this movie, or were on the fence about it, did you know it's rated R? Yes R! Look at these really fast clips of intense shit happening. R! Blood! R! It's rated R! Tell all of your friends who spend money on the Saw movies, AND your friends who like the X-Files/Global Warming/The Sixth Sense/Markey Mark! Because it's rated R!"

Did I get that vibe? Kinda.. but did I care? Absoluteley not. Why? Because it's what that movie has to market. It's kinda like how Saw markets the shit out of it's name, even tho the movies lost the Saw feeling midway through #3 to me. It's just the way they needed to do it in my opinion. And I could care less, because I'm gonna see it. Why John? Why are you gonna see it if you can see the desperate marketing and non-screenings for fans and people crying about how the twist is terrible?? Because I'd love to see it.

I don't remember exactly when the overanalyzing of movies started.. but for me it was Episode I. And if you guys don't wanna hear a shitty personal story then you can stop reading. All I know is that before Episode I, I would hear about a movie, think it looked GREAT, saw it, and actually thought it was GREAT. Instead of pointing out the movie's flaws, I would point out it's strong points.. and love it for them. All of a sudden I found myself critiqueing everything about a movie, as if I was a film critic, and the internet was my audience. But it wasn't, and I was depriving myself of what the movie was trying to do. I wouldn't dare let the movie entertain me. I was 12 when episode I came out. I saw it 3 times, I LOVED IT. I was 15 when episode II came out, I saw it 3 times, I LOVED IT. I was 18 and a bit skeptical when Episode III came out. I saw it 4 times, and hated it more and more after I saw it. Just like I started to hate the prequels more and more after I saw them. I was ruining the movie for myself... as sad as that sounds. I was ignoring the fact that it was entertaining and started nit picking at the acting, directing, pointless scenes, unfunny "funny" moments, crap dialogue and awkward moments. Maybe it was the the fact that I was a huge fan of Star Wars and already had the prequels in my mind, and they turned out to be different. But I was guarding them like they were my newborn son, and they weren't.. they were somebody else's. And I really took the time to think about overanalyzing a fun sci-fi adventure flick. I'll leave that to movies attempting to win best original screenplay, or best picture. In my mind now, overanalyzing doesn't belong with those movies anymore.

As corny as it sounds, it was Indy 4 that rescued me from this. Indy 4 was nothing like I wanted it to be, and a bit of what I feared it would have become.. but I held myself back from it. I sucked it up, thought about it the entire night, and saw it the next day (after the midnight showing).. and I loved it. It was just the fact that I actually got to see an Indy movie in the theater! And he was ACTUALLY back! I couldn't believe it.. the man in the hat's whole new adventure was unfolding in front of my eyes for the VERY first time. I came home, I watched the Star Wars prequel trilogy and loved them as much as the first time I watched them.

Any of you who read this far, I'm sorry for blinding your eyes and making you read a crappy story about me, but I think we should all relax a bit sometimes with movies.. relax, stop nit picking the shit out of them, and just be ENTERTAINED. They're made for entertainment.. and to make a profit, that can't be ignored.. but to entertain.. so let them do that to you.



Oh, and btw, I wanna see The Happening :D

[unoball]

Plus, the red band trailer reeks of desperation.

Granted a bit of a novice but I thought the redband was really creepy, weird and conveyed a his usual tension with a little hot sauce on top

[ilovemovies]

The trailers and tv spots have been incredibly enticing although I agree that focusing on this being Night's first R rated feature is a little silly.

But I'm pumped for this nonetheless.

[Crazy Dud]

I am fan of his films. I like them all to various degrees, with the exception of Lady in the Water, which was quite mediocre.

M. Night has fallen out of grace with general audiences, thanks to The Village and LITW. However, I know a lot of people who want to see this film. Also, unless they are mis-advertising again, this is a return to the types of films Shyamalan does best, as illustrated by The Sixth Sense and Signs.

What I've seen of it so far makes it look good to me. I really don't want to see Shyamalan bomb again. If he does, Avatar is probably his last chance. It would be a shame since he is one of the only studio directors left who is actually putting out original films. Therefore, I will be supporting this opening weekend (and considering that it's up against The Incredible Hulk, it's going to need all the help it can get).

[Strider]

After two great back-to-back films in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, Shyamalan's career has gone straight to hell -- Signs was a misfire, The Village was absolutely dreadful, and Lady in the Water was a trainwreck. Although I'm growing weary of Shyamalan, I'll give The Happening (I still don't like the title; it sounds like a 80s party flick) a look, but I have ZERO expectations, and the fact that this is his "first R-rated film" doesn't excite me one bit.

I wonder what Shyamalan is going to do if this turns out to be another box-office bomb.

Strider

[MadsenOMC]

I just don't care anymore , the they said , they said ramblings before a movie's release concerning it's merits and box office potential , it's all nonsense . Sure , it's fun to pontificate , but i'm burnt on it now .

Who gives a fekk about some a hole who said they didn't like the script or about how the studio is handling the pre release press coverage . It looks good from what iv'e seen , so i'll be seeing Hulk and Happening .


Damn man , all this pontification can really ruin a film , that is before the thing is even released and or anyone has seen it .

I don't see how a redband trailer reeks of desperation , what's wrong with honest marketing , the movie is r rated , so why shouldn't they show an r rated trailer .

Yeah, all this pontification! Why are people discussing a movie at all before it's released? That's crazy.

dd, you might not know this, but when a studio doesn't hold press screenings for a movie, it's a bad sign 99.9% of the time.

The red band trailer was an effort to counter the terrible buzz. I think that's pretty obvious, or at least it should be. Not every R-rated movie has a red band trailer.

[LordSimen]

Looking forward to this movie. M. Night's only really ever disappointed me once and I'm interested to see what he's like with an R rating.

[DaMovieMan]

Couldn't really care less for this film. There's no way I'll be convinced by Mark Walberg playing a teacher of all professions. There's just something wrong with that and it screams desperation by M. Night. Other than that, there's a little film called THE INCREDIBLE HULK that opens the same day which has my attention.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Yeah, all this pontification! Why are people discussing a movie at all before it's released? That's crazy.

dd, you might not know this, but when a studio doesn't hold press screenings for a movie, it's a bad sign 99.9% of the time.

The red band trailer was an effort to counter the terrible buzz. I think that's pretty obvious, or at least it should be. Not every R-rated movie has a red band trailer.

As cool as the trailer was, i'm with Madsen on this. It didn't even look like a nicely constructed trailer, just a introduction to whats going on, then a montage of violent happenings. At least some red band trailers try to keep the flow of the original ones, this one seemed too excited to show all the goods.

However, i'm still checking out when i can (didn't know it was comign out the same time as Incredible hulk, so i may see incredible first first...or i may just see Happening in the afternoon). It still intrigues me even though the stuff seems pretty silly! :D

[dellamorte dellamore]

Yeah, all this pontification! Why are people discussing a movie at all before it's released? That's crazy.

dd, you might not know this, but when a studio doesn't hold press screenings for a movie, it's a bad sign 99.9% of the time.

The red band trailer was an effort to counter the terrible buzz. I think that's pretty obvious, or at least it should be. Not every R-rated movie has a red band trailer.

I was thinking that the red band trailer was supposed to show you a bit more than they normally would , i never thought it was an act of desperation .

It turns out the red band of this film was more effective , as are most r rated trailers i've seen .

I agree that when a studio doesn't hold press screenings it can mean they aren't confident in their product , but that doesn't mean the film won't be good , and unless the red band is totally misleading and it turns out barney and his dinosaur friends are behind the " apocalypse " that unfolds , it looks good to me and i'm interested in seeing this .

[MadsenOMC]

As cool as the trailer was, i'm with Madsen on this. It didn't even look like a nicely constructed trailer, just a introduction to whats going on, then a montage of violent happenings. At least some red band trailers try to keep the flow of the original ones, this one seemed too excited to show all the goods.

Exactly. Most red band trailers are similar to a regular trailer, with a little R rated content thrown in. This one is a 30 second clip of violence, and it was released after the bad buzz was in full effect. Hence, desperation. But apparently the studio was smart to do it since some people here like it.

[MadsenOMC]

I was thinking that the red band trailer was supposed to show you a bit more than they normally would , i never thought it was an act of desperation .

It turns out the red band of this film was more effective , as are most r rated trailers i've seen .

It's really not a trailer though. Like I said, it's a 30 second clip of violence meant to counter the bad buzz.

[Lazy Boy]

The trailer that's currently in theaters (the one I saw before The Strangers) is more effective than the red band -- the latter spoils a little too much, and as I said in another thread, it gave a more distinct Maximum Overdrive feel, which isn't a good thing. :D

[Jig Saw 123]

Lady in the Water was the only bad movie M. Night did in my eyes. The Happening looks terrible, but I'll see it because I can't help but watch a M. Night Shyamalan film. I have a feeling this movie will suck, just like Lady in the Water. :(

[Lazy Boy]

The soundtrack is available on iTunes. I'm sure that, whether or not the movie ends up being amazing or awful, James Newton Howard's score will be at least memorable. His Village score is just so beautiful.

[TeeRay]

I think this looks awful. I like Mark Wahlberg, too.

Regardless, my friend wants to see it, so I have to tag along. Maybe it will be a "so bad it's good" movie.

[Indydan13]

I agree with the earlier poster that we pick films apart much and the realization the film sucks can ruin the experience.

That is good.

Albeit some films are absolved of it due to intentions (i.e. Snakes on a Plane, Grindhouse, other popcorn flicks) but most films want to be taken seriously. For instance Star Wars and Indiana Jones. With M. Night, he made two good movies, then 3 bad ones. He keeps shoveling the same gunk down our throats. Here is the basic plotline for a M. Night movie:

"An everyday (noun) is forced to care for his (plural relative) when mysterious (event) occur. As their world comes down around them the family fights back, runs, etc. and after 90 minutes of pointless (noun) happen, the mega twist at the end reveals all"

This movie is going to be bad, along with 80 percent of the crap we're fed. Movies like "Jumper" and "Step Up 2: The Streets: Electric Boogaloo" need to be picked apart. We as an audience have become self aware. Instead of relying on "experts" to tell us what is good, seeing the film, and then making up our own minds quietly, the internet, not Ep. I, gave us the voice.

I personally pick them apart because I want better. We all deserve better. Any smart Exec. in Hollywood should just browse IMDB, Joblo, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. to get an idea of what Movie Buffs want. That's what it is about.

It's just one giant suggestion box...

[DME]

Any smart Exec. in Hollywood should just browse IMDB, Joblo, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. to get an idea of what Movie Buffs want. That's what it is about.

It's just one giant suggestion box...

God, not IMDB. The conversations here are pretty reasonable, but Christ, an exec browsing the IMDB boards would just get the impression that fans are dumber than previously suspected...

[MoovEDude]

If this doesn't totally suck ass I'll be stunned.

Sixth Sense 9/10
Unbreakable 8/10
Signs 8/10
Village 6/10
Lady in Water 4/10

2 weak entries but combined averages to a possible 7/10 for this one

I still have faith in the man..I'd be surprised if it DID suck..

[Shockwave]

Only 91 minutes?

I dont know if thats good or bad.

[MadsenOMC]

Sixth Sense 9/10
Unbreakable 8/10
Signs 8/10
Village 6/10
Lady in Water 4/10

2 weak entries but combined averages to a possible 7/10 for this one

I still have faith in the man..I'd be surprised if it DID suck..

Do you see the pattern that emerges with those scores? They are going down, a perfectly good reason for losing faith in the man.

[Lazy Boy]

Only 91 minutes?

I dont know if thats good or bad.

His movies have hovered around the 100 minute mark, so I don't see this as really bad or differing from the norm, so long as he knows how to make each scene work/have impact.

[JoeChar4321]

That doesn't change the negative script reviews or the fact that it is not being screened for critics. Plus, the red band trailer reeks of desperation.

SPOILERS.....


I can see why no studio wanted to shoot this crap back when it was a script called “The Green Effect”. The whole theory that plants being angry with the world, that their toxins are affecting people, is an absurd idea for a movie. Nature's revenge attack on humanity... Good Lord, once word gets out this movie is doomed.

[MadsenOMC]

His movies have hovered around the 100 minute mark, so I don't see this as really bad or differing from the norm, so long as he knows how to make each scene work/have impact.

This is getting picky and technical, but:

Lady in the Water = 110 minutes
The Village = 108 minutes
Signs = 107 minutes
Unbreakable = 106 minutes
The Sixth Sense = 107 minutes

So, 91 minutes is significantly shorter than his other movies, at least 15 minutes shorter.

[Lazy Boy]

This is getting picky and technical, but:

Lady in the Water = 110 minutes
The Village = 108 minutes
Signs = 107 minutes
Unbreakable = 106 minutes
The Sixth Sense = 107 minutes

So, 91 minutes is significantly shorter than his other movies, at least 15 minutes shorter.

Point taken, but I was referring to Shockwave's question of short not always being bad.

[MadsenOMC]

Point taken, but I was referring to Shockwave's question of short not always being bad.

Gotcha. And I wasn't trying to call you out. It's really nitpicky but I thought I'd at least mention it.

[The Postmaster General]

What I've seen the acting is horrible, but it had a good sense of mood. This was based off like a few minute clip of them in a train. That can work well for a horror movie if the movie works. I like Leguizamo, disaster stories, and trust M. Night can put out good films.

As others have mentioned, the marketing campaign for this is a bit annoying, because I think we'd rather have plot ideas, or at least more scenes instead of the reiteration of who is making the film, and what its rating is.

[Fancyclaps]

Hmmm, Leguizamo was on Regis the other day and there was a clip of the movie and he looks likes he's gonna be great in this flick, acting wise (Wahlberg seemed meh).

Also, while the collider review is fake, there are three other reviews up on spanish websites (credible spanish websites) and two out of the three reviews are positive. I'm not positive they're real but I do know that the film is being promoted overseas and the reviews "sound" real. I'm too lazy to post them but you can find them on the first page of the IMDb message board.

Finally, I really DO think the reason for the late screenings are to keep the plot a secret. I mean, there are other restrictions at the critics screening such as they are not allowed to bring a guest and critics can only post their reviews on June 13th, the release date. I think there was also another restriction but I forget now...

Anyway I'm looking forward to it, I'll be there opening night with a group of friends; Hulk looks stupid despite featuring Norton (Two Face woulda been sick...)

