Well, The Happening turns out to be neither good or bad... it just is. As it played out, the premise wasn't any sillier than a man wrapping himself in tin and flying about the sky, or delivering any moments more ludicrous than a man jumping in a refrigerator to escape a nuclear blast. In an odd way, it played sort of like Night of the Living dead... but without zombies, dread or a nihilistic ending. Dunno, that just the way it felt.

I was never bored, just mildly intrigued throughout. It was sort of odd... no peaks or dips, just a sort of sustained tone whether folks are yammering at each other, running from the wind or shoving a knitting needle down their throat.

It's not the slow-mo car crash that a lot of folks are making it out to be, but there was a inadvertantly funny slo-mo moment where Wahlberg lurches forward with outstretched hand, crying "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

That one was pretty amusing.

And so... this was the first Shyamalan flick that I've seen that failed to deliver with a solid moment of frisson.

But I wasn't bored. I mean, there was always Zooey Deschanel to look at.

I thought this pretty inert.

Shyamalan's hushed, reverential style seems no longer able to compel an audience to share in the ceremony. The visual style is overarch, dialogue and direction of actors tone-deaf. Wahlberg, in particular, is able to locate exactly one note (a strangled and exasperated one, seemingly an octave too high), and keeps on hammering away at it with no modulation. Shyamalan's choices here feel under-inspired and over-determined - it's really a shame to see the formula so rigidly followed, without the attendant yield of a SIXTH SENSE to justify the approach.

*spoilers*

Compounding my frustration, I felt I could see a better movie hiding in plain sight here. What if the concept had been, rather than an instantaneous 'attack', an insidious poisoning of our 'suicidal inhibitors'? What if the first 45 minutes were devoted to a gradual progression of events, an alarming rise in suicides and self-maimings that are nonetheless 'justifiable' - survivors of the deceased grab hold of known stressors and assume rationalizations out of a basic need to make sense of someone in their lives suddenly opting to let go of their own. But then, the frequency begins to accelerate, the motivations become more baffling, and specific circumstances completely bizarre - maybe a child misbehaves, is sent to her room, and throws a temper tantrum that ends in suicidal frenzy. By the third act, all the accumulated despair filling the city turns paroxysmal, and a full-blown epidemic (where this film begins) is finally recognized for 'the happening*' it's really been all along.


*what an awful, awful title that is.

The New Republic "saves" audiences 90 minutes. Warning: This is an all-out assault on the movie, with every last plot point spelled out. On principle, I object: Give us the flavor of the picture, then let us decide. In practice, I say: Is the film really that terrible? Should I not go and just Netflix it?

Roger Ebert's thoughts.

OMG! I forgot what color love is... But THE HAPPENING made me remember! SPOILERZ!...

I thought it was not boring, and not good, but super duper bad and kind of amazing-bad. Though it couldn't be as bananas as LADY IN THE WATER, as THE HAPPENING is a less personal project (but still very Personal and Important as an environmental parable!), but somehow everything about the screenwriting is even sloppier and more stupider. And it's "normal" end-of-the-world survival thriller plus disaster-reunites-alienated-lovers horse hockey, which seems pretty rote, so it's easy to forget that the specific apocalypse is so very, well, crazy and dumb.

Plus, until this point, there have always been a few actors with enough fortitude to withstand Shyamalan's ability to rob normally fine performers of all recognizable human behavior and actorly dignity. Bruce Willis could do it, Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix (at least in SIGNS) and Bryce Dallas Howard... they could fight the Shyamalan's actorcide. Everyone in the cast of THE HAPPENING - the stars, right on down to bit players with two lines, even no lines - is never credible as a human being for a split second. It's an incredible feat! Zooey Deschanel is forced to announce to a singularly bad child actor "we're so much alike! I never like showing my feelings either!" What? Yes! Say that!

Betty Buckley from the TV and CARRIE plays a weird old lady who, at a randomly selected point in the movie loudly informs the heroes that her house has a slave-hiding shack with a speaking tube... apropos of nothing! Thanks, weird old lady! Guess we'll be seeing that in the climax! Yes! We will!