[gyro_44]

SPOILERS.....


I can see why no studio wanted to shoot this crap back when it was a script called “The Green Effect”. The whole theory that plants being angry with the world, that their toxins are affecting people, is an absurd idea for a movie. Nature's revenge attack on humanity... Good Lord, once word gets out this movie is doomed.

*** SPOILERS AGAIN ***


I not really sure why you think it's a completely stupid idea. I really think such a thing could work, given that it is handled in an effective way. Think about it. We treat the Earth like fucking shit. Wouldn't it be some well-deserved payback? And I'm not picturing trees and plants springing to life and literally kicking our asses, but something unseen that is making people commit grisly suicide left and right, and that's a scary notion for me.

Anyway, I'm holding out some faint hope for this, although I wouldn't be surprised if Shyamalan totally mishandles it and it ends up being lame. After the mess Lady and the Water, I'm kind of half-on half-off the Shyamalan bandwagon, and I'm wondering if I'll be getting off at the next stop. I hope not, because I think he has done some masterful work.

[Bourne101]

.

[Moviefan1234]

Yeah, those Spanish reviews were from reliable sources and were quite positive.

That's excellent news, thank you.

[Crazy Dud]

Do you see the pattern that emerges with those scores? They are going down, a perfectly good reason for losing faith in the man.

God . . . EVERYONE'S going to come into this movie ALREADY EXPECTING IT TO SUCK! Honestly, I rarely go into a movie with ANY expectations, positive or negative. It's really the only way to form a truly unbiased (well, as unbiased as possible, actually, since we all have our biases) opinion of a film after seeing it. And BTW, the declining numbers could also be seen as a good "sign" (lame pun intended). We all know he's capable of making great films, and after two duds, he could very well be due for a hit again.

I honestly have no idea how good this film will be, but Shyamalan's one of the few writer/directors left actually putting out original films, so I will support his film opening weekend, and discover then just how good or bad it is.

[MadsenOMC]

We all know he's capable of making great films, and after two duds, he could very well be due for a hit again.

No, we don't. Never been a fan.

[MadsenOMC]

Yeah, those Spanish reviews were from reliable sources and were quite positive.

Well I'm sure the American press will be seeing it any day now then.

How does one determine whether or not a Spanish review is from a reliable source? Do you read a lot of Spanish newspapers?

[The Postmaster General]

Hmmm, Leguizamo was on Regis the other day and there was a clip of the movie and he looks likes he's gonna be great in this flick, acting wise (Wahlberg seemed meh).

Also, while the collider review is fake, there are three other reviews up on spanish websites (credible spanish websites) and two out of the three reviews are positive. I'm not positive they're real but I do know that the film is being promoted overseas and the reviews "sound" real. I'm too lazy to post them but you can find them on the first page of the IMDb message board.




I know you're right about the plot, but I still don't see why we can't see some more scenes. The movie can't be one big spoiler, can it? It's like Walberg running with kid, guy that looks like train conductor turning to see camera sneaking up on him, bodies falling from building, something's going on on the television...

For the reason, it's good they are showing more clips - Was it the scene on the train you saw? I thought JL was good there, but Walberg, Zooey and I think another person were really B-style --- LIke I say though, for me, acting isn't necessary if the other part deliver with this sort of genre.

[xseanymacx]

No, we don't. Never been a fan.

I like this post right here:)

[Bourne101]

.

[Fancyclaps]

For the reason, it's good they are showing more clips - Was it the scene on the train you saw? I thought JL was good there, but Walberg, Zooey and I think another person were really B-style --- LIke I say though, for me, acting isn't necessary if the other part deliver with this sort of genre.

No, it was a new scene where JL was telling Mark and Zooey to look after his daughter. It was pretty emotional and a really good scene (the music in the background sounded great).

Also, just a small rant. It seems like many people are actually WANTING Shyamalan to fail. I don't know what he ever did to you but he's such a breath of fresh air in today's hollywood. Love him or hate him, I think you have to respect someone who goes through with his own vision and doesn't let the studio get in the way, like LITW. I think many people agree we need more directors like that. Even though I didn't like the movie (LITW), I can ackowledge his effort. Especailly with a new remake, spoof, Ferrel movie, or comic book movie coming out every weekend.

I don't care if you don't like his movies, but you better also not be the people complaining about the lack of originality nowadays. Because if Shyamalan succeeds, it will (hopefully) pave the path for new directors to take a chance and create something original.

[JoeChar4321]

*** SPOILERS AGAIN ***


I not really sure why you think it's a completely stupid idea. I really think such a thing could work, given that it is handled in an effective way. Think about it. We treat the Earth like fucking shit. Wouldn't it be some well-deserved payback? And I'm not picturing trees and plants springing to life and literally kicking our asses, but something unseen that is making people commit grisly suicide left and right, and that's a scary notion for me.

Anyway, I'm holding out some faint hope for this, although I wouldn't be surprised if Shyamalan totally mishandles it and it ends up being lame. After the mess Lady and the Water, I'm kind of half-on half-off the Shyamalan bandwagon, and I'm wondering if I'll be getting off at the next stop. I hope not, because I think he has done some masterful work.

*** Yet more SPOILERS ***

I like a lot of Shyamalan's work myself but after reading those script reviews, there's no way this movie will be any good unless there were massive re-writes.

The Al Gore environMENTAL stuff is bad enough but it seems the movie has a hippie ending. (Plants "seeing" the color of love and leaving those humans alone)

Also, from what I've read, do they really think we would care about a dull relationship or marriage if the world was ending? This is worse then making a Pearl Harbor movie focusing on a love triangle instead of the event.

There are many levels indicating it will be an awful movie.

[The Postmaster General]

Also, just a small rant. It seems like many people are actually WANTING Shyamalan to fail. I don't know what he ever did to you but he's such a breath of fresh air in today's hollywood. Love him or hate him, I think you have to respect someone who goes through with his own vision and doesn't let the studio get in the way, like LITW. I think many people agree we need more directors like that. Even though I didn't like the movie (LITW), I can ackowledge his effort. Especailly with a new remake, spoof, Ferrel movie, or comic book movie coming out every weekend.

I don't care if you don't like his movies, but you better also not be the people complaining about the lack of originality nowadays. Because if Shyamalan succeeds, it will (hopefully) pave the path for new directors to take a chance and create something original.


I don't think people want him to fail, I just think he keeps failing to capture those people.

[psycheoutsteve]

SPOILERS.....


I can see why no studio wanted to shoot this crap back when it was a script called “The Green Effect”. The whole theory that plants being angry with the world, that their toxins are affecting people, is an absurd idea for a movie. Nature's revenge attack on humanity... Good Lord, once word gets out this movie is doomed.

The idea for this movie is no more absurd than a big green man with superhuman strength and a temper. I'll be giving both of those movies a chance though, because I like a little absurdity in my movies every once in awhile.

[Shockwave]

I actualy like the way this sounds.

DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS!:D

Ahhh, pure classic cheese.

[LordSimen]

The idea for this movie is no more absurd than a big green man with superhuman strength and a temper. I'll be giving both of those movies a chance though, because I like a little absurdity in my movies every once in awhile.

I agree.

[MisterTwister]

I like the idea but with Shyamalan directing I have little to no faith in it. Everything I've seen from the guy so far has been lackluster crap.

I'll wait for DVD.

[Crazy Dud]

No, we don't. Never been a fan.

Ah, well. Your loss!:D

[someguy]

The idea for this movie is no more absurd than a big green man with superhuman strength and a temper. I'll be giving both of those movies a chance though, because I like a little absurdity in my movies every once in awhile.

There's a difference between The Happening and Hulk though. Hulk is clearly a fantasy film and it's well established that this is make believe stuff so people can suspend their disbelief about it. The Happening is not played as a fantasy or given an exaggerated setting, it's based in reality and gives a human story about people trying to survive something that is going to wipe out humanity.

To me The Happening is striving for realism in his story to push out an environmental message and Hulk isn't about that. I get what you mean, they're both absurd ideas but I don't see it as a good point against people who hate the tree stuff because the two movies have completely different intentions and ways of handling their material.

I was sympathetic to The Happening at first. I thought that the idea of nature wiping out humans because of treating the world so shitty could work if it was pulled off correctly and I enjoy these kind of semi-apocalyptic films like Body Snatchers and such. Everything I've seen from the movie so far has just removed any thoughts I had about liking this movie. I read in a script review that the trees release the gas depending on if the person brings positive or negative energy. That sounds really stupid to me.

It sucks too because the same kind of idea has been pulled off before. There's a story called The Screwfly Solution that is similar in the concept (it was made as a Masters of Horror episode last year) but it was pulled off in a better way. The title came from a problem with the screwfly population decades ago. I think they were destroying crops and overall being a huge nuisance so scientists sprayed them with a chemical that screwed up the male's hormones and made them have no idea how to properly mate with the female. The story had the entire male population's hormones change so their hormones channeled rage instead of attraction towards women so men would start murdering women and therefore kill off the entire human race. Basically the similar kind of 'humans get payback for what they did' message is in there but Screwfly executed it much better. It looks like Shyamalan isn't going to do that. I'll probably check this out whenever it comes on TV or download it.

[ilovemovies]

I think it all depends on the execution. It sounds ridiculous on paper but I'm hoping Night can execute it well. If all of that stuff about the environment/plants striking back is true and all. I still have high hopes for this movie.

I also hope this movie doesn't become too preachy which looks like it has the chance of doing.

[CyclicNightmare]

Yes, we all know the "what". But I think we should reserve our judgement of the film until after we see the "how".

[ElderPredator]

Based on the extremely poor marketing of this film and the fact that his last few films have been absolutely disasters, I honestly think that this movie will also bomb at the box office. Not to mention the fact that I've read some awful reviews.

To add even further to that, what fucking genius decided to put the movie up against "The Incredible Hulk"? That's a stupid move because Hulk is already getting fabulous reviews and I think it could do just as well as "Iron Man" did with a bit of luck.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I don't have high hopes for it's box office performance either . It would genuinely surprise me if it made more than 25 mil .

I think it looks intriguing , it's far more appealing to me than people being chased through a house , but with Hulk coming out the same weekend , i'm not sure it will do well , although we've seen even in a crowded market , there is money to be made .

I don't think the premise is totally silly , a bit fantastical maybe , but not ridiculous to the point of absurdity , it's not exactly that far fetched to imagine . I'm not exactly high on the cautionary tale angle , but there is some kitsch value there , it harkens back to those " high " concept revenge of nature films from the late 70s and early 80s

Day of the Animals , Bug , Food of the Gods and the one someone already mentioned , Day of the Triffids . That last one actually scared me when i was a youngster , the film version from the 60s . I have yet to see the BBC series , but that looks excellent also , i'm sure Night has taken his cue primarily from that series that aired in the 80s .


I'm just going to see both this and Hulk , they both look like entertaining trifle , i don't think either one will disappoint , and i don't hold grudges ( most times ) when it comes to who a director is for a particular film . If it looks good i'll see it , i'm not going to let a mis fire discourage me from experiencing their latest work . I think the only film that was subpar in Night's lineup is Lady in Water , i enjoyed all his other films , although i wouldn't consider myself a fan , i think he has made some entertaining and thought provoking films aside from that latest one . This one should be good .

ps - the environmental angle can either hurt or help this film , depending on people's thoughts on the subject . For me , i'm neutral on the tree hugging concept , so it won't bother me , i just want to see a cool horror movie , all the other stuff , the messages and such , are just extra .

[LordSimen]

There's a difference between The Happening and Hulk though. Hulk is clearly a fantasy film and it's well established that this is make believe stuff so people can suspend their disbelief about it. The Happening is not played as a fantasy or given an exaggerated setting, it's based in reality and gives a human story about people trying to survive something that is going to wipe out humanity.

To me The Happening is striving for realism in his story to push out an environmental message and Hulk isn't about that. I get what you mean, they're both absurd ideas but I don't see it as a good point against people who hate the tree stuff because the two movies have completely different intentions and ways of handling their material.


How is The Happening striving for realism, at all? Sorry, but I don't define realism as half of earth's population randomly killing themselves for no reason.

[someguy]

alright, spoilers here too






Simen, it's obvious that The Happening is a movie with a message about the environment. People fuck around with nature too long and then nature fights back by just wiping out the entire human race (or at least trying to). The movie is focusing on three average adults and a kid trying to survive through whatever is going on. The whole point is that an 'apocalyptic' story is being brought down to a human level so people can relate to the characters/see themselves in an extraordinary situation. The same thing was done with War of The Worlds but aliens are replaced by trees.

When I said realism I meant the human aspect of the movie and not the film overall (realism was probably a bad word to use anyways). It's about real people trying to survive what looks like the end of their race. If the movie focused on the world's top scientists and the government making a nuclear bomb to destroy the trees ('hey we did it we destroyed th-ohmygodican'tbreathe' THEEND) then that's more 'unrealistic' (I guess I should say relatable? The audience can try to see themselves in that kind of position by just focusing on a few regular people rather than someone of importance). So that's what I meant when I said it's striving for realism.

[Lazy Boy]

Yes, we all know the "what". But I think we should reserve our judgement of the film until after we see the "how".

Sounds like a good idea.

Signs bugged a lot of people with the whole "water" aspect, but I let that slide because the intent and the execution of that particular film was so good it made me overlook the silliness.

[mel1ssa]

like cyclicnightmare, i'm reserving judgment. i've liked m.'s previous work.

i'll give this film a chance, just like i'll give the hulk a chance. i doubt that either will be flawless or ground-breaking.

[Shockwave]

Im split down the middle with the guy.

I loved Signs, Unbreakable, and Sixth Sense.

I hated LITW and The Village.

Like many have said, it depends on how its executed.

[Bourne101]

.

[Shockwave]

After reading a few reviews, I'm starting to get the vibe that this movie is going to have a real downer of an ending and the ending was compared to The Mist's ending in one review. Not saying that downer endings are necessarily a good thing... well, yes I am, who am I kidding, I'm a sucker for downer endings. I've seen a few clips and was quite impressed, and I like Shyamalan showing confidence in the film in his clip intro.

Stoked to see this on Friday. 5 days!

I hope it does have a " the world is fucked" ending.

It cant be any worse then "I AM LEGEND"s shit ending.(that last survival movie ive seen)

[Jig Saw 123]

After reading a few reviews, I'm starting to get the vibe that this movie is going to have a real downer of an ending and the ending was compared to The Mist's ending in one review. Not saying that downer endings are necessarily a good thing... well, yes I am, who am I kidding, I'm a sucker for downer endings. I've seen a few clips and was quite impressed, and I like Shyamalan showing confidence in the film in his clip intro.

Stoked to see this on Friday. 5 days!

If the ending is similar to The Mist, I would be very happy... :o

[ilovemovies]

That's kind of surprising. Night's movies usually have a more happier ending except for maybe Unbreakable which did end on a rather down note with Willis finding out what Jackson did. But Sixth Sense, Signs and Lady in the Water all end in a happier note.

[Bourne101]

.

[Bourne101]

.

[Shockwave]

The Sixth Sense ended happily? In what way exactly?

I wouldnt say it ended on a completely down note. Kinda in-the-middle.

I agree that a EXTREME downer of an ending would almost be the biggest twist of all for him right now.

..and a welcome one.

[Lazy Boy]

I've read a few possible "endings"...may be true, may be false buzz to offset the negative script reviews, but it would totally kill my buzz if a schmaltzy finale is what is in store...not with an R-rating attached to this film, that might feel like a copout.

[ilovemovies]

The Sixth Sense ended happily? In what way exactly?

SPOILER WARNING! I Know the movie is 9 years old but just in case, there is your spoiler warning.



It may have been more of a bittersweet ending but it definitely was more happy than sad because Willis realized he was dead and accomplished what he was meant to, said goodbye to his wife and went to heaven. Definitely more happy than not in my opinion. It was actually quite a beautiful and touching ending.

[Bourne101]

I've read a few possible "endings"...may be true, may be false buzz to offset the negative script reviews, but it would totally kill my buzz if a schmaltzy finale is what is in store...not with an R-rating attached to this film, that might feel like a copout.

With spoiler warning, can you post the possible endings that you have heard about?

[Lazy Boy]

Okay, the one ending that I both mistrust and am curious about would be...


*POSSIBLE SPOILERS, MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE*















The earth/the environment wins in the end, and the film end with humanity wiped out, something about blood replacing oil....








*END SPOILER*




This is just speculation on my behalf, as I don't really trust the individual behind the posting (IMDB, after all), and I don't know if Shyamalan has completely lost his faith in humanity to go that far, but it would fit in with the hopeless aspect found in such end of the world stories, reminiscent of Stephen King.

[Bourne101]

That would be fucking awesome!

[Bourne101]

MASSIVE SPOILERS

























Something is making people in Philadelphia go crazy and kill themselves, and they can't figure out what it is or why. In one scene, some people are driving through some farm land and they find out (on the radio, maybe?) that it's an airborne virus. Being out in the sticks, they think they're okay, until they drive by a farm and see a bunch of tree surgeons or farmers or something who've hanged themselves with garden hoses. They try to seal up all the air vents, windows, etc. in the car, but it's too late. The car stops, idles for a minute, and then accelerates straight into a tree. The two people in the front seat go through the window and die immediately. John Leguizamo's character was in the back seat and survives... but stumbles out of the car, picks up a shard of glass from the broken window, and slits his wrists.






















END SPOILERS



That would be awesome. Enough said.

[Lazy Boy]

^^

That spoiler does seem to jibe with a shot in the red-band trailer...

[Bourne101]

^^

That spoiler does seem to jibe with a shot in the red-band trailer...

Yep, it does. I'm pretty sure that's it. If it is, I am going to be one pleased motherfucker walking out of the theatre on Friday night! :D

[Shockwave]

If its anthing as brutal as what i just read im going to love it.

Maybe.

Fuck. My hate for LITW is really keeping me down. I HOPE this movie catches on with word of mouth IF its good.


At least the R rating sounds like itll be put to good use.

[Jig Saw 123]

If what you guys are saying, than this movie has defiantly peaked my interest. :D

[MidnightAngel]

I said it before and again....if this movie tanks it'll be the end of M. Night Shyamalan's directorial career.:D

[Lazy Boy]

Probably not...but it will affect his creative control for the next couple of years, will have more studio insistence on how his films are made. Plus he already is adapting another source medium entirely different than coming up with something of his own.

[LordSimen]

I said it before and again....if this movie tanks it'll be the end of M. Night Shyamalan's directorial career.:D

That's not a good thing.

That'll mean there's one less director out there putting out completely original material.

[Moviefan1234]

I said it before and again....if this movie tanks it'll be the end of M. Night Shyamalan's directorial career.:D

Nope. http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=44122

[Oldskin]

I might see it, depends on reviews.

[Bourne101]

.

[Lazy Boy]

It still reads more like a scene that's near the end, but actually isn't the "end" end, you know? I don't think the film will conclude in that manner.

[Bourne101]

Hmm... you're right.

[ilovemovies]

I'm sure whatever the last scene is it will involve Walhberg and/or his family. Not Leguizamo who is just a supporting character.

[Bourne101]

I'm sure whatever the last scene is it will involve Walhberg and/or his family. Not Leguizamo who is just a supporting character.

SPOILERS












But Leguizamo is friends with Whalberg, so they might be together. Maybe it's Whalberg and his wife who go through the window? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Crazy Dud]

DELETED

[xseanymacx]

If it's actually this brutal...I may finally enjoy an M. Night movie.

[psycheoutsteve]

alright, spoilers here too






Simen, it's obvious that The Happening is a movie with a message about the environment. People fuck around with nature too long and then nature fights back by just wiping out the entire human race (or at least trying to). The movie is focusing on three average adults and a kid trying to survive through whatever is going on. The whole point is that an 'apocalyptic' story is being brought down to a human level so people can relate to the characters/see themselves in an extraordinary situation. The same thing was done with War of The Worlds but aliens are replaced by trees.

When I said realism I meant the human aspect of the movie and not the film overall (realism was probably a bad word to use anyways). It's about real people trying to survive what looks like the end of their race. If the movie focused on the world's top scientists and the government making a nuclear bomb to destroy the trees ('hey we did it we destroyed th-ohmygodican'tbreathe' THEEND) then that's more 'unrealistic' (I guess I should say relatable? The audience can try to see themselves in that kind of position by just focusing on a few regular people rather than someone of importance). So that's what I meant when I said it's striving for realism.


Honestly, I don't even know what we're discussing here. We have two very different movies that come out on the same day. I know the Incredible Hulk isn't trying to be overly serious with it's content, but why should all this criticism and pressure be put on the Happening just because it has a more serious and realistic tone? I think its because some people , (not everybody) are growing offended because its fantastical premise brings up a very controversial issue that many people disagree about...our effect on the environment. Others hate M.Night and his previous efforts, so they immediately assume they'll hate this film as well. Also, the Hulk opens on the same day and some people don't want any competition for that film. I dropped my biases towards The Happening and The Incredible Hulk, and I bet I'll enjoy each film more because of it. Others might benefit from doing the same.

I was just trying to defend this film when I responded to Joe's original comment about its premise. If he wants to attack the film's directing, acting, or other technical details that's a different issue, but I hate it when people respond with the, "that's an absurd idea for a movie," and they go and support another film with an absurd premise, but with a less serious tone. So it's impossible to enjoy realism blended with fantasy elements? Who knows, maybe this movie has something worthwhile to say. So why are some people knocking this before it's even out? I guarantee the problem doesn't lie with the premise, it's mainly because some people are hyping the shit out of Hulk and they don't want anything to stand in the way of its success, they disagree with the film's message, or they just hate M.Night's prior work.

Personally, I hope they both do well.

[Crazy Dud]

Honestly, I don't even know what we're discussing here. We have two very different movies that come out on the same day. I know the Incredible Hulk isn't trying to be overly serious with it's content, but why should all this criticism and pressure be put on the Happening just because it has a more serious and realistic tone? I think its because some people , (not everybody) are growing offended because its fantastical premise brings up a very controversial issue that many people disagree about...our effect on the environment. Others hate M.Night and his previous efforts, so they immediately assume they'll hate this film as well. Also, the Hulk opens on the same day and some people don't want any competition for that film. I dropped my biases towards The Happening and The Incredible Hulk, and I bet I'll enjoy each film more because of it. Others might benefit from doing the same.

I was just trying to defend this film when I responded to Joe's original comment about its premise. If he wants to attack the film's directing, acting, or other technical details that's a different issue, but I hate it when people respond with the, "that's an absurd idea for a movie," and they go and support another film with an absurd premise, but with a less serious tone. So it's impossible to enjoy realism blended with fantasy elements? Who knows, maybe this movie has something worthwhile to say. So why are some people knocking this before it's even out? I guarantee the problem doesn't lie with the premise, it's mainly because some people are hyping the shit out of Hulk and they don't want anything to stand in the way of its success, they disagree with the film's message, or they just hate M.Night's prior work.

Personally, I hope they both do well.

Isn't it funny how most schmoes complain about Hollywood not making any more original films, then they go and throw their support behind a semi-sequel to a comic book adaptation movie and blast a film that actually is original?

[Shockwave]

Isn't it funny how most schmoes complain about Hollywood not making any more original films, then they go and throw their support behind a semi-sequel to a comic book adaptation movie and blast a film that actually is original?

To me, i still havent seen a REAL Hulk movie, is it is kinda new.:D

The main problem for THE HAPPENING is its marketing. It has SUCKED so far. BAD. People arent going to line up to see something that looks bad.

I actualy have hope for it, but im not kidding myself. The only reason im interested in it AT ALL is because of what ive read on these boards. The marketing hasnt been worth shit.

[ilovemovies]

Personally, I think the marketing have been great. The trailers in particular have all been great. It intrigued me from the begining.

[dellamorte dellamore]

i agree about enjoying both films , i don't see any reason why people won't be able to .

I also agree that i would like to see both films do well , i know for sure that Hulk will , and i'm hoping that Happening will .

It is kind of odd that we complain about originality and we claim to crave something even remotely new in terms of content , visuals , narrative and the like , then when we do get it , the film bombs . Not all the time , but it is a risky proposition for a director to create something unique or fresh .


I'm not saying Happening is entirely original , but it does appear to have a mind of it's own , you could say it's a cornucopia of other disaster films . It does look inspired enough to stand on it's own , and that can be a problem for it , it's not familiar enough for the masses to accept it .

I think they should play up the premise just a bit , concerning what is causing these mass deaths , because i think it may appeal to a wider group of people if they did . I'm just speaking from a horror movie " geek " angle , from that point of view it looks like it could be great , some other people may be discouraged from seeing this because they may think it's just for the horror crowd . I think , with the right marketing , it can draw in an older , more mature crowd , it no doubt seems like a mature horror / mystery offering ( yeah , im supposed to be a part of that crowd , but i refuse to grow up , nonetheless Happening should be a nice diversion from all the overblown blockbusters and " event " films ) . Not that those other films are no good , but you def need a bit of balance when it comes to the " spring / summer " season blowout every year . Happening looks to provide that balance .

[someguy]

Honestly, I don't even know what we're discussing here. We have two very different movies that come out on the same day. I know the Incredible Hulk isn't trying to be overly serious with it's content, but why should all this criticism and pressure be put on the Happening just because it has a more serious and realistic tone?

What are you talking about? You were the one who put the two movies together saying that the premise of Happening was no more ridiculous than Hulk's. You put them together and pointed out how they are similar, and now you're going 'what are we talking about these movies are very different!'

I was pointing out that while both premises are absurd their intentions are completely different which explains why one gets more scrutiny than the other. I don't get why you think The Happening shouldn't be pressured/criticized for having a more realistic tone. If it's vying for a sense of realism (in that we're following real people trying to survive this unreal scenario) then it should be believable. The clips and trailers shown so far don't appear to succeed in that respect. You can't really lob a complaint about how unrealistic Hulk is because it's about a guy that turns into an angry green dude.

I think its because some people , (not everybody) are growing offended because its fantastical premise brings up a very controversial issue that many people disagree about...our effect on the environment. Others hate M.Night and his previous efforts, so they immediately assume they'll hate this film as well. Also, the Hulk opens on the same day and some people don't want any competition for that film. I dropped my biases towards The Happening and The Incredible Hulk, and I bet I'll enjoy each film more because of it. Others might benefit from doing the same.

I see where you're coming from about Hulk supporters and people not liking the environmental message but I don't see it. I personally don't give two shits about Hulk at all, in fact I would rather watch The Happening than Hulk if I was forced to choose. I don't really think the environmental message is going to be a cause for bashing the film either. Like I said earlier, I'm all for the 'don't fuck with nature' message but the execution looks terrible. There's parts where people are trying to run away from wind. That's just ridiculous.

What I can go for is the M. Night hate though. I've never actually hated a movie by the guy, I just found them to be either average or just okay. I'm sure there's people out there who just hate everything the guy has done and will bash this movie relentlessly but I think there's more people who have just lost faith in the guy. If I'm wrong about what I think and the movie is actually great I'm not going to be disappointed. Shyamalan is a talented director and it's already known that he can do something great so if he gets back on track it'll be good. On the other hand his movies have been steadily decreasing in quality and everything I've seen so far from this suggests he's not making a turnaround.

I was just trying to defend this film when I responded to Joe's original comment about its premise. If he wants to attack the film's directing, acting, or other technical details that's a different issue, but I hate it when people respond with the, "that's an absurd idea for a movie," and they go and support another film with an absurd premise, but with a less serious tone. So it's impossible to enjoy realism blended with fantasy elements? Who knows, maybe this movie has something worthwhile to say. So why are some people knocking this before it's even out? I guarantee the problem doesn't lie with the premise, it's mainly because some people are hyping the shit out of Hulk and they don't want anything to stand in the way of its success, they disagree with the film's message, or they just hate M.Night's prior work.

Personally, I hope they both do well.

I like how you assume that I am some Hulk fanboy and the only reason I would attack this movie is because I want Hulk to succeed. How ridiculous. How about I give you my opinion flat out. Hulk looks like a boring, cheesy and lame film. The Happening looks like a piss poor execution of a decent concept/premise. So basically your 'how can you support Hulk and hate Happening you are a biased fanboy' accusations are complete bullshit. How about you consider that Hulk and Happening are two entirely different films that are being held up to entirely different standards because they are entirely different films.

Isn't it funny how most schmoes complain about Hollywood not making any more original films, then they go and throw their support behind a semi-sequel to a comic book adaptation movie and blast a film that actually is original?