In some really good parts of symbols, the heroes run past a billboard for real estate (real estates KILL PLANTS, which is wrong), and the billboard says "YOU DESERVE THIS!" Yes! We do! And another symbol part shows a science man talking on TV about the environment fighting back against how bad people are, and stacked under the TV are some Grand Theft Auto games, to show how sick society is! Take that, PlayStation! You deserve this! Oh yeah, it's probably also a meaningful thing that the society is effectively killing ITSELF! Get it? Yes! I do!

Through the movie we get to see the auteur show off how much fear and suspense he can generate just by showing wind blowing through leaves, grass and bushes. He doesn't need CGI and a billion dollars! Was it cost effective? Yes! Scary? Not even to a baby!

And babies did see THE HAPPENING, even though it was Mr. Shyamalan's first Rated R for Grown-Ups movie, and he was very proud of that and put it in a big RED R on the posters. It is R because there are some violencey images of people getting smashed and shot in the brain and saying the "a-hole" word, but only like, twice. Other grown-up ideas the movie has is that while Ms Deschanel's character has trouble showing her emotions, ironically her husband Mr. Wahlburg, wears a mood ring that always shows his feelings. If you don't understand things like this, maybe you should not go to R rated movies! I wonder if it was weird for Wahlburg since his movie-wife's name is "Alma" and that is his real mom's name! Yuck!

After the movie a big fellow stood up and clapped loudly and declared happily "That was some bullshit!" Yes! It was!

That guy shouldn't be reviewing movies. Granted, some were solid points, but others were just scoring points off an easy target. Don't like it? Fine, say why but let the reader decide. I thought The Usual Suspects was an over-rated piece of crap, but I'd never spoil the 'twist' to someone that hasn't seen it. That's just poor form, man.

As for the movie itself? Well, after giving it more thought I'll say that it's sort of a mess, most of that in the last ten minutes, most of which weren't in the draft I read. Shyamalan dropped a small revelation (from the draft that was floating around) about what was causing the event, but left in all the set-ups to that revelation.

So... I'd say that there's nothing about the flick that demands that it be seen in the theater. I saw it at a matinee. I wasn't disappointed, but I wasn't satisfied.

Netflix would probably be a good idea rather than spending ten or more bucks on it.

No lie. I mean... if you and have accepted that you can't handle engaging the movie for real and have to write snark, your job is then to at least be funny. This Mr. Orr sounds angry. Sometimes he's just listing things that are jokes IN the film. Sometimes he's confused because he wasn't paying attention.

Anyway, if the question is "is the movie really that bad?" THE HAPPENING is really that bad, but the kind of bad where you can't wait to ask your friends "what was your favorite part?" You may have to make a list.

I agree with pretty much all of your takeaways, and it did occur to me at several points that, in the right frame of mind, certain things could be howl-worthy, but sitting in a sparsely-attended matinee today the effect was mostly just enervating.

I felt much as I did watching LADY IN THE WATER: just scene after scene of, 'Well, that didn't play. Nope, not that, either. Wow, now I'm embarrassed for everyone involved. This is actually kinda depressing...' :(

this reminded me of THE BIRDS except with no birds...

i laughed out loud when the lady in the diner said; "my god, what kind of terrorists ARE these?"

did anyone notice the cameo of dante "i'm not even supposed to be here today!" hicks?

He does specifically point out before he gets into them that his article, "of course, overflowing with spoilers. Those who still intend to see the film despite my warnings should probably stop reading now; those looking for a more typical review should stop by www.rottentomatoes.com and take their pick. For the rest, onward." While I wouldn't want a standard review to suddenly blurt out the twist ending of the film its reviewing, I don't think all articles on the internet should be forbidden to discuss spoiler aspects of films. Often times I want to read about and discuss twist endings, etc.

^Agree with this, though. That really bugs me that when people are "against" a film, suddenly all criticism is valid, even when it's inaccurate or illogical.

Like, I was watching Scalps with my parents (haha - don't ask!) recently, and at one point one of the boys comes back to camp saying his girlfriend was injured in an accident. So one of the girls agrees to lead the group to that spot, and my dad says, "that's so stupid; how would she know?" Now, in the film, she'd already been up to that spot with the couple earlier... and when the boy came back he said the accident happened "in the same spot we were last night." So it makes perfect sense that she would know... but when I point this out, my mom says, "why do you always defend these movies?"