You also seem to be confused by blanketing anyone who doesn't like the happening being a hulk fanboy. I think that those schmoes you talk about would prefer Hollywood to make good original films. If I was given a choice between good/decent adaptations/sequels/remakes or shitty original films I would pick the former.

[Lazy Boy]

The main problem for THE HAPPENING is its marketing. It has SUCKED so far. BAD. People arent going to line up to see something that looks bad.

I think the marketing has been stronger for this one than Shyammy's last -- understandably, though, how else could you market a deconstructionist bedtime story other than focusing on the "scary" parts -- even if there is a whiff of last minute hope on the part of him and the studio. The main problem of the marketing is misrepresentation -- this happened with The Village, and it might happen again, so maybe I shouldn't expect a hard R freakout film and make way for a family, and human, drama.

[Scarfather]

This one looks incredibly bad. Shyamalan's time making good original films is probably over.

I have yet to see Wide Awake, though considering that I have never head even a remotely positive review ever, I'm not fussed about it, so I'll go into the others instead. The Sixth Sense was terminally OK. Nothing more.

Unbreakable, however, was a very good movie, and Signs and The Village, while incredibly flawed, were very enjoyable due to James Newton Howard being the man, and the movies both being well made and overall pretty good up until their final acts.

Lady in the Water changed everything. It is easily one of the worst films I've ever seen. Normally a terrible movie by a filmmaker I previously enjoyed the work of would cause me to look more favorably on his previous films, looking at the flaws and thinking, "Well, they weren't as bad as this one."(read: lowering my standards) however in a unique case, Lady in the Water actually had me like them less. There a comes a point when a filmmaker's ego swells so big in such a repulsive, uncomfortable way, that it begins to envelop everythign around him and block everything in view, and every time you try to watch any of his other films, you can't see past his gargantuan lameness.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to see this one (though I will most definitely wait until cable), as I can name several filmmakers who have only gone through temporary periods of extreme shittiness before bouncing back, but considering that this film looks even worse than Lady, I don't have my hopes up.

[Mr.HyDe807]

I have yet to see Wide Awake, though considering that I have never head even a remotely positive review ever, I'm not fussed about it, so I'll go into the others instead. The Sixth Sense was terminally OK. Nothing more.


Probably one of the first movies to make me bawl like a baby...granted i was around 9........and that has no evidence of being good either way:D

[ilovemovies]

James Berardinelli gave Wide Awake 3 stars. So there is at least one good review for it.

[psycheoutsteve]

What are you talking about? You were the one who put the two movies together saying that the premise of Happening was no more ridiculous than Hulk's. You put them together and pointed out how they are similar, and now you're going 'what are we talking about these movies are very different!'

I was pointing out that while both premises are absurd their intentions are completely different which explains why one gets more scrutiny than the other. I don't get why you think The Happening shouldn't be pressured/criticized for having a more realistic tone. If it's vying for a sense of realism (in that we're following real people trying to survive this unreal scenario) then it should be believable. The clips and trailers shown so far don't appear to succeed in that respect. You can't really lob a complaint about how unrealistic Hulk is because it's about a guy that turns into an angry green dude.



I see where you're coming from about Hulk supporters and people not liking the environmental message but I don't see it. I personally don't give two shits about Hulk at all, in fact I would rather watch The Happening than Hulk if I was forced to choose. I don't really think the environmental message is going to be a cause for bashing the film either. Like I said earlier, I'm all for the 'don't fuck with nature' message but the execution looks terrible. There's parts where people are trying to run away from wind. That's just ridiculous.

What I can go for is the M. Night hate though. I've never actually hated a movie by the guy, I just found them to be either average or just okay. I'm sure there's people out there who just hate everything the guy has done and will bash this movie relentlessly but I think there's more people who have just lost faith in the guy. If I'm wrong about what I think and the movie is actually great I'm not going to be disappointed. Shyamalan is a talented director and it's already known that he can do something great so if he gets back on track it'll be good. On the other hand his movies have been steadily decreasing in quality and everything I've seen so far from this suggests he's not making a turnaround.



I like how you assume that I am some Hulk fanboy and the only reason I would attack this movie is because I want Hulk to succeed. How ridiculous. How about I give you my opinion flat out. Hulk looks like a boring, cheesy and lame film. The Happening looks like a piss poor execution of a decent concept/premise. So basically your 'how can you support Hulk and hate Happening you are a biased fanboy' accusations are complete bullshit. How about you consider that Hulk and Happening are two entirely different films that are being held up to entirely different standards because they are entirely different films.



You also seem to be confused by blanketing anyone who doesn't like the happening being a hulk fanboy. I think that those schmoes you talk about would prefer Hollywood to make good original films. If I was given a choice between good/decent adaptations/sequels/remakes or shitty original films I would pick the former.

Actually Someguy, the Hulk fanboy comments weren't directed at you, they were supposed to be directed at Joe. He's been hyping the shit out of Marvel's releases this year and nearly tore my head off in the Iron Man forum for not thinking the film was spectacular. Given how much he's supported Iron Man and Hulk, I wouldn't be surprised if his sole reason for hating the Happening is because it opens the same day as Hulk.

I know Hulk and The Happening are two different films, but the original comment I was responding to was that the Happening had an absurd premise. Why is an absurd premise an excuse to bash the film? So what if it strives for a bit of realism, it's not like the film is a documentary or based on true events, it's fiction. The realistic feel is used to a certain degree to connect the audience to the characters and setting...that's really all you need to imagine that it could happen in real life, but it's still fiction. Previous sci-fi films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers have used an absurd premise and realistic setting to express a real fear and paranoia in society. So why can't the same approach work for the Happening? The complaints about the marketing are subjective IMO. I don't see any real problems with the advertising and I thought some of the adds were creepy.

[CyclicNightmare]

I think that those schmoes you talk about would prefer Hollywood to make good original films. If I was given a choice between good/decent adaptations/sequels/remakes or shitty original films I would pick the former.
bad original films > bad adaptations/sequels/remakes

[Scarfather]

bad original films > bad adaptations/sequels/remakes

That's hilarious.

Wait, you're not joking?

[CyclicNightmare]

That's hilarious.

Wait, you're not joking?
Yeah, I would prefer a film that tries to do something new. What a freaking idiot, I am.

That said, bad movies are bad movies.

[MadsenOMC]

Bourne is it screening tonight? Still only one review up at RT as of right now.

[Lazy Boy]

I was doing some searching and found some "reviews", although a lot these are somewhat short and don't really get into the film that much, just saying "yay" or (mostly) "nay."

http://newsblaze.com/story/20080606192325mill.nb/topstory.html

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/reeling/2008/06/a-sneak-peek-at.html

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/reviews/films/259747/the-happening.html

http://twitchfilm.net/site/view/review-of-the-happening/

http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?a=14401&s=Reviews

[someguy]

There's a mixed review on Twitch Film (if you're wondering it is a reliable site). It's here (http://twitchfilm.net/site/view/review-of-the-happening#extended) and doesn't have spoilers for those who are concerned.

edit: CURSE YOU LAZY BOY

[Bourne101]

Bourne is it screening tonight? Still only one review up at RT as of right now.

Unfortunately, I think it is screening on Wednesday or Thursday, which is not a good sign, but I'm going to stay optimistic.

[MadsenOMC]

Unfortunately, I think it is screening on Wednesday or Thursday, which is not a good sign, but I'm going to stay optimistic.

Yeah typically that is a bad sign. If that one critic is right, at least it will be nice to look at. Shyamalan, for all his faults, is a good director.

[TheJadedGamer]

The two spoilers on this page make me actually want to see the movie.

[CyclicNightmare]

Yeah typically that is a bad sign. If that one critic is right, at least it will be nice to look at. Shyamalan, for all his faults, is a good director.
I'm happy to hear (see?) you say that because with all the negativity toward his films, that often gets lost.

[Bourne101]

Actually Madsen, I just read that it will be screened tonight. Well, that's better than tomorrow or Thursday. And although they're not on RT, here are a couple of positive/mixed reviews:

http://www.expats.cz/prague/article/film-cinema/the-happening-my-blueberry-nights/
http://twitchfilm.net/site/view/review-of-the-happening/#extended
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/reeling/2008/06/a-sneak-peek-at.html

Sounds like the first half is much superior to the second half.

[Shockwave]

Sounds like the first half is much superior to the second half.

I find that to be a common practice in his movies, even the ones i really enjoy.

I actualy loved the first half to LADY IN THE WATER, then the second half went to utter shit so fast it wasnt funny.

[MadsenOMC]

I'm happy to hear (see?) you say that because with all the negativity toward his films, that often gets lost.

Yeah as much as I dislike some of his films overall, I do definitely believe that he knows how to direct very well.

[MadsenOMC]

I find that to be a common practice in his movies, even the ones i really enjoy.

I actualy loved the first half to LADY IN THE WATER, then the second half went to utter shit so fast it wasnt funny.

I agree. I think he tends to be much better with the set up than the follow through. For me Signs and The Village are primary examples of that.

[Lazy Boy]

Some more reviews:

http://correctopinion.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/review-for-the-happening/

http://www.montrealfilmjournal.com/review.asp?R=R0001208

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117937379.html?categoryid=1263&cs=1

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?J%20%20%20%20SESSIONID=2YnCLTz hP5DvnnDjzvQ5zN7fW9tCBlvSJZpHYl0B60T4pQvTdBTY!-314364%20%20%20%20425&&rid=11241

[Ronaldinho]

Couple of comments. I've only skimmed the thread because I want to avoid spoilers.

Withholding the film from advance screenings is a bad sign, period. It's not the studio trying to protect the ending. (Studios often specifically ask reviewers not to reveal certain plot details - a recent example which got a lot of publicity was Oceans 12). No studio would ever give up free marketing unless they thought it was going to hurt them.

This is particularly the case with MNS, who's considered a "prestige" director. This is a bad, bad sign, and don't believe anybody who tries to suggest otherwise.

When only a few critics are allowed to see the film, it's usually because the distributor expects them to be friendly. It's an unspoken quid pro quo. "You get an exclusive early look at the film, and in return you don't skewer us." Critics who skewer films in those circumstances don't get invited to other early screenings. It's that simple. So judging from a few select "early" reviews is a bad idea.

I happen to think the ads for this are great, they make me very curious about the film. I also like the fact that it's only 90 minutes - MNS's biggest problem, in my opinion, is that he takes himself too seriously. He stretches out every moment, makes it play the speed of molasses. If this one is clocking in at 91 minutes that means that he either a) learned his lesson or b) didn't have the authority to control the cut. Either one of those is good as far as I'm concerned because he's been showing signs of directorial egomania since, well ... Signs. You know the disease: "Everything I do is brilliant, and I'm powerful enough not to listen to anyone who might tell me otherwise."

(George Lucas is the most obvious sufferer of that symptom, but plenty of other people have it, too.)

IndyDan asked why studio execs don't troll movie boards to see what movie fanatics want to see, and the answer is simple:

You're going to see the movie anyway.

It's frustrating when the people who love a film are the ones least likely to be catered to - a problem particularly common with comic book adaptations, although Spiderman and X-Men have done a decent job of avoiding the it thanks to some renewed interest in keeping the fan-base happy. The studios don't need to work to get the people on this board into the theaters. They need to work to get 15-year-old girls. They need to work to get the guy who might go see a film if there's good hype.

Dunno what to expect from "The Happening." I'll probably see it. I'm not in a huge rush to, but I rarely am for films these days.

[Derrida]

Some more reviews:

http://correctopinion.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/review-for-the-happening/

http://www.montrealfilmjournal.com/review.asp?R=R0001208

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117937379.html?categoryid=1263&cs=1

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?J%20%20%20%20SESSIONID=2YnCLTz hP5DvnnDjzvQ5zN7fW9tCBlvSJZpHYl0B60T4pQvTdBTY!-314364%20%20%20%20425&&rid=11241


So the majority of the reviews are lukewarm or downright negative (3 out of 10 according to one reviewer). I might just wait for the DVD...

[anakinsrise]

His latter film have had good build ups but fall apart at the end.
But i still might surf into The Happening

[Derrida]

The film opens here today in Sweden and the reviews so far have been the worst I've seen (even worse than the reviews for "Lady in the Water"). One of the most popular sites called DVDForums gives it 1 star out of 10 (link in Swedish):

http://www.dvdforum.nu/?act=shoart&id=524

The reviewer says the acting is "borderline retarded" and claims the only good thing about the film is that Shyamalan does not show how a cinema audience can commit collective suicide.

[Fancyclaps]

It's now 60% at RT, but I would say most of the reviews so far have been in the middle. The only really negative reviews have been three sentences long so they're not that reliable. There are also other reviews that seem to be negative but then the reviewer recommends the movie at the end. All very confusing. Even some negative reviews point out some faults but also say it has many redeeming qualities.

If the critics don't like it though, I think audiences will like it much more. Wahlberg and Shymalan have been saying in interviews that test audiences are gasping and screaming and coming out of the movie shocked. We'll see, but I think this is going to do fairly well at the box office.

[MadsenOMC]

Wahlberg and Shymalan have been saying in interviews that test audiences are gasping and screaming and coming out of the movie shocked.

Well no shit they are. What else are they going to say? That test audiences think it blows ass?

[Shockwave]

Wahlberg and Shymalan have been saying in interviews that test audiences are gasping and screaming and coming out of the movie shocked. .

Does ANYONE really come out of a movie gasping and screaming?

Ive hear stories about this all the time for (INSERT RANDOM MOVIE HERE) but ive NEVER seen anyone actualy do it.

[adamjohnson]

Does ANYONE really come out of a movie gasping and screaming?

Ive hear stories about this all the time for (INSERT RANDOM MOVIE HERE) but ive NEVER seen anyone actualy do it.

Blair Witch?

[MadsenOMC]

Blair Witch?

During, not after. At least at the showing I attended.

[Moviefan1234]

Well no shit they are. What else are they going to say? That test audiences think it blows ass?

Well I really don't think they would come out and say that if it wasn't true. They would just omit the information if they weren't getting the reaction they desired. THE HAPPENING seems to be a movie that will really divide audiences. Some are going to love it, and others will hate it.

[MadsenOMC]

I don't buy that for a second. They are selling a movie. How many times has a director and/or star pimped their movie before its release? Too many to count. They are trying to get people excited about it. I don't blame them, but seriously, of course they are going to say that. It's naive to believe otherwise.

Sounds lame - http://www.fangoria.com/ghastly_review.php?id=6726

[Moviefan1234]

I don't buy that for a second. They are selling a movie. How many times has a director and/or star pimped their movie before its release? Too many to count. They are trying to get people excited about it. I don't blame them, but seriously, of course they are going to say that. It's naive to believe otherwise.



I honestly believe they wouldn't make such outlandish comments if there wasn't any truth surrounding them. The reviews thus far, although there are only a few, have been split right down the middle. There are some who are going to be terrified following this movie. In the test screenings they saw evidence of this, and that's why they said it.

[MadsenOMC]

So, when talking about their movie, a movie with bad buzz, you believe the director and star when they say that people at test screenings walked out of the theater gasping and screaming? You don't think they would exaggerate or even make it up in order to sell their movie?

In that case, I have a bridge to sell you. Please let me know if you're interested.

[Moviefan1234]

So, when talking about their movie, a movie with bad buzz, you believe the director and star when they say that people at test screenings walked out of the theater gasping and screaming? You don't think they would exaggerate or even make it up in order to sell their movie?

In that case, I have a bridge to sell you. Please let me know if you're interested.

Oh come on Madsen. When the director and star say something that strongly about the film, it is based around fact. If it weren't true they simply would say "test audiences had a very positive reaction," or something along those lines.

[MisterTwister]

Oh come on Madsen. When the director and star say something that strongly about the film, it is based around fact. If it weren't true they simply would say "test audiences had a very positive reaction," or something along those lines.

I would love to live in your world where nobody lies, there is no crime and women make-out 24/7. But nope I live in the real world. :(

[dellamorte dellamore]

It's good that Night and Walhberg are pimping the movie , even though it's standard operating procedure to do so , there are some actors and directors that won't , to the detriment of the box office , from what i've seen . If they appear to be genuinely excited and " proud " of the work they have done and the finished product , it's a good sign that a film can at least be worthwhile .

I don't think Walhberg is anything special as an actor ( it's just an observation , not that i would know anything about acting ), but with the right material , he can be an excellent entertainer , and he always seems to pick the right projects , ones that will utilize his talents effectively . He won't make a film better , but he won't be a detriment to the proceedings either . He has an uncanny knack to choose the right films . Not every time , just the majority of the time . This looks like another winning pick for him .


I''m still sticking with my 32 mil prediction for the weekend , if it doesn't make that much , i don't think it will be that far off , i don't see this film bombing , it should be a nice little thriller . If Strangers can make 20 mil , something that was basically a one note house invasion film ( going by some reviews from the shmoes , i haven't seen it ) , i don't see why Happening , a film that has higher ambitions , cannot at least flirt with 30 mil .

I'm excited for this film , it may seem preposterous to some people , but i love b movie cheese , it's nice to see a mainstream director tackle this type of sub genre of film . This is a throwback film , the kind that they made in the 70s and 80s , it just has a higher budget :) .

[Cop No. 633]

I will gladly pay to see the Hulk over this movie. Clamor all you want about originality, but adaptations have always been beneficial to film. No Country for Old Men was praised like crazy last year, but I guess it was just another unoriginal, uninspired Hollywood movie.

Just because it is based on a comic doesn't automatically mean it's "lower" than some guy's half assed attempt at writing an original idea. Ideas are everywhere. It's the execution that matters. Night is a terrible writer in my book, so I'll put any of his original ides under more scrutiny than the Hulk which has good material to work from (both in the comics and the TV show).

[Fancyclaps]

So, when talking about their movie, a movie with bad buzz, you believe the director and star when they say that people at test screenings walked out of the theater gasping and screaming? You don't think they would exaggerate or even make it up in order to sell their movie?

In that case, I have a bridge to sell you. Please let me know if you're interested.

You misread my post, I meant during the screening audinces were gasping and screaming, then they came out shocked. Obvously they weren't leaving the theater screaming, because that would just be ridiculous. So I don't see how that is so farfetched and obviously a lie. It is a horror/thriller afterall.

[Shockwave]

Oh come on Madsen. When the director and star say something that strongly about the film, it is based around fact. .

Right.

"Based around fact" being the key term.

To go alound with that praise, Im sure they had people bitching about the movie as well.

...but they wont mention that.

They are HYPING A MOVIE THAT THEY DID. They will spout off the positive, and throw away the negative. They could have 99 out of a 100 people hate the movie and list the reaction from that one person who loved it.

I might really love the movie, but im not exacty getting excited over self-made hype from the guys that made the movie.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I will gladly pay to see the Hulk over this movie. Clamor all you want about originality, but adaptations have always been beneficial to film. No Country for Old Men was praised like crazy last year, but I guess it was just another unoriginal, uninspired Hollywood movie.

Just because it is based on a comic doesn't automatically mean it's "lower" than some guy's half assed attempt at writing an original idea. Ideas are everywhere. It's the execution that matters. Night is a terrible writer in my book, so I'll put any of his original ides under more scrutiny than the Hulk which has good material to work from (both in the comics and the TV show).

I think that about sums up some people's reaction to this film , they won't even give him the benefit of the doubt . If someone else directed it , i doubt it would be getting this much critical heat . Hulk and Happening look good , for different reasons , one is an overblown cgi fest , the other a dark brooding thriller . I want to see both no matter who directed either .

[dellamorte dellamore]

Right.

"Based around fact" being the key term.

To go alound with that praise, Im sure they had people bitching about the movie as well.

...but they wont mention that.

They are HYPING A MOVIE THAT THEY DID. They will spout off the positive, and throw away the negative. They could have 99 out of a 100 people hate the movie and list the reaction from that one person who loved it.

I might really love the movie, but im not exacty getting excited over self-made hype from the guys that made the movie.

Shock , everyone does that . Do you think Ed Norton is going to go on Letterman or some other show and say it was great ( The Hulk ) but there were some problems with the film , and not everyone in the screening was enthusiastic about the final result . Most people involved in the production will hype their films , it's nothing new , but in this case , i'm inclined to agree because Walhberg makes good choices with his films and he doesn't like to waste his time with something he doesn't think is worthwhile just for the paycheck .

I'm not defending Fancy , because with his amount of posts , you never know , he could be a plant , but i will say it's not out of the ordinary for someone to hype their own film . I'll see soon enough if it can live up to the actors and filmmakers hype , but even without it , i still want to see it .

[Cop No. 633]

I think that about sums up some people's reaction to this film , they won't even give him the benefit of the doubt . If someone else directed it , i doubt it would be getting this much critical heat . Hulk and Happening look good , for different reasons , one is an overblown cgi fest , the other a dark brooding thriller . I want to see both no matter who directed either .

Yeah, most of the time I choose to see films based on the director. So it's not a negative thing. I saw Mr. Lonely because I knew Harmony Korine's work and it ended up being my favorite movie so far this year. I haven't liked Shymalan's last three outings, so if it was any director, they'd automatically be restricted to "rental" at best and "wait for cable" at worst.

As for Hulk being a CGI fest it's completely understandable. There's no way you could effectively pull off a Ferrigno Hulk anymore.

[Shockwave]

Shock , everyone does that . .

I know.

And from what ive seen with my own eyes, i think the film looks like its worth a watch.

Im just saying that the director of the film saying "My movies awesome!" "We had screaming girls come running right on out of the theatre!" doesnt do alot to make me excited for the movie.

Its the director of the movie. He is, of course, going to hype his own film. Anyone would do it, and thats exactly why it DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING.

..but like i said, i AM going to see the movie. It looks interesting and i liked his first three movies.

[MisterTwister]

I think that about sums up some people's reaction to this film , they won't even give him the benefit of the doubt . If someone else directed it , i doubt it would be getting this much critical heat . Hulk and Happening look good , for different reasons , one is an overblown cgi fest , the other a dark brooding thriller . I want to see both no matter who directed either .

The film looks "blah" IMO, simple as that. I might dislike the director, but if it looked good, I would admit it. I disliked both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable but I thought the trailer for The Village looked good. Boy was I wrong. The film sucked HARD.

He has yet to deliver a decent film IMO and I hope I'm wrong about The Happening. I really do.

Skipping this for The Incredible Hulk for sure.

[Crazy Dud]

The film looks "blah" IMO, simple as that. I might dislike the director, but if it looked good, I would admit it. I disliked both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable but I thought the trailer for The Village looked good. Boy was I wrong. The film sucked HARD.

He has yet to deliver a decent film IMO and I hope I'm wrong about The Happening. I really do.

Skipping this for The Incredible Hulk for sure.

It's hard to take the critical opinion of one who disliked The Sixth Sense seriously (IMO, of course). I mean, come on, it was VERY well done for a movie of its type. I find it rather hard to argue otherwise, but that's just me.

I will be seeing this movie either Friday or Saturday night.

[Moviefan1234]

Right.

"Based around fact" being the key term.

To go alound with that praise, Im sure they had people bitching about the movie as well.

...but they wont mention that.

They are HYPING A MOVIE THAT THEY DID. They will spout off the positive, and throw away the negative. They could have 99 out of a 100 people hate the movie and list the reaction from that one person who loved it.

I might really love the movie, but im not exacty getting excited over self-made hype from the guys that made the movie.


But you are missing the point. The point of the matter is that I'm sure there was at least one person that found the film disturbing as hell and was visable shaken up afterwards. Like I said before, they wouldn't be bringing it up if there wasn't truth to the claim.

[biff_debris]

Was debating on which to watch, but thinking The Incredible Hulk is the way to go.

[ElderPredator]

Sorry about that guys, I was so busy buying my advanced tickets for The Incredible Hulk that I completely forgot this movie even existed. :D

Oh well, hopefully it makes back its production value at the very least since Lady in the Water didn't even come close.

Update: 38% at RottenTomatoes.....oops.

[Fancyclaps]

Hmm, unfortunatly from the reviews I've read and what people are saying about this movie on the web, people have already decided if they are going to like the movie before they've seen it. And it's all because of Shyamalan. That's too bad too because most of the people I talked to who don't know Shyamalan are really interested in the movie.

With that said here are two more positive reviews (3 1/2 and 4 stars)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/film-reviews/the-happening/2008/06/12/1212863797111.html

http://cinephilia.net.au/show_review.php?reviewid=3780&movieid=3863

[Terror Australis]

I just saw The Happening (2008) today and I really liked it. Not great and it has a few flaws here and there (the ending was a little disappointing) but I think M. Night is defintiely heading back on the right track. I'll do a full review of it later. At the moment I give it "3.5/5" stars.

[ilovemovies]

Although James Berardinelli's review won't be put up until Friday, if you go on his search page for 2008, you can see that he gave it 2 stars.

[MisterTwister]

It's hard to take the critical opinion of one who disliked The Sixth Sense seriously (IMO, of course). I mean, come on, it was VERY well done for a movie of its type. I find it rather hard to argue otherwise, but that's just me.

I will be seeing this movie either Friday or Saturday night.

I didn't say it wasn't well done, but in the end I still didn't like it.

Happening...you're opening on the wrong weekend.

[cuddleworthy]

The film was horrid. Plus, the thing had too much hype. The setup of the story was unique, but the characters were bleak. You can't really care much for a film, when you don't care much for the characters. No heart. I think M. Night is a good filmmaker, but he works better with ideas he can tackle. Not the "hey, this sounds like a great idea for a movie, but screw the pacing and ending".

Just my two cents.

[Shockwave]

But you are missing the point. The point of the matter is that I'm sure there was at least one person that found the film disturbing as hell and was visable shaken up afterwards. Like I said before, they wouldn't be bringing it up if there wasn't truth to the claim.

Im sure.




Its a director stating that his own movie is worth your money. Of course hes going to do that. They ALL do that.

It just doesnt mean anything.

I have no doubt SOMEONE got scared while watching it. If there wasnt, i would have no hope for the movie at all.

[Moviefan1234]

Im sure.




Its a director stating that his own movie is worth your money. Of course hes going to do that. They ALL do that.

It just doesnt mean anything.

I have no doubt SOMEONE got scared while watching it. If there wasnt, i would have no hope for the movie at all.


That's just the point my friend, someone did get that scared during one of the test screenings, and that's why they said those comments. There's no denying that. I'm not promising you or I will like/love it, but I remain optimistic and the real possibility is there that this could be a real great film.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Why does everyone have a problem with the Village , it was an excellent film with a terrific twist and premise . Was it because people didn't get what they want , an actual monster , i still don't get the hate for that film .


Of course the majority of people are going to watch the Hulk instead of Happening , it's big , loud , braindead entertainment , that was never in question , but Happening looks like an intriguing alternative for someone that will only watch one of them . It's not an issue for me , i said before i'm seeing both , too much over the top blockbuster nonsense ( entertaining nonsense ) gives me a headache , i need that balance .

And who cares about rottentomatoes , i very rarely go to the site , to me it's a joke , and i don't give two bits about their assinine tomato meter . Is this how people make their decision about what to see , damn man make up your own mind .

[Shockwave]

but I remain optimistic and the real possibility is there that this could be a real great film.

While im not super optimistic, i would say theres a good chance ill find something to like about it.

I hope.

His only MAJOR SHIT film was LADY IN THE WATER to me, and it was ALL due to the writing. I thought the acting by everyone involved was top-notch, but man, the writing stunk. BAD.


Even The Village wasnt THAT bad. It was just kinda average. I loved his first three movies and hope he can recapture some of that.

However, I really think this is going to be the wrong weekend for it to come out.

The Marketing for THE HULK? Awesome. They are even whoring out the connection to IRON MAN now.

Word of mouth so far? Awesome. People are loving it. Saying its as good as Iron Man, or better.

The Marketing to THE HAPPENING? Shit. Most people dont even know what the movies about. Or care.

Word of mouth so far? Average. Seems very split.

[Shockwave]

Why does everyone have a problem with the Village , it was an excellent film with a terrific twist and premise . Was it because people didn't get what they want , an actual monster , i still don't get the hate for that film .


.

The thought the monster issue was resolved too early in the movie. That killed alot of the later impact.