There's a thousand and one legit reasons to take shots at Scalps - if my dad had said about the same scene, "that girl's acting is terrible!" I'd completely agree. But for some reason, once a film gets deemed "bad," so many critics (not just my immediate family LOL) begin looking for things to crticize, nitpick and mock with no seeming regard for whether they're correct or fair. As you point out, a lot of it probably comes from not paying attention after they've decided they dislike the movie... and I'm all for making fun of terrible movies that deserve it. But when you're writing public (and especially professional!) criticism for major magazines, websites, etc - you should really pay attention or shut up.

If you have a good case, you shouldn't have to doctor evidence. ;)

Someone actually beat Shyamalan to that:

http://www.martijnhendriks.com/?page_id=138&submit=go%21

I agree with Chris. Although I was outspoken in my disregard for Shyamalan in that previous locked-thread (which has somehow mysteriously 'disappeared') and my opinion may be completely nil because of my overall negative opinion of the man's films, I still have to say this film is astonishingly bad, even beyond normal bad-movie expectations. Believe it or not, the numerous awful, wretched reviews of this film actually provoked me to go see this thing in the theater after all. I don't want to miss out! This could be the cultural bad-movie event of the year, if not the decade! This is legenadry. And I absolutely loved the film! Best time I've had in a movie theater in a very long time. This is awfulness to an orgasm extreme. You wil not believe the pleasure.

I love this movie. I will buy the DVD - I'm serious. I want to see Shyamalan's next film. too. I am not lying. I am now a big M. Night fan - there's no experience better than this! Best movie experience of 2008.

I'm pretty sure that LaBute's take on The Wicker Man is safe for that dishonor for years to come.

Admittedly, The Happening will be cited as an instant camp classic, if by camp you apply it as earnestness met by derision. "Why you eyein' my lemon drink?" is already becoming a meme.

I haven't even seen THE HAPPENING and I can't stop saying that!

And now... The VERN review

Who, as usual, pretty much nails it.

I read VERN. Oh, dear. Iis Sham at least not IN the film, or does he do himself the honor of another cameo?

God, this director needs a WRITER. Even Orson Welles couldn't keep pulling the "I am Alpha/Omega" act too long!

Well I went and checked it out yesterday and to start with I basically agree with every single sentence that Craig wrote to kick off this thread in the first place.

I tried not to be influenced by the fact that I saw it in a pretty packed screening which served to remind me why I don't like multiplex crowds, because that's not Mr Shyamalan's fault. Nevertheless, this is not a good film. It's certainly not an outright stinker either though.

Perhaps it's because of just how horrendously bad I thought Lady in the Water was, but did find that it was an okay way to spend 90 minutes. I'm not sure I needed to sit through an entire third of that in advertising mind you, but that's me back moaning about the multiplexes again.

While I rejoiced at the absence of MNS in front of the camera, unfortunately it turns out not to have made a difference since pretty much the entire cast were unimpressive in this regard, with the two leads in particular failing to register on any level except a hilarious one.

They're not helped by the director's insistence on trying to infuse every line with added dramatic weight by having it delivered in slow motion mind you, but I guess we all know that's par for the course in a Shyamalan film now though. If nothing else, they've given me a pointless new pastime of trying to visualise everyday situations as they might occur if I was in one of his movies.
"I'd... like... a bottle... of cola..."
"That'll be..."
"What is it?"
"That'll be... 79 pence."
"My god."
etc.

For the most part, the director's actually managed to maintain a reasonable amount of atmosphere and tension despite the rather silly nature of it all, but every so often there'd be some daft moment to ruin it all. On more than one occasion I found myself briefly swaying towards "you know what, I actually think this is supposed to be comedy!" before realising that nope, it's just bad writing/acting/whatever.

In fact the more I think about it, the more I'm coming round to the whole so bad it's good appraisal. At first I thought I'd never revisit this movie, but now I suspect it could be perfect Saturday night viewing with likeminded friends. (The same method that actually made a re-watching of Attack of the Clones as enjoyable as it should have been in the cinema)

This is from Vern's review:

Is that true? If so, I just might have to see this. How could someone write and film such an unrealistic scene?

Yes, it happens just like that. "Calculus, calculus, calculus." -Crash- "Arrrgh!"

Just one of the film's many delights.

He plays "Joey", but you only hear his character say the word "hello" over Zooey's cell phone. He's not actually in the film. You see, Joey and Zooey had tiramisu after work one day. Zooey feels guilty about eating the tiramisu with Joey. Zooey looks all confused and perplexed whenever the phone rings and it's Joey. Joey doesn't understand why Zooey doesn't answer his calls. He probably just wants to go have some more tiramisu.

Sounds interesting enough to be an opera. I won't go, however! ;)

He credits himself with a role that's never seen or heard on-screen. Whether this is because of a deleted scene or just massive hubris, I have no idea.

I can't remember the last time I've seen a film this consistently jawdropping. That's not exactly a compliment, but it is so stunningly misguided that it's almost hypnotic. When it's not laugh out loud funny, that is.

If you've seen LADY IN THE WATER, you should have SOME idea.

So, who's going to go and smack him in the back of the head?

I think every newspaper that landed on his porch last Friday bounced up and smacked him in the face...

... the review sections, at least.

I think people bag on his acting a little unfairly. Obviously he's no great talent, but he's fine in easy roles like he had in Signs, and certainly no worse than most other directors who play roles in their films... I mean, is he really any worse an actor that Lucio Fulci, Rob Reiner or Quentin Tarantino?

It is less the quality of Mr. Shyamalan's acting that leaves one's mouth gaping than that he casts himself as a troubled writer whose holy, misunderstood art will save the world.

Rob Reiner does have a couple of Emmys for acting. But nobody is a worse actor than Quentin Tarantino. And that includes Chuck Norris.

Is QT a bad actor or just an irritating onscreen presence? I don't find him to be an incapable actor, per se, but he often casts himself as such aggravating, motor-mouthed people that the mixture of bragadoccio and over-precious dialogue is kind of off-putting. I didn't mind him at all in DEATHPROOF but in PLANET TERROR he was just unbearable.

I also don't find Rob Reiner or Chuck Norris to be bad actors either. (Or M. Night Shyamalan, for that matter, who I thought was a refreshingly calm presence in the otherwise OTT SIGNS.) They're just limited performers who know to keep well within the boundries of their limitations. Not everybody can be Daniel Day Lewis.

I honestly don't think he's that bad an actor. I thought he pulled off his character in PULP FICTION well, for the most part (he's kind of flat, but that works considering that his character is all bleary-eyed from just being roused from sleep); found him generally acceptable in FROM DUSK TILL DAWN; and thought he was genuinely entertaining in his guest spots on ALIAS. He's never gonna win an Oscar for acting, but I don't mind him that much.

Yes.

Sometimes I think he's not so bad. He writes for himself very well; he's a riot in FOUR ROOMS, doing a mean-spirited dead-on parody of... himself. Nobody else could've done it, and if they had, it wouldn't be as surprising and edgy. He does some very funny line readings in PULP FICTION and RESERVOIR DOGS. He worms into his characters in PULP FICTION and FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, does his actor-homework, and Jimmy Dimmick and Richie Gecko feel lived-in, like the actor spent time trying to breathe life into them, even if Tarantino's ambition outstrips his skill. I like that he tries so hard, even if ideally, we shouldn't see him trying.

Yeah, sometimes, I think Tarantino isn't so bad. Then I remember when I saw DESTINY TURNS ON THE RADIO.

Sham had some nerve giving himself that important role in SIGNS, methinks.

Well, I caught The Happening this afternoon. Wow, I can't remember a movie so bad on so many different levels that wasn't DTV or on the Sci-fi channel. I've really liked most of M. Night's work. I'm one of the only people I know that really enjoyed The Village. But this one, yikes....what a piece of crap. I can't believe someone read this script (and I use that word lightly) and thought it would be successful.

I read the script and thought it had potential. Just needed to be tightened up a little. Unfortunately, Shyamalan pulled at the wrong strings and the whole thing unraveled.

"It’s M. Night Shyamalan’s happening, and it freaks us out."

:lol:

http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema

http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/the_happening

You don't know me but I liked it, too.

Medisagrees.

Well, so? ;)

Really, though, at that important juncture of the plot, I didn't need to watch any not-very-good actor try to get through a big speech, and that includes the whiny-voiced Night. And I really, really like that film.

SEE also: "The Stephen King Alienation Effect"

Again, I thought MNS's low-key performance was an asset. Mel Gibson, on the other hand, was out of control and the guy playing the Army recruiter was like something out of a children's pantomime.

And I hated the movie!