[ilovemovies]

I thought the twist at the end of The Village was terrible. But it's not at all the movie's only problem. The first half of the movie was incredibly boring IMO. Once Joaquin Phoenix is stabbed the movie gets better, and I actually found the scene with Howard venturing out into the woods to be pretty gripping. But it goes downhill after that with one of the most jaw droppingly ludicrous and laughably lame twists in movie history. Not kidding when the first thing to come out of my mouth when the movie ended was, what a crock!


I hope I don't get that kind of reaction with The Happening.

[spikeshinizle]

I'm a huge Night fan. I own all of his DVD's, regularly check out websites dedicated to news on him and all that jazz. I'm one of the guys who could see the good points in Lady in the Water.
Recently I've been watching all of his previous work, in anticipation for "The Happening". This was a great way of looking at how he constructs all of his films and got me really excited for his latest story.

Boy oh boy, I was terribly disappointed with "The Happening"...this film is terrible.

There are little to no redeeming values in the movie, it's a like a spoof of a b-horror movie...except it's not a spoof, its taking itself seriously. Night is normally able to draw great performances from his actors, that is not the case here. Mark Whalberg and Zoey Deschanel are wooden and seem to be rehearsing lines during the entire film. The supporting actors are o.k, but there isn't a stand out moment in the film at all in terms of acting.

I think the main problem is the script in general. We're thrown right into the middle of the action, so we're basically told what's going on straight away. The rest of the movie spends so much time trying to explain itself to us, through clunky unrealistic dialogue, that we loose all emotional attachment to the characters.

An example (and I don't think there's any spoilers here) is when they arrive at a crazy old womans house. They sit around the dinner table and listen to her explain in tremendous detail about a pipe which connects to an old shed in the yard next to her house. This explanation is so painstaking and obvious she might as well have said "so if you want to use that pipe later in the story, feel free to do so".

Likewise the scares seem to be non-existent. Yes, there's a lot of violence...but where's the tension building that we all love from Shyamalan so much? I miss those extremely long shots which help to create the atmosphere (like when the Aliens arrive to harvest in Signs, and kill the family dog). Even James Newton Howard's score is lackluster, where were the themes which he normally builds so well?

All in all, I was severely disappointed. I honestly don't know what to expect from Night in the future.

[ilovemovies]

His only MAJOR SHIT film was LADY IN THE WATER to me, and it was ALL due to the writing. I thought the acting by everyone involved was top-notch, but man, the writing stunk. BAD.




The Marketing for THE HULK? Awesome. They are even whoring out the connection to IRON MAN now.



I remain an unapologetic fan of Lady in the Water. The Village was definitely worse.

I think the Tony Stark reveal in the Hulk commercial is a mistake. What if some people might confuse him for actually being a major character in the movie rather than what should have been a surprise cameo?

Not suggesting that the Hulk won't do well. Of course it will. And I do look forward to it. But I wish they hadn't revealed the Tony Stark cameo.

[Shockwave]

forward to it. But I wish they hadn't revealed the Tony Stark cameo.

I agree about that. The movie is going to do well regardless, so why ruin that extra bit?:(

I know they did it for $$$ purposes, but i wish they would have at least waited until the movie was OUT until airing those bits.

[nayland]

I don't care what the test audiance or anybody else say. from the trailer i saw thanks to JoBlo i'm going to see it. It looks like M.NIGHT takes it pretty far for his first R rated movie.

[MadsenOMC]

But you are missing the point. The point of the matter is that I'm sure there was at least one person that found the film disturbing as hell and was visable shaken up afterwards. Like I said before, they wouldn't be bringing it up if there wasn't truth to the claim.

So if one person out of a hundred was scared during the screening, it's accurate for the star & director to state, "People were terrified during the test screenings!" You can always find one person who liked the movie and reacted to it the way they wanted to. That proves nothing.

Of course they would bring it up even if it wasn't true. This is fucking Hollywood. They are selling a movie. Man, what fantasy world is it that you live in, where all famous people never lie or exaggerate?

[MadsenOMC]

Why does everyone have a problem with the Village , it was an excellent film with a terrific twist and premise . Was it because people didn't get what they want , an actual monster , i still don't get the hate for that film .

The two "twists" are way too predictable. For me it was an unsatisfying experience at the movies. It's not all bad, but in the end it just didn't work for me. I also hold the studio partly responsible for running a misleading marketing campaign. I think that's why so many people hated it. They were promised a certain movie by the ads, and then they actually got a different one.

I think Shyamalan has only himself to blame for being hated. When you are that arrogant, of course people will want you to fail. That's normal human behavior. It's true in other walks of life as well, especially sports.

[Shockwave]

I think Shyamalan has only himself to blame for being hated. When you are that arrogant, of course people will want you to fail. That's normal human behavior. It's true in other walks of life as well, especially sports.

After seeing LADY IN THE WATER, i thought he had gone off the deep end. Seeing him in the movie, AS A WRITER WHO WILL CHANGE THE FUCKING WORLD, totaly took me out of the movie.

So did the typical critic (..who just had to be a total ass-hole?)getting mauled by the dog as if to say "this is what i think of u!"

It was like i was watching 90 minutes of Shyamalan jacking off his own work.

[MadsenOMC]

After seeing LADY IN THE WATER, i thought he had gone off the deep end. Seeing him in the movie, AS A WRITER WHO WILL CHANGE THE FUCKING WORLD, totaly took me out of the movie.

So did the typical critic (..who just had to be a total ass-hole?)getting mauled by the dog as if to say "this is what i think of u!"

It was like i was watching 90 minutes of Shyamalan jacking off his own work.

It certainly was. Considering the two elements you mention above, I think it's pretty clear why many people don't like the guy and root against him.

[Shockwave]

Edit.

[AndrewDB]

His movies have continued to go down hill since Sixth Sense (Rotten Tomatoes link (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/m_night_shyamalan/)).
--

41% Wide Awake
66% Stuart Little *
84% The Sixth Sense
68% Unbreakable
74% Signs
42% The Village
24% Lady in the Water
25% The Happening **

* Andy's notes: I had no idea he actually wrote the screenplay for that! :eek:

** Andy's notes part 2: This appears to be without all known directors reviews in so far.
---

Taking into account the scores he's gotten for his movies that he's known for and doing an average we get a grand total of: 52%.

He's just barely above average for his "twist" flicks.

[Lazy Boy]

Why does everyone have a problem with the Village , it was an excellent film with a terrific twist and premise . Was it because people didn't get what they want , an actual monster , i still don't get the hate for that film .

Hey, I don't have a problem with it! :)

I've been putting off another viewing of the film until after I see The Love-In, er, I mean, The Happening, but I've been steadily working on an essay championing The Village as an unheralded film that I think will be Shyamalan's personal best. Not his most popular (The Sixth Sense) but the one that, in my opinion, will last. I'm compiling contrasting reviews from RT (it is a good resource, don't knock it entirely!) and mixing them with my own opinions on the film.

Madsen brought it up already, but I have to concur the marketing did a part in making the film something it was not. The twist(s) didn't help, either, but I liked, nay, loved a helluva lot of the subtext beyond those reveals. Handsomely shot, directed, scored, acted -- it's in my top five of '04.

The discouraging thing from the reviews for The Happening is that it appears to be a very dull film -- at least Lady in the Water, hated as it was, inspired a lot of passionate (and hilarious) knocks from critics, with some defense from a minority of fans. Shyamalan seems to have taken the reverse tactic and given in to the request from Fox Studio to edit the script, and maybe watered the film down in the process. I don't know, I'm still excited to see it, but I'm already sensing this may be the first negative review I've given an MNS film since Wide Awake.

[psycheoutsteve]

It certainly was. Considering the two elements you mention above, I think it's pretty clear why many people don't like the guy and root against him.


I can see why people don't like Lady In The Water because M. Night's ego did get imprinted into the film very deeply, but I still enjoyed it because of the story and performances from Howard and Giamatti. Night was arrogant to cast himself as a writer who eventually helps to change the world, but in doing so he also revealed some of aspirations as a writer. It may be a bit arrogant, but it is it wrong to one day dream of changing the world? That's what I like about M. Night, his personal feelings and perspectives always weave their way into his films like a signature.

The critic scene was a little dumb, but harmless.

[MadsenOMC]

He didn't just want to change the world, his character was going to save mankind. That is beyond arrogance. That's some kind of a god complex. In addition to that he cast himself, not a professional actor, in the role, one of the largest roles in the entire film. It's a huge error.

The critic character is not harmless. That entire subplot is a large problem.

[ilovemovies]

I think you are taking the movie WAY too seriously.

[MadsenOMC]

I think you are taking the movie WAY too seriously.

I don't think so, but it doesn't surprise me to hear you, of all people, say that. I think you are being way too easy on the movie.

Does anyone think the recent events in the Midwest will have any impact whatsoever on this movie's box office? Will people maybe not be in the mood for this due to the devastating tornadoes and floods in certain parts of the country?

[Abuckley89]

I think you are taking the movie WAY too seriously.

I just don't know why M Night would go there. Did he not see the similarities himself? Especially after coming off of the critically panned and disappointing Village. Of course he did, and he didn't care if people made the connections. It makes him come off as a prick telling people they can't see the genius in his work... and while he's doing this he's in one of the shittiest movies I've ever seen. (which he wrote himelf and probably knew critics would hate) He was totally on his offgame with Lady in the Water. i don't know what he was thinking. I did however like the Village and love his 3 before that.

Even though I hated Lady in the Water I don't think I could ever go without seeing an M Night movie the day it comes out. I'll be there to forgive him the day he makes another great movie... unfortunately this doesn't look like that one either.

[ElderPredator]

Wow........12% Rotten!

I don't think movie studios will be flying him in private jets to pitch his scripts anymore. He'll be stuck right at the back of coach near all the lavatories that smell like shit by mid-flight.

Two words that will solve all M's problems.....time share.

[ilovemovies]

I don't think so, but it doesn't surprise me to hear you, of all people, say that. I think you are being way too easy on the movie.



Whether I'm easy on the movie has nothing to do with it. I think you are being very presumptive by saying he has a god complex. I mean I think that's just patently absurd. Maybe he's a little arrogant. But eh, whatever. I think there is nothing wrong with wanting complete control over his movie. But it failed and as a result he no longer gets it. Which is also fine. And so what if he has a little fun at taking a jab back at his critics. It doesn't work for you which is fine. And it makes the movie crappy for you which is also fine. But I seriously don't think it's that big of a deal. Just like I didn't think it was that big of a deal when Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin did it in Godzilla with Siskel and Ebert.

[MadsenOMC]

I have a much bigger problem with the writer character than I do with the movie critic. A little arrogant? That's the understatement of the century and, to borrow your words, patently absurd. There's no presumption involved. The movie speaks for itself. He wrote it. He cast himself in the role of the writer. It's black and white. Open your eyes.

[ElderPredator]

I have a much bigger problem with the writer character than I do with the movie critic. A little arrogant? That's the understatement of the century and, to borrow your words, patently absurd. There's no presumption involved. The movie speaks for itself. He wrote it. He cast himself in the role of the writer. It's black and white. Open your eyes.

Gentlemen...gentlemen...we must stop this mindless ranting. Why don't we all just settle down, go see Incredible Hulk, have a nice cold pint and wait for all of this to blow over. How's that for a slice of fried gold?

[AndrewDB]

I think you are taking the movie WAY too seriously.

Well how else are we supposed to take his movies?

He talks about them as if they're the greatest things since a bread toaster.

[psycheoutsteve]

Well how else are we supposed to take his movies?

He talks about them as if they're the greatest things since a bread toaster.

Are you getting this stuff from the book about M. Night or an interview or something? I only ask because I've bought all of his movies, watched the behind the scenes features, and haven't heard him praise his films. He just explains what he wanted to accomplish in his films. I've never really heard him do this in any of the interviews I've read with him either. The quote posted earlier in this thread referencing famous musicians was the only time I've read something he said that seemed outright arrogant. At least that I can remember...but it's not like I was looking for quotes like that anyways...

Maybe that quote was in the rant forum in the "Marketing for the Happening sucks thread." I don't know, I read it somewhere.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Damn.....13%?

Mehh, I'll still check it out. :p

[Fancyclaps]

He didn't just want to change the world, his character was going to save mankind. That is beyond arrogance. That's some kind of a god complex. In addition to that he cast himself, not a professional actor, in the role, one of the largest roles in the entire film. It's a huge error.

The critic character is not harmless. That entire subplot is a large problem.

Get. A. Life. He was playing a character in a fantasy film. I hated LITW but you sound legitamately angry at M Night.

Personally I love that he's a little arrogant (or passionate) about his work. I want to see a director love what he does. Night also has a boatload of talent somewhere inside him, and it's only a matter of time before it comes out again.

[CyclicNightmare]

Anyone who doesn't like this movie is missing the point. It's not bad. It's just a fun B movie! (http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2008/06/shyamalan_the_happening_is_tot.php)

[Moviefan1234]

So if one person out of a hundred was scared during the screening, it's accurate for the star & director to state, "People were terrified during the test screenings!" You can always find one person who liked the movie and reacted to it the way they wanted to. That proves nothing.

Of course they would bring it up even if it wasn't true. This is fucking Hollywood. They are selling a movie. Man, what fantasy world is it that you live in, where all famous people never lie or exaggerate?


As long as one person has that reaction, they have every right to say that. You would make the same decision if you were in their shoes. As long as there was at least one reaction in that way (No doubt there was more than one), they are being honest when they say those comments. I do have a question for you though Madsen, what is your beef with Shyamalan? You act like he hits on your wife or something, the way you seem to be constantly attacking him.

[Bourne101]

Damn.....13%?

Mehh, I'll still check it out. :p

Yeah, not too good. I'm still gonna see it though and hopefully it will be entertaining.

[Bourne101]

Anyone who doesn't like this movie is missing the point. It's not bad. It's just a fun B movie! (http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2008/06/shyamalan_the_happening_is_tot.php)

Wow, that is one of the biggest cop-outs I've ever heard. Shyamalan needs to come up with some better excuses, lol.

[Shockwave]

I have a much bigger problem with the writer character than I do with the movie critic. A little arrogant? That's the understatement of the century and, to borrow your words, patently absurd. There's no presumption involved. The movie speaks for itself. He wrote it. He cast himself in the role of the writer. It's black and white. Open your eyes.

I agree. Like i said before, it just pulled me right out of the movie seeing him play that role. Really, just downright laughable.

His cameo in SIGNS was much better.

[Fancyclaps]

Ooooh, Ebert liked the movie, 3 stars. I didn't read it though as I think Ebert gives away too much in his reviews but here it is.

I did skim over some parts though and I like what he says about Shyamalans "quiet effectiveness."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/REVIEWS/545929629

[Shockwave]

Night also has a boatload of talent somewhere inside him, and it's only a matter of time before it comes out again.

Like bad gas.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Anyone who doesn't like this movie is missing the point. It's not bad. It's just a fun B movie! (http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2008/06/shyamalan_the_happening_is_tot.php)

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

The second i saw that, i was thinking "nice joke Cyclic", then i realized its clickable........

Talk about the last act of a desperate man!



(Though i'm still gonna check it out tomorrow afternoon:D)

[Bourne101]

Ooooh, Ebert liked the movie, 3 stars. I didn't read it though as I think Ebert gives away too much in his reviews but here it is.

I did skim over some parts though and I like what he says about Shyamalans "quiet effectiveness."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/REVIEWS/545929629

Very good and insightful review. Has made me regain some excitement that I had lost with all of these bad reviews. He liked it for all of the reasons that I want to like it.

[Shockwave]

Reading Eberts review, (which doesnt give any nearly as much as i thought it would) i gotta say, it doesnt sound at all like a B movie, or that Shammy was aiming for one.

Im still going to see it but the "Its just a fun B movie!" thing seems like a cop-out.

[MadsenOMC]

Get. A. Life. He was playing a character in a fantasy film. I hated LITW but you sound legitamately angry at M Night.

Personally I love that he's a little arrogant (or passionate) about his work. I want to see a director love what he does. Night also has a boatload of talent somewhere inside him, and it's only a matter of time before it comes out again.

Wow. That was a great ninth post from you. I can't wait to see what other insightful comments you make in the future. It's so weird that someone has strong opinions on a forum dedicated to discussing movies.

[MadsenOMC]

I do have a question for you though Madsen, what is your beef with Shyamalan? You act like he hits on your wife or something, the way you seem to be constantly attacking him.

Why do you keep defending him? Did he introduce you to your wife or something, the way you constantly stick up for him. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to express my opinion here.

[MisterTwister]

Why do you keep defending him? Did he introduce you to your wife or something, the way you constantly stick up for him. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to express my opinion here.

You're not Madsen. Sad fact. I'm not allowed either. No one is in Moviefan's fantasy world where Shyamalan is king.

Brrrr that sounds like a scary world. Having to watch The Village 24/7, SCARY SHIT!

[MadsenOMC]

You're not Madsen. Sad fact. I'm not allowed either. No one is in Moviefan's fantasy world where Shyamalan is king.

Brrrr that sounds like a scary world. Having to watch The Village 24/7, SCARY SHIT!

Good to know. I'll act accordingly.

[Moviefan1234]

Why do you keep defending him? Did he introduce you to your wife or something, the way you constantly stick up for him. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to express my opinion here.

I defend him because I love his movies (minus LADY IN THE WATER). And because it annoys me how he is unjustly picked on relentlessly. It's like he's that socially awkward kid in middle school every one makes fun of. Although now the odds aren't looking very good, I really do hope I love THE HAPPENING.

[MadsenOMC]

I strongly disagree that he's unjustly picked on. People aren't harsh on him for no good reason. They didn't just suddenly decide to pick on him for fun. He has brought it on himself, with some assistance from the media. He's a wealthy man. I don't feel sorry him, nor do I think he's anything special as a filmmaker.

[Moviefan1234]

I strongly disagree that he's unjustly picked on. People aren't harsh on him for no good reason. They didn't just suddenly decide to pick on him for fun. He has brought it on himself, with some assistance from the media. He's a wealthy man. I don't feel sorry him, nor do I think he's anything special as a filmmaker.

I couldn't disagree more Madsen, different stokes for different folks I suppose. I hope THE HAPPENING surprises you, I really do.

[MadsenOMC]

I couldn't disagree more Madsen, different stokes for different folks I suppose. I hope THE HAPPENING surprises you, I really do.

That's fine, we can agree to disagree, but I shouldn't have to explain myself for having a strong opinion about him since you also have a strong opinion about him.

Based on the reviews it doesn't appear that I will be surprised in a good way.

[chinton]

I must say I have kind of cooled on a lot of Nights films. One thing that hasnt gone away though is his amazing ability to move the camera. Visually and technichally hes one of the best directors working today. Its just too bad his scripts are occasionally silly.

[Crazy Dud]

Everybody here should read Ebert's review. It is VERY well-written, and seems much more insightful than ANY of the other reviews for the film so far. HE EVEN ADMITS HE WILL BE IN THE MINORITY IN LIKING THIS MOVIE, probably because it is not a "smash-and-grab plot mongering" (*cough* *cough* The Incredible Hulk *cough*).

Why are people here so much more excited about The Incredible Hulk? Most of the positive reviews say it is much lighter on story depth and character development than the 2003 version and much heavier on action. Am I supposed to see that as a GOOD thing? I used to think people on these boards actually had an invested interest in QUALITY moviemaking, but now it seems that virtually everyone on here is part of the hardcore, super-annoying, ComicCon fanboy legion who geeks out whenever their favorite superhero is brought to the screen in some "super cool" kind of way. GROSS!!!

[chinton]

Everybody here should read Ebert's review. It is VERY well-written, and seems much more insightful than ANY of the other reviews for the film so far. HE EVEN ADMITS HE WILL BE IN THE MINORITY IN LIKING THIS MOVIE, probably because it is not a "smash-and-grab plot mongering" (*cough* *cough* The Incredible Hulk *cough*).

Why are people here so much more excited about The Incredible Hulk? Most of the positive reviews say it is much lighter on story depth and character development than the 2003 version and much heavier on action. Am I supposed to see that as a GOOD thing? I used to think people on these boards actually had an invested interest in QUALITY moviemaking, but now it seems that virtually everyone on here is part of the hardcore, super-annoying, ComicCon fanboy legion who geeks out whenever their favorite superhero is brought to the screen in some "super cool" kind of way. GROSS!!!


I think people are excited simply becuase the Ang Lee version was terrible. Yes it had mood and character development all done disastrously wrong. Anything other than the original Hulk is good in people's eyes.

[MadsenOMC]

Why are people here so much more excited about The Incredible Hulk? I used to think people on these boards actually had an invested interest in QUALITY moviemaking, but now it seems that virtually everyone on here is part of the hardcore, super-annoying, ComicCon fanboy legion who geeks out whenever their favorite superhero is brought to the screen in some "super cool" kind of way. GROSS!!!

This is a ridiculous statement. I have never read a comic book in my life and at this point have disliked more superhero movies than I've liked. It comes down to which movie I think looks better. I think The Incredible Hulk looks like a better movie, and it's got a much better cast. Why can't TIH be quality moviemaking? It's at 71% at RT. That certainly indicates a quality movie.

[someguy]

People are excited for Hulk because they still believe Ed Norton's name has some amount of integrity left.

[notchreturns]

I just watched the redband trailer.

Looks so so so bad.

I can't wait.

[Fancyclaps]

Wow. That was a great ninth post from you. I can't wait to see what other insightful comments you make in the future. It's so weird that someone has strong opinions on a forum dedicated to discussing movies.

Well let me just say, we're all waiting for your next "insigtful" and "strong" comments. Which person who you've never met before will you diagnose next with a god complex? That was certainly insightful.

Or you can just continue hating a filmaker (and his unreleased films) because you think from what little you've seen and read of him in interviews he has become "beyond arrogan[t]."

[spikeshinizle]

It's no use 'ignoring' the bad reviews this time. I've been a massive Shyamalan fan (and I still I am I guess, despite this mess of a film) and have often found myself 'defending' the films he makes. But there's nothing to defend in The Happening, and I hate to say it.
It was the first time I've had a "fanboy breakup" if that makes any sense? haha. I've always loved his work but there was no way I could see anything redeemable in this movie. It was like Night was slapping me around a little too much, so I finally had to pack my things and stay at my sisters place.

Jokes aside, it was really disappointing to see a filmmaker I look up to churn out such a lazy piece of film making. I'm not one of those guys who just attacks Shyamalan for no reason, so to all of the defenders, please wait until you've seen the film to make your case. I already know a lot of Night fans who have admitted that this wasn't anything special.

[psycheoutsteve]

I like M. Night, but I think he's definitely arrogant. I can tell this just from hearing him speak and the way he directs his movies. What I'm looking for though, is an actual quote where he says something ridiculous and arrogant . I've heard him make lame excuses and vent his frustrations about the control over his films, but I'd need to see at least 3 or 4 quotes before I'm convinced. It's one thing to have an arrogant way about you because a little arrogance can help you survive against the harshness of this world. It's another thing to be arrogant and make stupid comments out of your ass. I really hope M. Night hasn't done too much of the latter...

[Lazy Boy]

I like M. Night, but I think he's definitely arrogant. I can tell this just from hearing him speak and the way he directs his movies. What I'm looking for though, is an actual quote where he says something ridiculous and arrogant . I've heard him make lame excuses and vent his frustrations about the control over his films, but I'd need to see at least 3 or 4 quotes before I'm convinced. It's one thing to have an arrogant way about you because a little arrogance can help you survive against the harshness of this world. It's another thing to be arrogant and make stupid comments out of your ass. I really hope M. Night hasn't done too much of the latter...

I probably need someone else's help with the exact quotation, but he told a studio that he was a "mathematical certainty" in regards to box office, and they should bet on him...this before Lady in the Water opened and subsequently bombed.

Anybody remember to whom he said this?

[someguy]

Oh yeah, I want to point out that the Collider review which people came in here saying was fake is actually true. I don't know where you guys got your sources but they were full of shit.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

I just saw it - here's my little 2 cents.

The Happening 1/10


I tried my best to go into this movie with an open mind, and I think I accomplished that. The beginning is promising, this out-of-left-field story actually felt plausible the way it is explained.

But.....

This movie is terrible. There is nothing here that can be salvaged into a positive thought about this garbage.

The actors - Atrocious. Now I like Mark Wahlberg, thought he's been great in most of his films. So I don't know if it was M. Night's script or influence that caused him to look so goddamn pathetic in this. Every line he delivered hurt my head, I felt like I was watching a high school drama teacher showing me what over-acting looks like. And M. Night's direction did not help his cause - zooming in on his mug every time he opened his mouth just made it worse. Now, I've never seen a Zooey Deschanel movie before, but if this is usual for her, I am glad I haven't. In scenes where she's supposed to be terrified or even a little bit nervous, her face/voice never changes from when she's happy or excited. She just looks a doe-eyed innocent little girl at all times, she looks more innocent than the actual little girl. She's basically Christina Ricci minus the talent. And since these two are the only main characters, this spells disaster for this movie.

The story doesn't make too much sense about 20 minutes into the movie, it contradicts itself over and over. And they pad it with senseless characters who don't have a purpose other than to kill themselves eventually.

And why is this rated R? There is very little gore, I don't think a clean hole in the head that is supposed to be a gunshot warrants an R. With a few minor changes, this could've been PG-13. I can't believe they pussied out on the blood and gore - the movie is about fucking suicide.

The CGI is terrible, that lion video looks like it belongs in Robot Chicken.

The ending. Oh wait, there is none! Hey, about this - next time you make a film about a mass apocalyptic event (I can't say the word "happening", it's used about a billion times in the movie), DELIVER US A FUCKING PLAUSIBLE ENDING!?!? Again, they pussied out on what SHOULD'VE took place in that kind of situation.

And you guys think Paul Haggis is blunt? Wait until you hear the five minute monologue on why we should stop polluting the planet or the plants will come again. Oooooooh, I'm fucking terrified. We don't need a take-home message, that's the whole point of the entire fucking other 90 minutes of the movie. Oh yeah, another thing - this movie, the whole spooky atmosphere of it, depends on you being scared of the wind. Oooooooh nooooo, the wind is blowing, cue the scary music Mr. Shamalayndingdong because that's so fucking scary.

This gets a point for M. Night having the brains not to write himself into this, I'm sure he would've played the Mark Wahlberg role if Fox let him.

I'd rather watch Meet The Spartans again. Do yourself a favor, don't waste your time on this shit. And if you must, please. please. Please download it illegally, don't let this make a profit and give this fuckwad another chance at another movie.

[Crazy Dud]

If you go over to the homepage for Roger Ebert's website, his reviews for both The Happening and The Incredible Hulk are up. He actually gave The Happening a HIGHER rating than the Incredible Hulk (Happening = 3/4 stars; Inredible Hulk = 2.5/4 stars). I read both his reviews and found them well-written and insightful (incidentally, I agree with Roger Ebert far more often than any other major movie critic, especially Peter Travers, who wouldn't know a good film if it smacked him in the face, although I do agree with him on rare occasions). Ebert liked The Happening for the exact same reasons I hope to like it. Conversely, his problems with The Incredible Hulk were EXACTLY what my concerns are for the film. It should be noted he liked 2003's Hulk and actually ranked it HIGHER than the new version (3/4 stars). According to him, the more interesting psychological aspects of the Bruce Banner/Hulk character that were explored in Ang Lee's film are almost completely absent this time, and is instead replaced by one mind-numbing action sequence after another. To me, exploring the psychological, symbolic meanings of the Bruce Banner/Hulk dichotomy is FAR more interesting than watching an enraged Hulk smash things (I'm am, BTW, a bit of a psychology nerd). I MUST BE CRAZY!!!

This new Hulk film sounds completely dumbed down. Though I am not a BIG fan of the 2003 film, because I believe it was a missed opportunity, I think Ang Lee was going in the right direction, but mostly failed in the execution. The new film, however, looks like it overcompensates for the sour taste left in people's mouths by the 2003 film by going in the polar opposite direction thematically and tonally. Sorry, but I don't really want that.

(Incidentally, I will be seeing both films opening weekend. The majority of reviews for the new Hulk have been positive, so I expect to at least be entertained by it; and I have a hunch I will like The Happening, and my hunches seem to almost always be right when it comes to movies.)

(Also, my previous post was unfairly extreme, but I was just expressing my growing frustration over the growing trend in the forums of late.)

[MoovEDude]

SPOILERS.....


I can see why no studio wanted to shoot this crap back when it was a script called “The Green Effect”. The whole theory that plants being angry with the world, that their toxins are affecting people, is an absurd idea for a movie. Nature's revenge attack on humanity... Good Lord, once word gets out this movie is doomed.

"I have this idea about a toxin that gets out and turns people into dead walking zombies that eat flesh and brains -!"

Thank goodness THAT story line never got out - :rolleyes:

[Rukas]

I saw this, Hulk and Speed on the same day. Loved Hulk and Speed but thought the Happening was so so. They didnt use the R rating to their advantage at all, the story was meh, the acting seemed awkward at times, nothing exciting really happened, it was just meh.

Worst of all there were plot elements introduced that had the premise to actually work and they didnt, they werent even used....

*SPOILER*

What the fuck was with the mood ring? They could have used it to where she thought he was changing and was about to do something but noticed his mood ring didnt change and it saved them or something blah blah. I mean you spend 80 fucking minutes focusing on a mood ring and then do NOTHING with it in a movie ABOUT plants altering people's moods?

And the ending was fucking ass. "I guess it stopped before we went outside." Like what the fuck? Really? No shit you think?!! Id have much rather that their love saved them even though it would have been corny, or just leave it unexplained as to why they survived. Perhaps it was love perhaps it was timing or whatever, but fucking hell talk about stating the obvious!

[MadsenOMC]

Well let me just say, we're all waiting for your next "insigtful" and "strong" comments. Which person who you've never met before will you diagnose next with a god complex? That was certainly insightful.

Or you can just continue hating a filmaker (and his unreleased films) because you think from what little you've seen and read of him in interviews he has become "beyond arrogan[t]."

I don't hate The Happening. I never said I hated it. Like everyone else here, I'm writing about it based on what I've seen and heard. There's nothing unfair or unusual about that.

I do think he has a bit of a god complex. I think LITW proves that.

As for other things he may have said that prove his arrogance, he told Premiere magazine that Unbreakable would be one of the top 10 grossing movies of all-time because America was pissed that he didn't win Oscars for The Sixth Sense. I've been trying to find a link online but I haven't been able to yet. There's also the infamous magazine cover proclaiming him the next Spielberg (like I said before the media played a part in this).

[dellamorte dellamore]

Another thread has degenerated , i'm going to start calling Joblo , Jodb . We've spent more threadspace arguing about how the director supposedly feels about himself , the usual Rt number posts , and yet more posts about how people are simply stating their opinions and are entitled to them , then actually discussing the film itself .

I'll come back after i see it , to let people know what i think about it . And you'll just get a simple review ( it's the only kind i'm capable of ) , i won't go into how when Night was child he used to play with plastic army men and he had a terrible problem with foot odor . I really don't care what he said , or how he carries himself , arrogance , if that's what he's being accused of , is way down on my list of character " flaws " for me .


But keep on arguing about inane nonsense , is that redundant , i'm ghost .

[MadsenOMC]

But keep on arguing about inane nonsense

Something you are very familiar with (SATC thread, for a recent example).

[dellamorte dellamore]

Guilty as charged about that one , but i did settle down and realize it was silly to go on like that , although entertaining .

Just a quick note , i don't know how accurate a gage these things are , but Happening is the number one most requested film on moviefone's website , it has a large lead over Hulk . I don't see Happening beating Hulk , maybe not even Panda , but for all the negative buzz , maybe a good number of people actually are interested in seeing this .

That's all i'll say for now , it looks like i won't be seeing this till next week , freakin local theater isn't carrying it , those pinheads :( .

[Bourne101]

That's all i'll say for now , it looks like i won't be seeing this till next week , freakin local theater isn't carrying it , those pinheads :( .

What? Must be a pretty crappy theatre. The Happening is in 3000 theatres.

I agree, people are definitely underestimating the box-office potential.

[MadsenOMC]

I agree, people are definitely underestimating the box-office potential.

Is it possible that people are overestimating the box office potential? Bad buzz & bad reviews combined with opening against The Incredible Hulk combined with the negative reaction & poor box office of Lady in the Water could equal a poor opening weekend.

[thedudeman69]

Is it possible that people are overestimating the box office potential? Bad buzz & bad reviews combined with opening against The Incredible Hulk combined with the negative reaction & poor box office of Lady in the Water could equal a poor opening weekend.

This will likely happen.

[Bourne101]

Is it possible that people are overestimating the box office potential? Bad buzz & bad reviews combined with opening against The Incredible Hulk combined with the negative reaction & poor box office of Lady in the Water could equal a poor opening weekend.

I don't think poor reviews at this point are going to sway anything. Mainstream viewers eat these apocalyptic thrillers up and just look at all the other films that have made killings at the box-office with less than 20% RT status. It's not like mainstream viewers search the net for reviews like us. I don't even know if mainstream viewers will remember Lady in the Water or that Shyamalan made it. The marketing has used Signs and The Sixth Sense to its great advantage, both of which were massive box-office hits.

The Hulk will be big, but I think there are plenty of people out there who will take The Happening over The Hulk.

We are the minority, the ones who read reviews and get to know what the buzz is. Just look at Snakes on a Plane. A movie whose complete (and positive) buzz was created over the internet, and just look how that ended up at the box-office. Mainstream viewers are convinced through TV spots and movie trailers which have been very good to mainstream standards.

My view still stands, I think people are underestimating The Happening a bit. And by underestimating, I think it will make around $30 million, while others are predicting $15-25 million.

[MadsenOMC]

Lady in the Water was also sold as being from the director of Signs and The Sixth Sense, but viewers rejected it because they didn't like The Village, reviews were bad, and it didn't look like a good movie. Using Shyamalan's name to sell a movie is probably more likely to hurt than help at this point. Signs and The Sixth Sense were a long time ago.

What apocalyptic thrillers are you referring to? I Am Legend? That's hardly a relevant comparison.

In your opinion the marketing has been superb. Not everyone agrees with that assessment.

[Bourne101]

Lady in the Water was also sold as being from the director of Signs and The Sixth Sense, but viewers rejected it because they didn't like The Village, reviews were bad, and it didn't look like a good movie. Using Shyamalan's name to sell a movie is probably more likely to hurt than help at this point. Signs and The Sixth Sense were a long time ago.

This isn't Lady in the Water though. You have to agree that The Happening has an entirely different appeal than Lady in the Water. Lady in the Water did poorly because it just didn't have that much appeal. The Happening looks much more along the lines of Signs and The Sixth Sense. Remember, I'm referring to the point of view of a mainstream viewer, not you, myself, or any other schmoe.

In your opinion the marketing has been superb. Not everyone agrees with that assessment.

Mainstream viewers, not knowledgeable movie buffs. The marketing has been very good toward mainstream viewers.

[MadsenOMC]

This isn't Lady in the Water though. You have to agree that The Happening has an entirely different appeal than Lady in the Water. Lady in the Water did poorly because it just didn't have that much appeal. The Happening looks much more along the lines of Signs and The Sixth Sense. Remember, I'm referring to the point of view of a mainstream viewer, not you, myself, or any other schmoe.

But many people will still feel burned by The Village and Lady in the Water. I don't really think that The Happening looks similar to The Sixth Sense.


Mainstream viewers, not knowledgeable movie buffs. The marketing has been very good toward mainstream viewers.

Again, that's your opinion. I do not agree.

[the saw is family]

5/10 just got back from it. first off what a strange film. there were so many parts that just felt cobbled together and out of place. like odd comedic moments, and over the top melodrama towards the end. it started off great, the sense of dread and not knowing what was going on was great. after the first half hour though it just got worse. the acting was bad, and i've seen these actors in other things and they were good, i swear it almost seemed like M. night was going for camp with some of the scenes. as for the effects there were definitely some shots that were hugely effective (not to give too much away the driving scene and the landscapers) but as stated above the cgi in the lion scene was egregious at best. lot's of shots of menacing nature too that were pretty laughable. of course the message was ham fisted and handled poorly, but i will give night some credit on trying to take a serious topic and make it entertaining, even though he didn't handle it that well. I honestly may need to see the film again though to get a better grip on it, because the writing and acting was so stilted there is a part of me that thinks it was intentional and he was going for some over the top campy film. i'd say it's better than lady in the water and sixth sense (was never a fan) but not as good as his other three. it's definitely a curiosity piece and worth seeing if you have the extra cash, i don't know if i could go as far as recommending it though.

[MadsenOMC]

All of the reviews I have read agree that the set up is great, but that it gets considerably worse as it goes along. There does seem to be a consensus.

[someguy]

Just to let you guys know, that review from Collider was completely fake.

Bourne, I'd still like to know where you got this from.

[Lazy Boy]

^^
I asked him that same question, because it's pretty spot-on with these latest reviews.

Yeah, this pretty much sounds like the equivalent of reading some of Stephen King's latest -- good/intriguing/scary first act, falls apart in the last 2/3 or third.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Review- 3/10 (SPOILERS!)

This is the last time i remain optimistic on these types of fucking films (Rob Zombie's Halloween being another example). I saw the trailer and thought "Hey, it looks like it has a Stephen King vibe going on with this flick", and the red band trailer kinda peaked my interest even more. So, what the hell, I'll take a shot and check out this movie!

Unfortunately, i totally underestimated the halfass and idiotic movie that was lying under my optimism. The movie started out pretty good with the clips that you already seen in the trailer and such, but then it just degenerated really fast. Also, seeing the film now, it looked as if the violent scenes that were occurring in the film were added on to an already pg-13 to movie, just to make seem more dark. I don't know, thats how i felt. It was as if M Night didn't know how to keep going on with the story, so he decided to just throw in filler after filler (the scene with the crazy lady was downright laughable when it seem to try to be creepy), as well as scenes that, to me, were screaming for me to be shocked. Unfortunately, i wasn't.

Why? I guess it must've been Mark Whalberg and Zooey Deschanel acting as if someone slipped a fucking pill in their drink that makes them hardly react or hardly have any emotions to the events that were happening. I saw the clip on yahoo and dint think the acting was that bad. Boy, was i wrong! Along with that, their whole damn backstory was just stupid to the point that i think M night made it a comic relief that didn't get any laughs out of me. I think the only part that i got a true reaction was when Mark Whalberg was embracing the daughter of his friend and crying and Zooey looked on in tears as well. That scene almost got to me, so I'll give the movie some sort of credit.

Unfortunately, those scenes were little sparks that were just overshadowed by this convoluted mess of a film. Hell, even if the film was a little longer it still wouldn't save itself. I'm sorry M. Night, but unless your next movie has me really interested, count me out.:(

(At least i got a free movie pass due to having no sound for the trailers and the opening credits.....defintiely saving that for the Dark Knight!:D)

[Mr.HyDe807]

All of the reviews I have read agree that the set up is great, but that it gets considerably worse as it goes along. There does seem to be a consensus.

Definitely spot on there Madsen, i was just surprised on how bad it actually got.:(

[Bourne101]

Bourne, I'd still like to know where you got this from.

I read it in an article or post somewhere. If you google "collider happening review fake" it will probably show up on the first or second page of websites.

[Bourne101]

^^
I asked him that same question, because it's pretty spot-on with these latest reviews.

Yeah, this pretty much sounds like the equivalent of reading some of Stephen King's latest -- good/intriguing/scary first act, falls apart in the last 2/3 or third.

Read above post.

But that review does not exactly sound spot-on. That review pretty much called it the worst movie of all-time.

[MadsenOMC]

I read it in an article or post somewhere. If you google "collider happening review fake" it will probably show up on the first or second page of websites.

If you do a google search with those exact words nothing about it being fake comes up. Because it's not fake.

[gyro_44]

If you do a google search with those exact words nothing about it being fake comes up. Because it's not fake.
To back Bourne up, I also read on Aint it Cool and IMDb (I believe) that the collider review was a fake.

Do I know this to be true? No. Does it even matter at this point, with all the fucking terrible reviews this is getting? Probably not.

[Cop No. 633]

We reported yeterday about an early review of ‘The Happening’ and it wasnt so favorable. Well Ram Man has the hookup at FOX and they state “No one has seen this movie yet”, so as it seems the review is false. Remember you heard it here first..

That's the source of it being fake. Fox executives are very reliable when it comes to this. You know how many times they tell people at test screenings, "You are the first people to see this film."

I smell bullshit and an obvious tactic by the studio to put out a growing fire.

[Lazy Boy]

But that review does not exactly sound spot-on. That review pretty much called it the worst movie of all-time.

I'm not talking about them calling it the worst movie of all time; that's just their opinion, and I can't agree with it until I see the film. I'm talking about spot-on with the whole unintentional comedy bits -- Marky Mark yelling at the plant -- being true, something many people automatically claiming the review was false based on that. Further reviews validate what the collider article was saying. That's what I meant by accurate and spot on.

[Bourne101]

To back Bourne up, I also read on Aint it Cool and IMDb (I believe) that the collider review was a fake.

Do I know this to be true? No. Does it even matter at this point, with all the fucking terrible reviews this is getting? Probably not.

Yep.

[psycheoutsteve]

But many people will still feel burned by The Village and Lady in the Water.

They should shut up and get over those 2 movies then because this is an entirely different movie all together. Every time a director does a new film he has a clean slate to work with and if you still think he fucked it up upon seeing the film that's fine, but don't use his previous flicks to judge his new one.

[MadsenOMC]

Yep.

Uh, cause IMDB and AICN are reliable sources? Again, I did a google search using the exact words you suggested. Nothing about that review being fake comes up, and as Lazy Boy said, that reviewer got specific details about the movie right.

[Bourne101]

that reviewer got specific details about the movie right.

Who says he didn't just read the script?

[MadsenOMC]

They should shut up and get over those 2 movies then because this is an entirely different movie all together. Every time a director does a new film he has a clean slate to work with and if you still think he fucked it up upon seeing the film that's fine, but don't use his previous flicks to judge his new one.

Why shouldn't it be held against him? If reviews suggested that the new flick was a remarkable improvement, then sure, give the guy another chance. But the reviews suggest it sucks ass, and when you combine that with his previous movies, of course that's going to count against him and not make people eager to see his latest. That's natural and normal and fair. If I don't like two straight movies from a director, I'm not rushing out to see their latest unless I hear it's good.

[MadsenOMC]

Who says he didn't just read the script?

Um, the reviewer. Again, if you can provide a link to a reliable source proving the review is fake, please do so. I don't think you can. But as someone else said, considering the reviews this movie is getting, it hardly matters. The collider review is pretty much the exact same as a majority of the other reviews, it was just posted a little earlier.